|
If it has no impact, it has no impact, and therefore is totally irrelevant to anything but the physical description. That being said, I'd put down good money that a lot of people will comment on this thread and say they wouldn't allow it at their table for <insert reason here>. Personally I consider that a good way of finding out which tables to avoid at conventions.
Just don't try to make a yellow tengu tiefling! We'll never hear the end of it.
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removed a post meant to do nothing but cause arguments on the forum. It is not welcome or acceptable. Please do not post if you wish to start flame wars. It's pretty simple - If PFS is not the game for you, then move on instead of bashing it. If you don't like the rules in place for PFS, don't play.
Home games where you can utilize every rule you want and take whatever liberties you want with your character are available. We certainly dont want people to participate if they aren't having a good time, especially if they feel we are hampering their character build. Thanks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel I missed a joke in there. Yellow tengu?Yes, a parrot headed bard named Jimmy.
There was a whole thread about a player who wanted to have his tengu be yellow instead of black. The thread was full of ideas about how to achieve this and many many references to Big Bird.
|
If it has no impact, it has no impact, and therefore is totally irrelevant to anything but the physical description. That being said, I'd put down good money that a lot of people will comment on this thread and say they wouldn't allow it at their table for <insert reason here>. Personally I consider that a good way of finding out which tables to avoid at conventions.
Just don't try to make a yellow tengu tiefling! We'll never hear the end of it.
There is an argument a to where the line of what is allowed and what is not. Even though I have been outspoken for a fairly wide interpretation of that is, and the people who disagree with me are usually honorable people.
That said, I don't have the right to ban a character concept from my table simply because I don't like it. However, because nonhuman Assimar/Tieflings are specifically banned, so we shouldn't get snippy. They, from what I can see, are acting to respect Golorian 'cannon' and avoiding a lot of questions about small characters.
Mike and Co. give us a lot of latitude on character concepts, we should respect that.
|
|
How can you tell?
Tiefling stands before you, has pointed ears and a tail and is slightly built.
Are they elf? Or is it just the devil giving them pointy ears and slender physique(Or was their mortal mom/dad just skinny?)? Could be either, and it doesn't matter. And, most importantly, you'll never know.
Unenforceable.
|
|
How can you tell?
Tiefling stands before you, has pointed ears and a tail and is slightly built.
Are they elf? Or is it just the devil giving them pointy ears and slender physique(Or was their mortal mom/dad just skinny?)? Could be either, and it doesn't matter. And, most importantly, you'll never know.
Unenforceable.
Correct!
Player: "My tiefling is part tengu! He has black feathers everywhere."
GM: "ZOMG YOU CAN'T DO THAT HE HAS TO BE HALF-HUMAN"
Player: "Fine, he's half-human. He has GLUED feathers all over himself. AND THEY ARE YELLOW. AND IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. Happy now?"
GM: "I've never been happy."
... anyway, Family Guy references aside, this may well be the most pointless distinction ever. It makes no difference. It changes nothing. It is utterly unenforceable because enforcing it makes no change to anything, anywhere.
But it seems to be really important to some people. So plan on having that conversation if you decide to go this route.
|
It is, however, utterly unenforcible, which is why it's a terrible rule. Never make a rule you can't back up.
There is a very good mechanical reason why, as a player, you should follow the rules.
Favored Enemy, Bane, and any other ability or spell that targets a specific race.
If a Tiefling were described as a half-elf rather than a half-human, some GM’s may get confused and think that:
And whether it is fluff or not, if as a GM and a V-L if I catch a player consistently flouting the rules, whether it is fluff or not, that sends up a red flag, and then I start auditing that player’s characters quite closely and keep my eye on them for any other inappropriate behavior at the table.
Its better to just follow the rules.
|
|
They would be entirely wrong, from start to finish.
A 'standard' tiefling is half human, but NOT A SINGLE human targeting effect works on the guy. The logic does not hold up.
