|
Just out of idle curiosity, what sort of legal build in PFS could one make that would allowable for a pig "mount"- that could be any class or combination thereof?
One thing that I got out of all this is that it might not be such a bad idea to have a secondary PFS character in reserve for cases where there might be a conflict of what might be deemed allowable in a PFS game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOINK?
|
One thing that I got out of all this is that it might not be such a bad idea to have a secondary PFS character in reserve for cases where there might be a conflict of what might be deemed allowable in a PFS game.
If you stick to standard options then you shouldn't have a problem. Also, keeping two characters at the same level and that fulfill the same role in a party would be challenging at the very least.
Did it happen like this?
Dam it ninja'ed... at least you have good taste in Britcom...
|
|
I'm coming late to this party, but this has been a very interesting thread to read.
I'll say this: as a "pro-pig" gamer, I find the attitudes of the PFS GMs who take a hard line stance on this issue disturbing. I have long held reservations about organized play being too formal (and PFS organized play in particular seeming to be very hung up on rules), and some posts in this thread reinforce those reservations.
If the "anti-pig" lobby is representative of the general attitude of PFS Venture-Captains and GMs, I am very glad indeed that I do not participate in any such events in my locale (with all due respect to our local VC, who is a very nice guy).
I'll stick to my home games where we can have all the pig mounts we want, goblins can hanker for bacon, and RAW be damned.
|
|
The couple who were the ones affected by this must be just shaking their heads in sheer amazement at the discussion here -- and sadly, I expect that they will do so for many years to come.
I know my own wife sat in her chair with jaw agape as I described what happened, the ruling, and this ensuing thread. Her reaction?: "If that's the sort of attitude down there, I will never play PFS at Gencon with you, EVER."
I highly doubt that my own wife's reaction to this whole fracas was unique.
Also: this.
|
Wait?.. The PFS FAQ did not clear this up?
As a paladin or cavalier, what mount can I have?
As a paladin, your divine bond mount must be at least one size category larger than you starting at 1st level. If you’re a Medium PC, your mount must be Large. If you’re a Small PC, your mount must be at least Medium. You may only select a mount from the listed mounts on page 63 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook unless another source grants access to additional creature choices.As a cavalier, you may select a mount from those listed on page 33 of the Advanced Player's Guide. No additional mounts are legal in Pathfinder Society Organized Play except when granted from another legal source.
FAQ clearly states what Mounts you can have, I think that should be clear enough about re-skinning.
If I was GM, I'd allow it. If it keeps the player happy, isn't too absurd, and doesn't break the game balance, it's fine.
But, if the organized play rules specifically forbid it, and the GM is expected to follow those rules, then rules are rules.
|
I would allow a character to re-skin a different legal animal and make it into a "baby" boar. It is not the failing of the PC who wants to tailor a story with their companion, it is the failing of the game itself for not offering her the option in the first place. I don't think this is a case where the PC should be penalized, especially since the GM is given some (albeit not much) leeway in making decisions at his table. And this re-skinning is not game breaking, so it is definitely in the purview of the GM.
|
|
Anyone GM who decides to allow breaking of rules with their players need to make sure the player understands it may not be the case with another GM who decides to follow the rules and they need to take into account that they may not have this re-skin with that next GM. If you don't you do a disservice to the player when the player gets surprised at the next table they are at and they are told they can't do it.
I would allow a character to re-skin a different legal animal and make it into a "baby" boar. It is not the failing of the PC who wants to tailor a story with their companion, it is the failing of the game itself for not offering her the option in the first place. I don't think this is a case where the PC should be penalized, especially since the GM is given some (albeit not much) leeway in making decisions at his table. And this re-skinning is not game breaking, so it is definitely in the purview of the GM.
I've often felt that the difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Evil is that while a Lawful Good person will find ways in which the rules can be made to work for the betterment of others, while a Lawful Evil person will find ways in which the rules can be made to work against others.
It seems that a similar comparison can be made to GM's.
A Lawful Good GM will find a way that the rules will allow a player to have fun, without compromising the game for everyone.
A Lawful Good GM will find a reason that the rules will prevent a player from having fun.
(And then Lawful Neutral GM, I think, will look at the rules, and issue a ruling without regard for the feelings of the player in question.)
