Misapplied QFP Boons, and other Illegal Aspects Noticed as a Player


Pathfinder Society

151 to 180 of 180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages 5/5

Hey, I killed Danger once and so did another GM I know. Don't hog all the credit. :)

Liberty's Edge 1/5

I'm confused as to why people are saying that a Paladin does not need to worship a god when...

PRD says wrote:
Divine Bond (Sp): Upon reaching 5th level, a paladin forms a divine bond with her god.

This, and other wording within the PRD Paladin details would suggest that worshipping a god is required.

If I've missed something somewhere in the Guide or FAQ can someone point me to it please.

(Edit: corrected spelling]

5/5

Greg Hurst wrote:
Hey, I killed Danger once and so did another GM I know. Don't hog all the credit. :)

In a home campaign I would have Lucky do a sense motive against Lymtwist. That would be funny.

I wonder if there is going to be a Lucky 2 or Danger 8. May the dice gods bless lucky.

Sczarni 2/5

J-Bone wrote:
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.

The fact that you have GM stars next to your name and made a comment like this honestly concerns me. As a GM we are there to make sure the rules are followed while providing the players with a good time.

If rules are seen as stifling fun, then find yourself a homegame.

I'd also like to point everyone in the direction of this thread.

Do not encourage cheating

Yes, this thread is a little older and was mostly focused on people playing out of tier or applying GM credit incorrectly (among other things), but I believe knowingly allowing someone to play an illegal character is encouraging cheating.

Dark Archive

It deeply saddens me that after going through multiple pages of alignment talk, nobody pointed out that Fred VII is in fact, not legal at all. Anyone who read the feat quick draw would see you cannot pull a potion with it, nor a wand, alchemical item or scroll. I also question if the growth would be immediate or take a round to get to that size and then bestow all the size changing stats.

As much as I hate how often players cheat I have begun to wonder if at limited timed society events, it may be better to just let them get away with it for the sake of finishing the game on time. I do not like the idea of getting jipped out of money, items, faction points because an argument slowed down the table.

In home games, I have several times walked away from tables full of complacent cheating because that is not what i enjoy. If they want to cheat, I do not see the reason to pretend your playing the same game as I. In a home game, we do have the time to fix things. If we miss a fight tonight, we can pick up where we left off next private home game.

The saddest thing is how so many people just cannot take being corrected in front of others, especialially when you have to do it to them on a regular basis. First they don't even bother to read the rules themselves or they fail to comprehend them. Then they want to complain that you are ruining their fun. Well their cheating fun was ruining my fun of trying to overcome the challenges within the rules. They did agree to play by the same rules when they sat down at the same table. So who would really be ruining the fun? I will admit, it was legititmitly hard for them to accept they were wrong when I did not want to dig through my collection of dragon magazine article sage advice columns back in the 3.5 days to prove them wrong. Paizo does not have a robust F.A.Q. So that is not always the most helpful either.

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Raymond: I noted the quickdraw problem in passing but didn't find it worthwhile to comment upon. A potion of enlarge person will take effect immediately, as with any other potion.

You are throwing around the word 'cheat' a lot. People learn this game organically, and some of them have a head full of 3.5 rules that are subtly or not-so-subtly different in PFRPG. Erring on the side of "trust but verify" and being willing to be corrected is important, for both players and GMs.

It sounds like you're bringing some long experience to this conversation, and I welcome fellow grognards, but I don't see cause for deeply saddened where you cited it there.

2/5

So, let me see if I have this all correctly. The rules lawyers argue that a paladin can not follow anything but a LN NG or LG deity, but noone can point to a ruling that changes the printed materials, which do not require this. Lets step by step this.

Clerics have to worship a specific deity, and their alignment must be within 1 step of that deity. Paladins do not have this restriction.
Per JJ, linked in one of the first page posts. Note, that both parts of the first sentence are waived by the 2nd sentence. I understand that there is more text there, but it points to what problems could arise, not an actual set in stone "no you cannot roleplay this."

Next arguing point:
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.

Since paladins do not have the deity and alignment restrictions, only that they must stay LG to maintain the code, then they must not recieve their powers from a SPECIFIC divine source, altho it is clear that it is an ... untyped? divine source.

