|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because, Chris, I make it very clear that I get no mechanical benefits from doing this. I don't take any of the items that grant special abilities to Pharasman worshippers to avoid getting a mechanical benefit that's not allowed by the rules of the game.
It is a sticky conundrum for many when put in a position of wanting to follow the rules, and a player asking for cool roleplay.
I actually feel its kinda selfish of you to put a GM in that position.
You know what the PFS rule is. You know what the Pathfinder RPG rule is.
You are making an informed decision to not follow the rule, and then you purposefully put your GM in a difficult position.
That isn't particularly fair.
If I ran into someone who did this to me, I might be tempted to disinvite them from my table. Not for having something that broke the rule, but for purposefully putting me in a socially awkward position.
While it is completely within your rights as a DM to kick someone from you table because they rub you the wrong way, it is really not appropriate and I find it worrysome to hear this sort of thing coming from a Venture Officer of all people.
|
|
@Rogue,
What happens if my Inquisitor of Shiruzu touches an altar that gives a boon to Saranae worshipers? He's of the belief they're the same goddess, (different aspects).
Mechanically, nothing. I'm not going to pout that I don't get the bene, any more that AdAstra says he would. Now from a role play PoV? Who's to say he doesn't believe he gets it. If it's something like "auto save your next energy drain" mechanically when he makes a save vs energy drain, he thanks the Lady for the blessing on him.
Those methods mean a lot.
If she is actually a follower of Pharasma, he gets the benefits. That's what I think a lot of people thought he was saying, basically that he was purposefully avoiding taking traits, feats, or items of Pharasma so as to avoid the conflict, but when it came down to it the character was an actual follower of Pharasma.
With the altar example, AAG has shown that, when it comes down to it, the character does not have Pharasma as a patron deity (after all, if she did, she would get the benefit), even if she holds Pharasmin doctrine in high esteem. This is completely fine.
|
|
Edit: Also, don't forget, we've had people arguing, in this thread that even non-divine characters can't worship gods more than a step away from their alignment. So it's not clear that a 'Paladin of peaceful death' is going to get static any less than a Paladin of Pharasma.
Two different questions.
Question 1--Can a non divine character worship a deity more than one step away from their alignment?
Answer: Definitely no.
Question 2--Can you have a 'Paladin of Peaceful Death' who has no listed deity
Answer: Definitely yes, and independent of whether you can worship a deity more than one step away from your alignment. You can worship any non-deity you want, as long as you aren't a cleric or inquisitor.
|
Andrew, if I'm at a Minnesota convention and able to play PFS, I won't bring out this character at one of your tables, now that I know it causes you a problem. I am, of course, trying to both get what I want (interesting roleplay) while Not Being A Dick to other people at the table.
However, if my metric is "Oh god, don't put the GM in an awkward social situation!", then we have a slope with a much lower coefficient of friction than "mechanically identical, she claims to follow an unusual deity, and plays as though she is a communicant with that deity."
I'm now not allowed to ask if a character is acceptable to a table. Because that could be awkward. I'm supposed to magically know.
I do this not just for this character, but for most of the ones I play. When I have a range of characters in acceptable level range, I ask what other players are playing, and ask about the character's personalities, so I can pick one of mine that will fulfill both the "niche" of the game, but complements the mix of personalities at the table.
I think what we need here is a pair of distinguishing words.
Term A: We'll call this "communicant" - is someone who follows the tenets of a deity and gets mechanical benefits from doing so.
Term B: We'll call this "worshipper" - this is someone who follows the tenets of a deity, and may get divine power through another source, but does not get them from the deity themself.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Amusing thought, if we really want to parse the English...
Religion: Characters can elect to worship any deity listed in a table of gods in the Core Rulebook, The Inner Sea World Guide, Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Gods and Magic, or any other source listed as an official Additional Resource. Characters may elect to worship an evil god, but must always be within one alignment step of their chosen deity.
Does that bolded section modify just the sentence, or the entire paragraph? :-)
I think I'm going to post a new thread that asks just that point.
|
While it is completely within your rights as a DM to kick someone from you table because they rub you the wrong way, it is really not appropriate and I find it worrysome to hear this sort of thing coming from a Venture Officer of all people.Because, Chris, I make it very clear that I get no mechanical benefits from doing this. I don't take any of the items that grant special abilities to Pharasman worshippers to avoid getting a mechanical benefit that's not allowed by the rules of the game.