I myself hope that I work towards the LG spectrum when I GM. I've met a few LE GM's. (Like the guy way back when in Living Greyhawk that I saw chase down an entire party of fleeing PC's and kill them one by one.)
|
|
I'm coming late to this party, but this has been a very interesting thread to read.
I'll say this: as a "pro-pig" gamer, I find the attitudes of the PFS GMs who take a hard line stance on this issue disturbing. I have long held reservations about organized play being too formal (and PFS organized play in particular seeming to be very hung up on rules), and some posts in this thread reinforce those reservations.
If the "anti-pig" lobby is representative of the general attitude of PFS Venture-Captains and GMs, I am very glad indeed that I do not participate in any such events in my locale (with all due respect to our local VC, who is a very nice guy).
I'll stick to my home games where we can have all the pig mounts we want, goblins can hanker for bacon, and RAW be damned.
If this is the impression that has been formed, you may be surprised if you actually sat down to play with some of the folks you are talking about.
As a Venture-Captain, part of my job description is to try to answer questions about the OP rules. The resources that I have to answer them are the OP Guide, the Core Rules, the messageboard threads, past experiences at conventions with orgs and other VCs, and whatever communications I may have with the Paizo folks.
If someone asks "What are the rules about using an alternate mount?" or "Can I re-skin a pet or item?", I will answer with the rules, based on the above sources.
Could I vary from those rules at a session I was running? Sure, if nobody was gaining an unfair advantage, or breaking the scenario, or spoiling other players' fun, or completely destroying immersion.... (Please note that I am not saying any of these were the case. Anecdotally, they were not, tho I haven't read the scenario)
I will certainly speak out to defend a GM who came to the boards in good conscience to ask others' opinion, who had volunteered and run at least 8 (!) slots at GenCon, made a ruling based on a correct reading of the prior campaign admistrators guidelines, and is then told he owes the player an apology and is a bad GM.
I would also caution folks that they may not want to push too hard for a final ruling on this topic. IMO, there is only one place to draw the line. I suspect that the vast majority would prefer the status quo: an existing guideline that re-skinning is not allowed, and that you should be prepared for a GM to disallow a re-skin during a particular session.
|
I think the thread is done. The Guide to PFS play and the FAQ are the rules we "try" to play by. Every GM in many games HAS to make calls to rules as they see fit.
The game is what the GM's allows it to be. The idea of consistent rules at each table is nice but it isn't a reality. Every person at the table makes each game unique in their own way.
Make the table fun and spread PFS to others. If you want the game to spread then make it fun for others.
But this thread has made me think of other issues in general.
Here one for you rules layers...In the corerule book, or Guide to PFS play I can't find a rule the states you can't use weighted dice. (Not that I condone this but an interesting omission)
In the PFS guide states, "Do not falsify rolls, do not falsify your chronicle results, and do not add mysterious new items to your inventory." Is the best thing I can find. But rolling a weighted die still rolls something and that something is a roll.
Now any GM is one semi-operational brain cell or Kyle even will just call that cheating and toss the players as they should but what if the players asks the simple question of What is the tolerance of the dice then? None of the commercially made gaming dice we use would be tolerable in a gambling hall as their considered to be imperfect to a degree to where rolls are considered to be somewhat predictable.
Now how far is a rules lawyer going to go?
Now this is just an extreme example or something to show that the rules are just not perfect and do not cover anywhere near all the possibilities of human imagination. (Nor should they)
Also last but not least I am tired about reading on a pig / dog thread ;-)
|
|
If this is the impression that has been formed, you may be surprised if you actually sat down to play with some of the folks you are talking about.
Perhaps I'll do so at a local game session one of these days. I don't know that I'm terribly excited to sit at a table run by some of the GMs who have chimed in here, however. It's frankly a giant turn-off.
As a Venture-Captain, part of my job description is to try to answer questions about the OP rules. The resources that I have to answer them are the OP Guide, the Core Rules, the messageboard threads, past experiences at conventions with orgs and other VCs, and whatever communications I may have with the Paizo folks.
If someone asks "What are the rules about using an alternate mount?" or "Can I re-skin a pet or item?", I will answer with the rules, based on the above sources.