Fella, it may not fit the rules. But not all GM’s are 100% rules savvy.
Additionally, even if it mechanically doesn’t affect anything, the one way that I can enforce the rule, is to make sure all your characters are audited before you sit down at my table should I notice you flouting said rule. I’m not saying you would do this. But that’s one way to enforce it. Make it very uncomfortable for you to flout the rule.
I have to interject with the question: what happened and when so that we started off with the classic 2e tiefling that wasn't of any single mortal origin, and it seems as of around half-way through 3.x it seems that people started to assume that all tieflings were of human stock? Was it when WotC started including things like tannaruk and feyri (though the latter are a specific, true-breeding line of tanar'ri and gold elves of a specific lineage, rather than intended as a generic elven tiefling)?
That's my guess, and I really lament that it happened to be honest. I like my tieflings of generally any heritage, or even mixed heritage, with most of the mortal stock being washed out by the fiendish, or any elven/dwarven/orc/halfling/gnome/human features being in flavor text only and of no rules consequence.
Also, the "half X, half Y" thing? Not entirely sure when that popped up, since they've never been half anything (that would be half-fiends). Tiefers are one generation distant at least.
Mind you, I'm not making a rules argument here, since my opinion doesn't (and shouldn't) count. And this is PFS specific anyway, not Golarion in general. Besides, my PFS tiefling is of human stock anyways.
-Todd Stewart (that guy who makes the occasional non-evil lich, neutral scaeduinar, and other stuff). ;)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I have a reputation as being pretty hard-nosed about fluff in PFS.
If somebody sat at my table with a portly, 5-foot-tall oread, with the impllication that his humanoid parent was a dwarf, or an "elf-y" Sylph, or a "half-orc-y" tiefling, but made it clear that the PCs outsider heritage both over-rode any mechanical effects of the humanoid parent, and was obvious at a glance, I wouldn't have any problem with that.
I don't have my copy of the Additional Resources handy. Is
Dwarf-blooded a PFS-legal Oread feat?
Lastly, Andrew, are you using the threat of multiple, harsh character audits as a punishment?
|
Nuku, I understand you're unhappy with the rules. However, I don't believe that's an excuse to ignore them. If you or someone you know were doing so, even in something like this, I would inform them of their mistake. I would also be hesitant to play with someone who gave the rules we play with so little consideration.
|
It is, however, utterly unenforcible, which is why it's a terrible rule. Never make a rule you can't back up.
What do GMs do in your neighborhood? Come by your house with scissors and say, "That's a nice character sheet you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it" in their attempt to make sure you're following all rules?
I don't think they ask for too much in society play rules wise. These scenarios are being played all over the world by people who might come together at any moment for a game. There needs to be a relatively equal experience for all. I just don't understand what I feel is an odd need to come in and rail against rules a person knew would be there in the first place. I don't see what good it does.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ok, I don't know if this would work...
Couldn't a tiefling/aasimar/etc take the adopted trait?
I've had the concept for a while of a tiefling/fetchling who was adopted* as a child and raised by a retiring adventurer. He grows up in a noble's house and is like a brother. If there were 'human' traits I wanted, or if I changed his 'family' to dwarves, elves, gnomes, etc. Taking adopted and PFS would be legal, right?
Also he'd consider himself 'human' or 'dwarven' 'gnome' etc, even if he was mechanically a tiefling.
Edit
*
|
|
You're missing the point. Even with a picture proudly displayed, there would be no way to know if a given tiefling was half... anything.
Read the descriptions. You could look like any core race. You could look like just about anything, and still be 100% legal.
It is a terrible rule because it does -nothing-.
It's not a terrible rule because 'tee hee, I am so clever!'