It is a sticky conundrum for many when put in a position of wanting to follow the rules, and a player asking for cool roleplay.
I actually feel its kinda selfish of you to put a GM in that position.
You know what the PFS rule is. You know what the Pathfinder RPG rule is.
You are making an informed decision to not follow the rule, and then you purposefully put your GM in a difficult position.
That isn't particularly fair.
If I ran into someone who did this to me, I might be tempted to disinvite them from my table. Not for having something that broke the rule, but for purposefully putting me in a socially awkward position.
It isn’t because they irritate me. It is because they are knowingly breaking a rule, and then purposefully put me in an awkward position of having to be “uncool” because I said no.
And I didn’t say I would. I said I’d be tempted.
But nice attempt to twist my words on me.
|
|
If she is actually a follower of Pharasma, he gets the benefits. That's what I think a lot of people thought he was saying, basically that he was purposefully avoiding taking traits, feats, or items of Pharasma so as to avoid the conflict, but when it came down to it the character was an actual follower of Pharasma.With the altar example, AAG has shown that, when it comes down to it, the character does not have Pharasma as a patron deity (after all, if she did, she would get the benefit), even if she holds Pharasmin doctrine in high esteem. This is completely fine.
This is where we run into a semantic quibble.
As far as the character is concerned, in her head, Pharasma is her patron deity.
As far as game mechanics go, in the interests of me playing nicely with other players, if there are any game mechanical benefits for being a Pharasman worshipper, I only get them if the GM thinks they're appropriate, and my baseline assumption is "no, I don't."
Do I, as a player, think she harms the game by having them? No. Would I turn them down? No.
Do I, as a player, think it's worth disrupting a game to claim I should get them? Oh, hell no. Not now, not ever.
Do I, as a player, think it's courteous to try and make sure the character I play is acceptable and fun to the rest of the table? Yes.
|
|
While it is completely within your rights as a DM to kick someone from you table because they rub you the wrong way, it is really not appropriate and I find it worrysome to hear this sort of thing coming from a Venture Officer of all people.Because, Chris, I make it very clear that I get no mechanical benefits from doing this. I don't take any of the items that grant special abilities to Pharasman worshippers to avoid getting a mechanical benefit that's not allowed by the rules of the game.
It is a sticky conundrum for many when put in a position of wanting to follow the rules, and a player asking for cool roleplay.
I actually feel its kinda selfish of you to put a GM in that position.
You know what the PFS rule is. You know what the Pathfinder RPG rule is.
You are making an informed decision to not follow the rule, and then you purposefully put your GM in a difficult position.
That isn't particularly fair.
If I ran into someone who did this to me, I might be tempted to disinvite them from my table. Not for having something that broke the rule, but for purposefully putting me in a socially awkward position.
It isn’t because they irritate me. It is because they are knowingly breaking a rule, and then purposefully put me in an awkward position of having to be “uncool” because I said no.
And I didn’t say I would. I said I’d be tempted.
But nice attempt to twist my words on me.
Not twisting words here. Your statement was an implicit threat based on not liking their question about what character they should play at your table, even if you are "only tempted". Still not ok from a VO.
What AdAstraGames is talking about is something that does not disrupt play and will likely memorably add to the table. Obviously he should not play at your tables. That is the nature of OP. There will be some DMs who you clash with and should avoid.
|
|
This is where we run into a semantic quibble.
As far as the character is concerned, in her head, Pharasma is her patron deity.
Yes, and that's fine. But as far as Pharasma is concerned, she is not. So that's why no mechanical benefits. And if a wizard with a nosoi psychopomp familiar used it to commune with Pharasma and ask, Pharasma would say the paladin was not one of hers and would be judged fairly based on her actions, going to whatever realm the Lady of Graves saw fit (probably Heaven).
As long as this is clear, that's it's just in the character's head, the character is not illegal.
So if you come in saying "My paladin believes Pharasma is her patron deity, though in truth she has no patron" this would be fine at any table.
|
|
I'm now not allowed to ask if a character is acceptable to a table. Because that could be awkward. I'm supposed to magically know.That’s kinda a disingenuous response, don’t you think?