From all available evidence, the messageboard post that was used to justify disallowing the reskinned dog wasn't binding. Furthermore, the justification for disallowing the reskin based on the contents of the adventure seems like a reach of logic, and a retroactive one at that - it's almost like the OP is saying, "A-HA! I *knew* I was right to disallow that! Those rulebreakers could've ruined everything with these goblins in the mix!"
I will certainly speak out to defend a GM who came to the boards in good conscience to ask others' opinion, who had volunteered and run at least 8 (!) slots at GenCon, made a ruling based on a correct reading of the prior campaign admistrators guidelines, and is then told he owes the player an apology and is a bad GM.
And I will certainly point out that you can have it one of two ways: you can follow all the rules, every time, just the way they are written, or you can have people actually show up and play your games and watch interest in your hobby grow accordingly.
Which would you prefer?
I myself hope that I work towards the LG spectrum when I GM. I've met a few LE GM's. (Like the guy way back when in Living Greyhawk that I saw chase down an entire party of fleeing PC's and kill them one by one.)Did the GM chase them down, or did the GM's monsters chase them down?No.. the GM chased them down.. LG was hardcore!
The monsters didn't just attack the party.. they went after your family.
;)
-James
Tru dat.
I have a cousin that hasn't been seen since. And a brother that still checks his car for bombs thinking that the GM is still out to get him.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ok, I may be flogging the dead equine here, but I had a thought on my day off.
Tieflings. They're the poster child for reskinning. (To a lesser extent, sorcerers too, because as the aberrant bloodline says, it can manifest physically). I can make my tiefling look perfectly normal, I can make it look like Illyana Rasputin or Radovan, and it will always mechanically be a tiefling.
Likewise, if I describe my human elemental bloodline sorcerer as having "skin the colour of molten bronze, and hair that always moves as if flame" he's still a human and not going to get any reaction penalties.
Now I'm not saying my tiefling is human, or that my human sorcerer is an ifrit, so it might not be 'calling a dog a pig' but it popped into my head.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hey, Matt.
I see a difference between "my PC is unmistakably human, but has traits reminiscent of ifrits" versus "my character is an ifrit, but we'll use human stats for it". Re-skinning is a disconnect between the "reality" of the story we're collectively telling, and the runes underpinning the game mechanics.
Likewise, I see a difference beween "my magic missile spell is purple" or "my magic missiles resemble icicles of force, but it's immediately recognizable as a magic missile" versus "my magic missile spell looks for all the world like ray of frost, except it uses the rules for magic missile."
In the original example, I offered that the player character could call her mount a pig; she could be delusional and think it was a pig, but everybody else would recognize it as the animal it was.
I came across as unfriendly, and I take responsibility for that. But really, I like people to have fun with their characters.
|
Perhaps I'll do so at a local game session one of these days. I don't know that I'm terribly excited to sit at a table run by some of the GMs who have chimed in here, however. It's frankly a giant turn-off.
If this is the impression that has been formed, you may be surprised if you actually sat down to play with some of the folks you are talking about.
I would point out that 5 out of 6 GM's had no problems with the reskin and that matches my experience with most players/GMs. In fact, those who argue most venemently for the anti-pig faction tend to, at least in my area, be the GM's who are last mustered at local cons and at the game shop have just the minimum number of players show up while there are two already filled tables and people on the wait list.
And this is the tone set by my local Venture Captain.
I will certainly speak out to defend a GM who came to the boards in good conscience to ask others' opinion, who had volunteered and run at least 8 (!) slots at GenCon, made a ruling based on a correct reading of the prior campaign admistrators guidelines, and is then told he owes the player an apology and is a bad GM.
As the person who told them they owed the player an apology, I stand by it. I highly respect eight slots. There was nothing except on the boards as far as reskinning goes (and even that is HIGHLY open to interpretation as several people have pointed out) which I doubt he could look up at the time of the ruling anyway so I doubt a prior admins guidelines had anything to do with it.
Point is he made an issue when there was no need to make an issue and reduced the fun of at least two players in a pointless pissing contest. I said that was an example of bad GMing. That's different than saying he is a bad GM.
Chris came on the boards asking for frank opinions and he got what he wanted which was frank answers and many were along the the lines that he should loosen up. Several people suggested there were ways to handle it and why reskinning was required in some cases. These are valid opinions.
