|
| 13 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I am looking to get an improved familiar at level 7.
My wizard is neutral.
I want the CG Lyrakien Azata.
The feat says:
You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil).
So, as a neutral wizard, my understanding is that I can get the Azata, because that is one step toward chaotic, and one step toward good and I am allowed one step of each types.
Am I getting this right?
Or is it a problem that it says I should be chaotic good to get this familiar?
Thanks
The Azata has a specific restriction on it, specific overrides general. So, although the feat doesn't care, the Azata does. So no, you can't get the Azata.
Sorry.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, as a neutral wizard, my understanding is that I can get the Azata, because that is one step toward chaotic, and one step toward good and I am allowed one step of each types.
That's not how the "one step" rule works. "One step" means in either alignment direction, not both. So a NG or a CN character would be one step away from CG; a TN character is one step away from NG, LN, CN, and NE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, as a neutral wizard, my understanding is that I can get the Azata, because that is one step toward chaotic, and one step toward good and I am allowed one step of each types.That's not how the "one step" rule works. "One step" means in either alignment direction, not both. So a NG or a CN character would be one step away from CG; a TN character is one step away from NG, LN, CN, and NE.
The text quoted in OP says "one step away on each alignment axis"; the plain English understanding of this is that - barring other restrictions - a N caster can get any familiar.
|
|
The text quoted in OP says "one step away on each alignment axis"; the plain English understanding of this is that - barring other restrictions - a N caster can get any familiar.
Truth. Unfortunately, the chart on the SRD is deceptive, because certain of the familiars do have specific stated requirements, such as Voidworm familiars requiring that the caster by CN. The Lyrakien in question does state CG casters. As mdt indicated above, specific (stated in familiar description) trumps the general rule (one step on each axis).
I think the rules for Familiar and Alignment are just confusing.
1) The "step" rule works differently here than for the general Alignment rules (where diagonal count as 2 steps)
2) The table doesn't indicate any special restriction, creatures like Lyrakien just have their alignment listed along with others that don't have special restrictions
3) Then there are familiars like the Coral Capuchin from Skull & Shackles who, due to being introduced in an auxiliary product aren't listed on a table. They have a special rule stating they are available to casters with "an alignment within one step of Neutral" (or as appropriate for other similar cases). Is that one step by the normal Alignment rules (no diagonals), or one step by the rules mentioned in Improved Familiar (diagonals are OK)? I almost want to say the latter, but in that case no special mention is needed in the creature entry since the Familiar Alignment rule just functions off the Familiar's own Alignment. But since it was specially mentioned, I would have to say the general Alignment rule applies since nothing states otherwise.
On the plus side, Neutral spellcasters have the broadest array of choices by the general rule, when no further limitation applies.
Some good choices for non-evil Familiars: Sylvanshees, Pseudodragons, Elementals, Mephits, Nosoi (neutral only), and Dweomercat Cubs are interesting (especially with spells like Calcific Touch or Chill Touch).
|
|
So.. because it says here:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalMonsters/azata.html#_azata,-ly rakien
"A chaotic good 7th-level spellcaster can gain a lyrakien as a familiar if she has the Improved Familiar feat."
That trumps the fact that the azata is CG and one step toward chaotic, and one step toward good, which would (in other circumstances) be allowed.
Right?
Thanks
Yes, specific trumps general.
I fail to understand why that additional restriction was even added to these familiars.
Why can't we just go back to the old "one step away on each alignment axis" system that we had before?
Because an angel is not going to work for a neutral necromancer.
It's trumps general because not every creature can be a familiar.
When they state "An Nth level spellcaster /of X alignment/ can gain this creature as a familiar",
that isn't opening that creature as a familiar to /any/ spellcaster in general (using the general rule),
it's only opening up that creature as a choice of familiar for spellcasters of qualifying alignment (and level).
For everybody else, the creature is no more an option than any other creature within 1 step (per Familiar Step rule) but which isn't a familiar option (e.g. elder dragons, or major deities).
Although the general rule would allow adding them as a familiar if they were a valid familiar choice,
they aren't a valid familiar choice unless you have the alignment mentioned.
Because an angel is not going to work for a neutral necromancer.
Why not? The angel could try to redeem the guy while working for him.
If a player came up to me with such an idea for his character, I would allow it as the DM.
Well apparently all the angels in the Golarion setting disagree with you.
Because an angel is not going to work for a neutral necromancer.Why not? The angel could try to redeem the guy while working for him.
If a player came up to me with such an idea, I would allow it as the DM.
Because familiars don't get to refuse to do things, so no, they don't become familiars in the first place.