You should know that an illegal character is not acceptable at any PFS table. Period. Nothing magical about it.
Keep in mind that I don't have any character that is affected by this PFS specific ruling.
With that said, PFS shouldn't be changing Golarian-specific information. So saying, sorry paladins cannot be Hellknights despite what the books say isn't fun, nor does it encourage people to buy the books.
I am sure someone will shortly parse the english language such that Hellknights only serve Asmodeous and hell and don't "worship" Asmodeuos and other denizens of hell so that they're PFS legal again.
|
|
Hellknight paladins ARE legal. Hellknights don't serve Asmodeous or any other devil. They serve the ideal of Law above all else, and are generally LN. They look to Hell to idealize the regimented order that can be found there, and use that as an example of how to organize. They are indifferent to the good/evil bent of someone, as long as they follow the strictures of their code (which is based on the order really).
|
|
I'm now not allowed to ask if a character is acceptable to a table. Because that could be awkward. I'm supposed to magically know.That’s kinda a disingenuous response, don’t you think?
You should know that an illegal character is not acceptable at any PFS table. Period. Nothing magical about it.
By my perspective, no, I don't think it's disingenuous.
You are saying that ASKING A QUESTION can get me booted from a table. Asking a question, even if I expect the answer to be "No", should not merit a table-boot. Particularly if that question is saying "If any of you are made uncomfortable by this, I'll play a different character."
If I played a Callistrian Inquisitor and said "My favorite interrogation method is seduction followed by <insert adult theme here>" as its schtick, I'd ask the SAME question "Is this acceptable, this is the reason why it might not be at a table, I'll play a different character if it is." Or "I play a Gorumite cleric who firmly believes that he has to eat the heart of his enemies to maintain access to his Strength and Destruction domains."
Both of these are roleplaying choices that could make someone else at the table uncomfortable. They are both something that a GM or table could reasonably say "No" to...but might enjoy if presented with it as an option.
Both appear at first pass to be perfectly legal. The Paladin I built was legal at the time I made her in late 2009. And by making it clear she's lying to herself, I can avoid the issue entirely...and probably not get into any problems pulling out the Shadow Companion for Shadowdancer, even though I'll be spending the Prestige Points or Gold for an atonement spell if I ever do so.
Now, I have no problem with you saying "No, sorry, not at my table."
I DO have a problem with you saying "By asking that, I will keep you from playing another character at this table."
Do you see how that can come across, Andrew?
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
You should know that an illegal character is not acceptable at any PFS table. Period. Nothing magical about it.
The problem is that there are tables which claim to be PFS tables which would allow the character.
As has been seen on this thread, there are still GMs who assert that is their right to ignore rules they don't happen to agree with, because doing so will make the game better.
This despite the fact that Mike Brock has, on multiple occasions, explicitly stated that this is not acceptable. And like it or not, Mike is the ultimate authority on PFS. If you break his rules, you're not playing PFSOP.
The "Paladin of Pharasma" does raise some issues, though. While the rules are quite clear that the character is (now) illegal, and there is a perfectly legal way of creating a character that is mechanically the same, I understand the problems this can introduce for a player trying to play to a concept (especially if that concept was legal when the character was built). We're seeing quite a bit of that happening now with the latest ruling on illegal archetypes, &c. I've got sympathy for it myself - I sometimes play a monk, but eastern-themed weapons don't fit my backstory. Mentally re-skinning a weapon to fit the concept works, but I find lying to myself distasteful.
|
|
I'm now not allowed to ask if a character is acceptable to a table. Because that could be awkward. I'm supposed to magically know.That’s kinda a disingenuous response, don’t you think?
You should know that an illegal character is not acceptable at any PFS table. Period. Nothing magical about it.
Keep in mind that I don't have any character that is affected by this PFS specific ruling.
With that said, PFS shouldn't be changing Golarian-specific information. So saying, sorry paladins cannot be Hellknights despite what the books say isn't fun, nor does it encourage people to buy the books.
I am sure someone will shortly parse the english language such that Hellknights only serve Asmodeous and hell and don't "worship" Asmodeuos and other denizens of hell so that they're PFS legal again.
