Faction Journal Cards

This campaign is not about killing evil creatures

The campaign is very much about killing evil creatures. The entire World Wound campaign is about killing evil creatures. Evil creatures want to do evil, that is incompatible with good.

The Society tolerates evil creatures because it's a means to an end.

Our PCs are not allowed to kill them because they are evil. The campaign explicitly encourages players to make characters with a darker theme by having a faction that encourages and rewards such behavior.

That's true, to an extent, but PFS has absolutely banned evil PCs.

And said boon had already switched the character in question two steps towards Lawful Evil from Chaotic Neutral(So LN), in that very scenario.

I think you're missing my point. PFS is a contrivance. That contrivance is that characters have to team up with whomever is at the table and they can't kill them. If not for this contrived state of the game, there's no way characters would put up with a lot of the nonsense I read about on the forums. Characters who pull shenanigans would quickly develop a reputation within the Society and no one would work with them. Remember, the Society is not a military and no member is technically obligated to go any particular mission with anyone...but PFS compels this..

Killing a PC because they made a deal with an evil creature is very blatantly against the rules of PFS.

That's right, it's an OOC rule that is imposed upon players.

It is not uncommon for a scenario or faction goal to actively promote such behavior.

It is totally uncommon for a faction to solicit membership from evil individuals Just because one or two factions may occasionally have a mission like this does not make it common in PFS. Once again, PFS creates the contrived situation where characters from arguably incompatible factions are forced to team up.

All the other PCs received full rewards for the adventure and were not penalized in any way, shape, or form.***and there were no Silver Crusade PCs present.***

If that's true, then I have no problem with what you did. I do believe because it is a game, if a character can get a boon/benefit for doing X, then other players should not use roleplaying as a justification to preclude/sabotage that.

I honestly thought the other Players would be pleased at a creative solution that saved us some time with no mechanical downside.

I would as well...but I can see how that would also be dependent on my character's motivation.

Short version is based on your side of the story, I don't have a problem with it...providing there was no penalty for the other players.

** spoiler omitted **

That was not how it was ran for us. I thought that might be the case, and was ready to void my contract if needed, and said as much to the other players and GM. We found another way to bypass the spell that was causing that feature. I don't know if the GM changed thing, of if what you mentioned was just one way around that problem. If that was the case it would have been an easy solution to our disagreement, so I'd be surprised if our Venture Lt. choose to change things just to let me get away with what I did.

Edited post because it was too combative.

I disagree with your interpretation of the society and the campaign.

Pathfinder is often about good versus evil. Pathfinder Society is not one of those campaigns. The Pathfinders and not a good aligned organization. The entire Worldwound Arc was not about killing evil creatures. It was about making allies to help us fight our way into the Worldwound so that we could loot a dwarven sky citadel no one else had looted yet. Had that not been involved, the Pathfinders would have had no reason to help out the Crusade.

Nothing actually forces your character to go on missions with PCs they do not like. Your character is completely free to turn down the mission and not play. You still play because you and your character want to, because your PC is a member of an organization that doesn't tolerate or accept someone who would refuse to cooperate with their fellow Pathfinders while on a mission.

The reason PFS has banned evil character is not because the Society rejects evil characters, it is because having an evil alignment has been used very often as an excuse not to play well with the others at the table. It's to promote unity and cooperation, OOC mostly, not to punish wickedness.

he reason PFS has banned evil character is not because the Society rejects evil characters, it is because having an evil alignment has been used very often as an excuse not to play well with the others at the table. It's to promote unity and cooperation, not to punish wickedness.

oh come on, we all know its because the ten didn't want the competition... :)

Wow getting a hostile evil creature that had two allies to give you a minute to use diplomacy had to be tough. That's a DC 32 diplomacy to get it to indifferent, so that you can then try to recruit it. Plus actually making the roll to recruit it to the archive is quite impressive. Adding that with a 16th level caster using dispel magic in order to get that creature out so it could serve the Dark Archive.

Quite impressive.

As long as the majority of the party was ok with not getting the boss battle (which is what a lot of players enjoy in dungeon crawl adventures like emerald spire) then cool.

N N 959 wrote:

Edited post because it was too combative.

I disagree with your interpretation of the society and the campaign.

Pathfinder is often about good versus evil. Pathfinder Society is not one of those campaigns. The Pathfinders and not a good aligned organization. The entire Worldwound Arc was not about killing evil creatures.

The very fabric of D&D is good vs evil. Sure, evil campaigns are possible, but the core of the game is good vs evil.

The Society could have also made deals with evil creatures to secure those same resources. There's no way Silver Crusade is going to ally itself with an evil organization. Evil and Good do not work together. Sure, there are missions where the morality is in question. Sure, there are missions where PCs are killing without provocation, but nobody does evil acts as an intended outcome. Nobody kills good npcs nor do we ever have a mission to kill good NPCS. We certainly have those missions to kill evil ones. OOC, PFS fronts as an organization about artifacts, but at a casual level, I've done far more killing of evil NPCs than I have of collecting artifacts.

