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

deusvult's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 891 posts (1,048 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 18 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Taldor ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm also indifferent to the ruling, but supportive of it on principle. Down with shenanigans! Munchkins are why we can't have nice things!

Taldor

4 people marked this as a favorite.

"I'm gonnna play a Drow Noble!" sounds to most of us just like "I'm gonna play a Cyber-Vampire-Ninja-WereTiger with an Adamantine Katana!"

I don't mean to break out name calling, but Munchkin alarms go off at mere mention of "Drow Noble".

it was suggested upthread that Drow Nobles would be best appropriate as an ALL Drow Noble party. If maturely done, a Menzoberranzan-like campaign would be awesome.

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Action classes in order of least restrictive to most restrictive:

Full Round, Standard, Move, Swift, Free, Immediate.

It makes little sense to say that an available action to the left of the action type normally required can't be expended in place of an action to the right is ignoring common sense and is embodying the worst stereotypes of the rules lawyer.

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

it does open up the potential for abuse of the foreknowledge and replay rules.

Not sure if such abuse is likely enough to merit a rule addressing it.. but then again there's a reason they had to label coffee cups with a warning about what HOT means..

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The clerical Curse Subdomain (of Luck) is about the best save penalty ability I can think of. Barring the "roll multiple dice and take worst" abilities out there, of course.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could have them all beginning the campaign with a geas already placed upon them, worded in such a way to present a puzzle on how to escape w/o violating their geasa.

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Why do scenarios 'railroad' players into specific actions or situations with no alternatives?

The legitimacy of the presumption in the OP is debated upthread.

Rather than adding to that train of thought, I'll add another one entirely: PFS doesn't allow for modifying (much less outright creating) encounters.

PFS scenarios, even the sandbox-y ones, are inherently railroad-y because it's PFS. The GM can't just go making up encounters to deal with out of the box solutions players might come up with. A GM can delete encounters due to clever actions that would bypass those encounters, but there's no allowance for creating encounters to permit players to pursue a path not covered by the scenario.

By RAW, a GM can't even provide a window for players break through to bypass a door they can't unlock/break down. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a discussion worthy of another thread, but for this thread just know that's how RAW goes, and quite a few PFS people insist RAW trumps common sense in all ways at all times and have correspondingly little tolerance for 'creative solutions' from a meta perspective.

Unless/until that changes (not that I'm arguing it should, mind you), every PFS scenario is necessarily a railroad because you're simply not allowed to not railroad. Consider it an unavoidable downside of the nature of organized play.

Taldor ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a rule of thumb, when I know someone has run, read, or played the scenario I tell them, in front of the rest of the players, that they are banned from making or suggesting decisions. Those are my terms to play at my table if you have prior knowledge of the scenario.. your character goes along with whatever the majority of the rest of the table wants to do. When I (and the plot-spoiled players) know something dicey is up and potentially can be broken in-combat by their knowledge (that encounter you're talking about, but also others like the BBEG fight in Master of the Fallen Fortress and so on) I force them to ask the table about what they want that character to do.

So, in a case like the one described in the OP, I make the plot-spoiled player ask the remaining unspoiled table what they want his character to do. If it's to do something that the spoiled players know is a bad idea, then so be it.

Taldor ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
Acedio wrote:

That's certainly not reflected in the title of the topic. Like I said earlier, the more flexible you are with the code of conduct, the easier it will be to have the paladin at the table. The situations you describe seem to be self inflected difficulties from very strict application of the rules.

Your analogy with undead lord is invalid because Animate Dead is still legal. People use that and the world still turns.

Could it be that not worrying about how other people play their characters would solve this?

yes, if we allow paladins to ignore their code of conduct for society, it completely solves this

I guess I'm not done, long enough just to point this out.

Just pointing out that reasoning is a logical fallacy. Specifically the False Choice.

There is indeed at least one choice you're ignoring: that players and Gms stop insisting that their own personal view of what the code allows applies to anyone else's paladin.

And for seriously. Now I'm out.

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, to be honest it sounds like your problems you've observed have been through overly-narrow interpretations of what is and what is not a code violation for a Paladin.

Once you (or the problem GMs you've observed) get past the notion that a paladin's code of conduct does not prohibit things like chicanery and subterfuge and cooperation with unpleasant allies, I think the problem resolves itself.