Hmm… the restriction on Paladins is not Golarion specific, and I am not aware of any Golarion specific lore related to Paladins that PFS has specifically changed or disallowed. My Golarion specific lore is not my strongsuit however.
A Paladin of an evil god is ludicrous.
|
|
I'm now not allowed to ask if a character is acceptable to a table. Because that could be awkward. I'm supposed to magically know.That’s kinda a disingenuous response, don’t you think?
You should know that an illegal character is not acceptable at any PFS table. Period. Nothing magical about it.
By my perspective, no, I don't think it's disingenuous.
You are saying that ASKING A QUESTION can get me booted from a table. Asking a question, even if I expect the answer to be "No", should not merit a table-boot. Particularly if that question is saying "If any of you are made uncomfortable by this, I'll play a different character."
If I played a Callistrian Inquisitor and said "My favorite interrogation method is seduction followed by <insert adult theme here>" as its schtick, I'd ask the SAME question "Is this acceptable, this is the reason why it might not be at a table, I'll play a different character if it is." Or "I play a Gorumite cleric who firmly believes that he has to eat the heart of his enemies to maintain access to his Strength and Destruction domains."
Both of these are roleplaying choices that could make someone else at the table uncomfortable. They are both something that a GM or table could reasonably say "No" to...but might enjoy if presented with it as an option.
Both appear at first pass to be perfectly legal. The Paladin I built was legal at the time I made her in late 2009. And by making it clear she's lying to herself, I can avoid the issue entirely...and probably not get into any problems pulling out the Shadow Companion for Shadowdancer, even though I'll be spending the Prestige Points or Gold for an atonement spell if I ever do so.
Now, I have no problem with you saying "No, sorry, not at my table."
I DO have a problem with you saying "By asking that, I will keep you from playing another character at this table."
Do you see how that can come across, Andrew?
First. I said I’d be tempted. I never said I’d do it.
If you continued to show up at the table with illegal choices and asking me to break the rules too (essentially asking me to cheat—I hate using that word, because I don’t want to accuse anyone of such and it has such ugly connotations), then I’d certainly have to give thought to not inviting you back to my table (note how I still never said I’d actually do it).
Do you see how inappropriate it is for you to ask me to ignore the rules for your roleplay? How selfish that is?
|
Note that this leaves your character, in essence, unchanged, while making him completely PFS legal, and removing the possibility of the cheats mentioned during this thread where, asd a self-proclaimed Paladin of Pharasma, you could get the benefits from items that give a worshipper of Pharasma extra abilities.
I would have to disagree. By gaining the special worship related effects of a god-specific item, you are gaining a mechanical benefit granted to only those that choose that god as their patron, and therefore must be within one step of that alignment.
Also, why is it unacceptable for a VO to be uncomfortable with players knowingly and willfully breaking the rules? As part of the campaign volunteer staff, one of the parts of a VO's duty is to make sure all rules in their area are being properly followed.
He didn't say he was going to ask that player to leave, he said he'd be tempted to. Is it the same if I'm tempted to reach over and punch the annoying jerk at the table as if I'd actually done it?
The thing is, if you know your character is illegal by PFS standards, and even specifically state that fact, you are asking your GMs to bend the rules and let you play a character that by the rules they're not supposed to let you play.
|
This could all be settled if someone out there could write some non-vague rules for paladins. These rules would clearly explains where the limits on their "paladin code" end and begin, as well as any deity qualifications.
For example, if I am a paladin visiting a lawful evil society that has legal slavery, do I have to try to work with the laws of that society to change things, or can I just be Judge Dredd and execute slavers as "evil doers" that are harming innocents?
Likewise, if I am visiting a chaotic good society, how am I to ensure that evil doers get trials?
This class is such a headache.
Can someone quote the "rule" saying paladins fall for having a chaotic good deity?
|
|
Can someone quote the "rule" saying paladins fall for having a chaotic good deity?
The faiths of the lawful and neutral good gods—Erastil, Iomedae, Sarenrae, Shelyn, and Torag—find powerful defenders in the paladins of their religions.
Paladins of Abadar
Of all the gods of balance, only one supports and promotes
a holy order of paladins: Abadar.