It was about making allies to help us fight our way into the Worldwound so that we could loot a dwarven sky citadel no one else had looted yet.

That's called a hook and merely an excuse to have players killing demons, not making deals with them.

I'll say this now and I'll repeat it later, good and evil cannot work together within the rules and boundaries of Pathfinder if evil actually plays evil. The Society at the PC level is unquestionably a good organization. Off camera politics do nothing to change that.

Nothing actually forces your character to go on missions with PCs they do not like.

That's actually false. The scarcity of opportunity forces players at their local game store to sit and endure players and even GMs they'd rather not play with. If you leave a scenario in the middle because some player is doing something you don't agree with, you will probably get zero XP and minimal goal. Characters are penalized for leaving the game and they aren't allowed to kick out or attack the PC who they don't agree with.

Even in PbP games where you don't have to drive home if you miss a game, people will take anything they get. OOC players are compelled to tolerate things on a level that would NEVER be tolerated in real life. Go read some books about Vietnam. It was not unheard of for soldiers to shoot their Commanding Officer in the back if the CO ordered them into suicide crossfires. The point being is that when there is no police enforcing the law, you piss people off and that could be it for that PC. That's never going to happen in a game like PFS.

The reason PFS has banned evil character is not because the Society rejects evil characters, it is because having an evil alignment has been used very often as an excuse not to play well with the others at the table. It's to promote unity and cooperation, OOC mostly, not to punish wickedness.

We have problem with unity and cooperation when people play all non-evil characters. This entire thread is testament to that. The lack of evil characters does not preclude the very problems you mention. Society is unmistakably about good because OOC the Society has to be about good. OOC PFS rejects evil players because moms and dads would not condone their kids playing a game where the kids are exposed to moral depravity. PFS cannot have evil characters because OOC PFS would be hard pressed to stop players from committing morally offensive acts with their characters. Just imagine what would happen if some 14 year old girl was exposed to the type of things a bunch of adults playing evil characters might do. Imagine what happens if the local news station decides to report on it? I saw D&D get on the bad side of the local PTA as a kid.

More to the point, evil and good are not compatible unless evil chooses not to act evil. If you want to play neutral characters who are actually evil, PFS is not the place for it. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, I'm just speaking from my own observations. And about half of my characters would never team with Cheliax/Dark Archives if I wasn't compelled to do it as a player. So the fact that players get to be members of the Society and do dark deals with the rest of the party just having to tolerate it, is a contrivance.

All that said, I still don't have a problem with what you did since you claim the party agreed to it OOC.

Why would there be an organization devoted to using the Pathfinder Society for good aligned goals, if the society was already good aligned.

Wanting to play is a choice. you could find other people to play with, or not play.

Good Aligned NPCs have been set up as enemies to fight in multiple Scenarios.

I don't think either of us is going to be convinced by the other on the nature of the society. I suggest you actually do some research on what Paizo has published about the Pathfinder Society before state that the PFS campaign is about good vs evil. And Pathfinder as a system is not about good vs evil. The core rules provide all the tools to run a campaign that is evil vs good, if you wish to do so.

There is an entire special scenario where you are tasked to steal, blackmail, and extort the competition in an auction so that the Pathfinders can win it.

I'm not saying the society is an evil organization, just that it's definitely not a good one.

There is an entire special scenario where you are tasked to steal, blackmail, and extort the competition in an auction so that the Pathfinders can win it.

Who is the competition? A neutral/evil organization or the Sisters of the Poor?

I agree that OOC, PFS portrays the Society as not ostensibly "good". But we are not even in the same ball park as the Aspis consortium and the activities of the PCs don't cross the evil boundary....they can't because if they did, then any random Paladin would have to atone and OOC PFS would never set up a players to fail like that. And yes, I'm aware that some scenarios have to be dealt with delicately if you're a Paladin, but no mission that I'm aware of would require a Paladin to fall if completed successfully. Is there one? I know I've heard a few GMs try to claim it as so, but never have I seen John Compton say a mission could not be completed by a Paladin without needing atonement.

If the none of missions can cause a Paladin to fall, then the average alignment of the Society would have to be closer to good than neutral as every good mission would never be counterbalanced.

EDIT:
How do you feel about the use of the Faction Journal Cards to promote the faction system compared with the old techniques/missions?

0-14 (The Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch) comes really close.

It's pretty much impossible to succeed at a couple of the missions as written (intended) as a paladin. The overall mission can be a success but it results in either a very minute financial reward for the PCs or requires significantly liberal interpretation of the Creative Solutions rules.

Just ran a scenario last night where the PCs deliberately have to leave an evil NPC they confront alone, or suffer potentially serious consequences.

My players were not happy about that, but they saw why it had to be.

Victor Zajic wrote:

There is an entire special scenario where you are tasked to steal, blackmail, and extort the competition in an auction so that the Pathfinders can win it.

