Have I discovered a new route to immortality?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 219 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Ravingdork wrote:
ElyasRavenwood wrote:
Perhaps I am wrong here, once your soul is in that jar/ amulet, what is to stop the imp from going home to hell and giving it to one of his superiors for kudos? why would the imp be interested in seeing your character achieveing an imortality where your character's soul is bound to an object on the materiel plane?. For that matter, what is to prevent the imp, from snatching your phylactery, returning to hell, and giving it to a hiegher up? Perhaps it has already been suggested.

What's preventing it?

Two things:

1) Players play their familiars just as readily as druids/rangers/summoners play their animal companions/eidolons.

2) Any GM that takes a valuable resource that the player has INVESTED IN with the expectation of it being an advantage (a feat and a class ability in this case) and uses it to totally screw the player over by making it anything but an advantage will quickly run out of players willing to play with him (or get punched in the face).

The conniving imp that runs off with the caster's soul is what happens to foolish NPCs (usually to set up a story of some kind), or to PCs after their play time has ended and they've retired/died.

I agree but with the caveat that any creature composed of pure evil and bent to your will is very likely to get their "beloved" master back if the opportunity presents itself. Mechanically, they're soul bound to obey and can't screw the character over...but there are plenty of powerful devils who might decide to break that bond for a new imp servitor with a yummy soul to boot. Probably after using the immortal to their own ends first, though, as devils are wont to do.

Contributor

There's a whole history of the Inevitables on Wikipedia here, including the various types:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inevitable_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29

I'm thinking, following that logic, that there should be some sort of fashion police inevitable who protects the ineluctability of fashion and goes to punish those who violate sumptuary laws, adorn themselves with medals and honors to which they're not entitled, or simply wear white shoes after Labor Day. And there has to be at least one tasked with each unspeakable fashion crime, like, for example, that one-horned maroon hennin Venger always wore in the old Dungeons and Dragons cartoons, oblivious to the fact that in the real world that's a woman's headdress he's wearing or for that matter he's got it on sideways. And another for Damodar's highly questionable taste in blue lipstick in the first Dungeons and Dragons movie and for that matter one for the elven ranger's idea that hot pink leather armor was somehow a good color for woodland camouflage.


Nyarai wrote:

That to me says, "Someone higher up is telling the maruts who to strike down." Now whether that's the god of death (who would be omniscient) or some middle-management celestial, I haven't a clue. Either way, if I got kicked out of a factory with a transgressor's name and maybe a small description, I'm pretty sure that I could persuade a wizard/cleric to scry for me in a jiff. Granted, there are protections against that, but not all immortals will have them in place. Especially if the City of Brass is as ruthlessly efficient as I would expect them to be.

A shame there isn't more source material about the inevitables that might provide more insight about how they operate (ex. Will they strike while a transgressor is weak, how do they prioritize kills, etc).

{Incidentally, if these books exist and I'm just not aware of them, lemme know. ;P}

I believe that there are special inevitable elders residing in each forge that look for broken laws and give tasks to inevitables.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

There's a whole history of the Inevitables on Wikipedia here, including the various types:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inevitable_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29

I'm thinking, following that logic, that there should be some sort of fashion police inevitable who protects the ineluctability of fashion and goes to punish those who violate sumptuary laws, adorn themselves with medals and honors to which they're not entitled, or simply wear white shoes after Labor Day. And there has to be at least one tasked with each unspeakable fashion crime, like, for example, that one-horned maroon hennin Venger always wore in the old Dungeons and Dragons cartoons, oblivious to the fact that in the real world that's a woman's headdress he's wearing or for that matter he's got it on sideways. And another for Damodar's highly questionable taste in blue lipstick in the first Dungeons and Dragons movie and for that matter one for the elven ranger's idea that hot pink leather armor was somehow a good color for woodland camouflage.

I refer my learned friend to my post above:

Dabbler wrote:

Consider the differences between an Elan, a Vampire and a Lich.

The Elan extends his life by a considerable degree, but he does not become immortal - he can be killed by disease, accident, assassin etc. He is still a living being and very much part of the natural order in that respect, he can die and his soul then passes on to the Undiscovered Country in a form uncorrupted save by his own actions.

The Vampire has become undead, and while his soul is warped and corrupted, he can still be 'killed' - although with difficulty. While he is outside the natural order, he still relies on the living for his sustenance. When the vampire hunter finally catches up with him, his soul too goes on the Outer Planes.

A Lich has no connection with the living; by creating his phylactery he has placed his soul out of circulation: killing his body does not release his soul, it is held and then rejuvenates a new form for the lich. Pending the destruction of the phylactery the lich is forever outside the natural order. Of all three, he is the one who is closest to being truly immortal.

In short, from the Marut's point of view, the Elan bends the rules (he is still in the world of the living), the Vampire breaks them but they will likely catch up with him one day (he has a foot in both worlds), and the lich tears a hole in the rule book and spits on it (he has placed himself completely outside the natural order). So yes, the Inevitables would likely prioritise: Liches first, then very old vampires, then very ancient Elans. Younger vampires and Elans are beneath their notice, odds are on they will die eventually anyway.