Per the Faiths books, there are no Paladins with deities of CG, N, or CN alignment, nor (obviously) of any Evil. As of Faiths of Balance, Abadar was the only LN deity with Paladins (though, from my understanding, there is a Paladin of Irori PrC in Paths of Prestige).
Note: The Paladin codes in these two books are NOT PFS legal and, by nature, are supplements, not replacements, for the CRB Paladin Code.
You can be a Paladin, but you cannot be a worshipper of a CG deity to receive your powers from them. Paladins receive their powers from the forces of Law and Good.
While it is completely within your rights as a DM to kick someone from you table because they rub you the wrong way, it is really not appropriate and I find it worrysome to hear this sort of thing coming from a Venture Officer of all people.Because, Chris, I make it very clear that I get no mechanical benefits from doing this. I don't take any of the items that grant special abilities to Pharasman worshippers to avoid getting a mechanical benefit that's not allowed by the rules of the game.
It is a sticky conundrum for many when put in a position of wanting to follow the rules, and a player asking for cool roleplay.
I actually feel its kinda selfish of you to put a GM in that position.
You know what the PFS rule is. You know what the Pathfinder RPG rule is.
You are making an informed decision to not follow the rule, and then you purposefully put your GM in a difficult position.
That isn't particularly fair.
If I ran into someone who did this to me, I might be tempted to disinvite them from my table. Not for having something that broke the rule, but for purposefully putting me in a socially awkward position.
Then players should follow the rules, and it won't be an issue. If one person can break the rules then why should everyone else have to follow them? If I saw a player break a rule, and the GM allowed it, I would had an extra feat. If he tried to boot me for the feat I would report him for favortism. The rules are the rules. They are not guidelines to be ignored at one's whim.
I'm now not allowed to ask if a character is acceptable to a table. Because that could be awkward. I'm supposed to magically know.That’s kinda a disingenuous response, don’t you think?
You should know that an illegal character is not acceptable at any PFS table. Period. Nothing magical about it.
By my perspective, no, I don't think it's disingenuous.
You are saying that ASKING A QUESTION can get me booted from a table. Asking a question, even if I expect the answer to be "No", should not merit a table-boot. Particularly if that question is saying "If any of you are made uncomfortable by this, I'll play a different character."
That is a lie and you know it. The issue is not asking a question. The issue is putting someone in a position where they are asked to allow you to break a rule. You know it is illegal so the easy answer is to modify so it is legal.
Can someone quote the "rule" saying paladins fall for having a chaotic good deity?from the 4.2 campaign guide:
Religion: Characters can elect to worship any deity listed in a table of gods in the Core Rulebook, The Inner
Sea World Guide, Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Gods and Magic, or any other source listed as an official Additional Resource. Characters may elect to worship an evil god, but must always be within one alignment step of their chosen deity. For clerics, this is an especially important choice, since the deity’s alignment determines whether the cleric channels positive or negative energy, a decision with significant tactical implications for the cleric and her allies. Characters who do not receive powers from a divine source may choose to be atheists or to have no deity at all.You can't be lawful good and be one alignment step away from a chaotic deity.
For some reason I did not count the neutral alignment. I went directly from lawful to chaotic thinking it was one step.
Move along folks, nothing to see here. :)
|
|
Note that this leaves your character, in essence, unchanged, while making him completely PFS legal, and removing the possibility of the cheats mentioned during this thread where, asd a self-proclaimed Paladin of Pharasma, you could get the benefits from items that give a worshipper of Pharasma extra abilities.I would have to disagree. By gaining the special worship related effects of a god-specific item, you are gaining a mechanical benefit granted to only those that choose that god as their patron, and therefore must be within one step of that alignment.
Also, why is it unacceptable for a VO to be uncomfortable with players knowingly and willfully breaking the rules? As part of the campaign volunteer staff, one of the parts of a VO's duty is to make sure all rules in their area are being properly followed.
He didn't say he was going to ask that player to leave, he said he'd be tempted to. Is it the same if I'm tempted to reach over and punch the annoying jerk at the table as if I'd actually done it?
The thing is, if you know your character is illegal by PFS standards, and even specifically state that fact, you are asking your GMs to bend the rules and let you play a character that by the rules they're not supposed to let you play.
Jack, I completely agree with you.