To take a character trait such as ... Fortified Drinker, listed as religion: CG, you have to have the proper alignment even if you are not a divine caster of any kind. Therefore, character traits, feats, and items that benefit specific faiths obviously count as "powers from a divine source," and follow the worship/alignment restrictions to be legal.

Thus, so far as PFS play, since you cannot play an evil alignment, the worship of an evil god does restrict your alignment to neutral something, provided you wanted some kind of power from that divine source. (i.e. feats/traits/domains etc.) You cannot even use slippery slope for evil deities since the paladin code already covers that with the LG restriction, and we have the antipaladin for evil "holy champions".

And some people who claim this character is illegal also offer the solution: Just don't say Paladin of Pharasma, say Paladin, (who just so happens to follows all the aspects of Pharasma that don't break the code), the character would be legal, making lip service to the rules a viable solution, while continuing to play the same character the same way, which I think is the highest hypocrisy.

So far as RAW, provided that the character does not try to take feats/traits that require a specific alignment, use a magic item for a particular god that is more than one step from LG, or take any archetype that requires them to choose a domain tied to a deity which would then require the one step to LG restriction, unless they do one of those there is nothing i can find in several searchings that makes this character Illegal.

Note, I personally think paladins should serve a good cause/deity, and be LG, but so far as i can find in print, unless they want some special divine toy, they don't have to follow the one-step.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Saint Caleth wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:

I suspect, for most GMs, given a choice between:

"Paladin that's an interesting take on the class and shows some consideration of the background and history of Golarion, even if...technically a violation of fluffyiness"

is pleasanter to have at a table than

"This is Fred VII, my fighter who has an INT of 7, a CHA of 7, and who fights with an oversized Aldori duelling sword, Tower Shield and Plate Armor. He has the Accelerated Drinker and Quick Draw abilities, and starts every combat quick drawing a potion of Enlarge Person, and drinking it as a move action while drawing his sword and swinging for 3d6+6 damage with a one handed melee weapon at 2nd level."

You would assume so, but from some of the stuff that I read from a bunch of the people on the PFS boards, you might be surprised.

An interesting character with a fluff violation would always be welcome at my table.

I really hate the dismissal of the alignment problem as a "fluff" violation. Alignment is a core mechanic for the Paladin class, even more so than the few others it is for. A "seriously Lawful Good" Paladin is not a match to have Pharasma as a core diety. Venerate on the side perhaps as she does perform an important function but as prime, that's more than just a "fluff" issue.

3/5

LazarX wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:

I suspect, for most GMs, given a choice between:

"Paladin that's an interesting take on the class and shows some consideration of the background and history of Golarion, even if...technically a violation of fluffyiness"

is pleasanter to have at a table than

"This is Fred VII, my fighter who has an INT of 7, a CHA of 7, and who fights with an oversized Aldori duelling sword, Tower Shield and Plate Armor. He has the Accelerated Drinker and Quick Draw abilities, and starts every combat quick drawing a potion of Enlarge Person, and drinking it as a move action while drawing his sword and swinging for 3d6+6 damage with a one handed melee weapon at 2nd level."

You would assume so, but from some of the stuff that I read from a bunch of the people on the PFS boards, you might be surprised.

An interesting character with a fluff violation would always be welcome at my table.

I really hate the dismissal of the alignment problem as a "fluff" violation. Alignment is a core mechanic for the Paladin class, even more so than the few others it is for. A "seriously Lawful Good" Paladin is not a match to have Pharasma as a core diety. Venerate on the side perhaps as she does perform an important function but as prime, that's more than just a "fluff" issue.

We should encourage interesting, nonstandard paladins instead of rules-lawyering alignment into an ever tighter strieghtjacket around them.

I do agree that a "paladin of Pharasma" is better made as a Ranger or a Cleric/Holy Vindicator or something along those lines, but I stand by my consideration of alignment as essentially fluff.

5/5 *

Saint Caleth wrote:

We should encourage interesting, nonstandard paladins instead of rules-lawyering alignment into an ever tighter strieghtjacket around them.

I do agree that a "paladin of Pharasma" is better made as a Ranger or a Cleric/Holy Vindicator or something along those lines, but I stand by my consideration of alignment as essentially fluff.

I have seen interesting, non-standard paladins who play by the existing rules. Stretching/bending/skirting rules is not a requirement for fun and exciting concepts.