You may as well make a rule saying 'And no character can enjoy the flavor of brie cheese!' Unless chronicles start appearing with brie cheese being served pointedly at the characters with bluff checks required to pretend to like it(which you don't, rules say so), this would be equally as unenforceable and pointless.
|
|
A great amount of PFS is difficult or impossible to enforce. I could create a fake home game and give myself a level 12 character on GM credit with a few created accounts, and it would be very difficult for a convention GM to figure that out. However, that doesn't mean I will.
The same should go for a lot of these rules. No, most GMs will not bother you about it, and a lot won't see the effort in trying to enforce it; don't take that to mean it's an inherently bad rule. It's there for a reason, and like any of the other honour system implementations in PFS, I would expect my players to follow it.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Erosthenes, that's the D&D 4th-Edition version, yes. You're not ignorant at all.
In Golarion, a tiefling isn't even a humanoid. She's an outsider (subtype native)who, by default, has a heritage including some fiend ancestor somewhere (devil, demon, oni, rakshasa, daemon, or -shudder- qlippoth). The don't have to have either horns or a tail, but there are some physical indications of her terrible heritage. Maybe she has blue skin and fangs. Or maybe she looks otherwise humanoid but casts the shadow, and the reflection, of an erynies devil.
|
|
Fella, it may not fit the rules. But not all GM’s are 100% rules savvy.
Additionally, even if it mechanically doesn’t affect anything, the one way that I can enforce the rule, is to make sure all your characters are audited before you sit down at my table should I notice you flouting said rule. I’m not saying you would do this. But that’s one way to enforce it. Make it very uncomfortable for you to flout the rule.
If a GM attempts to target a character with an effect that doesn't actually work on said character, the player need simply point that out. If the GM insists on breaking the mechanical rules because they're offended that the player is not 100% in compliance with pointless rules about fluff, then the GM has no moral basis to be judging the player in the first place.
Additionally, audits are only threatening if they're going to turn something up. Otherwise they're just a huge waste of time. Now, let's look at a situation where a player gets a long, drawn-out audit by the GM every time he sits down to play. The audit never turns up anything wrong. The player never bats an eyelash as the GM flips through his records, frantically looking for wrongdoing. Three to six other players twiddle their thumbs well in to each gaming session as the GM tries, and fails, to find something over which he can punish the player.
Who is the jerk in that situation? And if you're going to say "the player, because RULES," then ask yourself who will be perceived to be the jerk in that situation. Then, ask yourself if that might be a little more relevant to the way that situation will work out in the long run.
You may as well make a rule saying 'And no character can enjoy the flavor of brie cheese!' Unless chronicles start appearing with brie cheese being served pointedly at the characters with bluff checks required to pretend to like it(which you don't, rules say so), this would be equally as unenforceable and pointless.
<3! Well said.
If you don't like the rules in place for PFS, don't play.
Rules about mechanics != rules about fluff. Rules about mechanics are important because they determine the way the table runs. Rules about fluff have no impact on other people's play because they determine nothing but the mental image in the mind of one player. Rules about mechanics can be enforced. Rules about fluff simply cannot. Even if a GM makes me write "my tiefling is half human" on the chalk board a thousand times, he can't actually change the way I picture my tiefling in my head.
It's a silly rule. And asserting that it's not because somehow all rules are of equal import is equally silly.
|
|
It's not even about the 'honor' system.
By the rules, you could be a fuzzy tiefling with tiger stripes and a tail to match and no known parents. Human with Rakshasa crossbreed, or half catfolk? Who cares. No difference is made.
Short tiefling with an awesome beard. Bearded devil + human, or a dwarf crossbreed? Who cares, no difference is made.
You can't know, you can't determine, and it makes no perceivable difference.
Comparing this to falsifying chroncicle reports is a mighty big straw man to bring to the debate and an extreme example of false equivalence. We're not talking about cheating.
|
|
Good luck with that. You sound like tons of fun.
* PS, how often do you read people's physical descriptions before starting gameplay?
chuckle... I said if a character consistently flouts the rules.
By and Large, I'm a very liberal GM, and I'd wager that most of the players who play at my table have fun.