Taldor ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
if they accept infernal healing, help from evil summoned creatures, help from animated undead, help from worshipers of evil gods, in instances where such help is not in service to any particular "greater good" they break their code. seeing as how "greater good" is entirely subjective and open to GM/player interpretation, this potentially leads to more conflicts. as a gm, reading that the society is a neutral organization i would assume most of the time the missions they are sent on are not for any sort of "greater good".

Actually that's not true.

Casting a spell with the evil descriptor is not an evil act, so benefitting from it certainly can't be.

A paladin won't fall from getting an infernal healing, either. He "should" roleplay not wanting it/feeling dirty for having received it, but mechanically there is no consequence.

Taldor ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Since Premise #2 is entirely false, your argument is invalid. (Or is it "unsound"? I can never remember the difference...)

The OP argument was, logically speaking, valid. But when a premise is shown to be false, then the argument is unsound. So yeah, the second thing you said ;)

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

With apologies to AC/DC, this is the song I'm having the bard singing to kick off the siege:

Thunder, thunder, thunder, thunder
You’ll be caught
In the middle of a petty plot
You’ll look around
And you’ll know there is no turning back
When you steal
From those better than you-u
And you’ll know
There’ll be no help, no help for you-u
Sound of the drums
Will beat in your heart
The thunder of guns
Will tear you apart
You've been
Thunderstruck

That song can sound pretty impressive on a stringed intstument :D

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

someone might want an apocalyptic dieoff in order to remove easy labor to facilitate greater acceptance of magic without being a necromancer, too.

I could see a Nethysian, fanatical wizard believing that engineering a massive die-off is a means to a Good* end.

*= Where 'Good' is completely debatable, and much more like a Huxley-ian "Brave New Arcane World"

*beginning evil mastermind logic*
People won't accept everyday use of Unseen Servants when they already have flesh and blood servants, afterall! No need to worry about Locksmiths Unions standing in the way of widespread deployment of Hold Portal spells when THERE ARE NO MORE LOCKSMITHS!

In the end, greater use of magic by everyone would make for a utopia for everyone left alive! Those who'd have to be removed from the picture to make it happen surely wouldn't begrudge the better lives those who survive them will get to enjoy!

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I disagree with a fundamental tenet in the thinking of the original post... that it is fundamentally "lawful" to stick to a code of honor.

Chaotic people can and do have their own codes of honor; the chaos is more that they don't care what other people think of their personal codes of honor than not sticking to one.

A rugged mountain man or pioneer, for example, may certainly have all sorts of rules for behavior in something akin to the Wild Wild West. But if his code of honor/conduct emphasizes individualism (aka, the needs of the One outweigh the needs of the Many) then he's more chaotic than lawful.

With regards specifically to a samurai culture, I'd suggest at least a cursory look at AEG's Legend of the Five Rings setting. Specifically the Scorpion Clan. Those guys are steeped in honor, yet if it were D&D/Pathfinder they'd be all sorts of Chaotic.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When a paladin wants to tell the party rogue that she doesn't look fat in her new leather armor when she does indeed look like an overstuffed sausage, a bluff check is necessary and would not impinge on his alignment or class.

But with more seriousness, deception isn't necessarily the same thing as lying. Nor is deception always incompatible with exemplary Lawful Goodness. Subterfuge and deception are essential tenets of warfare, whether on the battlefield or in the king's court.

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The potential problem is what becomes of all the Space stuff in Season 7 when it's presumably no longer appropriate.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Eshleman wrote:
Just jumping in to say that I agree with Andrew Christian. And yes, that means ranged weapons do half damage before applying hardness. I recommend the purchase of some durable adamantine ammunition.

Personally, I'd agree 100%. However, in whatever passes for wisdom on behalf of the rules team, they've clarified ruled that Animated Objects do not take 1/2 damage from ranged weapons before hardness is applied.

It's not in the FAQ yet, but I've talked to James Jacob and in his eyes that's The Law.

It's unfortunate, because the bestiaries don't define what the defensive ability "hardness" is. Apparently it's not the same thing as object hardness in the CRB, since ranged weapon damage isn't halved.

Since creature hardness != the rules as described in the CRB, I don't know why energy damages are halved to creatures with hardness. I'm not saying they shouldn't be.. I'm just saying the rules team made a big mistake by not making the ALL the object hardness rules apply to creatures with hardness.

Taldor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Agile weapon enchantment.

Enough with the Dex-to-Damage crud. If you want to do damage, invest in Strength.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gloves of Storing are the perfect solution for the problem of a spellcaster using a shield and weapon.

