|
| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So I was wondering about something, I've yet to use or heck even print my kickstarter boon, because I've been feeling like the moment I use it I'm going to regret it and feel that it might have been a waste, but then a thought occurred to me, would it be possible to trade my kickstarter boon?
Now obviously the boon includes the line "Only one PC per player may gain the benefits of this boon." but assuming someone didn't back the kickstarter, would it not be possible to transfer the boon from myself to them?
Now normally, there shouldn't be an issue with trading boons, but the kickstarter boon is a little different, since it is watermarked with one's name and email, along with the date which it was downloaded, much like pdfs of paizo products, in order to prove that the boon is legitimate, and this is what leads me to believe that it may not be possible to transfer it to someone else, so I am asking, can the kickstarter boon be transferred to another player?
|
The problem there is muleback cords are cheap, and more effective.Hmmm.. getting that level 5 kitsune bucklebarder up to a 9 effective strength for carrying would save a lot of excel sheets..
But occupy the very important cloak slot. Even with a 14 wisdom and Bard dip my online macro for his will save is still
"Yes.. master...."
|
|
For the record, the only things my search for an official answer came up with was this thread, and someone asking this question in the thread Mike Brock announced the boon in, which was never answered by anyone, official or not.
This is why I started the thread, in an attempt to get an official answer because I myself could not find one. However, at least for myself it is moot now because I have already used my boon for the one-time advanced template.
|
Thread necromancy powers, activate!
Not to be a jerk, but, uh... [citation needed].No. It must belong to the person it's watermarked to.
Imagine if that weren't the case. You could print out a hundred and trade or sell them as you wished.
Other way around. You're going to need a citation that says you can use a Chronicle Sheet with someone else's name on it.
The default assumption, and general rule, is that if your name is on it, it's yours.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We seem to have a problem establishing status quo here, as you both seem to believe that you are arguing the side of the status quo, thus putting the burden of proof into the other players court.
SCPRedMage seems to believe that the status quo is simply that "boons can be traded" and there is evidence to support this.
Nefreet however seems to believe that the status quo is that "anything watermarked cannot be traded" and there is evidence to support this.
One could argue that both of these statements are the status quo, but in order to have an efficient argument, an agreement on status quo must first be reached. I would argue that both of these statements are status quo, and therefore one of them must hold more weight in the arguement then the other. Ultimately it is easier to confirm that the chronicle is legitimate if it stays in the hands of the person who it is watermarked for, since a screencap of the downloads could be provided if the GM wished. It would therefore be more difficult (but not impossible*) to prove that the boon was legitimately obtained if it is allowed to be traded, and therefore I believe that the burden of proof belongs to SCPRedMage.
|
|
@ SCPRedMage:
When you purchase a digital product, such as the Emerald Elixir boon, or any other PDFs from Paizo, they are watermarked with your name on them to show ownership. To show you bought it. If someone has a question, the watermark holds the answer. I assume this concept is well understood, yes?
If someone at my table cast Snowball (for example), I would ask for evidence that they owned Peoples of the North. If they showed me a PDF on their phone, or a printout, with someone else's watermark, I'm not going to allow them to cast Snowball. I assume this concept is well understood, yes?
Then why is the Emerald Elixir boon any different?
|
I'm not allowed to legally trade any of my other paizo pdfs, why would this one be different?
This was also pretty clearly intended as a reward for the person who helped out the kickstarter.
It's the only chronicle sheet that has a watermark, which seems to be a pretty clear indicator that it should be treated differently from other chronicle sheets.
|
|
For the same reason I don't need to provide a copy of the Additional Resources document in order to use it.
In order to utilize content from an Additional Resource, a player must have a physical copy of the Additional Resource in question, a name-watermarked Paizo PDF of it, or a printout of the relevant pages from it, as well as a copy of the current version of the Additional Resources list.
|
|
It's the only chronicle sheet that has a watermark, which seems to be a pretty clear indicator that it should be treated differently from other chronicle sheets.It's watermarked because Paizo's download system does that to EVERY PDF you download; it's a symptom of how they decided to distribute the chronicles, and can't be considered indicative of anything else.
*looks over every other Chronicle he's ever downloaded from Paizo*
Well, that's a false statement.
|
|
From a strictly legal point of view, there are 2 separate rights at play here.
Firstly, there is Paizo's copyright over the document itself, since the design of the boon sheet, the wording of the boon etc are the intellectual property of Paizo. This is only to be printed/reproduced in compliance with any license and/or restrictions given or imposed by the company. To the extent that the boons are meant to be limited to 1 per kickstarter supporter, it is not open to the supporter to allow more than 1 copy of his boon to be circulated or used. This does not by itself mean that the player cannot print one (and only one) copy of the boon and trade it.
The substance of the boon is a right awarded to the player/supporter, and the right thusly awarded is the property of the player. This is especially so because the boons are part of the package awarded to the kickstarter supporters, such that even if they were not the subject of a multi-lateral offer (accepted by the player giving their support and thus forming a legally-binding contract), they would still be the subject of an equitable interest (subject to relevant legal principles of inducement and reliance). In either event, the rights belong to the player to dispose of as they wish, subject to terms of the right themselves.
Which brings us to the final part of the analysis. What are the terms and restrictions on the right embodied by the boon? As a right that has already been given (past tense), it is not open for Paizo to retroactively change the terms of that right, once again because it was issued pursuant to a pre-existing promise to kickstarter supporters. The terms of that right must be ascertained in light of any words expressed about the right (i.e. the boon) that existed at the time of the right being granted, or if nothing had been specifically stated about an element of that right, then in light of what a reasonable person would have appreciated of the rights in light of comparable contemporaneous rights (which I propose in this case would refer to other boons in general, provided none of the words expressed about the kickstarter boon indicated that that they were in any way distinct from other boons).
