Baprr's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 5 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 13 Organized Play characters.


RSS

Grand Lodge

HWalsh wrote:

Being a Cleric isn't like studying a spell book, or practicing a trade. It isn't a job, or a task you practice at. You have faith, total devotion to your god, so much so that it grants you supernatural powers.

You don't have the faith to get those kinds of powers by being a moderate. You're not just a worshipper, you're a Cleric, a Priest or Priestess, you are dedicated wholly to your God and their machinations.

Worship out of habit isn't gonna do the trick. Worship out of fear doesn't do the trick. You gotta drink the kool-aid and buy in mind, body, and soul.

This is just the worst kind of pigeon-holing a whole class into a single role. Even Paladins can have some doubts (well, maybe you think they can't, I do not know), but for all the clerics be 100% devote from level one? That's bad. You would lose a whole slew of archetypes and twists, and I do not think I want that. You lose the god-gives-power-to-corrupt-cleric cleric, you lose the misunderstanding-cleric cleric, you lose the losing-his-faith cleric.

Again, the new restriction is unacceptable. I will change it if the devs don't change it.

Grand Lodge

HWalsh wrote:

Abadar's first tenet:

"Abadar and his followers wish to bring the light of civilization to the wilderness, to help educate all in the benefits of law and properly regulated commerce."

Light of civilation to the wilderness is not Neutrality. Yes he is about commerce, but he's not about neutrality at all. He doesn't want people to just work for a paycheck. He isn't the God of unfettered Capitalism.

Abadar is also about "earning wealth through hard work and trade" and "following the rule of law" - you ignored 2/3 of his tenets just now. "Earning wealth" is basically Capitalism. Not everyone must bring civilization to the untamed lands, somebody must stay at home and till the fields, raise the children etc. Otherwise, what's the point of building civilization and not enjoying the benefits?

HWalsh wrote:

Lamashtu?

Dude, she's evil. Like evil to the core. The Demon Queen. What kind of "Good" Character worships a demon? We aren't talking like anime "Demon" or Dante from Devil May Cry here. We're talking about Demon. Like, the enemy of the Angels and destroyer of all things good Demon.

If she is so evil, why give her worshippers said healing and Family? Actually, on second thought, I can imagine an abusive kind of family, but my point was - the entire race worships her! They can’t all be wantonly evil! Maybe not good, but I can certainly imagine someone who doesn’t really care for good or evil choosing her because of tradition and because they don’t want to get killed for not following the right god.

HWalsh wrote:

Asmodeus?

Again, you are serving an evil being. No good person would actually do that. Heck, no neutral person would do that. You are literally willing to serve an evil…

Again, there is a whole nation that is no longer an ethnicity, that almost exclusively worships him. They can’t all be evil!

That actually bothers me a little. Now there can not be moderate clerics, only those who embrace their gods get the power - which eliminates gaps. And that is bad.

Grand Lodge

I don’t understand why the new restrictions on clerics’ alignments?
Specifically Lamashtu. When I first read in the blog that alignments requirements and channels will be revised (and Lamashtu was given as an example), I thought “awesome, NG goblin cleric sounds fun”. If goblins are introduced into society (and Society), why wouldn’t some of them keep faith in a goddess that provides healing and the Family domain? Why is that change a change for the worse? Why do that horrible thing (no pun intended)?
Also Abadar. True Neutral clerics are out. WHY? Isn’t N the alignment that descrides the average Joeleth, who does their job fine, but is there for the paycheck. The whole “you have to be passionate about the Law” thing sounds like something a crappy new manager says while trying to “build team spirit” or something.
And Asmodeus. Wasn’t there a clause that he doesn’t care what you think so long as you go trough the motions? But now you HAVE to be a bastard?
I can go on, but overall it looks like Paizo tried fixing what wasn’t broken. It feels unnecessary restrictive. I will certainly houserule it the hell out.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mutation Warrior (Fighter)
Archaeologist (Bard)
Invulnerable Rager (Barbarian)
Urban Barbarian
Martial Artist (Monk)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think that just because it isn't explicitly stated in the masterpiece, the creature summoned can't refuse you because of lack of payment. The task is somewhat dangerous, may or may not align with the devil, and would probably require about an hour - you'd need 600-6000 gp for that one, and a song and a keg of beer is so out of it's price range, it isn't payment (maybe try an azata next time). I doubt it is the intended purpose of the masterpiece.

But that is a good example of a mildly unreasonable deal. Lets crank it up to eleven! We bind an angel and pay him a kiss on the bum to hunt down and kill paladins for a century - a task ridiculously out of character for your typical angel, suicidal and underpaid. Would he be able to refuse? Not unless he rolls good! Of course, you would think that nobody would try that, but I can bet my life that there is a troll of a player who would.

That is why I think that the creature can simply refuse your task.