Spoiler:
My own Paladin (of Iomedae, Oath of Vengeance) is a Tien paladin sent to the Inner Sea to capture his sister, who is a traitor and spy to the Tien Empire. He seeks to avenge and redeem their family's name. (of course, his sister is another one of my characters so they will never meet). He rides an Axebeak due to his distaste of horses as instruments of war. He recently acquired a very powerful weapon to signify his duality and internal struggle between his code and his oath of vengeance: +1 merciful vicious falcata. He almost never has the mercies off unless he is executing his oath.

Once again, alignment is a core part of Paladins in PF and 3.5. It is not fluff. If you want to play a non-LG one, the oldest RPG 4th edition may be a better fit for the concept. Or of course a home game.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Saint Caleth wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:

I suspect, for most GMs, given a choice between:

"Paladin that's an interesting take on the class and shows some consideration of the background and history of Golarion, even if...technically a violation of fluffyiness"

is pleasanter to have at a table than

"This is Fred VII, my fighter who has an INT of 7, a CHA of 7, and who fights with an oversized Aldori duelling sword, Tower Shield and Plate Armor. He has the Accelerated Drinker and Quick Draw abilities, and starts every combat quick drawing a potion of Enlarge Person, and drinking it as a move action while drawing his sword and swinging for 3d6+6 damage with a one handed melee weapon at 2nd level."

You would assume so, but from some of the stuff that I read from a bunch of the people on the PFS boards, you might be surprised.

An interesting character with a fluff violation would always be welcome at my table.

I really hate the dismissal of the alignment problem as a "fluff" violation. Alignment is a core mechanic for the Paladin class, even more so than the few others it is for. A "seriously Lawful Good" Paladin is not a match to have Pharasma as a core diety. Venerate on the side perhaps as she does perform an important function but as prime, that's more than just a "fluff" issue.

We should encourage interesting, nonstandard paladins instead of rules-lawyering alignment into an ever tighter strieghtjacket around them.

I do agree that a "paladin of Pharasma" is better made as a Ranger or a Cleric/Holy Vindicator or something along those lines, but I stand by my consideration of alignment as essentially fluff.

When mechanical things can be tied to alignment (traits, feats, spells, class powers, etc.) then it is not fluff. It is part of the mechanics of the game.

Does every LG paladin have to have the exact same Dudley Dooright personality? No.

Does their interpretation of LG have to all be exactly the same? No.

Do they have to play Lawful Stupid? No.

But interesting does not mean breaking the rules.

Following the rules does not mean there is a straightjacket.

You can make very colorful and interesting things within the rules.

Tell ya what, I will make a deal with you.

You (for the purposes of a hypothetical discussion) break all the rules of PFS you want and come up with as many interesting Paladins as you can.

I guarantee you that I will come up with more interesting ideas following the rules.

See, instead of saying, Hey, that rule makes my guy not interesting, or its a straightjacket. Look at all the things the rules don't restrict, and do your interesting there.

Where's he from?

What's he do for fun?

What's his background?

Did he have parents?

Were they nice to him?

Did they get taken from him at a young age?

Does he have a day job? Does that shape his personality?

What's his ethnicity?

Why did he choose to become a Paladin?

Did he have a mentor?

How did he choose to become part of the Pathfinder Society?

What God does he venerate and why?

How does he dress?

What social class did he come from/is he currently part of?

What was his early education like?

What is his race?

Did he grow up in an egalitarian or xenophobic (or somewhere in between) society?

How did that shape his personality?

Is he more lawful than good, or more good than lawful?

What weapon does he use? Why?

What armor does he use? Why?

There are literally thousands of more questions you can ask that make this character interesting that don't make you have to break the rules to be interesting.

Lets not use that as a crutch or excuse for breaking the rules anymore, please?

2/5 ****

I realize that there's a side that says "The RULES are THE RULES" in this debate. Their side has been heard. That's nice.

SRD Says wrote:

Regardless of alignment, any cleric can release a wave of energy by channeling the power of her faith through her holy (or unholy) symbol. This energy can be used to cause or heal damage, depending on the type of energy channeled and the creatures targeted.

A good cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships a good deity) channels positive energy and can choose to deal damage to undead creatures or to heal living creatures. An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy and can choose to deal damage to living creatures or to heal undead creatures. A neutral cleric of a neutral deity (or one who is not devoted to a particular deity) must choose whether she channels positive or negative energy. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. This decision also determines whether the cleric can cast spontaneous cure or inflict spells (see spontaneous casting).

Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric. The amount of damage dealt or healed is equal to 1d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage for every two cleric levels beyond 1st (2d6 at 3rd, 3d6 at 5th, and so on). Creatures that take damage from channeled energy receive a Will save to halve the damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the cleric's level + the cleric's Charisma modifier. Creatures healed by channel energy cannot exceed their maximum hit point total—all excess healing is lost. A cleric may channel energy a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier. This is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. A cleric can choose whether or not to include herself in this effect.

A cleric must be able to present her holy symbol to use this ability.

[sarcasm]So. All rules MUST be enforced, and anyone who whines should just suck it up and make their character legal. I don't make the rules, I merely point out that you're breaking them. It's not my fault that the rules are sexist. [/sarcasm]

Rigid adherence to rules is a source of folly. Sometimes, it's important to ask what the intent of a rule was. Sometimes, as has been hashed out here and elsewhere, there are multiple interpretations of the same text.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AdAstraGames wrote:
I realize that there's a side that says "The RULES are THE RULES" in this debate. Their side has been heard. That's nice.

So has the other side - the folks who insist that they can do a better job than the folks running PFS, and so they feel free to disregard any rules that don't make sense, get in the way of fun, etc.

This is not your home game. You are playing PFS, and the folks who create and run PFS say that if you want to play you have to play by their rules.

It really is that simple.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Actually you should never ask what the intent of the rule is, because you will get a million different answers.

Even if the person who wrote the rule steps in and tells everyone what the intent is, players still ignore that because it does not fit their "intent".

All people mean when they say we should look at RAI, RAI is what I want it to mean.

I cringe when I see people use the term RAI because it is meaningless, because intent seems to always be based on the person reading it, not the person who wrote it.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

AdAstraGames, if you would like to invent a gender-neutral pronoun and somehow get it universally accepted by English speakers, great. Until then, dating back to the early nineties, it has become a bit of a standard in game design to use the feminine to refer to the universal.

If it really bothers you, perhaps you should have had that argument with Mark Rein-Hagen back in 1991. I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo's own Lisa Stevens didn't have a bit of influence in that decision. In fairness, I'm uncertain if VtM was the first RPG to adopt female pronouns for the universal, but it was the first rule book I read that did.

Surely, you should be familiar with this usage. If you work at or simply play Ad Astra Games, you are probably familiar with the various incarnations of the Traveller RPG, which also adopted the universal female pronoun when GDW published Traveller the New Era back in 1993.

So, put your semantics sheriff badge away and quit trying to bury real issues in ephemera.

Dark Archive 3/5

Will Johnson wrote:

AdAstraGames, if you would like to invent a gender-neutral pronoun and somehow get it universally accepted by English speakers, great. Until then, dating back to the early nineties, it has become a bit of a standard in game design to use the feminine to refer to the universal.

If it really bothers you, perhaps you should have had that argument with Mark Rein-Hagen back in 1991. I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo's own Lisa Stevens didn't have a bit of influence in that decision. In fairness, I'm uncertain if VtM was the first RPG to adopt female pronouns for the universal, but it was the first rule book I read that did.

Surely, you should be familiar with this usage. If you work at or simply play Ad Astra Games, you are probably familiar with the various incarnations of the Traveller RPG, which also adopted the universal female pronoun when GDW published Traveller the New Era back in 1993.

So, put your semantics sheriff badge away and quit trying to bury real issues in ephemera.

OR, more importantly, realize that the standards for Pathfinder is when you are discussing one of the classes the Gender pronoun used is the same as the pre-gen for that class.

ie, if you're talking about the cleric the pre-gen for that is female so use the female pronouns for it (she, her, hers, etc). This is why Magi get the male pronoun he, paladins get she and bards get used like a football (what else is a Halfling good for?)

It is a simple compromise paizo uses and stated why years ago.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 ***

That is my dog's your talking about, sirs.

here is the breakdown. (Danger was only one dog.)

Cuddles was put into an "old dogs" home, having had two conditions intered onto him and it was cheaper to get a new dog. I visit Cuddles every now and again, though his conditions have been cleared up by the new owners. He seems to not be as affectionate towards me now as he has heard of my other dogs and their fates.