I have yet to do any kind of an audit, except for checking over brand new player's first characters to make sure they understand the character creation rules.
|
|
Lastly, Andrew, are you using the threat of multiple, harsh character audits as a punishment?
What I'm saying is (and keep in mind, I've yet to have to do an audit of a player's character with the exception of first time player's first characters to make sure they understand the creation rules) that if I notice a player is consistently not following the rules of fluff, reskinning, et. al. then that would send up a red flag.
I'd then want to audit their characters.
If they continue to flout the rules, then I'd continue to audit their characters (that is if it doesn't come to a point where I just dis-invite them from PFS in my region).
Breaking the rules is called cheating.
But no, I'm not talking about being punitive.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Nuku,
If I am understanding you correctly, you're saying that you could play a raksasha tiefling, and the stats would be the same if it was a human origin raksasha tiefling, or a catfolk raksasha tiefling, because it's a tiefling The parentage doesn't change anything, right? That, AFAIK would be fine.
If you are saying there should be a mechanical difference between a tiefling of human stock and, say, one of halfling stock, that is specifically disallowed in PFS.
|
|
It's not even about the 'honor' system.
By the rules, you could be a fuzzy tiefling with tiger stripes and a tail to match and no known parents. Human with Rakshasa crossbreed, or half catfolk? Who cares. No difference is made.
Short tiefling with an awesome beard. Bearded devil + human, or a dwarf crossbreed? Who cares, no difference is made.
You can't know, you can't determine, and it makes no perceivable difference.
Comparing this to falsifying chroncicle reports is a mighty big straw man to bring to the debate and an extreme example of false equivalence. We're not talking about cheating.
If you come to the table and say, "I'm a Tiefling and I look like XYZ" then fine. I don't care. I mean I care in that your character is yours, its unique, and its probably interesting. But the description isn't going to make me say, "hey, your tiefling can't have a beard, or he can't be 5'2" tall."
But if you come to the table and say, "I'm a Tiefling, my mother was an Elf and my father was a Glabrezu," Then I will have to remind you that all Tieflings are of human/fiend ancestry, not elf. If you continue to come to the table claiming to be an Elf/Fiend then I'll have to take you to task for that.
Fluff or not, mechanical or not, ultimately enforceable or not, it is a player's responsibility, and it is marked on their honor, as to whether they follow these rules.
That's up to you Nuku. But if you want a slightly built, 6'3" tall tiefling, but you don't say its an elf, I don't care. Just don't overtly claim its an elf or whatever.
|
|
I think "If they're tossing Fluff Rule X out the window, what other rules might they be tossing out the window?" is the idea Andy's getting at in regards to audits.
Exactly.
But let me reiterate. I have yet to do an audit of a character that was not a brand new player's first character to make sure they understand the character creation system.
|
Here's a couple of questions that just popped into my head, and they're related to the whole "changing the fluff" topic (and even involve a tiefling!) so here we go, just to add some material to the discussion.
I'm posting as my tiefling cleric of Iomedae. (You can click the name for more details if you like.)
Question #1:
I have the River Rat trait (I'm a big advocate of Pathfinders being able to swim). It states: "You learned to swim right after you learned to walk. As a youth, a gang of river pirates put you to work swimming in nighttime rivers and canals with a dagger in your teeth so you could sever the anchor ropes of merchant vessels."
That's not part of my backstory. My (well, Thomas') youth did involve a lot of travel, and probably included learning to swim and using a dagger a lot. (On the run from Tian Xia and a father who wanted to destroy the "evidence" of a less than impressive ancestry.)
That okay?
Question #2:
As you can see by the messageboard name, Thomas is a HERO! ;) As such, it'd be cool if I could literally jump in front of an attack to save an ally. It just so happens, I'm considering taking Additional Traits to pick one up from Blood of Fiends, that lets me spend an immediate action 1/day to cause an attack to target me instead of an adjacent ally.
