PFS Request for Rule Clarification: Summoner Unchained with evil subtype eidolon.


Pathfinder Society

The Exchange 2/5

I am not thrilled about doing this as I suspect I’m kicking a hornet’s nest, but I am looking for an official ruling as to whether a summoner (unchained) with an evil subtype eidolon is allowable in PFS. (e.g. a lawful neutral summoner with a devil subtype eidolon). I request a ruling for two reasons: (1) I do not want to have to rebuild my character later due to rule misinterpretation and (2) LWD Technologies Inc. (makers of Hero Lab) stated a formal ruling was needed before they will eliminate the error messages that come up when creating such a character with their software.

The conflict arises from two sections of the rules. First, page 9 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play it states that "No evil alignments are allowed in Pathfinder Society Organized Play." The second come from page 25 of Pathfinder Unchained which states “An eidolon must be within one alignment step of the summoner who calls it (so a neutral good summoner can call a neutral, lawful good, or chaotic good eidolon) . . . .” This was not an issue for summoners until the unchained summoner was mandated as the original class required the eidolon’s alignment match the summoner’s (APG p 55).

My interpretation of this issue would allow such characters based on the following presidents and arguments. First off, there are plenty of “evil” things allowed in PFS that do not breakdown the game although they do get debated frequently. Spells with an evil descriptor are allowed without impacting alignment (although the use of any spell in an evil manner could be an issue, as I understand it). Summoning demons and devils to do one’s bidding is a valid tactic (e.g. see Summon Monster lists, etc.). Neutral clerics who worship evil gods are playable as are diabolists (who are lawful neutral). Bloodlines which are reflective of traditionally evil subtypes are allowed (e.g. Infernal and Abyssal bloodlines for sorcerers and bloodragers). In light of this, playing a neutral summoner with an eidolon with of an evil subtype should be not any more of a problem than the examples above.

Banning evil subtypes eliminates a third of the available eidolon options. While it is impossible for anyone to read the mind for the intent of the game designers, similarity of wording between the rules for summoner/eidolon alignment and cleric/deity alignment make me suspect that no ban was intended.

In searching the forums, I have found most of the aforementioned examples have been a source of debate, mainly stemming from their potential interaction with the “no evil alignments” rule and fear that the game will be made unfriendly. I doubt this sort of arguing will ever be settled. The most damning counterargument I could find to a summoner with an evil subtype eidolon was concern about encountering players who play their eidolons as their characters and that this would allow an evil character to sneak in. In response to this I would say the problem stems from the actions of the player (see “don’t be a jerk”) and not the label of “evil”. In the end, ensuring characters are made in such a way that they can “explore, report and cooperate” with other characters, regardless of alignment, seems to be the best route to ensure everyone can have fun at the table.

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

My working assumption is that just as you are allowed to be a Neutral Cleric worshipping and Evil Deity, that you would be allowed to be a Neutral Summoner with an Evil Eidolon.

Without a PFS directive specifically stating otherwise I would allow this at my table without question.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

2 people marked this as a favorite.

1. I would assume that this would follow the same rules as nuetral clerics of evil deities and mages with evil familiars.

2. AR states that everything in the eidolon chapter is legal. If evil eidolons were banned, that would be where it would be stated.

I stand by my stance in earlier threads, that you are responsible for your eidolon, and if it commits evil acts, you are the one whose alignment will shift. (After all, you could send it back at any time, so you are effectively endorsing it's evil acts.)

3. Hero Lab is a really bad source for rules legality as they have a habit of inserting their editorial opinions into paizo rules without notice.

5/5

We've had neutral casters with evil improved familiars since campaign inception, I don't see this as any different from that.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

The discussion already erupted when unchained was released, but I was unaware of the error message in Herolab (my unchained summoner has a neutral eidolon, so no error message).

I think it should be legal, just like player character who summon demons and similar creatures (and we even a way to get an imp servant for a couple of PP), but the actions of the eidolon still affect the standing of the summoner.

If your evil eidolon wants to commit an evil act, the summoner as controller, will have to face the consequences, which might result in him needing an atonement or having an irredeemably evil character.

Of course the unchained eidolons can refuse actions based on their alignment and I expect GMs to be reasonable about this situation. This isn't really different than having a party with a paladin and a necromancer, we all have to try to be accommodating to other players.