Well, I don't know if that's upheld by the rules or not, given the number of Familiars who have explicit text describing their pursuit of their own agenda and doing things the master doesn't want or not doing things the master wants, but definitely a different topic there :-)
I am still baffled about the additional Familiars whose description mentions "one step",
whether that is by the normal definition or should use the Improved Familiar definition.
If they just wanted to follow normal Familiar alingment rules they could say "an Nth level caster of compatable alignment"
and leave it to the standard Improved Familiar rules to determine that... but they didn't.
Still, it seems crazy to invoke a totally distinct rule for determining alignment steps without spelling that out.
|
|
The character is an emotionally detached elven wizard.
(not a necromancer at all by the way)
I would not consider him a dark themed character.
A Lyrakien would likely bring some chaos and joy to him, and eventually lead him toward an alignment change.
I just want to know if I can or not. This is a rule question, not a roleplay advice request.
Thank you.
|
|
Lyrakiens are on the updated Improved Familiar list, but with the sub-notation to refer to the original text. Thus, you use the rules in the original text. It's only on the IF list to show that it's an option. The original text specific rule still applies.
LazarX, where are you getting that Pseudodragons are within one step of Chaotic Good? They're a NG creature, always have been. You thinking Faerie Dragons?
As far as the One-Step rule, I would think it would be the same as a Cleric-Deity rule. If you can only go one step, that's one step. A diagonal is still two steps (one on each axis).
|
The original feat text reads:
Benefits:
When choosing a familiar, the creatures listed below are also available to you. You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil).
This feat allows two steps one in each direction.
|
|
LazarX, perhaps you shouldn't be using the d20pfsrd as your only source. It's different than the both the Ultimate Magic table and the PRD. You'll notice, if you look, that the alignment for each familiar candidate in the table matches its actual alignment, (except for the extraplanar animals). Finally, read the feat yourself and find the sentence:
When choosing a familiar, the creatures listed here are also available to you. You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil).
That is the general rule. That means, in general, you don't need to be the same alignment as the familiar.
|
|
LazarX, that is part of my point, though. On the Improved Familiar list, Pseudodragons are listed as available to Neutral Good, not Chaotic Good. But they're also available to other steps, depending on the will of the Pseudodragon. the "Within one step of Chaotic Good" text that you quoted is for Faerie Dragons. Faerie Dragons require no more boon than any of the other "sentient" familiars who have to be wooed.
The table lists the alignment of the creature, and where you start counting steps from on Familiars who allow steps.
Matthew Thomson: As far as Dire Rats, any spellcaster could take a Dire Rat familiar. Lacking specific text on their ability to be granted as a familiar restricting the alignment (see Lyrakien, Voidworm, etc. for examples), they follow the normal rule. Thus, like Elementals, Dire Rats can be up to one step away from TN on each axis.
Ambassador, I'd think possible explanations for the wording difference:
If you look at another example from that book:
A 7th-level spellcaster can gain a cacodaemon as a familiar if she has the Improved Familiar feat.
This one has no alignment restriction, meaning it defaults to general rules of one step on each axis from NE. If they mention specifically that they're available to spellcasters of specific alignments, they're available to those alignments. Full stop.
What would confuse me would be ones that say they are available to Neutral spellcasters, like the Carbuncle.
A neutral spellcaster with the Improved Familiar feat can gain a carbuncle as a familiar at 5th level.
Is that indicating TN only, or any Neutral alignment? Also, Bestiary 3 should be the accurate measurement, being more recent than AP volume 31, which was its first appearance.
|
|
So a neutral wizard could get an imp (lawful evil, one step on the law-chaos axis, and one step on the good-evil axis) because there are no restriction in the bestiary imp entry regarding the master alignment.
But a neutral wizard could not get a lyrakien (chaotic good, also one step on the law-chaos axis, and one step on the good-evil axis) because the lyrakien specifically says in the bestiary it's just for CG casters.
Make sense?
|
|
That's the way it appears to me, Elzedar. There might be a flavor reason it is so, as well. It's a little bit easier to tempt somebody down (evil familiar tempts downward) than to try and "redeem" somebody who isn't evil (good familiar tempts upward).
Agreed, not entirely logical, but that's the way the rules look.
|
|
Fair enough.
I will give you one example. The entry for a dire rat says neutral. It's alignment from the bestiary is neutral. Does that mean only neutral casters can take it as a familiar?
That is correct. Special familiars tend to be very idiosyncratic on who they will bind to.
A Druid however of any alignment can take it as an animal companion which is a different kettle of fish altogether.
This is incorrect, however, and possibly what coloured my perceptions. Nowhere in the Dire Rat entry does it imply that they are restricted for selection in ways other than the general rule.
The table listing is not the alignment of the creature but the acceptable alignment of the spellcaster who wants them.