And I will certainly point out that you can have it one of two ways: you can follow all the rules, every time, just the way they are written, or you can have people actually show up and play your games and watch interest in your hobby grow accordingly.
Which would you prefer?
And that is the main point. GMs who act like jerks for the sake of being jerks scare off players, even if they are 'correct'.
|
And I will certainly point out that you can have it one of two ways: you can follow all the rules, every time, just the way they are written, or you can have people actually show up and play your games and watch interest in your hobby grow accordingly.
Which would you prefer?
These two aren't mutually exclusive.
|
|
And that is the main point. GMs who act like jerks for the sake of being jerks scare off players, even if they are 'correct'.
And this circular argument really needs to stop. If there is a problem GM out there, the VCs and PFS can take care of it. At this point all we are doing is making anyone who comes to the board looking for information on PFS see bickering.
If people want to talk about the merits or problems with skinning thats fine, but we really don't need people googling PFS and finding arguments on "GMs are Jerks".
Be excellent to each other people.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm not in the habit of writing self-defense posts. They come off as unduly hostile. But I thought I'd correct two presumptions.
From all available evidence, the messageboard post that was used to justify disallowing the reskinned dog wasn't binding. Furthermore, the justification for disallowing the reskin based on the contents of the adventure seems like a reach of logic, and a retroactive one at that - it's almost like the OP is saying, "A-HA! I *knew* I was right to disallow that! Those rulebreakers could've ruined everything with these goblins in the mix!"
So far as I could tell at the time, the ruling was still in place. I thought I was following the rules as I ought.
According to the FAQ, it is still in place. ("As a cavalier, you may select a mount from those listed on page 33 of the Advanced Player's Guide. No additional mounts are legal in Pathfinder Society Organized Play except when granted from another legal source.") You can have a pony. You can't have a giant ferret (using the pony stats). You can call the pony a giant ferret, but it's still a pony, and everybody else can tell.
And, truth to tell, I'd read the scenario, indeed run it several times, before sitting down at the table. The issue with dogs and ponies in the scenario is pretty obvious; the Venture-Captain's instructions to the players are explicit: don't bring them.
There was nothing except on the boards as far as reskinning goes (and even that is HIGHLY open to interpretation as several people have pointed out) which I doubt he could look up at the time of the ruling anyway so I doubt a prior admins guidelines had anything to do with it.
I didn't need to look it up at the table; I had already read that ruling.
See? This all looks hostile. I came here, as you say, looking for feedback, not for a pat on the back. I appreciate most every post here. It's made me a better game-master. I probably still won't let you re-skin things in PFS, but I'll make sure to see what sort of compromise we can come up with, within the game rules, that'll satisfy you.
|
|
Quotation edited for brevity and readability.
So far as I could tell at the time, the ruling was still in place. I thought I was following the rules as I ought.According to the FAQ, it is still in place... You can have a pony. You can't have a giant ferret (using the pony stats). You can call the pony a giant ferret, but it's still a pony, and everybody else can tell.
And, truth to tell, I'd read the scenario, indeed run it several times, before sitting down at the table. The issue with dogs and ponies in the scenario is pretty obvious; the Venture-Captain's instructions to the players are explicit: don't bring them.
See? This all looks hostile. I came here, as you say, looking for feedback, not for a pat on the back. I appreciate most every post here. It's made me a better game-master. I probably still won't let you re-skin things in PFS, but I'll make sure to see what sort of compromise we can come up with, within the game rules, that'll satisfy you.
Having not read the scenario, and not wanting to wade back through this thread again to fact-check, here is the litmus test for me personally: is the issue that the dogs/ponies are going to be eaten alive by the goblins, or is the VC's instruction a metagame justification for removing mounts from play for the duration of the scenario because they would present other mechanical problems?
If it's the latter, then I get why the ruling has to occur - sometimes mounts just plain get in the way of a planned sequence of events ("No, you CAN'T hoist your donkey down the wishing well into the dungeon!"). But if it's the former, then a pig has no impact on the thematic conflict introduced by the goblins' presence (in theory, anyway - I still say goblins probably really like bacon!).
I don't mean to paint you as hostile or force you into a position where you have to come off as defensive - indeed, I think you've taken the criticism very well. But I'm just not the kind of GM who believes rules should unduly impact fun, especially when the mechanical impact of such a handwave is negligible at best. Using the game mechanics of a dog to portray a pig seems like such a harmless change, and the suspension of disbelief required to tell the player, "You only THINK it's a pig, but it's a dog in reality, and to everyone else" seems heavy-handed and unnecessary.