My second dog was Shanks, killed by a giant club that made him into a blood smear. I was consoled a bit by the statue after the fight, he and I talked for hours. Poor guy, I should go back and visit, tell him what we did with the braid.

My third dog was Meathead. Rats in a sewer got him, poor fellow. What a way to go!

My fourth dog, Nick, was sucked up by a tentacle and slurped up as a snack. It was a very instructive delv into the defeated ankhead to recover the saddle and rope.

My fifth dog was named Lemon Drop. He certainly did drop as he was on the bridge in the middle of a fireball. Dead before he hit... somewhere below. Never did find the poor thing.

Skittles was number six. It was a very strange assignment we had, being sort of undead in Neb, and Skittles went from walking dead to very dead in the very first battle there. I never even wanted the darn flag.

Danger, the star of the thread, was number seven. He died at the hands of a haunt of all things, dissolved by an acidic fog that suffused the room. He was exhausted that whole adventure, poor thing.

I now have my eighth dog, Scamper. He such a good boy and I hold out so much hope for his future.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

Just to put this in the other discussion, there are Archdevils, Demon Lords, Elemental Lords, Empyreal Lords and the Horsemen that can be worshiped as well as the gods. There are also Philosophies, though clerics (and presumingly Paladins) do need to choose a patron Deity in addition to the philosophies. This according to the Inner Sea World Guide.

5/5

Lemtwist wrote:

That is my dog's your talking about, sirs.

here is the breakdown. (Danger was only one dog.)

Cuddles was put into an "old dogs" home, having had two conditions intered onto him and it was cheaper to get a new dog. I visit Cuddles every now and again, though his conditions have been cleared up by the new owners. He seems to not be as affectionate towards me now as he has heard of my other dogs and their fates.

My second dog was Shanks, killed by a giant club that made him into a blood smear. I was consoled a bit by the statue after the fight, he and I talked for hours. Poor guy, I should go back and visit, tell him what we did with the braid.

My third dog was Meathead. Rats in a sewer got him, poor fellow. What a way to go!

My fourth dog, Nick, was sucked up by a tentacle and slurped up as a snack. It was a very instructive delv into the defeated ankhead to recover the saddle and rope.

My fifth dog was named Lemon Drop. He certainly did drop as he was on the bridge in the middle of a fireball. Dead before he hit... somewhere below. Never did find the poor thing.

Skittles was number six. It was a very strange assignment we had, being sort of undead in Neb, and Skittles went from walking dead to very dead in the very first battle there. I never even wanted the darn flag.

Danger, the star of the thread, was number seven. He died at the hands of a haunt of all things, dissolved by an acidic fog that suffused the room. He was exhausted that whole adventure, poor thing.

I now have my eighth dog, Scamper. He such a good boy and I hold out so much hope for his future.

Sorry about miss naming your dog, i think someone called him Lucky at the table... Perhaps me...

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

Wonder if it was the mentioned dog lucky in the first Ghost Rider movie. One eye, three legs, no tail and a missing ear, and his name was Lucky.

Scarab Sages

Golarion is a pantheistic world.

All inhabitants are aware of the existence of all deities, and with the exception of lands like Rahadoum and Razmiran, pay heed to all of them, especially when taking part in a venture appropriate to that deity's portfolio.

Pharasma is the Goddess of the Dead. All mortals will be judged by her after death. To claim that any inhabitant of Golarion, especially one with religious training, would be unaware of this, ignore this, or claim otherwise, is simply poor roleplay.

And to those who want to forbid a paladin from doing Pharasma's bidding?
Congratulations, you just forbid them from fighting undead.
Kill undead, lose your powers.
Rescue slaves? Oh, boy, you just helped Cayden. Lose your powers.
Take part in the Swallowtail Festival, in Sandpoint? What have you become? You paid homage to Desna! Lose your powers.

Congratulations to AdAstra, for being one of the few people in this thread to have actually read the details of the PFS setting, understood it, and incorporated it into his character's background.

4/5

Snorter wrote:

Golarion is a pantheistic world.

All inhabitants are aware of the existence of all deities, and with the exception of lands like Rahadoum and Razmiran, pay heed to all of them, especially when taking part in a venture appropriate to that deity's portfolio.