Just because an Inevitable is LN does not make it LS (lawful stupid).

Dark Archive

The old ln exemplar race were the drones with primus The one leading the way there were I believe 5 or 6 types of drones and they sprang from the pool of power at primus's base

Scarab Sages

O_o

Somehow, transformers seem to take on an entirely different point of view now.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:


I'm thinking, following that logic, that there should be some sort of fashion police inevitable who protects the ineluctability of fashion and goes to punish those who violate sumptuary laws, adorn themselves with medals and honors to which they're not entitled, or simply wear white shoes after Labor Day. And there has to be at least one tasked with each unspeakable fashion crime, like, for example, that one-horned maroon hennin Venger always wore in the old Dungeons and Dragons cartoons, oblivious to the fact that in the real world that's a woman's headdress he's wearing or for that matter he's got it on sideways. And another for Damodar's highly questionable taste in blue lipstick in the first Dungeons and Dragons movie and for that matter one for the elven ranger's idea that hot pink leather armor was somehow a good color for woodland camouflage.

I think you should do it.

Contributor

Ironicdisaster wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:


I'm thinking, following that logic, that there should be some sort of fashion police inevitable who protects the ineluctability of fashion and goes to punish those who violate sumptuary laws, adorn themselves with medals and honors to which they're not entitled, or simply wear white shoes after Labor Day. And there has to be at least one tasked with each unspeakable fashion crime, like, for example, that one-horned maroon hennin Venger always wore in the old Dungeons and Dragons cartoons, oblivious to the fact that in the real world that's a woman's headdress he's wearing or for that matter he's got it on sideways. And another for Damodar's highly questionable taste in blue lipstick in the first Dungeons and Dragons movie and for that matter one for the elven ranger's idea that hot pink leather armor was somehow a good color for woodland camouflage.
I think you should do it.

Easily done. You just take the stats for the marut or any other existing inevitable, pop out the punch card with one program, pop in the "fashion police" punch card and voila! There you go, a fashion police inevitable.

Of course, given the fondness of the gods of evil for skull codpieces and the like, the fashion police inevitables were probably long ago destroyed.

I guess there are some things the universe can thank gods of evil for after all.


I would have thought fashion to whimsical and volatile for Maruts and other inevitables - maybe a chaotic equivelant, though?


Dabbler wrote:
I would have thought fashion to whimsical and volatile for Maruts and other inevitables - maybe a chaotic equivelant, though?

I can totally see a fashion protean. "Fashion is ephemeral, dahlink, and that dress is simply not you. Let me change that around for you!"


Zurai wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
I would have thought fashion to whimsical and volatile for Maruts and other inevitables - maybe a chaotic equivelant, though?
I can totally see a fashion protean. "Fashion is ephemeral, dahlink, and that dress is simply not you. Let me change that around for you!"

I can just see them going around being incredibly annoying, kind of like Trinny and Susanah but with awesome magic ...

The Exchange

Looking back at the OP, I'd say that there's a couple of holes in the plan (imp morality and killer robots aside... ;) ):

1. Magic Jar has a a duration of 1 hour/level (or ends early if you return to your body). I'd have to guess this plan is for a level 10 Sorcerer, 'cos by level 11 you've qualified for lichedom anyway (subject to the DM's choice of hoops to make you jump through for your particular ritual to become a lich), but you need to be level 10 (as a Sorcerer) to cast Magic Jar. That means 10 hours duration per casting, which is taking most of your 3 level 5 spells per day (not including bonus spells from high Charisma) just to cast Magic Jar again and again.

2. As mentioned in above posts, you can't 'extend' the duration of a spell like Magic Jar just by recasting it. So every 10 hours you're back in your old body, if only for the time it takes to recast Magic Jar (either that or you were too far away and are now dead).

3. No. 2 (above) ruins the whole Binding (or Temporal Stasis) cast from a scroll part of the plan, even if your DM did allow you to target your unoccupied original body as a 'creature', since you'd need one such scroll every 10 hours.

4. Binding is a powerful spell - as others have mentioned your unoccupied body may not qualify as the 'creature' target - but then again, it may be that by targeting 'you' as the 'creature' it overrides any paltry Magic Jar and sticks you as a whole creature - body and soul - into the Binding. Congratulations, you've just bound yourself (which, in the immortality stakes, isn't actually such a bad idea - using the Minimus Containment version you're small, contained, immortal, but still have access to your powers - this is how Genie Binders get to bind their subjects in such a way as they can still access their 'vast cosmic power').

A potential fix to No. 3 and 4 is if your DM rules your unoccupied body as an 'object' for targeting purposes, then it's actually good news for you - since a simple Gentle Repose spell or (even better) application of Ungent of Timelessness pauses your body's aging much, much, cheaper than using level 8 spells. Just carry it with you in a Bag of Holding or some such thing.

The limited duration of the Magic Jar spell is the big issue here - it's not really much use as a long-term solution. But you're heading for lichedom, so you've already taken Craft Wonderous Item (right?). As suggested in a previous post, this is where you want to be looking for a long term Magic Jar based effect.