Who is the competition? A neutral/evil organization or the Sisters of the Poor?

I agree that OOC, PFS portrays the Society as not ostensibly "good". But we are not even in the same ball park as the Aspis consortium and the activities of the PCs don't cross the evil boundary....they can't because if they did, then any random Paladin would have to atone and OOC PFS would never set up a players to fail like that. And yes, I'm aware that some scenarios have to be dealt with delicately if you're a Paladin, but no mission that I'm aware of would require a Paladin to fall if completed successfully. Is there one? I know I've heard a few GMs try to claim it as so, but never have I seen John Compton say a mission could not be completed by a Paladin without needing atonement.

If the none of missions can cause a Paladin to fall, then the average alignment of the Society would have to be closer to good than neutral as every good mission would never be counterbalanced.

EDIT:
How do you feel about the use of the Faction Journal Cards to promote the faction system compared with the old techniques/missions?

Only one of the competitors is known to be an evil group when the mission is given, and you are blatantly sent to rob said evil organization. I played that scenario as a good leaning cleric recently and I had to go out of my way to justify my characters actions in character.

My paladin has to very often somewhat undermine the mission parameters in order to keep true to his ideals. the PFS campaign is actually very poorly suited to paladin PCs. And I've played in many games with paladins where I definitely would have called for atonement afterwards if

The society isn't morally bankrupt, but morality is not their goal. PCs are only sent to do noble things when the society has something concrete to gain from it.
I adore the new faction journal system.

Only one of the competitors is known to be an evil group when the mission is given, and you are blatantly sent to rob said evil organization.

I thoughts so. Doing anything to hamper an evil organization is generally a good deed.

the PFS campaign is actually very poorly suited to paladin PCs.

The entire D&D/Pathfinder team concept is poorly suited for Paladins. Paizo has had to go out of its way to lower bar for Paladin behavior compared to AD&D and even 3.5. Self-Righteous individuals are poorly suited for any group activity with people who don't share identical or even similar values. Teamwork requires compromise and Paladins, as a class, are the most inflexible of the classes. I'm not saying that they are inflexible, just comparatively the least flexible.

The society isn't morally bankrupt, but morality is not their goal..

On this we agree. Morality is too nebulous and arguably self-contradictory in a world where alignments represent absolutes. In other words, mapping our real world morality to the world of Pathfinder leads to nonsensical outcomes, imo.

I am very pleased to hear you adore the new faction systems. I too think it represents a huge improvement.

Just ran a scenario last night where the PCs deliberately have to leave an evil NPC they confront alone, or suffer potentially serious consequences.

My players were not happy about that, but they saw why it had to be.

Right, they were not happy about it because they perceive themselves on the side of good, which opposes evil. Most players and their characters are motivated to wipe out evil. The Pathfinder Society is filled with do-gooders. OOC, players generally seem themselves as good. If you're going to help out evil, most players will try and stop that.

kinevon wrote:

Just ran a scenario last night where the PCs deliberately have to leave an evil NPC they confront alone, or suffer potentially serious consequences.

My players were not happy about that, but they saw why it had to be.

Right, they were not happy about it because they perceive themselves on the side of good, which opposes evil. Most players and their characters are motivated to wipe out evil. The Pathfinder Society is filled with do-gooders. OOC, players generally seem themselves as good. If you're going to help out evil, most players will try and stop that.

Oh, it wasn't helping out evil, it just was not the evil they were there to confront.

Shifty wrote:

The new Dark Archive is great, the Chelish elements aren't really there though - its really now just a fantastic choice for arcane casters, but not sure who else would join. I can see a few of the 'sponsor a player to your faction' being ticked over the next while as people faction swap.

while it is possible that players may be using the "sponsor a character" option - I'm going to bet more people will just use the free faction change the season.

which makes me wonder - how many people have seen someone wanting to use the "free faction change for season 6" on a PC that started AFTER the start to the season?

I kind of wish the SPONSOR could pay part (or all) of the cost for a PC switching. you know, kind of like:

"I am calling in a few favors and putting my reputation on the line by sponsoring you Magot! Don't mess up and make me look bad for recruiting you!"

Anyone else notice that the Sponsor options went away from the new faction cards?

We are now in season seven so unless I have missed something there are no free faction changes. The guild guide team probably should look at removing the season six free faction change from the next guide. ( that Trade Prince fellow is getting far too much influence in the society for my liking)

also since it required massive prestige points to do it no one ever did it. You couldnt free change with that goal.

also since it required massive prestige points to do it no one ever did it. You couldnt free change with that goal.

I actually had two that changed using Sponsers...

also since it required massive prestige points to do it no one ever did it. You couldnt free change with that goal.

I actually paid for a change myself, even though I had a free change. The player had a good sales pitch and I figured I'd help him out.