Corner cases, like the NG skald not accepting the demon eidolon as an ally might happen, but this really isn't a new situation.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

FLite wrote:


3. Hero Lab is a really bad source for rules legality as they have a habit of inserting their editorial opinions into paizo rules without notice.

I agree, it is worth mentioning though, that they sometimes ask paizo directly and apply clarifications that way.

2/5

Pretty sure John is ok with having evil henchfolks for neutral pathfinders. Something about an otter or something...

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
FLite wrote:


3. Hero Lab is a really bad source for rules legality as they have a habit of inserting their editorial opinions into paizo rules without notice.

I agree, it is worth mentioning though, that they sometimes ask paizo directly and apply clarifications that way.

Understood, but that (for me) makes it worse.

Because of that, and because (as far as I can tell, not owning the program) they don't say when that happens versus when they have just changed something, I wind up having to deal with people asserting that Hero Lab is the definitive rules source, even when it is just flat wrong.

Silver Crusade 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

While Herolab is a wonderful tool, it is not an official rule source. If it isn't prohibited under Additional Resources, it is legal in PFS.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Brett Carlos wrote:
While Herolab is a wonderful tool, it is not an official rule source. If it isn't prohibited under Additional Resources, it is legal in PFS.

Actually, I thought it was the other way around - that is, if it wasn't permitted by the Additional Resources, then it is NOT legal.

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Mark Stratton wrote:
Brett Carlos wrote:
While Herolab is a wonderful tool, it is not an official rule source. If it isn't prohibited under Additional Resources, it is legal in PFS.
Actually, I thought it was the other way around - that is, if it wasn't permitted by the Additional Resources, then it is NOT legal.

Depends on which rules line your in. Generally the Pathfinder RPG line only lists what is prohibited. The Campaign Setting, Player Companion, and Adventure Path lines list only what is permitted.

Paizo Employee 4/5 Developer

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 12 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

The discussion already erupted when unchained was released, but I was unaware of the error message in Herolab (my unchained summoner has a neutral eidolon, so no error message).

I think it should be legal, just like player character who summon demons and similar creatures (and we even a way to get an imp servant for a couple of PP), but the actions of the eidolon still affect the standing of the summoner.

If your evil eidolon wants to commit an evil act, the summoner as controller, will have to face the consequences, which might result in him needing an atonement or having an irredeemably evil character.

Of course the unchained eidolons can refuse actions based on their alignment and I expect GMs to be reasonable about this situation. This isn't really different than having a party with a paladin and a necromancer, we all have to try to be accommodating to other players.

Corner cases, like the NG skald not accepting the demon eidolon as an ally might happen, but this really isn't a new situation.

Pretty much this.

An eidolon is an extension of the summoner, and both are basically extensions of the player. A summoner is accountabke for his eidolon's actions, and saying "But it's what my eidolon would do; he's evil" does not excuse the summoner*. I likewise have little sympathy for a player who uses an evil eidolon as a way to be a jerk while hiding behind the aegis of evil eidolons being allowed in the organized play campaign.

Evil eidolons: Yes, they're legal, but use them responsibly. It would not be the first time a evil option was legal and later revoked based on negative feedback.

*:
I have an augur kyton familiar for one character, and it tends to jump up and down on corpses and purr loudly. It doesn't murder orphans, deface operationing temples to good deities, or pick fights with paladins. There are ways to express dark themes without stomping on another player's fun.

4/5

FLite wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
FLite wrote:


3. Hero Lab is a really bad source for rules legality as they have a habit of inserting their editorial opinions into paizo rules without notice.

I agree, it is worth mentioning though, that they sometimes ask paizo directly and apply clarifications that way.

Understood, but that (for me) makes it worse.

Because of that, and because (as far as I can tell, not owning the program) they don't say when that happens versus when they have just changed something, I wind up having to deal with people asserting that Hero Lab is the definitive rules source, even when it is just flat wrong.

All GMs do the same thing: they interpret the rules (especially gray areas, which new resources always have) as best they can and "insert their editorial opinion" without notice.

Having someone say "but Hero Lab allows it" is no different than having someone say "but my last GM allowed it" or "but the Venture Captain said it was OK"--even when they are just flat wrong.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

pH unbalanced wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
Brett Carlos wrote:
While Herolab is a wonderful tool, it is not an official rule source. If it isn't prohibited under Additional Resources, it is legal in PFS.
Actually, I thought it was the other way around - that is, if it wasn't permitted by the Additional Resources, then it is NOT legal.
Depends on which rules line your in. Generally the Pathfinder RPG line only lists what is prohibited. The Campaign Setting, Player Companion, and Adventure Path lines list only what is permitted.