As mentioned, I'll assume a level 10 Sorcerer (a level 16 Sorcerer has much better options for immortality or life extension than this anyway). Spell level x caster level x 2,000 gp = 100,000 gp base cost for a 'continuous' item (+100 gp for the Magic Jar spell focus). Magic Jar's duration (1 hour/level) doesn't modify this. While you could double this for a 'no space limit' item, there's a good argument for not doing so. If you keep the item a 'body slot' item (amulet is good) then you lose the range of the Magic Jar effect (since a continuous item with a body slot like this one only works when worn), but that's not so much a drawback than it is a safety feature - one easy way to die via Magic Jar is the spell effect ending when you're out of range. With this item, the spell effects ends when the item is removed from the 'host body' - so by definition it'll alway be in range of the Magic Jar when such removal occurs. Since the duration is continuous, you never have to worry about going back to your original body (unless the item is destroyed or 'de-magicked' or something), just about stopping the body aging (so slap on that Ungent of Timelessness, stick it in a bag of holding, and stick that in a very safe place - if nothing else, it'll be good practice for hiding the ol' phylactery when you're all lichy).

So, something like:

Amulet of Body Stealing

Aura moderate necromancy; CL 10th
Slot neck; Price 100,100 gp

Description
When first constructed this amulet is 'empty'. The soul of the first creature to wear the amulet is stored inside it, as per the magic jar spell, leaving their original body in a death-like state. Once 'occupied' in such a manner, the soul in the amulet can attempt to take over the body of any creature which susequently wears the amulet (forcing that creature's soul into the amulet) - such a creature gets a Will save DC (15 + trapped soul's Charisma bonus) to resist this possession (only one save is required, but removing and then replacing the amulet will prompt another save). If the possession is successful, removing the amulet in any way releases the host's soul back to their own body, and places the original possessing soul back into the amulet. The only way to place the original soul back into its' original body is to destroy or otherwise negate the amulet when it has been placed around that body's neck - destroying or negating it otherwise kills the creature who's soul is stored in the amulet. If the original soul's body dies or is otherwise destroyed, the soul dies too, and the amulet once more becomes 'empty'.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wonderous Item, magic jar, caster level 10; Cost 50,100 gp

If you're really smart, you'll pull a 'Sauron' and add powers to this thing until it's so valuable that no self-respecting adventurer types would ever consider destroying it (this tactic, by the way, goes double for your lich's phylactery).

Silver Crusade

Ravingdork wrote:
ElyasRavenwood wrote:
Perhaps I am wrong here, once your soul is in that jar/ amulet, what is to stop the imp from going home to hell and giving it to one of his superiors for kudos? why would the imp be interested in seeing your character achieveing an imortality where your character's soul is bound to an object on the materiel plane?. For that matter, what is to prevent the imp, from snatching your phylactery, returning to hell, and giving it to a hiegher up? Perhaps it has already been suggested.

What's preventing it?

Two things:

1) Players play their familiars just as readily as druids/rangers/summoners play their animal companions/eidolons.

2) Any GM that takes a valuable resource that the player has INVESTED IN with the expectation of it being an advantage (a feat and a class ability in this case) and uses it to totally screw the player over by making it anything but an advantage will quickly run out of players willing to play with him (or get punched in the face).

The conniving imp that runs off with the caster's soul is what happens to foolish NPCs (usually to set up a story of some kind), or to PCs after their play time has ended and they've retired/died.

I happen to disagree with you. The amount of control a player has over another intelligent being is up to the DM. As to your second point, I make it clear beforehand, that when a player decides to have his character binds an imp or a quasit to his service is a perilous thing, and don’t be surprised if you find yourself betrayed by these creatures of the abyss or hell. I lay it out before hand. I point out that quasits being chaotic evil will try to get away with what ever it can, and Imps will do their best to subvert whatever agreement they enter to their own advantage. It’s in their nature.

Players can be just as foolish as an NPC. Before they have their characters do something that may very well have plenty of repercussions that they weren’t aware of before hand, I do my best to ask them to pause, take a moment and think about the decision they are going to have their character make. I ask them to think about possible consequences.

A little while ago, in one game I was in, our party was facing a bunch of were wolves. One of the PCs decided he wanted to get intentionally bitten, because he thought it would cool to have the boost to his Strength score. The DM stopped the player and asked him to consider what the entire package contained. The player decided he didn’t want his PC to go on monthly killing sprees.

Again allot of this is up to the individual DM.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:


So they're termininators is what you're saying. Fine. But that begs the question of why they have +6 Diplomacy if they don't use it and +10 Knowledge Religion if they don't use that either.

Having a marut out to kill the lich Sarah Connor methodically killing every Sarah Connor in the city until it finds the right one may work for some games, but frankly I think the embodiments of Law should be a bit more lawful.

The "Kill them all and let Pharasma sort them out" approach is likely to get Pharasma ticked off, especially since one would assume that She is the god in charge of sending out maruts for overdue souls.