I dusted off an old character I'm unlikely to play again and had them use their free faction change to join the silver crusade, then pay to join the dark archive to get someone the recruiter box in a dungeon where they otherwise couldn't have gotten anything because the paladin went all palidiny on one of the things they go all paladiny on.

So this character has now been a member of the lantern lodge (a cult of the lantern king!), the scarzini, the exchange (by default), the silver crusade (for laughs), and now the dark archives.

Regarding whether the Society is "good" or "neutral" I think they are pretty obviously neutral. If you look at the reasons that Venture Captains give to Pathfinders in briefings, it is almost always "We're having you do this thing so we can get access to some loot." As a whole, PFS adopts a pragmatic utilitarian philosophy. Within that whole you have the various factions with their own motive. Some of them are of moral dubiousness, like The Exchange and The Dark Archives (and maybe Sovereign Court), while others are explicitly "good" (Silver Crusade and Liberty's Edge, although the latter also includes, for instance, pissed-off neutrals). The Grand Lodge, the default faction that represents the "generic" Pathfinder is morally neutral. Grand Lodgers might be good, or they might not care; they work for the Grand Lodge because they like to travel and find cool treasure. Grand Lodge seems to me like Indiana Jones personified as a faction.

We are now in season seven so unless I have missed something there are no free faction changes. The guild guide team probably should look at removing the season six free faction change from the next guide. ( that Trade Prince fellow is getting far too much influence in the society for my liking)

As part of a discuss elsewhere that involved Mike Brock, there are cases where a character has not been played since Season 6 started, and is still eligible for this change, hence keeping the language.

Merisal The Risen wrote:

We are now in season seven so unless I have missed something there are no free faction changes. The guild guide team probably should look at removing the season six free faction change from the next guide. ( that Trade Prince fellow is getting far too much influence in the society for my liking)

As part of a discuss elsewhere that involved Mike Brock, there are cases where a character has not been played since Season 6 started, and is still eligible for this change, hence keeping the language.

True

May need a line adding that's what spelling out those characters that have not played isince season six also get a free faction change.

Some questions:

1) On the Grand Lodge card, can you get credit for the first goal when visiting the same nation twice, as long as you check boxes on different seasons' cards? (ie can I check that box off for the season 6 card for playing a scenario in Taldor and then check a box for the same goal on the season 7 card for playing a different scenario set in Taldor?)

2) On the Grand Lodge card, do demi-planes with civilizations in them qualify for the "adventure in a nation other than Absalom" goal? How about places that aren't nations, such as the Gloomspires (Hall of the Flesheaters) or where the entire adventure takes place at sea (Murder on the Throaty Mermaid)?

3) On the Grand Lodge card, can you check the "adventure in a nation other than Absalom" box on one season and check another box on a different season's card?

4) On the Liberty's Edge card, for the "fail a save vs a compulsion, succeed at a subsequent save" goal, does another player using an ability to replace your save (eg, countersong) qualify for this goal? How about another player doing something that automatically ends the effect (casting a spell such as Calm Emotions)?

5) On the Scarab Sages card, how do you identify how to permanently destroy a haunt? Haunts always have a description on how to permanently destroy them, but it's never been clear on how to do that. A Knowledge(Religion) check?

6) On the Sovereign Court card, for the Confidante reward, if a bard has Versatile Performance for Diplomacy, can he use his ranks in the Perform skill being used for Diplomacy, or is he restricted to just receiving the +2 bonus?

7) On the Sovereign Court card, can you check the "don't reveal your faction affiliation when you achieve one of the above goals" goal for one season when checking the box for an identical "above goal" on a different season's card?

8) On the The Exchange card, does banking money for the Investor Reward prevent you from checking the "Earn 50+ gold on a day job" goal?

Some questions:

1) On the Grand Lodge card, can you get credit for the first goal when visiting the same nation twice, as long as you check boxes on different seasons' cards? (ie can I check that box off for the season 6 card for playing a scenario in Taldor and then check a box for the same goal on the season 7 card for playing a different scenario set in Taldor?)

2) On the Grand Lodge card, do demi-planes with civilizations in them qualify for the "adventure in a nation other than Absalom" goal? How about places that aren't nations, such as the Gloomspires (Hall of the Flesheaters) or where the entire adventure takes place at sea (Murder on the Throaty Mermaid)?

3) On the Grand Lodge card, can you check the "adventure in a nation other than Absalom" box on one season and check another box on a different season's card?

4) On the Liberty's Edge card, for the "fail a save vs a compulsion, succeed at a subsequent save" goal, does another player using an ability to replace your save (eg, countersong) qualify for this goal? How about another player doing something that automatically ends the effect (casting a spell such as Calm Emotions)?

5) On the Scarab Sages card, how do you identify how to permanently destroy a haunt? Haunts always have a description on how to permanently destroy them, but it's never been clear on how to do that. A Knowledge(Religion) check?