My concern is that by obsessing over things like this, even in an organized play setting, we confirm the worst stereotypes about our hobbies and the people who engage in them. We effectively build a wall between ourselves and the newcomers who are hoping to find an in and enjoy an esoteric and frequently-misunderstood pastime. I just don't think that rules that hamper even the slightest bit of harmless creativity and character affectation are a good thing for Pathfinder. There is, of course, the argument that if you give people an inch, they'll sometimes take a mile, but it feels as if these sorts of decisions throw common sense to the wind.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, Matt.
I see a difference between "my PC is unmistakably human, but has traits reminiscent of ifrits" versus "my character is an ifrit, but we'll use human stats for it". Re-skinning is a disconnect between the "reality" of the story we're collectively telling, and the runes underpinning the game mechanics.
Likewise, I see a difference beween "my magic missile spell is purple" or "my magic missiles resemble icicles of force, but it's immediately recognizable as a magic missile" versus "my magic missile spell looks for all the world like ray of frost, except it uses the rules for magic missile."
In the original example, I offered that the player character could call her mount a pig; she could be delusional and think it was a pig, but everybody else would recognize it as the animal it was.
I came across as unfriendly, and I take responsibility for that. But really, I like people to have fun with their characters.
Well I wasn't calling you out, so no worries :-)
It just occured to me as a 'similar' example. (I'm the guy who invented the 'rabbit mage' who shot force bunnies for his magic missile, remember?)
I do find the conversation interesting, BTW, at least the civil parts ;-)
|
|
that 5 out of 6 GMs would let it slide should not be used to condemn the 1 who would not.
I am all for GMs making allowances to make sure everyone has fun bending the rules a little here and there. /but/ it should not be expected.
It should never be a GMs fault just because "the last 4 GMs let me do it"
Part of PFS is having a common base line that GMs work from.
|
|
I ended up playing Frostfur captives with Chris as my GM this Saturday in Iowa and I got a bit of the overly dictatorial vibe that the couple mentioned. (Some of this could have been reaction from reading too much of this thread though.) The actual game though was quite fun and felt no extraneous restrictions.
I was a little bit disappointed that I had to leave my +2 Keen Lance of Jousting wielding, old Hell Knight, armored kilt/armored kilt wearing, ape companion (that was reskinned as a pig) in Absalom though.
btw: hi again Iowa.
ps. Chris: sorry I didn't give you feedback right after the game when you asked. I was getting pretty tired by the end of your game but better late then never I suppose.
|
|
I had hoped this thread would die *sigh*
There are two issue at play in here. The first is the legality of re-skinning. To me, it is clear, per info previously issued by the Organized Play Director, that re-skinning is not permitted. So, the discussion as to whether or not the GM was following the rules should not be an issue.
However, as to whether or not he could have chosen to "skirt" this rule for the sake of player enjoyment, is a horse of a different color (hehe, can I do that within the current rekin rules?).
I respect a GM's decision to follow strict rules or to allow some freedom for the sake of player enjoyment. But let's not forget that it is just as much the responsibility of the GM to provide a fun environment for the players, they are responsible for giving the GM a good time as well.
Perhaps, both sides could have made better decisions to accommodate the other. But in the end, not everyone is going to like someone else's style of play. So unless we want to discuss how one player's style is "right" and another one is "wrong," we should move on.
Remember, this isn't a job. We all don't "have" to get along for the sake of the "business." We are all doing this voluntarily and can play in whatever fashion we choose. If that does not fit with those at your table, then you can walk away. That might not be the "best" solution, but it is what it is.
I know of three players in my past that I choose never to play with again. I don't expect them to stop playing, just that my style of play and interpretation of the rules is sooo different than theirs, it's better we don't play together. No harm, no foul.
I recently had a player leave a table I was running. He claims that it was due to another player's style of play, but maybe he was just avoiding conflict with me. Perhaps he didn't like my GM'ing style and rather than suffer through it for hours, decided it better to excuse himself. I dunno.