For the record, I had a player who was playing an Osiriani Paladin of Nethys at my table once. I explained to him after he introduced himself that all PFS characters have to be within one step of their deity. He said ok, and switched to Abadar. That's all there is to it.
This does not have to be a big hairy yeti-sized deal! There's rules of the PFSOP campaign, and we all agree to them by sitting down at the table. They may not be rules that we personally would use in a home campaign, and that's ok.
|
|
Jack, I completely agree with you.
For the record, I had a player who was playing an Osiriani Paladin of Nethys at my table once. I explained to him after he introduced himself that all PFS characters have to be within one step of their deity. He said ok, and switched to Abadar. That's all there is to it.
This does not have to be a big hairy yeti-sized deal! There's rules of the PFSOP campaign, and we all agree to them by sitting down at the table. They may not be rules that we personally would use in a home campaign, and that's ok.
The thing is, if you want to play a "Paladin" of a non-standard paladin god, find some other interesting and creative way to do it. For a "Paladin" of Nethys, make a fighter/cleric or even a fighter/wizard. Heck, make a true neutral magus! They're martially focused and masters of the arcane. I'm sure Nethys would approve of that as it would be a balance between martial and arcane, good and evil, law and chaos.
No, you don't get all the spiffy pally-powers, but that's the price you pay to have fluff of a character devoted to a deity that paladins can't PFS-legally worship.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, if you want to play a "Paladin" of a non-standard paladin god, find some other interesting and creative way to do it. For a "Paladin" of Nethys, make a fighter/cleric or even a fighter/wizard. Heck, make a true neutral magus! They're martially focused and masters of the arcane. I'm sure Nethys would approve of that as it would be a balance between martial and arcane, good and evil, law and chaos.No, you don't get all the spiffy pally-powers, but that's the price you pay to have fluff of a character devoted to a deity that paladins can't PFS-legally worship.
Agreed... and used! I have a Razmiran Priest, which is a Sorcerer Archetype, but I introduce him as a Priest of Razmir - I then laugh when someone asks for a Channel Energy and I respond with "Razmir doesn't believe in such things"
Similarly, you could have a Fighter of Cayden and introduce him as a Paladin or Templar, but when people question why you don't have an Aura of Resolve, Lay on Hands, or a Smite ability you could respond with "Cayden was too drunk to give me those powers"
|
|
"I represent the Church of Abadar. You are, of course, prepared for the Holy Ritual of the Audit? And one does not tithe to the Church. One pays premiums for insurance."
"It would be a...shame...if something were to happen to this fine establishment here. A crying shame."
Mutual of Abadar is People. You Count On When Accounting Is Needed.
|
|
Agreed... and used! I have a Razmiran Priest, which is a Sorcerer Archetype, but I introduce him as a Priest of Razmir - I then laugh when someone asks for a Channel Energy and I respond with "Razmir doesn't believe in such things"
Similarly, you could have a Fighter of Cayden and introduce him as a Paladin or Templar, but when people question why you don't have an Aura of Resolve, Lay on Hands, or a Smite ability you could respond with "Cayden was too drunk to give me those powers"
"Your god was too drunk to give you powers? Why would you worship such a drunkard?!"
"... Duh, free booze at the "temple", are you kidding? Best. Deal. Ever."
EDIT: P.S. - Connor is a constant source of great amusement. Just sayin'.
|
|
"I represent the Church of Abadar. You are, of course, prepared for the Holy Ritual of the Audit? And one does not tithe to the Church. One pays premiums for insurance."
"It would be a...shame...if something were to happen to this fine establishment here. A crying shame."
Mutual of Abadar is People. You Count On When Accounting Is Needed.
... I kinda wanna make a Tax Man now...
|
|
... I kinda wanna make a Tax Man now..."I represent the Church of Abadar. You are, of course, prepared for the Holy Ritual of the Audit? And one does not tithe to the Church. One pays premiums for insurance."
"It would be a...shame...if something were to happen to this fine establishment here. A crying shame."
Mutual of Abadar is People. You Count On When Accounting Is Needed.