Pharasma is the Goddess of the Dead. All mortals will be judged by her after death. To claim that any inhabitant of Golarion, especially one with religious training, would be unaware of this, ignore this, or claim otherwise, is simply poor roleplay.

And to those who want to forbid a paladin from doing Pharasma's bidding?
Congratulations, you just forbid them from fighting undead.
Kill undead, lose your powers.
Rescue slaves? Oh, boy, you just helped Cayden. Lose your powers.
Take part in the Swallowtail Festival, in Sandpoint? What have you become? You paid homage to Desna! Lose your powers.

Congratulations to AdAstra, for being one of the few people in this thread to have actually read the details of the PFS setting, understood it, and incorporated it into his character's background.

I'm a bit confused by this. Are you implying that every character counts every deity as their patron deity unless the player does not "understand the details" of Golarion? Because there's a big difference between giving a deity their proper respect and having them as a patron.

Dark Archive 4/5

Like we have said before there is nothing wrong with respecting the practices of Pharasma, even helping the Pharasmite church in various ventures that further the cause of LAW and GOOD.

But in the end you are still a Paladin who embodies the concepts of a deity no further than 1 step from lawful good or the concepts of LAW and/or GOOD themselves those 2 options are your ONLY choices there is no third option to worship whatever diety you wish.

Simply because while the causes of non-paladin holding dieties (those more than 1 step from LG) might conviently match those of a paladin for short periods (such as the destruction of a den of undead, saving of various innocents from imprisonment) there are also equally as many cases in which the causes of said dieties go against what a Paladin can allow, and he is a Paladin there is no option that your diety is wrong, your deity or the concepts of law and good are always right hence why you are a source of unwavering devotion and courage to your companions and a shining beacon of light to hold back the darkness.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Snorter wrote:
Congratulations to AdAstra, for being one of the few people in this thread to have actually read the details of the PFS setting, understood it, and incorporated it into his character's background.

From Pharasma's description:

Quote:
Pharasma makes no decision on whether a death was just or not; she views all with a cold and uncaring attitude, and decides on which of the Outer Planes a soul will spend eternity.

She doesn't hate undead because they are evil -- only because they are a perversion of fate. She has no problems with mass murderers, plagues, evil creatures, holocausts, or any other form of death and destruction. Her only concern is ushering the living into and then out of existence in keeping with the fate ordained for them.

This isn't Kelemvor of the forgotten realms, but a dispassionate and completely neutral witness and judge.

Lawful followers will be constantly reminded that life and death are messy.

Chaotic followers will be constantly reminded that each creature's life and death have been foretold and that the system in place must be respected and followed.

Evil followers will be constantly reminded that Pharasma also ushers new life into being and that life should be celebrated as well as death.

Good followers will be constantly reminded that all creatures are born into a life of pain and suffering that only ends in death and it is not acceptable to interfere with this process.

Pharasma should definitely have inquisitors -- but lawful good paladin is just too far a shift.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snorter wrote:
Pharasma is the Goddess of the Dead. All mortals will be judged by her after death.

Gods too as well. She's said to have judged Aroden, but she's rather tight lipped about his disposition.

Scarab Sages 5/5 *** Venture-Captain, Oregon—Portland

Snorter wrote:

Golarion is a pantheistic world.

All inhabitants are aware of the existence of all deities, and with the exception of lands like Rahadoum and Razmiran, pay heed to all of them, especially when taking part in a venture appropriate to that deity's portfolio.

Pharasma is the Goddess of the Dead. All mortals will be judged by her after death. To claim that any inhabitant of Golarion, especially one with religious training, would be unaware of this, ignore this, or claim otherwise, is simply poor roleplay.

And to those who want to forbid a paladin from doing Pharasma's bidding?
Congratulations, you just forbid them from fighting undead.
Kill undead, lose your powers.
Rescue slaves? Oh, boy, you just helped Cayden. Lose your powers.
Take part in the Swallowtail Festival, in Sandpoint? What have you become? You paid homage to Desna! Lose your powers.

So... How does the Paladin justify evil done in Pharasma's name? The Neutral Evil Clerics? Or are you saying that no evil is ever, or ever has been, committed with her blessing? For that matter, how does he/she justify the good? When your goddess has no opposition to slavery, can you always be justified in being against it?