If you remember Judgement Day, the advanced Terminator was quite adept at using Diplomacy (and Social Manipulation) when such tactics were the most efficient at getting the data or the aims required. It didn't skewer EVERYONE it talked to. (such as when quizzing John Conner,s friends at the arcade) A Marut hunting a Lich may just very well take a disguise in form and do some of what PCs do when they start an adventure, i.e. Gather Information, possibly even recruit allies if it thinks that it might need extra help.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Becoming immortal? Alchemists do this routinely, though not until level 20....

Alchemists routinely reach 20th level?

Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:

It does look like a good way of achieving immortality, or at least, extension of your life indefinitely. It would be a pain to keep getting a new body every now and again (because hosts WOULD make their saving throw occasionally). However, your largest problem is the weakness of the magic jar. If it gets broke, the spells all end; if it enters an anti-magic field, likewise ...

Your best bet might be to take the Leadership feat, and reward your cohorts and followers handsomely for letting you have occasional use of their bodies.

He wouldn't make his save every once in a while. Why? Because I'm targeting his body, which has my mind, and I choose to fail the save.

In that regard I re-possess his body or, in other words, simply extend the duration of the spell.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
From the way this character has been described, her destination is downstairs for reasons below and beyond necromancy. The minimus containment won't work because when her soul is outside her body it's no longer a targetable creature for the spell.

I don't see why the body would be an invalid target. Corpses are considered objects, but bodies are not. Without the caster's spirit, the body seems dead, but really isn't. If it were actually dead as you say, then the caster would ALWAYS die at the end of the spell's duration. That obviously is not the case.

Scarab Sages

The body is lacking mental scores, and an animating soul, so the closest similar creature would probably be a construct i.e. flesh golem. The problem is that, sans those qualities, the body could very likely no longer count as a living creature. It might not be dead, but all the creature has been drained out.

Additionally, it looks like you're trying to apply methods differently. What I mean by that is body as target.

If the body isn't an invalid target, then it needs an intelligence score. If I recall correctly, and I might not be so check, a target lacking mental scores are immune to mind-affecting spells such as dominate.

Either the body is a valid target that could save against the spells, or it's not a valid target, but fails.

Another thing, I tried to find the entry where it said multiple castings of the same spell increased the duration of the original spell, but I couldn't find it. Without that, you're recasting magic jar which, as its first effect, moves your soul into the jar.

Or, in other words, it looks like there are too many elements here that require interpretation in order to be a truly viable method of immortality.


Zurai wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
This honestly looks like a retcon to justify the maruts existence.

That would be difficult, because it's the official line since before Golarion existed.

Quote:
Becoming immortal? Alchemists do this routinely, though not until level 20, at which point a CR15 monster becomes mostly a nuisance.
They start at CR15. Assuming they gain CR 1-for-1 with HD (they start out at 15 HD, so that's a reasonable assumption), the biggest marut would be CR45. That's 15 higher than the demigod Achaekek, for the record.

CR rarely if ever goes up on a 1-1 basis with HD, certainly doesn't for say.. dragons


Good job Cleric. What did you use, Raise Dead or Resurrection?


Kerym Ammath wrote:
Good job Cleric. What did you use, Raise Dead or Resurrection?

Animate Dead

School necromancy [evil]; Level cleric 3, sorcerer/wizard 4

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S, M (an onyx gem worth at least 25 gp per Hit Die of the undead)

Range touch

Targets one or more corpses touched

Duration instantaneous

Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no

This spell turns corpses into undead skeletons or zombies that obey your spoken commands.

The undead can be made to follow you, or they can be made to remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific kind of creature) entering the place. They remain animated until they are destroyed. A destroyed skeleton or zombie can't be animated again.

Regardless of the type of undead you create with this spell, you can't create more HD of undead than twice your caster level with a single casting of animate dead. The desecrate spell doubles this limit.

The undead you create remain under your control indefinitely. No matter how many times you use this spell, however, you can control only 4 HD worth of undead creatures per caster level. If you exceed this number, all the newly created creatures fall under your control, and any excess undead from previous castings become uncontrolled. You choose which creatures are released. Undead you control through the Command Undead feat do not count toward this limit.

Skeletons: A skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton. The corpse must have bones. If a skeleton is made from a corpse, the flesh falls off the bones.

Zombies: A zombie can be created only from a mostly intact corpse. The corpse must be that of a creature with a physical anatomy.


Sorry bout that, got linked to it, didn't see the date on the posts

Grand Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


I also agree with Shadow. Dude, that is like the 3rd time this year.

The thread is over if me and Shadow agree. Sorry Dork your PC might be in a lot of trouble. :)

Dude it's worse then that for him. Me, you and Zurai all three agreed on it.

And I as well...yeah RD, this is a HORRIBLE idea. Just reincarnate or use clones like everyone else damn it.


I can think of one reason why the Imp familiar would not run off to Hell with the sorceress' soul. She's a very successful "bad example." The biggest danger to the player is the Imp bragging about his mistress' cleverness in an attempt to get others to indulge in the same behavior. Share the misery and all that. Makes the rubes desperate and / or jealous.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

What I did when updating my 1st Ed. mega-character (a decent way to learn the new system) was go to the Plane of Time, then use the Horizonwalker's Planar Terrain Mastery to make up the Unaging (Ex) class feature. Admitedly that's a 6 level investment, and not truly immortal, but it really annoys the nastier sort of Ghost.