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of people aren't fully familiar with the rules on page 218 of the CRB. Even now, with ACG published, the wizard is still the king of flexibility in preparing arcane spells. Granted, given the opportunity to take a 15 minute break is there... But when it is the Wizard's prepared spells can be picked on the fly. A wizard can tailor his prepared spells to meet his exact needs and he can do it at any point of the day.

The Arcanist doesn't need that peace and quiet, sure, but he's still limited to the # of spells he can prepare on the chart on page 14 of the ACG.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barathos wrote:

I used to think as you do, until I actually thought about what "Lawful" means.

I think we can probably agree to disagree right here about what "Lawful" and what "Chaotic" means, but just to air varying viewpoints I'm going along with it...

Quote:

Batman has a STRICT code of conduct, making him Lawful. Batman does good deeds, such as stopping murderers, making him Good.

Batman could be chaotic if he consistently broke his code.

Having a code of conduct and strictly sticking to it is possible for anyone of any alignment.*

Furthermore, Batman/Bruce Wayne looks at what he sees as a corrupt/bloated/incompetent legal system and has decided that because of his own virtues, he is qualified to ignore it all and act on everyone else's behalf. That's as chaotic as chaotic comes.

As for the Good axis, yes Batman wants to do good and even sees himself as a good person. For what its worth, most of humanity (in Pathfinder) is Neutral, but would self-identify as "good". However, his methods include torture, intimidation, murder, etc. Yes, these means are to a "good end", however doing Evil on behalf of Good is, in other words, a pretty damn swell way to describe "Neutral".

Hence, Batman = Chaotic Neutral. By my own understanding of the Axes of Alignment, of course ;)

*= an in-rules example sprang to mind. Consider a Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil Cavalier of the Order of the Sword, especially the 2nd level ability:

Order of the Sword wrote:


By My Honor (Ex): At 2nd level, the cavalier must select one alignment. As long as he maintains the selected alignment, he receives a +2 morale bonus to one saving throw of his choice.

Note there's no requirement for Lawfulness. If you pick a code of honor that you chaotic alignment satisfies, (for the sake of argument, like one identical to Batman's), you stick to it and you not only keep your Order of the Sword ability, you're not required to change alignments in doing so because you're Chaotic and rigidly sticking to a code of honor.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Axial wrote:
I can see there being an unemotional and unempathetic paladin who still follows his deities' teachings to the letter and steadfastly opposes evil.

See, that's more Lawful Neutral than Lawful Good. Good is far more than the merely the opposition of Evil.

But, that's my view. And as I said before, this thread is basically begging to become another discussion about what the alignments mean.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What is "lawful" and what is "good" has less consensus as to what is a sociopath.

The question of whether all three can be combined into one persona is destined to be derailed about defining the traits, particularly the first two.

But for opinion polling purposes, my understanding of Lawful boils down to "The Many are More Important than the One" and that alone precludes what I understand sociopathy to be, even before Good enters the question. In my mind, Lawful Evil can't be sociopaths, either. They're too in tune with the norms.

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Erastil's schtick is also very, very lawful. As a god of community spirit and cooperation he shouldn't be Neutral Good.

And +1 to what LazarX observed. He's NOT a nature god.. he's a god of Putting Nature to Good Use.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
deusvult wrote:

The main one you're missing/ignoring is the description of how a charge works. That description not only types a charge as an action (not an attack) it also explicitly says an attack is an option following charge movement during a charge action.

That rule, specifically being about charges, trumps* general categorizations such as a reference elsewhere saying "charges are special attacks".

*= trumps logically, at any rate. If you want to ignore the rules about charges and insist a reference elsewhere renders them invalid, that's on you. Most of us wouldn't consider that a sound reading, however.

You aren't quoting any rules. You've made up your own interpretation that Charge isn't still a special attack action if you don't execute an attack roll at the end. This is your own house-rule and has no rules support anywhere, and several things working against it. A charge is still a charge, even if you don't make an attack roll at the end, otherwise you don't get the bonuses to attack and the penalty to AC, because you aren't charging anymore, you're just moving.

I'm not making up that the PRD calls a charge an action and not an attack. It was quoted upthread, but hey posts are free so why not quote it again.

Definition of charge, per the PRD:

PRD wrote:
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

Bolded for emphasis.

The rules for Charging say that Charging is an action. Any mention elsewhere that charging is always considered an attack is in conflict with the rules that specifically govern how charges work.