This joke has probably been made in the previous 240 posts, but... upon seeing the title of this post, my first reaction was, "Ted Kennedy was at Gen Con?"
|
|
I think my Next game I will "re-skin" my GM to look like Jenny Poussin. ;)
My Reskins.
My Summoner Ari Aren and her 'chicken' Bertie
Eliese Velune, Beloved Of Zyphus (Oracle)
My Minkai-jin Paladin, Shiba Natsume
I have pictures I bring with me when I run these characters. If you can find me a 1/2 Orc Barbaque chef (Male) and a halfling wizard, I would be happy. If anyone can cast disguise self IRL, I will play in character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll admit that I've never played PFS organized play. I've only played Pathfinder in home games and non-PFS convention events.
I mostly GM nowadays, so I fully support your right to decide what can or can't happen at your table. That said, if things are so strict that this style of GMing is not only the norm, but expected, then I'll say that I have no interest in trying PFS.
I'm of the opinion that there would not have been any harm in letting the player ride a pig. Quite the opposite, in fact. As either a player or GM, I would have welcomed that kind of creative thinking. That kind of stuff is what makes roleplaying fun for me, and what turns a so-so adventure into a memorable one.
I'm not saying your approach was wrong. Indeed, it sounds like you actually did the "correct" thing. Its just that this style/rule doesn't appeal to me, and actually discourages me from wanting to play PFS. From that standpoint, being "correct" doesn't make it "right".
On a related note...
However, mounts (of all sorts, from a class ability or simply purchased) need to be at least one size caegory larger than their riders, so that would make it a wild boar (Medium) instead of a domesticated pig (Small). Which is, unfortunately, not available until 4th level.
I'm afraid this isn't true about all pigs, or even most pigs. Swine come in LOTS of different sizes. In all of these links, I think you'll agree that the DOMESTIC pig shown not only isn't small, they are actually LARGE size, in terms of Pathfinder statistics.
As a general rule, domestic livestock will actually be LARGER than their wild cousins. I originally went into a bit about natural selection vs. domestication, but deleted it for brevity. The short-version is that domestic swine sometimes top 1200 pounds (most cows sold at auction are around 1000 lbs.) Conversely, javelina are only around 3 1/2 feet in length and weigh around 60 pounds. Warthogs are only about 4 feet in length and weigh between 110 and 170 pounds. Wild boars are only about 5 feet in length and weigh around 300 pounds.
|
|
My guess for why pigs are considered small in PFS is that the only listed, statted form for a pig that would be considered legal in a strict PFS "sense" is the pig familiar from Ultimate Magic (page 119).
Perhaps when Ultimate Equipment comes out, there might be a small chance for having an expanded list of purchasable mounts other than the current listed ones.
My guess for why pigs are considered small in PFS is that the only listed, statted form for a pig that would be considered legal in a strict PFS "sense" is the pig familiar from Ultimate Magic (page 119).
Perhaps when Ultimate Equipment comes out, there might be a small chance for having an expanded list of purchasable mounts other than the current listed ones.
Ahh. That makes more sense why he chose "small". I don't own UM.
Regardless, I still think re-skinning is OK.
Not sure if anyone already quoted Halflings of Golarion, where it is stated that:
Halfling cavaliers ride war dogs or very small ponies, and are most commonly found in Andoran. In rural parts of lands where all halflings are free (such as Andoran), rustic farmers confronted with monster attacks have been known to “saddle up” a pig or even a cow and ride to defend their land, though city Halflings insist this is merely a stereotype.
So it seems 100% within the flavor of Golarion and PFS to have a Halfling riding a Pig. How to do this would be up to the GM, but not allowing reskinning seems overly strict. Slavish obedience to rules is unlikely to improve the fun factor of game.
|
|
I have pictures I bring with me when I run these characters. If you can find me a 1/2 Orc Barbaque chef (Male) and a halfling wizard, I would be happy. If anyone can cast disguise self IRL, I will play in character.You could wear this while playing the chef: http://www.hauntyourhome.com/detail/EL-M2430/Mini_Chef_hat.html. Otherwise, there's only this: http://www.coolminiornot.com/shop/miniatures/soda-pop-miniatures/soda-pop-i ron-chef.html
<edit>:If you meant a picture, how about this: http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090925053348/wowwiki/images/e/e9/Ch ef%27s_Hat.jpg ?