So just out of curiosity, did it work?

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
LazarX wrote:
From the way this character has been described, her destination is downstairs for reasons below and beyond necromancy. The minimus containment won't work because when her soul is outside her body it's no longer a targetable creature for the spell.
I don't see why the body would be an invalid target. Corpses are considered objects, but bodies are not. Without the caster's spirit, the body seems dead, but really isn't. If it were actually dead as you say, then the caster would ALWAYS die at the end of the spell's duration. That obviously is not the case.

Because according the lasarX, the spell your talking about requires a LIVING creature (since I can't find it in neither the APG or core, I assume it's a cronicle/AP thing). Not an object. Your body after you soul leaves it is NOT a living creature as the spell even specifically says it leaves your body lifeless. Since you have a habit ignoring details like this, I am inclined to believe that lasarX is correct in that this spell requires a living creature and not object.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kerym Ammath wrote:
So just out of curiosity, did it work?

Never got that far I'm afraid. Hama wondered away from the party after a disagreement and ended up becoming lost in an endless sandy desert never to be seen again.

The campaign was becoming increasingly PvP styled, and I didn't need the stress that it caused (I play games to relieve stress, not make more), so I dropped out of the campaign (but not the play group).

During the entire time, though, no one in my play group (any of them) even considered the possibility of the imp familiar betraying Hama. To take a character resource and turn it against the player's character is a wholly alien concept to us.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
Kerym Ammath wrote:
So just out of curiosity, did it work?

Never got that far I'm afraid. Hama wondered away from the party after a disagreement and ended up becoming lost in an endless sandy desert never to be seen again.

The campaign was becoming increasingly PvP styled, and I didn't need the stress that it caused (I play games to relieve stress, not make more), so I dropped out of the campaign (but not the play group).

During the entire time, though, no one in my play group (any of them) even considered the possibility of the imp familiar betraying Hama. To take a character resource and turn it against the player's character is a wholly alien concept to us.

Except it's not. It's you as a player being REALLY dumb with a resource. Should a fighter who is wearing full plate jump into the ocean and be able to ignore his armor check penalty because he spent money on the full plate?!? Yeah you paid a feat resource to get the imp...but nowhere does that say that the imp can't go to hell with your soul when you did something as dumb as jumping into the ocean with full plate on.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cold Napalm wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Kerym Ammath wrote:
So just out of curiosity, did it work?

Never got that far I'm afraid. Hama wondered away from the party after a disagreement and ended up becoming lost in an endless sandy desert never to be seen again.

The campaign was becoming increasingly PvP styled, and I didn't need the stress that it caused (I play games to relieve stress, not make more), so I dropped out of the campaign (but not the play group).

During the entire time, though, no one in my play group (any of them) even considered the possibility of the imp familiar betraying Hama. To take a character resource and turn it against the player's character is a wholly alien concept to us.

Except it's not. It's you as a player being REALLY dumb with a resource. Should a fighter who is wearing full plate jump into the ocean and be able to ignore his armor check penalty because he spent money on the full plate?!? Yeah you paid a feat resource to get the imp...but nowhere does that say that the imp can't go to hell with your soul when you did something as dumb as jumping into the ocean with full plate on.

Since its an aspect of my character, I control the imp, just as a summoner would control his eidolon.

A GM who does otherwise is just looking for an excuse to screw around with his players.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Kerym Ammath wrote:
So just out of curiosity, did it work?

Never got that far I'm afraid. Hama wondered away from the party after a disagreement and ended up becoming lost in an endless sandy desert never to be seen again.

The campaign was becoming increasingly PvP styled, and I didn't need the stress that it caused (I play games to relieve stress, not make more), so I dropped out of the campaign (but not the play group).

During the entire time, though, no one in my play group (any of them) even considered the possibility of the imp familiar betraying Hama. To take a character resource and turn it against the player's character is a wholly alien concept to us.

Except it's not. It's you as a player being REALLY dumb with a resource. Should a fighter who is wearing full plate jump into the ocean and be able to ignore his armor check penalty because he spent money on the full plate?!? Yeah you paid a feat resource to get the imp...but nowhere does that say that the imp can't go to hell with your soul when you did something as dumb as jumping into the ocean with full plate on.

Since its an aspect of my character, I control the imp, just as a summoner would control his eidolon.

A GM who does otherwise is just looking for an excuse to screw around with his players.

The familiar is NOT an aspect of your character. It's an intelligent being with a free will. I'm sorry, do you see cohorts and henchmen from leadership as just aspects of your character too? Geh!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cold Napalm wrote:
The familiar is NOT an aspect of your character. It's an intelligent being with a free will. I'm sorry, do you see cohorts and henchmen from leadership as just aspects of your character too? Geh!