6) On the Sovereign Court card, for the Confidante reward, if a bard has Versatile Performance for Diplomacy, can he use his ranks in the Perform skill being used for Diplomacy, or is he restricted to just receiving the +2 bonus?

7) On the Sovereign Court card, can you check the "don't reveal your faction affiliation when you achieve one of the above goals" goal for one season when checking the box for an identical "above goal" on a different season's card?

8) On the The Exchange card, does banking money for the Investor Reward prevent you from checking the "Earn 50+ gold on a day job" goal?

1. yes, you can.

Some questions:

1) On the Grand Lodge card, can you get credit for the first goal when visiting the same nation twice, as long as you check boxes on different seasons' cards? (ie can I check that box off for the season 6 card for playing a scenario in Taldor and then check a box for the same goal on the season 7 card for playing a different scenario set in Taldor?)

Sure.

2) On the Grand Lodge card, do demi-planes with civilizations in them qualify for the "adventure in a nation other than Absalom" goal? How about places that aren't nations, such as the Gloomspires (Hall of the Flesheaters) or where the entire adventure takes place at sea (Murder on the Throaty Mermaid)?

The Hao Jin tapestry has at least two independent city-states in it. I'd let the tapestry count.

3) On the Grand Lodge card, can you check the "adventure in a nation other than Absalom" box on one season and check another box on a different season's card?

"Checking one of this goal’s boxes does not prevent you from checking one box for a different goal." Doesn't say the other goal has to be on the same card.

4) On the Liberty's Edge card, for the "fail a save vs a compulsion, succeed at a subsequent save" goal, does another player using an ability to replace your save (eg, countersong) qualify for this goal? How about another player doing something that automatically ends the effect (casting a spell such as Calm Emotions)?

I'd allow countersong, but not Calm Emotions. Countersong looks enough like a second save to me.

5) On the Scarab Sages card, how do you identify how to permanently destroy a haunt? Haunts always have a description on how to permanently destroy them, but it's never been clear on how to do that. A Knowledge(Religion) check?

Unclear. The Knowledge check rules for haunts are vague. If the GM doesn't allow "how do we destroy it" as a question, try "how do we find out how to destroy it" for a lead?

The knowledge rules say that you can make a check to know something useful, and more if you exceed the DC by 5+. It doesn't give difficulties for haunts, but there's no reason you can't use knowledge on haunts otherwise. I recommend using the same DCs as for creatures, i.e. based on CR.

6) On the Sovereign Court card, for the Confidante reward, if a bard has Versatile Performance for Diplomacy, can he use his ranks in the Perform skill being used for Diplomacy, or is he restricted to just receiving the +2 bonus?

Just the +2 bonus, Versatile Performance doesn't replace skill ranks.

7) On the Sovereign Court card, can you check the "don't reveal your faction affiliation when you achieve one of the above goals" goal for one season when checking the box for an identical "above goal" on a different season's card?

"Fulfill one of the goals above without revealing your faction affiliation to anyone other than a present or future

I would say no, stuff on the other card is not above the goals on one.

8) On the The Exchange card, does banking money for the Investor Reward prevent you from checking the "Earn 50+ gold on a day job" goal?

I'd allow that.

---

And remember this:

For GMs: By design, the Faction Journal Cards include a variety of goals, some which include very precise instructions and some that rely on interpretation. This is to allow PCs to have many opportunities to fulfill these goals, rather than forcing them to play a specific adventure to complete their cards. Err on the side of leniency when ruling whether or not a PC fulfilled a faction

objective; for example, defeating an undead creature does not necessarily mean striking the killing blow, and someone who actively contributes to the combat almost certainly qualifies. Any skill check DCs associated with a goal are independent of and do not completely replace any other DCs that appear in a scenario.

I know how to destroy a haunt for the Scarab Sages. I already did it twice a few months back. I can tell you, mechanically, how to destroy haunt. Although this do count as spoiler, yet it doesn't really change from Haunt to Haunt on the process of how to destroy a haunt.

Mirza: suppressing a haunt with positive energy isn't the same as permanently destroying it. Positive energy just shuts it down for a day.

Many haunts in adventures are side effects of the BBEG. Winning the adventure often ends the haunt, or is at least a necessary step to it.

Mirza: suppressing a haunt with positive energy isn't the same as permanently destroying it. Positive energy just shuts it down for a day.

Many haunts in adventures are side effects of the BBEG. Winning the adventure often ends the haunt, or is at least a necessary step to it.

Haunts basically function like Spooky Traps that require roleplaying/rolls/research on how to destroy one.

Also no, they are not always directly tied to the big bad.

Well yes there is the neutralization of a Haunt so you can turn it off temporarily. Knowledge Religion checks don't tell you how to destroy a haunt, just how to neutralize it. To neutralize, blast it with postitive energy or Holy Water. That is the easy part.

Then comes the part people are stuck on. The destruction requirement is a puzzle or a riddle rather than an encounter for fighting. If you understand what CAUSED a haunt to be what it is, you will have not as much trouble destroying it as long as you have a good head on your shoulders filled with common sense.