Are you sure about that? I just took a quick look, and most of what I see for the RPG line is a bunch of "...is legal for play." It wouldn't make sense to me that the rule for one line is "if it's not listed, it's legal" and then another rule for another product line that is "if it's not listed, it's prohibited."

I'm not trying to argue - but having two different sets of rules wouldn't make sense to me, honestly.

Silver Crusade 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks, John! :)

I am starting to want to play a summoner more and more.

evil eidolon:

Eidolon: Sits down next to injured NPC, takes out knife and fork, places a napkin in his lap, and begins licking his lips.
Summoner: George, put those away! We've talked about this! Do you want a repeat of what happened in Oppara? Don't make me put you in time out.

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Mark Stratton wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
Brett Carlos wrote:
While Herolab is a wonderful tool, it is not an official rule source. If it isn't prohibited under Additional Resources, it is legal in PFS.
Actually, I thought it was the other way around - that is, if it wasn't permitted by the Additional Resources, then it is NOT legal.
Depends on which rules line your in. Generally the Pathfinder RPG line only lists what is prohibited. The Campaign Setting, Player Companion, and Adventure Path lines list only what is permitted.

Are you sure about that? I just took a quick look, and most of what I see for the RPG line is a bunch of "...is legal for play." It wouldn't make sense to me that the rule for one line is "if it's not listed, it's legal" and then another rule for another product line that is "if it's not listed, it's prohibited."

I'm not trying to argue - but having two different sets of rules wouldn't make sense to me, honestly.

No, you are correct.

What I was thinking of when I said that was that the RPG line tends to say "everything except x, y, and z is legal" and the other lines tend to say "x, y, and z are legal," with the implication that everything else is prohibited.

But as you were saying, even in the RPG line there is a callout for the Chapter or category, it isn't completely silent. But it is true that the specifically legal items in the RPG line are usually implicit whereas the others do it explicit.

The reason for that is that the books in the RPG line are longer, so it takes fewer words to list the exceptions than the things that are allowed.

The Exchange 2/5

This was not intended to advocate Hero Lab as any sort of source of rule legality. Paizo is the one that determines what is or is not legal in PFS. That said, Hero Lab is a convenient tool for me and my wife. When I find what I interpret as errors in their program I let them know, and often enough they correct it. When rule questions come up at the tables I've played at, everyone reaches for their source books (shorter debates, more playing).

@ John Compton: Thank you for your time and prompt response!

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

John Compton wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
Not even a little graffiti? Maybe a "Kyton was here" tag?

Based on the mental image from the spoiler above, I think Kytons should turn out to be the immature form of another race of outsiders, called Kyats.

Silver Crusade 4/5

pH unbalanced wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
Brett Carlos wrote:
While Herolab is a wonderful tool, it is not an official rule source. If it isn't prohibited under Additional Resources, it is legal in PFS.
Actually, I thought it was the other way around - that is, if it wasn't permitted by the Additional Resources, then it is NOT legal.
Depends on which rules line your in. Generally the Pathfinder RPG line only lists what is prohibited. The Campaign Setting, Player Companion, and Adventure Path lines list only what is permitted.

Are you sure about that? I just took a quick look, and most of what I see for the RPG line is a bunch of "...is legal for play." It wouldn't make sense to me that the rule for one line is "if it's not listed, it's legal" and then another rule for another product line that is "if it's not listed, it's prohibited."

I'm not trying to argue - but having two different sets of rules wouldn't make sense to me, honestly.

No, you are correct.

What I was thinking of when I said that was that the RPG line tends to say "everything except x, y, and z is legal" and the other lines tend to say "x, y, and z are legal," with the implication that everything else is prohibited.

But as you were saying, even in the RPG line there is a callout for the Chapter or category, it isn't completely silent. But it is true that the specifically legal items in the RPG line are usually implicit whereas the others do it explicit.

The reasons for that is that the books in the RPG line are longer, so it takes fewer words to list the exceptions than the things that are allowed.

My point was simply that the Additional Resources page is the place where you can determine if something from a book is allowed or not in PFS.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / PFS Request for Rule Clarification: Summoner Unchained with evil subtype eidolon. All Messageboards

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