Unlike cohorts and followers from the Leadership feat, companion creatures (animal companions, eidolons, familiars, mounts) most certainly ARE an aspect of the character. Their very stats are dependent on the character that has them. Companion creatures DO NOT EXIST as companion creatures without their masters.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
The familiar is NOT an aspect of your character. It's an intelligent being with a free will. I'm sorry, do you see cohorts and henchmen from leadership as just aspects of your character too? Geh!
Unlike cohorts and followers from the Leadership feat, companion creatures (animal companions, eidolons, familiars, mounts) most certainly ARE an aspect of the character. Their very stats are dependent on the character that has them. Companion creatures DO NOT EXIST as companion creatures without their masters.

Umm you do realize that the player isn't even suppose to be able to CONTROL what animinal companions and mounts do right? Beyond 1 trick at level 1...right (usually attack)? The summoner critter isn't even a critter but something he makes. And familiars while familiars are more tied to the casters...improved familiars are not as they don't suddenly become a int 2 critter when the master goes away. It is usually in the familiars best interest to serve the master...but giving and imp your soul is on a level of stupid that just defies explaination. I mean even more stupid then jumping in the ocean in full plate. So stupid that you got 4 people who never agree on anything to actually agree with each other.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cold Napalm wrote:
Umm you do realize that the player isn't even suppose to be able to CONTROL what animinal companions and mounts do right?

Show me the rule that proves your statement true. I don't believe it exists.

Grand Lodge

Bonus tricks that the animal companion gets is based off handle animal. If you ready handle animal and tricks section, notice the list of commands you can teach. That is ALL the commands your animal can know. Otherwise the tricks becomes redundant if you just control the animal companion. And yes it has been like that in 3.5.

Liberty's Edge

Just make sure the imp's contract is paid in full for a year or two in advance. And if he charges double this time? You pay him. If there's one thing all devils have in common, it's their willingness to first make a deal and then keep that deal to the letter. Of course, it's still an unwise thing to do, as mentioned earlier.

I never see an intelligent familiar as a "player resource" only. It's an imp. It is bound to serve the character, true. But it has a mind and an agenda of its own, and this may be at odds with what the player does and desires. Using that, as a GM, is no different from making the alchemist's fire in a character's backpack break and burn, taking a few scrolls with it. It's not something that should be done routinely, but under a few circumstances it's dramatically appropriate (like if a player decides he has plenty of hit points and will jump over the side of a chasm, using his backpack to break his own fall).

Marut: "You have been found guilty of violating the grave. As you are a first time offender, you may relinquish your immortality and you will not be punished. Resist and you will die. I am Inevitable. I am Marut."


Yeah... Maruts sound really dumb. I mean... really really dumb. The whole idea of a polytheistic world where gods routinely stick their noses into things having a 'police force' to sometimes do their bidding, other times go against them... it just doesn't equate to my idea of the magical world of D&D I am used to. Others may like it, mileage may vary, but I would never use anything like that in my games. Even if there were beings/constructs like this, there are any number of gods that would be paying attention to a PC that powerful to begin with, and whether or not the PC knows it, they would be advancing at least one of those gods goals by doing what they were doing (especially if the PC wasn't originally evil)... they would more than likely step in and crush the Marut(s) in an instant, leaving the PC to fulfill whatever game of chess the gods were playing at the time.

I like the idea of the gods being cast down and others taking their place, all while the rest of the material plane is unaware of the struggle. If a PC were able to do manage something like that, it would most likely take more than 1 lifetime, and a goal of immortality would definitely be in the cards. Once they took that position it might not (most likely would not) go as the PC planned, but, until that moment, I would welcome that kind of struggle, not punish it with silly beings that could apparently kill the gods themselves at their most powerful.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cold Napalm wrote:
Bonus tricks that the animal companion gets is based off handle animal. If you ready handle animal and tricks section, notice the list of commands you can teach. That is ALL the commands your animal can know. Otherwise the tricks becomes redundant if you just control the animal companion. And yes it has been like that in 3.5.

Being limited to tricks does not obviate the control of the player. What's more, you aren't limited to the tricks on the list provided you can make a Handle Animal check DC 25 to push the animal. Manage that, and you can get it to attempt anything it is physically capable of.

Just because a check needs to be made does not necessarily mean it is under the GM's control.


I agree with Ravingdork to a great extent: the wizard's familiar is a class feature and therefore part of the character's resources. The player should be in control of its own resources. What's more, the familiar goes through a ritual to be bound to his master. As far as I know, the same goes for an Imp familiar. Somehow, a deal/bond is sealed. At least nothing in the RaW seems to suggest otherwise.

The Imp is more powerful than a normal familiar, hence the feat requirement. It does not pull the feature from the player's hands.

Imps are evil. The Imp familiar will ultimately cause the character's fall, but it doesn't have to be the DM's doing; players are quite capable of achieving this themselves.

Like a cohort, the DM may "play" the familiar. The DM may use the familiar to pass information or to further his plot. The DM may warn the player that his cohort or Familiar feels mistreated and may refuse to collaborate etc. Yet these would be houserules, as nothing in the RaW suggests that the DM controls the familiar's actions.