A good idea is to make make a perception check to notice it before it triggers and get an idea for what makes the haunt what it is. Then blast it with postitive energy to turn it off and make it a safe area. From there the party can make plans on how to destroy a haunt as haunts usually take about a day to reset like a trap.

Each Haunt has its own unique requirements for how to destroy it. Such as repairing a gate and sprinkling some holy water on it. Think like a Ghostbuster.

Okay, I totally agree with that. I misunderstood your previous post, I thought you were saying you know how to destroy any arbitrary haunt. But they all have different destruction requirements, so.

What does trip up people is that the haunt mechanics aren't widely understood, or perfectly clear for that matter.

- The knowledge check to know anything] about a haunt is problematic, because there's no directly applicable rule to determine DC, or give indication on what kind of questions you can ask. The nearest analog is knowledge checks for monsters.
- The Gamemastery Guide has some rules for haunts, including that every direct effect counts as a mind-affecting fear effect and that fear immunity shields you from the direct effects; even if those are normally physical spells. This is something many GMs don't know, and it's rather mysterious how to handle it if the haunt summons monsters for example. Can a L3+ paladin even see or fight the monsters?

I think this issue with knowledge of the rules hamstrings players in interacting with haunts, leading to reduced agency and irritation.

If you want to be gentle with players and not create a headache. Give them a Knowledge check like Religion, Local, History, Nobility, etc to determine how to destroy a Haunt.

If the GM and players are willing to roleplay. They can conduct seances, play charades "knock once for yes, knock twice for no", have the ghost write words with blood on a wall, etc.

Also don't forget that Speak With Haunt is a 4th level spell for Priests/Witches and a 3rd level spell for Shamans.

You can ask a Haunt some questions without triggering it. You can ask it how it is triggered and one of these questions CAN be "How do we destroy your haunt?" Just keep in mind that the answers it gives tend to be brief, cryptic and/or repetitive.

TheFlyingPhoton wrote:

5) On the Scarab Sages card, how do you identify how to permanently destroy a haunt? Haunts always have a description on how to permanently destroy them, but it's never been clear on how to do that. A Knowledge(Religion) check?

Unclear. The Knowledge check rules for haunts are vague. If the GM doesn't allow "how do we destroy it" as a question, try "how do we find out how to destroy it" for a lead?

The knowledge rules say that you can make a check to know something useful, and more if you exceed the DC by 5+. It doesn't give difficulties for haunts, but there's no reason you can't use knowledge on haunts otherwise. I recommend using the same DCs as for creatures, i.e. based on CR.

Because haunts are not monsters, the monster knowledge rules don't apply. The best method to determine how to destroy a haunt is probably the speak with haunt spell. In my experience a common method is to bury/consecrate the remains of any creatures whose deaths may have caused the haunt.

I asked about haunts because how to permanently destroy it is unique to the haunt. Using Knowledge(Religion) to identify that seemed equivalent to using Knowledge(Local) to know a human NPC's feats and where their skill ranks are invested.

TheFlyingPhoton wrote:

2) On the Grand Lodge card, do demi-planes with civilizations in them qualify for the "adventure in a nation other than Absalom" goal? How about places that aren't nations, such as the Gloomspires (Hall of the Flesheaters) or where the entire adventure takes place at sea (Murder on the Throaty Mermaid)?

The Hao Jin tapestry has at least two independent city-states in it. I'd let the tapestry count.

Here John Compton said that we should use the entries in the Inner Sea World Guide as a guideline, so I'm not sure I would allow the Hao Jin Tapestry to count (though if I did I would treat the entire tapestry as one 'nation').

I asked about haunts because how to permanently destroy it is unique to the haunt. Using Knowledge(Religion) to identify that seemed equivalent to using Knowledge(Local) to know a human NPC's feats and where their skill ranks are invested.

IMO you can't use a knowledge skill check to determine those things about a human (or really any abilities derived from a class and not from a race).

If you want to be gentle with players and not create a headache. Give them a Knowledge check like Religion, Local, History, Nobility, etc to determine how to destroy a Haunt.

If the GM and players are willing to roleplay. They can conduct seances, play charades "knock once for yes, knock twice for no", have the ghost write words with blood on a wall, etc.

Also don't forget that Speak With Haunt is a 4th level spell for Priests/Witches and a 3rd level spell for Shamans.

You can ask a Haunt some questions without triggering it. You can ask it how it is triggered and one of these questions CAN be "How do we destroy your haunt?" Just keep in mind that the answers it gives tend to be brief, cryptic and/or repetitive.

Uh, this is PFS. The vast majority of scenarios with haunts give no information to the GM on how to destroy the haunt. The rules to use are obscure. The spells that interact with them aren't common. Your suggestions are all great for a home game but a bit much to expect at PFS games.

