Kerrel's page

I have a simple question that's driving me crazy. What do the rules consider to be an object and what isn't?
I haven't found an official definition in the rules of what an object is, or what is considered an object. Although sometimes they do say that x things are objects. If we stick to the definition that many languages ​​give for an object, it's simple:
"A material thing that can be perceived by the senses." Therefore, everything, or almost absolutely everything, is an object. (Equipment: Armor/weapons/magic items, lakes, trees, stones, vehicles, etc.), as long as it's something material. But of course, would a planet be an object? That last point bothers me too.

I suppose it needs to be differentiated from creatures, which would be something different and wouldn't fall under the object category. (Animals, ancestries, aliens, etc.)

Hello everyone.
I have a couple of questions regarding organized play. Although both can be answered as one.

1. I've created a Mystic, everything is based on the core player except for the deity, Sarenrae, who isn't included. I based my information on the deity from Pathfinder player core. The question is, would the character be legal for organized play? Clarification: I added the Divine Bond feat with Sarenrae's Pathfinder stats.

2. I also created a Soldier, with the Knight of Golarion archetype, but I used the Versatile Nephilim Heritage from Pathfinder player core.

Is it completely prohibited to integrate something like this into Starfinder 2e organized play? Or, if it's not very important, would it be allowed? This is my first time playing officially, and I'm not sure if the rules regarding this aspect are very strict or not.

P.S.- My English is very bad and I use a translator, sorry if there is something that is not very clear.

Hello everyone. Sorry for the grammar, all this it´s made by google translator

In the last session I had as a GM, my players and I had a little disagreement regarding a point in the rules of the movement of spaceships.
I see it very clearly, with respect to the turns that a spaceship can make with perfect maneuverability (distance between turns of 0) a ship can move a hexagon and make up to two 60º turns, or what is the same, turn up to two verticals of a hex to its starboard or port sides.
Now we have the pilot action of *Maneuver*: Improve the distance between turns by 1 (to a minimum of 0).
The discussion comes from the fact that as I see it, a ship with perfect maneuverability (distance between turns of 0) cannot improve more... that is, the pilot action *Maneuver* would not benefit a ship that already has perfect maneuverability. Since you already have the maximum distance between turns of 0.
As they see it, by saying that it improves the distance between turns...a ship with perfect maneuverability (distance between turns of 0) could benefit since the distance between turns they see it as that hex that the ship needs to move before turn...therefore it could turn twice and then move.
What do you think?

PS- I may be very intransigent... but I think my way of seeing it is correct.