Only intelligent magic items have a written clause of non-participation, which would suggest that the DM ultimately is in control. Such "ego" rules do not exist for familiars AFAIK. It could be cool, but at the moment there isn't any.

Like RD, I think it would be rather "cheap" for a DM to use a character's feature, feat or resource against him to cause his demise. It would be as arbitrary as robbing a character of his cleric cohort because his group did not perform the proper religious rites...

As for the Imp, he would probably be glad to participate in this plot to conquer death and promote evil. Sooner or later the wizard will die or release the Imp from service; they all do despite all their precautions. The longer the wizard lives, the more evil he'll cause. The Imp is probably going to be very happy to ride along Hama for a long time!

'findel

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Bonus tricks that the animal companion gets is based off handle animal. If you ready handle animal and tricks section, notice the list of commands you can teach. That is ALL the commands your animal can know. Otherwise the tricks becomes redundant if you just control the animal companion. And yes it has been like that in 3.5.

Being limited to tricks does not obviate the control of the player. What's more, you aren't limited to the tricks on the list provided you can make a Handle Animal check DC 25 to push the animal. Manage that, and you can get it to attempt anything it is physically capable of.

Just because a check needs to be made does not necessarily mean it is under the GM's control.

Yes it does. At level 1 all you have is ONE trick. You can have it learn more with time...but that means you can eitehr command the animal comanpion to either attack OR stay. In fact the 3.5 devs were quite clear that the player not have control over their animal companions in sage advice. Yes you can roll to push...good luck with that DC 25 at low levels. So no you do NOT have control over your animal companion beyond the tricks you know and when you roll a DC 25 check to push. You always go on about how you play by RAW...but you really don't. You assume your groups houserules to be RAW and assume that the rest of us are wrong all the time. Hell even people that would normal never agree tends to agree against you...and as nice as having board unity is, you seem to still be blissfully ignorant of how bad that is for you.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cold Napalm wrote:
You always go on about how you play by RAW...but you really don't. You assume your groups houserules to be RAW and assume that the rest of us are wrong all the time. Hell even people that would normal never agree tends to agree against you...and as nice as having board unity is, you seem to still be blissfully ignorant of how bad that is for you.

Attacking me is a great way to build community unity. *rolls eyes*

Your statement is highly misleading, and a strawman. Nobody can truly play RAW. There are too many gray areas in the rules, too many opposing interpretations that are still correct within the rules.

All you've done is describe limitations, which ALL characters have. You have not yet cited a single rule that clearly dictates that a GM controls the animal companion. In fact, I see the tricks system as clear evidence that it is a PLAYER who controls the animal companion (not the GM), if only in a limited fashion.

For someone who frowns upon my posting habits, you sure seem to like calling people "wrong" yourself quite often, I noticed.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

All you've done is describe limitations, which ALL characters have. You have not yet cited a single rule that clearly dictates that a GM controls the animal companion. In fact, I see the tricks system as clear evidence that it is a PLAYER who controls the animal companion (not the GM), if only in a limited fashion.

For someone who frowns upon my posting habits, you sure seem to like calling people "wrong" yourself quite often, I noticed.

First I would like to state that both of your tones are confrontational, but I have to agree with Cold Napalm.

Secondly, I am under the impression that everyone gets one character to play. Any additional characters (familiars, animal companions, cohorts, etc.) are controlled by the GM. While it is true, it is not expressly stated whom controls them, I think having to make a check (in the case of Handle Animal) means that you are NOT in fact in control. No more so than you would count someone you've used Intimidate on as an extension of your character.

Thirdly, I believe it is the GM's job to properly role-play a creature. As such I think saying that because you took a feat this imp is somehow fully trustworthy cheapens the whole experience. I would think as a powerful evil sorceress she has learned not to trust anyone. And honestly being dragged to hell is her just reward. Also if you would complain about a GM being unfair with that, think how unfair it is for a player to make a venerable character, get all of the INT/WIS/CHA boosts and then possess a troll for it's physical stats. That's powergaming, and I'd feel it would be necessary to remove the character to be fair to the other players.

Finally you are honestly making the whole process overly complicated. Reincarnate. Do you really want to have a character that's existence is dependent on an imp not betraying her, a necklace not being destroyed, and no one casting dispel magic? Sure that wouldn't kill you, but it's still a set back. Oh, and anti-magic. It just seems like you'd be a burden on your party.

P.S.: I'm not going to take the time to look thru the spells, but I think enough people here have posted reasons that this would not work (body vs corpse, etc.) that any GM would be within rights to say it doesn't work.

Sovereign Court

Mechanically, your immortality solution appears pretty sound. I will not look deeply into it as others already have. What I will recommend, however, is to email your DM well in advance with your intentions. DMs **HATE** "surprise cleverness" because it is antithesis to their role to control the flow of information (i.e. it may really throw a wrench in the plot or distract too much from the plot). Most DMs are more than happy to work in such important PC events into their game but they need time to incorporate the changes and "realign" the timeline/plot around such a game changing event.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Valcrist wrote:
I believe it is the GM's job to properly role-play a creature. As such I think saying that because you took a feat this imp is somehow fully trustworthy cheapens the whole experience. I would think as a powerful evil sorceress she has learned not to trust anyone. And honestly being dragged to hell is her just reward.