Also, from the end of your comments, it appears that you have interpreted the fluff to mean that all beings worship all the gods. Just because I acknowledge the existence of a god, doesn't mean I worship that god. Or do agnostic's not exist?

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gornil wrote:
So... How does the Paladin justify evil done in Pharasma's name? The Neutral Evil Clerics? Or are you saying that no evil is ever, or ever has been, committed with her blessing? For that matter, how does he/she justify the good? When your goddess has no opposition to slavery, can you always be justified in being against it?

Does he need to? How does a paladin of Abadar justify the fact that there are LE clerics and worshipers in his faith? How about paladins of Irori? It's a stupid question because the paladin can acknowledge that the worship of a god can encompass more than one alignment while still staying in their little LG box.

An LG character does not have to be against slavery, especially not if their deity supports the institution. They can instead concern themselves with bettering the situation of those who are slaves, encouraging laws that govern the treatment of slaves and going after those who mistreat their slaves. They do not have to be against slavery just because they are Good, since Golarion is neither Earth nor the 21st century.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AdAstraGames wrote:

I will note that I play a Paladin of Pharasma in PFS, and I am courteous enough to do this at a table:

"Hi, I have a Paladin of Pharasma. Paladins do not have the block of text saying they have to follow a deity within one alignment step of theirs in the class description, and when I made the character, this was an undefined area. It is also a large part of why she adventures, and it drives a lot of her roleplaying in fun and interesting ways.

It is also, technically, not permitted since the Inner Sea World Guide was published, because that defines, specifically, which deities empower Paladins on Golarion.

I would like to play the character as I have, because she's fun to play and thought provoking, and it makes no mechanical difference. I can also swap her out with another character who's within tier, if that's a problem for you or anyone else at the table, or I can play her as a Paladin and not mention which deity she follows.

I will abide by whatever you suggest."

Problems caused by situations like this one are why I don't play PFSOP. The lack of flexibility is a sad thing, but IT KINDA HAS TO BE THAT WAY in order for the "O" in PFSOP to be there.

Is your concept neat? Yes, I like it, I'd probably enjoy playing with you and your Pharasmite Paladin.

But it simply does not fit according to the current rules.

When you exercise the right to play in PFSOP, you OUGHT to be willing to accept the responsibility to play PFSOP by the rules.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Snorter wrote:

Golarion is a pantheistic world.

All inhabitants are aware of the existence of all deities, and with the exception of lands like Rahadoum and Razmiran, pay heed to all of them, especially when taking part in a venture appropriate to that deity's portfolio.

Pharasma is the Goddess of the Dead. All mortals will be judged by her after death. To claim that any inhabitant of Golarion, especially one with religious training, would be unaware of this, ignore this, or claim otherwise, is simply poor roleplay.

And to those who want to forbid a paladin from doing Pharasma's bidding?
Congratulations, you just forbid them from fighting undead.
Kill undead, lose your powers.
Rescue slaves? Oh, boy, you just helped Cayden. Lose your powers.
Take part in the Swallowtail Festival, in Sandpoint? What have you become? You paid homage to Desna! Lose your powers.

Congratulations to AdAstra, for being one of the few people in this thread to have actually read the details of the PFS setting, understood it, and incorporated it into his character's background.

A few points or maybe counterpoints.

1) I have at least one Atheistic PC. After all, if the gods can die, they must not be gods. Not to mention that at least one so-called deity is not giving out Divine spells....

2) Just because a Paladin cannot be a member of Pharasma's church, doesn't mean that, on occasion, the Paladin's beliefs, and the tenets of the Pharasmin church, won't line up. However, just as often, the Paladin's code and the tenets of the Pharasmin church are going to be at serious odds.

3) For the specific example of the Paladin and Pharasma, I know for a fact that at least one poster offered a valid way to deal with it in a PFS legal method, that would give the same feel as the player of said Paladin apparently is doing to beginb with, just using an approach that he says, outright, is illegal for PFS.

Is there a reason why the player doesn't want to play a legal PC in PFS? When he plays his illegal PC, he runs the risk of the results of that scenario being thrown out, not just for him, but for all the other people involved, both players and GM.

Scarab Sages

Glad I could put a cat among the pigeons.

151 to 180 of 180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Misapplied QFP Boons, and other Illegal Aspects Noticed as a Player All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society