Conclusion:
To the extent that other boons are generally tradeable, then unless there are pre-existing words about the boon (or in the boon themselves) that indicate (or at least suggest) that they are not tradeable, the boon (or more specifically, the right embodied in the boon) should be tradeable (subject to reproduction restrictions per the copyright of Paizo).
|
|
It's the only chronicle sheet that has a watermark, which seems to be a pretty clear indicator that it should be treated differently from other chronicle sheets.It's watermarked because Paizo's download system does that to EVERY PDF you download; it's a symptom of how they decided to distribute the chronicles, and can't be considered indicative of anything else.*looks over every other Chronicle he's ever downloaded from Paizo*
Well, that's a false statement.
Try "Every chronicle downloaded from your product download page." then.
If the download is on a blog post, it is not in your downloads.
By your definition, by the way, I would not be able to print out chronicle sheets for any scenario I own, and give the filled out chronicle to any of my players, as every such chronicle has my watermark on it.
|
It's the only chronicle sheet that has a watermark, which seems to be a pretty clear indicator that it should be treated differently from other chronicle sheets.It's watermarked because Paizo's download system does that to EVERY PDF you download; it's a symptom of how they decided to distribute the chronicles, and can't be considered indicative of anything else.*looks over every other Chronicle he's ever downloaded from Paizo*
Well, that's a false statement.
Just to play the devil's advocate, but the chronicles I printed out when I ran Destiny of the Sands II did actually have my watermark on them. Every other one I've printed out hasn't had that, and I assume that's because of the unique nature of that scenario's chronicle sheets. Both sides of this subject have merit. If these were super unique like charity auction boons, or the other boons that are extremely limited and have been confirmed to not be tradeable (fetchlings, goblins, etc.) I would be inclined to agree with you. I personally don't see anything wrong with trading an e-boon, like this one or the boon I picked up from Conline. If I were to do so I would print it out, write out "Pathfinder 12345 traded to Pathfinder 67890" and sign and date it, then send it to the person I'm trading it to. But that's my two cents, I don't really have a dog in this fight.
|
|
Now to see if you'll go far in your chosen profession, make the counter argument against yourself :)
Ha! XD Sure why not. But I'll only give the outlines for some potential counter-submissions (and my opinions on the strengths of those counter-submissions). I'll let someone else have the fun of making the full arguments if they want, and I'd be interested to see what other grounds another legal mind can find to raise in opposition to my views. I can't be the only legal-trained person on these boards. =p
1. The boons are a gratuitous gift and thus unenforceable (a weak argument, especially due to the uniformity of the distribution of the boon to supporters, the pre-existing promise of the boon to supporters and the nature of the support).
2. The principles of inducement and reliance mentioned in paragraph 3 of the previous submissions are not fulfilled in the circumstances (related to counter-argument 1, and is stronger as a strategy because it attacks the underlying enforceability of the right; the best way to argue this would be to draw attention to the fact that the contents of the boon were not - to the best of my knowledge - announced before the boons themselves were handed out. This would make it difficult for supporters in general to argue that they had an enforceable right to the boon as specifically worded, or an enforceable right to trade the boon since they could not have known or relied on the fact that the boon would be tradeable to begin with, since they could not have known whether or not the boon would include a line about it not being tradeable - however, this will have no bearing on whether or not the boons as they are presently are tradeable on their own merits/ by their very nature of being a boon).
3. The terms of the boons (or the associated rights) themselves. This would be a strong basis for a counter-argument if one could find the evidence to support it, by arguing that the kickstarter boons are by nature un-tradeable. Due to a pre-existing concession by Mike Brock in his capacity as "Global Organized Play Coordinator" that boons in general are disposable by the owner in any fashion they see fit, albeit that some ways are particularly frowned upon, this can probably only be achieved by arguing that the kickstarter boons are distinct from general boons, and specifically distinct in such a way that renders them untradeable; a pre-existing statement by an authorised person could suffice, but would need to have been published in a sufficiently prominent manner - with sufficiency being argued on the facts as the case may be.
4. Related to point 3, an argument could be made that because PFS organised play has a history of rule amendments and clarifications and regularly-changing circumstances, a regular player would reasonably expect that any boon and/or its terms are subject to amendment and discontinuation upon announcement. This argument could open the possibility of Paizo making a subsequent restriction on the trading of boons, but is undermined by the potential contractual/equitable nature of the interests arising from the fact that the boon was promised and given only to kickstarter supporters in return for their support (but c.f. point 2 above).
5. Again with reference to point 2, there is the issue of appropriate remedy and the merit of bringing a case in the first place. (Disclaimer: I do not know the facts of this case well enough, so I may be wrong on the facts for this argument.) To the extent that the promise to kickstarter supporters was of an unspecified boon (hence the preceding disclaimer), and that the kickstarter boon was only one of several goodies offered to supporters (again c.f. the preceding disclaimer), even if it was found that a supporter had a contractual or equitable right to his or her boon, it could be argued that substitution of the boon as given with another boon would be a sufficient remedy, provided it was a boon of some material utility. To that end, substitution of the boon with an identical but specifically untradeable boon (or effectively doing so by way of declaration that the boon is untradeable) would result in no practical loss to the supporter, thus making it impractical to even raise it as a legal issue in the first place. As with point 4, this is more about whether Paizo can declare the boons untradeable rather than whether or not they are presently tradeable, and moreover it's more an argument on legal strategy rather than legal principle.
|
|
Does anyone have one left? I'm still trying to find someone with one unused to be at a table with them. At Gencon maybe.
I haven't used mine, yet, but not going to be at GenCon, still trying to get my vacation days at work fixed (my shift at work just had a massive change applied to it, different days off) so I can make it to PaizoCon this year.