I actually agree with you on this point. It can be cheapened if handled irresponsibly by either the player or the GM. However, I think that the "just reward" that you describe should be a roleplaying element only. Essentially, when Hama is retired/killed/whatever, her imp enacts its plan and she gets dragged to hell. I don't think it should be used by the GM to ruin the player's fun by ending an adventuring career prematurely, but as a tool to increase the flavor and fun of the character. If it is something that happens mid-campaign, it should happen as a collaboration between the player and the GM. Players hate surprises that interfere with their character concepts just as much as GMs hate surprises that interfere with their plots.

Whether or not the GM controls the familiar, I know this much for sure: It was NOT the game designers intent to make it a tool for RUINING someone's fun.

Liberty's Edge

Yes, well if my "fun" is to make my character into an immortal lich and part of my GM's "fun" is to never allow any of the characters to have immortality... it would seem that the fun is already ruined for somebody, no?

This is why it's important to work with your GM when you try to change the game so drastically.


Ravingdork wrote:
During the entire time, though, no one in my play group (any of them) even considered the possibility of the imp familiar betraying Hama.

I suspect a lot of mortals who make deals with devils think that.

But in this case the actual text of the books runs directly counter to your assumption.

Pathfinder PRD wrote:
Willingly serving spellcasters as familiars, imps play the role of dutiful servants, often granting their masters cunning advice and infernal insights. In truth, though, an imp works to deliver souls to Hell, assuring that its master's soul - and as many collateral souls as possible - face damnation upon death.

Handing your soul on a silver platter to a creature whose only goal is to take that soul directly to Hell for its masters is the type of poor decision that most of the damned likely regret while they are being consumed, unless overweening pride is still clouding their judgment even then.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Coriat wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
During the entire time, though, no one in my play group (any of them) even considered the possibility of the imp familiar betraying Hama.

I suspect a lot of mortals who make deals with devils think that.

But in this case the actual text of the books runs directly counter to your assumption.

Pathfinder PRD wrote:
Willingly serving spellcasters as familiars, imps play the role of dutiful servants, often granting their masters cunning advice and infernal insights. In truth, though, an imp works to deliver souls to Hell, assuring that its master's soul - and as many collateral souls as possible - face damnation upon death.
Handing your soul on a silver platter to a creature whose only goal is to take that soul directly to Hell for its masters is the type of poor decision that most of the damned likely regret while they are being consumed, unless overweening pride is still clouding their judgment even then.

I am very familiar, thanks.

However, there is nothing stating that, that is the imp's ONLY goal. It even supports the idea that it will let Hama go on for an entire adventuring career, collecting as many collateral souls as possible along the way.

I'm not arguing against how imps SHOULD act. I'm arguing against how some people say the game should be run. It seems to me many people are player-screw happy.

Sovereign Court

The Imp has infinite time effectively. It's not in any hurry to betray its master.

That said, it would subtly try and encourage its master to be as domineering, powerful and evil as possible, so that when the spellcaster does eventually die they have a mighty powerful soul to bargain with and possibly advance more than one step of demonhood.

Some might argue that the Imp would be worried by the spellcaster seeking immortality through Lichdom etc.- But the fate of Liches is usually imprisonment or eventual true death. And as a bonus, the soul is even more depraved and powerful than it was before the Lichdom!

I'm not in a 'screw players camp'. But an Imp familiar has intelligence and motivation enough to eventually want to take the soul and use it as a bargaining chip. It won't actively attempt to get the PC killed, but I do not feel it should be treated like an animal companion, paladin mount or standard familiar.

I would treat the Imp as a friendly, allied NPC as well as a familiar. It shouldn't be completely under your control, but it generally has very little reason to oppose your wishes. I would only take control of the Imp away from the spellcaster in extreme cases.


To be honest, as a DM, I think I'm not player screw happy (Any of my players here feel free to disagree)

However, the aforementioned scenario of handing your soul to a devil on a silver platter makes my fingers twitch.

Sovereign Court

Coriat wrote:

To be honest, as a DM, I think I'm not player screw happy (Any of my players here feel free to disagree)

However, the aforementioned scenario of handing your soul to a devil on a silver platter makes my fingers twitch.

It shouldn't. Its likely beyond the scope of the campaign, except perhaps in a TPK.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:


However, there is nothing stating that, that is the imp's ONLY goal. It even supports the idea that it will let Hama go on for an entire adventuring career, collecting as many collateral souls as possible along the way.

I'm not arguing against how imps SHOULD act. I'm arguing against how some people say the game should be run. It seems to me many people are player-screw happy.

Who's tell who is playing the game wrong?!? I'm, saying what your playing isn't RAW. Not that it's wrong. In fact YOUR the one calling people who think that giving an imp your soul on a silver plater and having the imp do what it's SUPPOSE to do is playing it wrong and we are killer GMs or player-screw happy.

101 to 150 of 219 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Have I discovered a new route to immortality? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.