Rules on attacking as part of a charge:

PRD wrote:


After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

Including an attack in a charge action is specifically called out as being optional/not mandatory by the use of the word "may". This rule, combined with the definition of what a charge is, says that a charge is a special full round action that combines movement with the option to attack.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Hmmm? Little confused

If you're doing this with a sword, the horse attacks too. A charge is a move and an attack for both you and the horse. I don't see why the horse would have to wait.

Because having the horse following thru with an attack after concluding the charge movement constitutes an 'attack', which is not covered under the actionless ride skill and requires usage of an animal handling check (attack trick) instead.

For most riders, that costs a move action, and ruins the full round action for the rider.

So, in the case of non-reach charging, per the FAQ, a rider can still charge but must forfeit his mount's attack on the charge turn unless he can handle animal AND perform a full round action in the same turn.

This isn't at all the same doom and gloom as insisting that a charge movement not being followed by an attack also must be covered by the handle animal skill, thus (by this reading) rendering any charging at all impossible by the rider unless he can handle animal and still perform a full round action.

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm guessing the nerf to mounted combat change in question is this faq entry?

I must be missing something because I don't understand what makes spirited charges unworkable. You don't need to perform animal handling checks to make a mount (animal companion or otherwise) perform a charge*.. it's a ride check instead and if the mount is combat trained, it doesn't even eat an action.

*= after posting I suspect I see the problem.. you're assuming you want the mount to attack the target as well via attack trick. Well, if you're using a lance a standard mount won't get the attack anyway b/c it doesn't have reach. Just move the horse, it gains the charging condition because it must when the rider is charging, via the faq, and bam you skewer something with a lance. If you spirited charge with a non-reach weapon, take your x2 damage with a non-lance and consider the nerf just saying the horse may not also attack. It's still a win.

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I too 'wasted' a replay under the impression that the replays would refresh the first day of every Gen Con. Had I known at the time that my replay wouldn't refresh, I wouldn't have spent it. I'd have rather played at that table for no credit and save the replay for a special boon or chronicle item for a character that could really make great use of it.

I suppose it's better to use a replay than never use it because you save it forever.. but mark me down as one of those who think it SHOULD refresh every year.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leo_Negri wrote:
Just a curiosity, but why do so many people swear by the Point-Buy system? I understand that it is THE system used in Pathfinder Society, but why would anyone use it outside of organized play?

I'll see your complaint about min-maxing with a complaint about 'lucky' stats.. and raise you a complaint about intrinsic power level-disparity between characters of wildly different stat values.

Taldor ***

14 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought this was going to be a thread calling for an evil-compatible sister campaign to PFS.. ala Aspis Consortium Organized Play.

Put me down for that one.

Taldor

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes.

Half orcs count as both human and orc, and qualify for human-only and orc-only feats/traits/etc.

Taldor ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
deusvult wrote:
And that means that the player roleplaying his paladin as having intolerable issues with your imp familiar IS inarguably badwrong. Because he can instead choose to roleplay his paladin as NOT having intolerable issues with your imp familiar.

To be clear, we're not talking about a simple roleplay flavor decision. We're talking about a legal archetype that says "kill every evil outsider you can, or fall".

We're just hell bent to disagree on everything each other says, it would seem.

Oath Against Fiends' wrote:


Code of Conduct: Never suffer an evil outsider to live if it is in your power to destroy it . Banish fiends you cannot kill. Purge the evil from those possessed by fiends

Bold text=emphasis mine.

Banish what you cannot kill is 'clearly' RAI to be more accurately: Banish fiends that you can banish, but cannot kill.

For both in- and out- of game reasons, the PFS paladin MAY not kill the familiar. Important difference from CAN not. I stand by my assessment because either way destroying the imp is 'not within the paladin's power'. He can attempt to persuade the spellcaster from using the imp for the duration of the paladin's presence. He can opt to have nothing to do with the spellcaster. (Passive-aggressive 'PvP' IS still technically legal. "I can't hurt you or your imp, but neither do I have to heal either of you...")

If the paladin can't come to a happy place where he feels he's still in-character while still not trying to kill the imp, he shouldn't be playing the archetype. Perhaps, as you say, thats a 'trap' a new player might fall into. But, the perspective of the OP is 'am I being a jerk by having an Imp familiar'. No, he's not.

Taldor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

+1000 for low charisma = low force of personality.