That could be a Paladin, you know. Someone has to collect the insurance premiums. And impress upon borrowers the...necessity...of paying their loans in a timely fashion.
|
|
That could be a Paladin, you know. Someone has to collect the insurance premiums. And impress upon borrowers the...necessity...of paying their loans in a timely fashion.... I kinda wanna make a Tax Man now..."I represent the Church of Abadar. You are, of course, prepared for the Holy Ritual of the Audit? And one does not tithe to the Church. One pays premiums for insurance."
"It would be a...shame...if something were to happen to this fine establishment here. A crying shame."
Mutual of Abadar is People. You Count On When Accounting Is Needed.
Yeah, but we've already got a Sczarni Pally in my gaming area. XD
Nah, I'll probably make 'em an Inquisitor. Or a Lawful Rogue. Or a Fighter. Or a Cavalier. Or a *ramblerambleramble*
|
|
Personally I wouldnt give a damn. Im not the Paizo police and feel no obligation to rat on someone for something trivial especially if said Paladin was played in a cool manner and didnt unbalance the game. If someone at the table cried over it, I would turn to the paladin and request he play his Paladin as only thinking he follows Pharasma as you've upset the setting lawyer. Now pick up your dice and lets have some fun.
|
Personally I wouldnt give a damn. Im not the Paizo police and feel no obligation to rat on someone for something trivial especially if said Paladin was played in a cool manner and didnt unbalance the game. If someone at the table cried over it, I would turn to the paladin and request he play his Paladin as only thinking he follows Pharasma as you've upset the setting lawyer. Now pick up your dice and lets have some fun.
Not the Paizo police? Fine, but it appears you are a GM judging by the two stars next to your name.
|
|
Personally I wouldnt give a damn. Im not the Paizo police and feel no obligation to rat on someone for something trivial especially if said Paladin was played in a cool manner and didnt unbalance the game. If someone at the table cried over it, I would turn to the paladin and request he play his Paladin as only thinking he follows Pharasma as you've upset the setting lawyer. Now pick up your dice and lets have some fun.
And as the player who had an issue with the Paladin not following the rules, if you tried to deride me or sneer at me, or make me feel inferior for calling the rule to your attention. I'd get up and walk.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Personally I wouldnt give a damn. Im not the Paizo police and feel no obligation to rat on someone for something trivial especially if said Paladin was played in a cool manner and didnt unbalance the game. If someone at the table cried over it, I would turn to the paladin and request he play his Paladin as only thinking he follows Pharasma as you've upset the setting lawyer. Now pick up your dice and lets have some fun.
And would you also penalise the paladin for not following the requirements of his class (like, you know, taking away all his spells and class-granted abilities)? Because that's what the rules require ...
|
|
And as the player who had an issue with the Paladin not following the rules, if you tried to deride me or sneer at me, or make me feel inferior for calling the rule to your attention. I'd get up and walk.
As a player if you got up and left Id wish you well and hope a player filled your spot that cared less about setting/rules lawyering and more about fun filled your seat.
If I were GMing the game I would tell the player my concerns about his player within the context of PFS play. As the person who spoke about his Pharasma Paladin who said that he asked if people minded, I would thank him for asking and let him know that in a public PFS game he should stick to PFS rules. Simple.
|
|
And as the player who had an issue with the Paladin not following the rules, if you tried to deride me or sneer at me, or make me feel inferior for calling the rule to your attention. I'd get up and walk.As a player if you got up and left Id wish you well and hope a player filled your spot that cared less about setting/rules lawyering and more about fun filled your seat.
If I were GMing the game I would tell the player my concerns about his player within the context of PFS play. As the person who spoke about his Pharasma Paladin who said that he asked if people minded, I would thank him for asking and let him know that in a public PFS game he should stick to PFS rules. Simple.
It wouldn't be about caring more about the rules that would get me to leave. It would be your snide remark to belittle me.
|
|
Op has it wrong in one basic aspect.
If you have the boon ANY class is allowed to take the axebeak as a mount using the standard Bestiary stats for it. And that's all the stats it gets UNLESS you are one of of those companion creature classes, i.e. cavalier, druid, paladin, ranger etc. and decide to make it your bonded mount.
I was a bit miffed to realise that I can't recreate the mount using Eidolon mechanics as the axebeak is a biped, and the mount evolution is forbidden to them.
This is why it needs rewording. I am correct, but I can see why it could be misleading. Since no one else is spoiler blocking it, I'll just stop spoiler blocking the axebeak.