A couple if times I've had players be sufficiently interested in laying the haunt to rest that I've made stuff up. But most of the time the PCs just channel, run away, or fix up the damage and move on. And I'm fine with that.

Ascalaphus wrote:

TheFlyingPhoton wrote:

5) On the Scarab Sages card, how do you identify how to permanently destroy a haunt? Haunts always have a description on how to permanently destroy them, but it's never been clear on how to do that. A Knowledge(Religion) check?

Unclear. The Knowledge check rules for haunts are vague. If the GM doesn't allow "how do we destroy it" as a question, try "how do we find out how to destroy it" for a lead?

The knowledge rules say that you can make a check to know something useful, and more if you exceed the DC by 5+. It doesn't give difficulties for haunts, but there's no reason you can't use knowledge on haunts otherwise. I recommend using the same DCs as for creatures, i.e. based on CR.

Because haunts are not monsters, the monster knowledge rules don't apply. The best method to determine how to destroy a haunt is probably the speak with haunt spell. In my experience a common method is to bury/consecrate the remains of any creatures whose deaths may have caused the haunt.

While it's true the monster knowledge rules don't apply, that doesn't mean haunts are totally unknowable.

Check: Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).

You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster's CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster's CR, or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Many of the Knowledge skills have specific uses as noted on Table: Knowledge Skill DCs.

Notice that it covers more than just monsters; it's just that the rules for monsters are best-defined.

For haunts, you could either base the DC on the haunt's CR as if it were a monster, or you could say "it's a really tough question" and pick something between 20 and 30.

I think I'd use DC 15 for vague clues that nudge people in the right direction, and DC 20-30 for insights into what spells the haunt uses, what it's AoE is and similar game mechanics.

Uh, this is PFS. The vast majority of scenarios with haunts give no information to the GM on how to destroy the haunt.

Don't believe you. Haunts tend to have a small section towards the very end of their entry that talks about how to destroy them.

The rules to use are obscure.

Quiet obscure. You may have to look at 2-4 different websites to get a better understanding of how haunts work.

The spells that interact with them aren't common.

Semi-true. With the addition of Occult Adventures, there are several Ectoplasm and Ghost-themed character options. In fact there is an Alchemist archetype that focuses specifically on the destruction of Haunts... how about that. So I wouldn't be surprised to see a player bring in a character that knows the "Speak With Haunts" spell if they are focused on combating Spirits, Haunts, Ghosts, etc.

Its not anymore out of the ordinary than a character who owns a boat, has an archetype focused on something pirate-y and also knows maybe some spells that interact with his/her ship.

Your suggestions are all great for a home game but a bit much to expect at PFS games.

Depends on your playgroup. Some playgroups are not that enthusiastic about roleplaying and...some are enthusiastic about it. Before I moved awhile back I was in a playgroup filled with roleplayers.

A couple if times I've had players be sufficiently interested in laying the haunt to rest that I've made stuff up. But most of the time the PCs just channel, run away, or fix up the damage and move on. And I'm fine with that.

Well if the PCs just channel it away and move on, that is not destroying a haunt. All they did was turn off a Spooky Trap temporarily. The threat is still there.

Lots of PCs tend to run away. Haunts tend to cause damage while in there presence or when a trigger is met. There are also haunts that cast Fear on the player characters so they do run away.

Fix up the damage? I assume your talking about players who run away from a haunt they triggered and then heal themselves up and continue on the journey. Which is a fair tactic. If nobody in the party Knowledge (Religion), A Cleric/Paladin/etc to make positive energy or even a Wand of Cure Light Wounds...it is a good idea to avoid a haunt entirely.

Haunts are magical undead traps that are story driven, after all.

When will the season 7 cards be updated to fix the Grand Lodge tier 2 reward typo?

"NEMESIS (4+ goals): Once per adventure, you gain a +2 bonus on your next attack against that agent, and if you hit, you deal
additional damage equal to the number of goals you have completed. Alternatively, you impose a –1 penalty on the agent’s
next saving throw against a spell you cast; the penalty increases to –2 if you have completed seven or more goals."

I presume it means an Aspis agent but clearly something got left off.

One reason for channeling/running from haunts is that the lack of clarity in the rules, and the lack of guidance for GMs, makes interacting with them a pain for the players, not just the characters.

If the GM doesn't really know how haunts work, or has it wrong, or is being cagey about the game mechanics for interacting with haunts in general, they as a player it gets less and less fun to actually make the effort.

pauljathome wrote:

Uh, this is PFS. The vast majority of scenarios with haunts give no information to the GM on how to destroy the haunt.

Don't believe you. Haunts tend to have a small section towards the very end of their entry that talks about how to destroy them.

You may well be right. I checked a couple of scenarios and they DID have that section. It comes up so infrequently that I hadn't realized it.