Watch Rain Man for roleplaying tips.

I can totally see the barbarian raging..

"It's time for Judge WAAAAAAAPNER!!!!"

Taldor ***

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I used to play PFS, but then I took an arrow in the knee.

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Definately seems a wiser idea to treat 4 player tables as the special case needing attention for challenge difficulty and assume 6 player tables in programming the scenario.

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's another thought, before someone accuses me of wistfully missing the heady days of GMing Paranoia (because it's true ;)

Ruby Phoenix Tournament:

I played this yesterday in a 5 table, all day gala event. My table included 2 ranged characters that were each able to output 90-100 or more damage per round. 2 melee characters who could do almost as much. A tank with AC approaching 40, and getting 2 AoOs per missed attack on him. All of it PFS-legal.

Arrayed against us were numerous combat challenges. Pretty much exclusively, actually.
And what did we fight in these challenges? Mainly monks. None of which had deflect arrows. How long did anything last against our group? The longest fights lasted 3 anti-climactic rounds. One of those only lasted that long because the GM forgot to add a dragon and had it appear on turn 3. It was vaporized in 1 round. Not to brag, making an example of how outclassed the opposition was by PFS-legal PCs.

Now the important part of my example comes next.

Another player, at another table, told me how they all nagged their GM until he doubled the opposition they faced. Once he finally relented, they began being challenged. They even had a ton of fun. They still had an easy enough time of it however, that they had time to 'waste' actions gallavanting and playing up to the crowd in the scenario's performance combat.

Let's go back to my table. Our Gm ran strictly as written, as PFS dictates. I wish to hell we thought of convincing him to just double our oppposition like the other table did.. but we didn't. We quickly realized that if we wanted to earn any scenario specific victory points from performance combat, we'd only have 1 or 2 combat rounds to do so. We weren't competing with the opposition (because there WAS no competition).. we were competing with each other to see who can defeat the most NPCs the fastest. I mean.. tons of ranged DPR.. and none of the monks have deflect arrows? It was a turkey shoot.

Not only that, teamwork was disincentivized. The 'fun' aspects of playing up to the crowd was pretty much out of the question, since you didn't have any time for it.

So, to sum up (and to make a spoiler-friendly recap for those who don't want to be spoiled):

I spent 10 hours playing the adventure under a GM who ran-as-written, as PFS says you should. Had some intrinsic fun, sure, but it was a pretty dissapointing experience. While on the other hand, players at the table where the GM scaled the opposition to be more appropriate, they had a blast.

Ran as written: 10 hours of ho hum.
BADWRONG Deviation: 10 hours of fun.

*shrug*

Just sayin'. Deviations aren't always improperly done and aren't always a detriment to PFS experience.

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
So... is anyone opposed to this idea?

I'm for it, but not for the reason(s) I've seen given.

Me? I think it should be the 'Law' because it's what people are going to do anyway. Either willfully or out of ignorance.

It'll be healthier for PFS as a whole if it's simply legal.

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some ideas for School on Wheels themed boons:

Volunteer Tutor: Spent time in-between pathfinder assignments tutoring the underprivileged. Pick one Knowledge Skill to become a class skill.
(kinda free-trait-y, so maybe overpowered for a boon. But maybe not since it's for charity.. ymmv)

Little Brother/Little Sister: Your reputation for sponsoring the less fortunate preceeds you. Once per session, you may call upon a youngster in the local town to assist on a knowledge/local or gather information check.

Taldor ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:


I guess this thread is the polar opposite of the idea that we should "make scenarios harder", this is more or less saying "make your PCs suck more" on purpose. I just don't find that's a realistic request, and honestly, you've seen more players that me, do you think it's realistic?

I'm pretty unapologetically on the side of "GMs can/should 'tweak' PFS scenarios."

Not only will the notion of restraining oneself not appeal to a sizeable portion of players.. that PFS has the opportunity to play up tiers means there's very real and tangible benefit to making optimized characters as ruthlessly efficient as possible.

In other words.. finding a happy medium in the arms race between optimized characters and written scenarios is not likely to work by putting the onus on players playing reasonable characters.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If giving Bob a fighting chance at resisting being grabbed and drug off WHILE keeping it secret from the rest of the party is the goal, here's an idea.

Once the grue begins its assault on Bob, you don't even mention it. You just keep a mental tally of how much in-game time is elapsing before the party realizes Bob is gone or under attack in the rear.