This is also incorrect. The table listing on the PRD & Ultimate Magic list the alignment of the familiar. The d20pfsrd seems to include a mixture of both familiar alignments and acceptable caster alignments, without saying which is which.
|
|
Maybe it would help for you to actually read the Lyrakien entry. Nowhere does it say "a spellcaster who is not CG cannot have a Lyrakien familiar".By that reasoning, there are no restrictions at all, since the Improved Familiar feat as similar wording:
You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil).
It doesn't say that you may not choose any familiars with a different alignment!
I've found that the Pathfinder is a permissive ruleset in general, not a restrictive one. That is, they tell you what you can do, not what you cannot.
Maybe it would help for you to actually read the Lyrakien entry. Nowhere does it say "a spellcaster who is not CG cannot have a Lyrakien familiar".LazarX, perhaps you shouldn't be using the d20pfsrd as your only source. It's different than the both the Ultimate Magic table and the PRD. You'll notice, if you look, that the alignment for each familiar candidate in the table matches its actual alignment, (except for the extraplanar animals). Finally, read the feat yourself and find the sentence:And my point is that as mentioned earlier specific trumps general. The Lyrakien is a s specific exception to that general rule. Even so, a true neutral necromancer is more than one step away from chaotic good, no matter how you slice it.When choosing a familiar, the creatures listed here are also available to you. You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil).That is the general rule. That means, in general, you don't need to be the same alignment as the familiar.
When you get down to it, there's a lot more that the rules fail to say one cannot do than things it explicitly says one can do.
It doesn't say Fighters' CAN'T get animal companions. It just says Druids and Rangers CAN.
|
|
Maybe it would help for you to actually read the Lyrakien entry. Nowhere does it say "a spellcaster who is not CG cannot have a Lyrakien familiar".LazarX, perhaps you shouldn't be using the d20pfsrd as your only source. It's different than the both the Ultimate Magic table and the PRD. You'll notice, if you look, that the alignment for each familiar candidate in the table matches its actual alignment, (except for the extraplanar animals). Finally, read the feat yourself and find the sentence:And my point is that as mentioned earlier specific trumps general. The Lyrakien is a s specific exception to that general rule. Even so, a true neutral necromancer is more than one step away from chaotic good, no matter how you slice it.When choosing a familiar, the creatures listed here are also available to you. You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil).That is the general rule. That means, in general, you don't need to be the same alignment as the familiar.
Except that is what this debate is talking about. Under general rules, that would be true. But general rules apply to Familiars who don't have specific altered rules. The Lyrakien does say that it is available to Chaotic Good spellcasters. It does not say that it is available to any others.
The rule debate is does specific trump general, especially in the case of the Lyrakien. If you read it as Specific does trump, the Lyrakien does say that it is available to Chaotic Good spellcasters. Full stop, end of sentence. As opposed to those which call out, "Within One Step of Chaotic Good" (Faerie Dragon), or those which have no alignment ruling at all in the Familiar Text (Cacodaemon, Dire Rat, Elemental, etc.).
If Specific does not trump general, then the alignment mentions in the text of those Familiars that do have it is actually worthless. General rule would apply, which would mean spellcaster within one step each axis of the familiar's normal alignment.
Also, see the earlier point about different authors. Maybe they were written by different people, and so are worded differently. If we want a Dev answer, hit the FAQ button somewhere.
|
|
Maybe it would help for you to actually read the Lyrakien entry. Nowhere does it say "a spellcaster who is not CG cannot have a Lyrakien familiar".By that reasoning, there are no restrictions at all, since the Improved Familiar feat as similar wording:You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil).It doesn't say that you may not choose any familiars with a different alignment!
I've found that the Pathfinder rules are permissive, not restrictive, in that they tell you what you can do, not what you cannot.
No, that is another case of specific vs general: in this case, the general rule is that you can only select a familiar from the standard list of familiars. Improved Familiar is an exception, allowing you to select from a larger list if your alignment is within one step on each access. The IF feat is an exception in that it allows you to do something, anything it doesn't say you can do that you can't already do, you can't do.
The Arbiter entry has an even more specific ruling: you must be LN to take an arbiter familiar. This specifically contradicts the (more general) feat description. The Lyrakien entry makes no such exception.
Then, you are implying that the Pathfinder team just wasted text stating that Lyrakiens are available to chaotic good characters.
|
|
Then, you are implying that the Pathfinder team just wasted text stating that Lyrakiens are available to chaotic good characters.Maybe it would help for you to actually read the Lyrakien entry. Nowhere does it say "a spellcaster who is not CG cannot have a Lyrakien familiar".By that reasoning, there are no restrictions at all, since the Improved Familiar feat as similar wording:You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil).It doesn't say that you may not choose any familiars with a different alignment!