Don't confuse "lack of interest in haunts" as "poor roleplaying" though. T

for more on how Haunts are appearing in PFS - check out this old thread (IMHO Jiggy described it perfectly here)

Who ya ganna call - Haunt Busters..

here's a quote from him there:
"...haunts in PFS are encountered in the most random places, with no build-up or exposition, they take you by surprise, affect you, and then they're done and they're no longer a part of the scenario. It's like walking to the dungeon and getting struck by lightning - it blindsides you out of nowhere, makes no sense, and maybe you get an inkling that something's about to happen (like your hair buzzing a bit right before a lightning strike) but have no good reason to take appropriate action ("my hair feels funny - guess I'll cast resist energy in case lightning is about to strike me!").

Last time I encountered a haunt, it was literally "You're walking down the street. Roll initiative. Take some damage - make a will save to see how many charges to mark off your wands. Now, on to your destination"."

how the heck to we "role play" that?

It could be poor GMing keeping the haunt from being interesting. :shrug:

I can recall two haunts in PFS scenarios. One of them made some sense and there was some roleplay around it. The other one made sense as well, but we got by with more or less ignoring it: our monk found it by himself and ran away as soon as he realized what was happening. When we came back, prepared to resolve it, it had not reset yet.

It could be poor GMing keeping the haunt from being interesting. :shrug:

I can recall two haunts in PFS scenarios. One of them made some sense and there was some roleplay around it. The other one made sense as well, but we got by with more or less ignoring it: our monk found it by himself and ran away as soon as he realized what was happening. When we came back, prepared to resolve it, it had not reset yet.

There is no need to derail this thread into the old Haunt debates... just check out some of the old threads if you want to see how Haunts are being run in PFS. Just do a search on Haunts...

caps wrote:

It could be poor GMing keeping the haunt from being interesting. :shrug:

I can recall two haunts in PFS scenarios. One of them made some sense and there was some roleplay around it. The other one made sense as well, but we got by with more or less ignoring it: our monk found it by himself and ran away as soon as he realized what was happening. When we came back, prepared to resolve it, it had not reset yet.

There is no need to derail this thread into the old Haunt debates... just check out some of the old threads if you want to see how Haunts are being run in PFS. Just do a search on Haunts...

This is my first post regarding haunts in this thread. I don't think I'm the one who's doing the derailing here.

nosig wrote:

caps wrote:

It could be poor GMing keeping the haunt from being interesting. :shrug:

I can recall two haunts in PFS scenarios. One of them made some sense and there was some roleplay around it. The other one made sense as well, but we got by with more or less ignoring it: our monk found it by himself and ran away as soon as he realized what was happening. When we came back, prepared to resolve it, it had not reset yet.

There is no need to derail this thread into the old Haunt debates... just check out some of the old threads if you want to see how Haunts are being run in PFS. Just do a search on Haunts...

This is my first post regarding haunts in this thread. I don't think I'm the one who's doing the derailing here.

sorry! that wasn't directed at you, it was more at me than anyone else.

I could really go on and on about Haunts in PFS... but there really is no need. We've said it all before. Thankfully they are getting less common (and there are fewer of the "Save or Die" ones appearing).

How do boxes checked during Season 6 work for Season 7?

I read the bottom of the Season 7 cover sheet and am confused how this is suppose to work.

I have some goal boxes checked on the Season 6 card.

The Exchange Examples:

Earn at least 100 gp as the result of a Day Job check. This counted as a goal.

Earn at least 50 gp as the result of a Day Job check. This counted as 1 of the 2 boxes to complete a goal since there were 2 boxes and I only checked 1.

Now, it's Season 7. What am I suppose to do?

How do boxes checked during Season 6 work for Season 7?

I read the bottom of the Season 7 cover sheet and am confused how this is suppose to work.

I have some goal boxes checked on the Season 6 card.

The Exchange Examples:

Earn at least 100 gp as the result of a Day Job check. This counted as a goal.

Earn at least 50 gp as the result of a Day Job check. This counted as 1 of the 2 boxes to complete a goal since there were 2 boxes and I only checked 1.

Now, it's Season 7. What am I suppose to do?

You can choose each session that you meet the requirements to check off a box from your season 6 card (since it has at least 1 box already checked) or a box from the new season 7 card, but not both in the same session.

@Sidney: they're separate cards. Stuff you check on one card doesn't affect the other card (very much).

If you "activated" a S6 card during S6 you can continue to work on it, otherwise you can only work on S7.

The goals you check on your S6 card contribute to getting the rewards from your S6 card; likewise for you S7 card.

You only get to check one box on any card during a session, so working on multiple cards will slow you down.

There is only one interaction between faction cards: if they have a reward that is the same. For example, if you have achieved 2 goals on a S6 Scarab Sages card and 7 goals on a S7 card. You unlocked the Scribe award twice. You don't get the bonus twice, but instead, the duplicate award counts as one more goal fully achieved. So you get a +3 bonus against death effects from your S7 card, because you have completed 8 goals. Likewise, you get a +3 bonus from the Guardian Ward award from your S7 card.