Once they realize it, they're free to take whatever actions they like to find Bob. Once they do, you don't tell them what they see. You put them in Time Stop and bring Bob back to the spotlight. He's left to his own devices to deal with the Grue for however many rounds it took the PCs to come to his rescue.

Taldor ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Apparently we need a list of domains a deity will not tolerate for Seperatist Archetype Clerics. Or a list that they WILL.. whichever is shorter.

Osirion ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:


Everyone seems to think the rules are clear and support their case. I disagree with both sides, and believe there is enough reasonable ambiguity that there will be some table variation on this subject

I wouldn't be so hard headed about this if I actually could see the merit of opposing argument.

This is what I understand the counter argument to be:

CRB wrote:
Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).

GM rule Zero wrote for this case:
While Pharasmin code of conduct for clerics is succinctly described as 'do not create or destroy unded, excepting to destroy them', it is really more than just those two acts. You know what we mean.. don't be too 'undead-y'. And yes, having the undead domain counts as 'grossly violating the code of not creating or controlling undead'.

I don't see a single thing more to the argument than that. It simply boils down to a GM not only deciding he doesn't 'like' the concept, that he'd prefer to arrogantly insist his understanding of pharasmin canon is superior to the player's. Furthermore that he'd prefer to ruin that player's game rather than make it fun for him.

What am I missing?

Osirion ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:


WE need to respect both sides. As I have always said, if you choose to build a character that is clearly living in the "gray realm" of rules interpretations or religious dogma, you have to expect occasions where the GM will not rule as you want. If you always want your character to function as intended, avoid these "fringe" cases.

The problem is Bob, that the only way to avoid the 'fringe' cases is to know the mind of your GM. It approaches possibility for local play, but is extremely unlikely if there's a big enough population of players. And completely impossible for big cons.

Well, not unless you only play the stock characters.

Dumb fighter brute.

Skanky elf rogue chick.

Bleeding-heart healer cleric.

Sound like anyone you know? Well, mebbe calling Merisiel a 'skank' was uncalled for...

Osirion ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If no rules are being violated, what good is being served by a PFS judge saying 'no, I know things you don't know, I'm better educated, I'm more experienced, I'm more privy to VCs and M&M, etc'.

Let's put it another way by spinning it around.

Let's say *I* am that GM and someone comes to me with something that while being perfectly legal, seems to just not have a reasonable justification. Maybe a Paladin who worships Asmodeus (not intending to start a new flame war with anyone who might play one ;)

Perhaps he has some story I deem an 'excuse' that revolves around Cheliax and Hellknights, mebbe throwing in some Mendev Crusade, etc etc.

Andrew says I have the right to say "Not at my table, you're not."

I say I have an obligation to find the best way for everyone at the table to have fun. Not impose my view of Golarion on that player. The more invested in the game (particularly when LITERALLY invested monetarialy) the less inclined the player will be to 'reason' with me. I'm pleased we've kept it civil as we have in this thread for as long as it has.. but I think we all know that so often it devolves into Ross or someone else deleting posts and locking threads.

And that's about purely hypothetical issues that don't have a right here, right now impact.

If that player has spent hundreds, maybe more dollars to play a frikking RPG game, how are they going to take your decree from the ivory tower? Let me be clear, I'm speaking hypothetically and do not mean to imply threats, but if it were me being such a douche I'd honestly fear a violent reaction. Even if people keep their tempers in check, what the hell was the point? Did you have fun ruining that player's game? Probably not, or else you wouldn't be GMing for long as complaints mount. Did that player have any fun? Sure as hell, no.

Which is such a stupid approach when there are ways to resolve it where everyone still gets to enjoy the game.

Osirion ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


... One of Pharasma's 10 commandments is "kill the undead". .. Actually i think she used three commandments on it, just to be sure. A dhampir that isn't running at the nearest sharp pointy object isn't fulfilling that commandment.

I'm curious why you'd think this. Really.

A dhampir is not undead. Furthermore, for whatever resemblences a dhampir has to the undead, he didn't become one by dabbling with forbidden magics. He was literally born that way and has no control over whether or not he's a dhampir any more than an elf does being an elf.

Osirion ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You like analogies? Here's one.

During the Cold War the CIA and KGB taught their spies about each others' languages/societies/etc. Why? To make them into Commies/Capitalist Pigs? Of course not. So that they could better understand and operate against them.