I've found that the Pathfinder rules are permissive, not restrictive, in that they tell you what you can do, not what you cannot.
No, that is another case of specific vs general: in this case, the general rule is that you can only select a familiar from the standard list of familiars. Improved Familiar is an exception, allowing you to select from a larger list if your alignment is within one step on each access. The IF feat is an exception in that it allows you to do something, anything it doesn't say you can do that you can't already do, you can't do.
The Arbiter entry has an even more specific ruling: you must be LN to take an arbiter familiar. This specifically contradicts the (more general) feat description. The Lyrakien entry makes no such exception.
+1 This
The specific rule does come into play. It says that a CG spellcaster can get them. If it were not restricted, then they would use wording similar to the Cacodaemon, same book. They wouldn't have written what they did if they didn't mean something by it.
A 7th-level spellcaster can gain a cacodaemon as a familiar if she has the Improved Familiar feat.
No restriction aside from general. If you're looking for every single thing to be spelled out in excruciating detail, these books are going to be about ten times as long and about 100 times harder to read. Also, a fair bit more expensive.
|
|
LazarX, that is part of my point, though. On the Improved Familiar list, Pseudodragons are listed as available to Neutral Good, not Chaotic Good. But they're also available to other steps, depending on the will of the Pseudodragon. the "Within one step of Chaotic Good" text that you quoted is for Faerie Dragons. Faerie Dragons require no more boon than any of the other "sentient" familiars who have to be wooed.
The table lists the alignment of the creature, and where you start counting steps from on Familiars who allow steps.
Matthew Thomson: As far as Dire Rats, any spellcaster could take a Dire Rat familiar. Lacking specific text on their ability to be granted as a familiar restricting the alignment (see Lyrakien, Voidworm, etc. for examples), they follow the normal rule. Thus, like Elementals, Dire Rats can be up to one step away from TN on each axis.
Ambassador, I'd think possible explanations for the wording difference:
Different Writers
Trying to avoid monotony If you look at another example from that book:
A 7th-level spellcaster can gain a cacodaemon as a familiar if she has the Improved Familiar feat.This one has no alignment restriction, meaning it defaults to general rules of one step on each axis from NE. If they mention specifically that they're available to spellcasters of specific alignments, they're available to those alignments. Full stop.
What would confuse me would be ones that say they are available to Neutral spellcasters, like the Carbuncle.
A neutral spellcaster with the Improved Familiar feat can gain a carbuncle as a familiar at 5th level.Is that indicating TN only, or any Neutral alignment? Also, Bestiary 3 should be the accurate measurement, being more recent than AP volume 31, which was its first appearance.
I agree,
I was not saying that there are no restrictions. I was being a bit rhetorical in my statement. These books were written by different authors at different times. The question I think everyone can agree on here is which rules trump when you have conflicting entries. In the lyrakians case, there is no "must be" in the text. Whereas others from the bestiarys do have that restriction. Also, ultimate magic was written after (I believe, correct me if I am wrong) bestiary 2 where the lyrakian entry is. So then does the updated IF list loosen the restrictions, and expand the familiar choices for spell casters, or does it simply increase the feats choices with existing restrictions in place.
I am arguing that in the case of ambiguous entries, such as the lyrakian, the greater choice allowed by the expanded IF list would win.
|
|
I hadn't noticed that the "one step" rule for familiars was different from the usual one that applies, for example, to a deity and their clerics. Personally, I think it makes sense for the same rule to apply because the relationship is similiar. A cleric is magically bound to their deity (through the receipt of spells) and serves their deity, but differences in personality and goals are allowed. In the case of the familiar, note how the Cacodaemon will sell its master's soul after death.
As for dev intent - the fact that the expanded IF list doesn't mention any exceptions to the normal familiar alignment restrictions, combined with the lack of stylistic synergy in the Bestiaries, makes me wonder if there are supposed to be any exceptions or if the Bestiary authors just went off in their own directions. It would have been very easy and much clearer to add a footnote to the table indicating familiars that had to exactly match or be within a standard "step" of their master's alignment.
So a neutral wizard could get an imp (lawful evil, one step on the law-chaos axis, and one step on the good-evil axis) because there are no restriction in the bestiary imp entry regarding the master alignment.
But a neutral wizard could not get a lyrakien (chaotic good, also one step on the law-chaos axis, and one step on the good-evil axis) because the lyrakien specifically says in the bestiary it's just for CG casters.
Make sense?
Nope. Even if it is easier to corrupt than to redeem, it doesn't mean that a Lyrakien would be unwilling to try the latter.