Axe Beak Companion: As long as you have Chronicle sheets for all three parts of the Quest for Perfection campaign arc, you may take an axe beak as a loyal mount or companion; the Chronicle sheets need not be consecutive or in order, but all three must be present in the same character’s records. If you possess a class feature which permits you to take an animal companion or a mount that progresses as an animal companion, you may add the axe beak to your list of legal and available companions. You must present a copy of Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 3 in order to use an axe beak companion as if it were allowed as an additional resource. Other than provide access to this animal as a choice of mount or companion, this boon provides no mechanical benefit.
You can take an axebeak as a mount or companion. This is not flavor text telling you that the axebeak is companionable, loves you, and will be your friend--it refers to the in-game terms "mount" and "companion" as the ranger, cavalier, and paladin class features. As you can see from the last line, the boon provides no mechanical benefit other than let you add the axe beak to your list of legal and available companions if you possess the appropriate class feature.
|
|
Mount is also reffered as a listing in the Equipment part of CRB. I have killed my share of riding dogs. In paticular a sorceror who is a level 9 gnome, Name Lymtwist.
There was...
Danger 1
Danger 2
Danger 3
Danger 4
Danger 5
Now for some from reason there is an exceptional Mount/Riding Dog
Lucky the dog that won't die, he is also very loyal.
Lucky is indeed a marvelous dog, lucky was actually Danger 6. Danger has been around for around 5 sessions of this characters life at high tier.
I am not sure if lucky made it out of GenCon 2012. Part of me hopes he did. Whenever I have a riding dog, I hope to get one of Lucky's pup's.
|
|
Mount is also reffered as a listing in the Equipment part of CRB. I have killed my share of riding dogs. In paticular a sorceror who is a level 9 gnome, Name Lymtwist.
There was...
Danger 1
Danger 2
Danger 3
Danger 4
Danger 5Now for some from reason there is an exceptional Mount/Riding Dog
Lucky the dog that won't die, he is also very loyal.
Lucky is indeed a marvelous dog, lucky was actually Danger 6. Danger has been around for around 5 sessions of this characters life at high tier.
I am not sure if lucky made it out of GenCon 2012. Part of me hopes he did. Whenever I have a riding dog, I hope to get one of Lucky's pup's.
Heh, in my table of Golden Serpent they saved Lucky by virtue of one of the characters other than his master taking damage to drag him out of a trap. The master, who mentioned how many different dogs he had possessed, had been sending the dog ahead to set off traps.
|
|
I have sent a couple of those dogs straight to the boneyad.
Lucky though is a miracle. A very resilent dog.
I am not trying to argue RAI or RAW. I don't think it is to difficult for a GM to allow a cr2.
My concern is players who take the AC option and only put a single point in handle animal, with a single level of Cav, druid etc. Then think they can master the animal like a 12 lev pure Cav, druid etc, then stack this with bad handling and boon companion etc.
So a CR 2 animal that you cant handle, and you may have to push. May not last as long as Danger or Lucky.
A riding dog is a CR 1. I can really see both sides in these types of cases I go with the player. Provided he has a Bestiary 3 with him.
|
|
I have sent a couple of those dogs straight to the boneyad.
Lucky though is a miracle. A very resilent dog.
I am not trying to argue RAI or RAW. I don't think it is to difficult for a GM to allow a cr2.
My concern is players who take the AC option and only put a single point in handle animal, with a single level of Cav, druid etc. Then think they can master the animal like a 12 lev pure Cav, druid etc, then stack this with bad handling and boon companion etc.
So a CR 2 animal that you cant handle, and you may have to push. May not last as long as Danger or Lucky.
A riding dog is a CR 1. I can really see both sides in these types of cases I go with the player. Provided he has a Bestiary 3 with him.
Each new iteration of Danger was setting him back 150 gp, though--he spent almost 1,000 gp on all those dogs. With the axebeak, there is no listed cost, so if it was somehow allowed as a mundane free purchase, you could presumably get it killed over and over with impunity, and it's a lot beefier than a dog. Reach alone makes it a significant combat threat at the low levels (if the character starts with the QFP series and pulls in disposable axebeaks starting at level 2).