Asmodeus might grant the Demon subdomain for similar reasons. Not to subvert his own clerics into the arms of his enemy. Come on, now.

It's just one idea for why Pharasma might grant the Undead domain.

Saying Pharasma would never ever under any circumstances grant Undead domain is the same thing as saying spies should never be taught the ways and languages of their enemies. It's pretty frikkin nonsensical ;)

Osirion ***

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

... For the Death’s Kiss power alone, I’d say Pharasma wouldn’t grant this power....

  • 3)you can’t seriously be considering that the Halfling cavalier is even a desperate analogy. It isn’t analogous at all. Personal bias based on simply preference has no bearing and is not equivocal to what actual cannon says about something else.
  • Personal bias is completely the point. I just admit that mine has no legitimate place behind a GM screen. I may assume that every player of a halfling cavalier plays one just to use a medium sized mount underground/indoors, no matter what background story or roleplaying reasons they insist they have... But it's 100% legal and I'd sincerly give someone the benefit of the doubt before saying "not at my table, munchkin!" at a home game. And I'd be completely in the wrong to ban it at a PFS table.

    To say that the Undeath Domain is completely verboten based on your interpretation of Pharasma's edicts/taboos/dogma is perfectly acceptable... for an in-character portrayal of an NPC. For a referee, it's simply personal bias and unbecoming of someone in the position of trusted authority.

    Again, for what reason would Pharasma never ever grant that domain? All I'm hearing is "Because *I* say so." What's the logic? We all agree that Undead creatures are anathema to her and her faith. So what? What's that have to do with the Undead domain, besides the name? Is that all this is about, thinking Pharasma not only hates the Undead, but anything with 'Undead' in the name? A GM worthy of the responsibility should be able to look beyond that incredibly simple view.

    Sure, it's obvious that she wouldn't grant it normally. That's why it's not a regularly available Subdomain, requiring the archetype to take. But as a neutral deity, (neutral) clerics of hers can already freely channel negative energy. If you're basing your opinions on that use of negative energy is an abomination against her faith, you're just simply mistaken. So what's the big unforgivable difference with the Undead domain? I say there is none.

    Osirion ***

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I guess this is just destined to turn into a Pharasmin dogma debate thread.

    How have I thrown Pharasmin canon under a bus? She grants the frikkin' death domain. Undead is a SUBdomain of a domain she grants. In Paizo's own canon. She virtually grants the undead domain even without using the archetype.

    Where's this link that ties undead domain intrinsicly to the creation of undead? Why is it so impossible to study the nature of your foe so you understand them better, to be able to destroy them better?

    Osirion ***

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
    Well, since this is for PFS play and there is nothing in the Core Rules that says no, at least not until the Advanced Race Guide comes out, then this is not something Mike and Mark are likely to rule on til then. So as long as the character is mechanically legal and is not breaking specific Pharasmin laws like creating/controlling undead, then a GM should not be allowed to deny the player.

    This.

    The undead domain does give Animate Dead as a domain spell, but then again so does the vanilla death domain. And Pharasma grants the death domain.

    There's a blog where Paizo says that since Pharasma is 'not your typical' Death goddess.. and Animate Dead is such a no no in her worship, one may trade out Animate Dead domain spells for Speak With Dead. (Only for Clerics of Pharasma) It's even PFS legal.

    So, leaving aside the question of whether one MUST trade out Animate Dead or not, since I do, what's so bad about the Undead Domain? Really?
    It doesn't CREATE OR CONTROL undead. Well, only if misued...

    Game Mechanics-wise, I wanted it for the touch attack. "Lol, now you have the negative energy reversi just like me! I can channel heals to my party and you can't piggyback! And it doesn't even need to be selectively channeled!"

    Roleplayingwise? There's bigger stretches that are every bit as legal under the Seperatist Archetype. Heck, picking Undead is barely even using the archetype.. its a subdomain of a domain Pharasma already does grant. But for example the Fire Domain? For Pharasma? Really? Oooook... makes no sense whatsoever but sure, be a Pharasmin cleric who can cast burning hands...

    Sure. To some degree there's a 'you can't be serious' reaction to be expected at the combination of 'dhampir cleric of pharasma with undead domain'. And in light of that, I feel that I had an obligation to ensure I had a solid rationale behind it. *shrug* honestly, I think I came up with a logical explanation.

    And yeah, the Godsmouth Heresy was such a fun time that this character was thought up in its aftermath. :)

    1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.