Thing is, the trait is called "Suicidal" and the description says you're so tormented that you crave the sweet release of death. This is NOWHERE NEAR who Thomas is.
That okay?
|
|
If you are saying there should be a mechanical difference between a tiefling of human stock and, say, one of halfling stock, that is specifically disallowed in PFS.
The ongoing argument is that it's illegal to have that kind of tiefling at all, even if there is no mechanical benefit.
That's up to you Nuku. But if you want a slightly built, 6'3" tall tiefling, but you don't say its an elf, I don't care. Just don't overtly claim its an elf or whatever.
So it's okay to be an elf-descended tiefling as long as you don't tell anyone you're an elf-descended tiefling?
Please explain how this is not totally absurd.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ah. Took a little digging, but found This. OF course Mike seems to contradict himself here but I feel the intent is clear.
So for the Catfolk tiefling (Catling?) Adopted and traits are the only way to make him part of the 'tribe'.
Though I now have an amusing thought of a Raksasha-spawn tiefling who *thinks* he's a catfolk...
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Here's a couple of questions that just popped into my head, and they're related to the whole "changing the fluff" topic (and even involve a tiefling!) so here we go, just to add some material to the discussion.
I'm posting as my tiefling cleric of Iomedae. (You can click the name for more details if you like.)
Question #1:
I have the River Rat trait (I'm a big advocate of Pathfinders being able to swim). It states: "You learned to swim right after you learned to walk. As a youth, a gang of river pirates put you to work swimming in nighttime rivers and canals with a dagger in your teeth so you could sever the anchor ropes of merchant vessels."That's not part of my backstory. My (well, Thomas') youth did involve a lot of travel, and probably included learning to swim and using a dagger a lot. (On the run from Tian Xia and a father who wanted to destroy the "evidence" of a less than impressive ancestry.)
That okay?
Question #2:
As you can see by the messageboard name, Thomas is a HERO! ;) As such, it'd be cool if I could literally jump in front of an attack to save an ally. It just so happens, I'm considering taking Additional Traits to pick one up from Blood of Fiends, that lets me spend an immediate action 1/day to cause an attack to target me instead of an adjacent ally.Thing is, the trait is called "Suicidal" and the description says you're so tormented that you crave the sweet release of death. This is NOWHERE NEAR who Thomas is.
That okay?
I don't have the magic search-fu that some people here do, but I did recall this post with a very similar question, and the response that followed:
No, that's just flavor text and one possible explanation for the mechanical benefits the trait grants.
So yes, both are ok. As long as the mechanical benefits remain the same, the flavor text are just possible explanations for why you would gain said benefits.
EDIT: Do note that this 'reflavoring' has only been clarified for traits, and should not be used as evidence in favor of race reskinning.
|
|
Nuku,
If I am understanding you correctly, you're saying that you could play a raksasha tiefling, and the stats would be the same if it was a human origin raksasha tiefling, or a catfolk raksasha tiefling, because it's a tiefling The parentage doesn't change anything, right? That, AFAIK would be fine.
If you are saying there should be a mechanical difference between a tiefling of human stock and, say, one of halfling stock, that is specifically disallowed in PFS.
There is no difference, mechanically. Whatever mortal heritage you had was completely overriden by your outsider parent, leaving you a defiled train wreck known as a tiefling.
|
|
If you are saying there should be a mechanical difference between a tiefling of human stock and, say, one of halfling stock, that is specifically disallowed in PFS.The ongoing argument is that it's illegal to have that kind of tiefling at all, even if there is no mechanical benefit.
That's up to you Nuku. But if you want a slightly built, 6'3" tall tiefling, but you don't say its an elf, I don't care. Just don't overtly claim its an elf or whatever.So it's okay to be an elf-descended tiefling as long as you don't tell anyone you're an elf-descended tiefling?
Please explain how this is not totally absurd.
Human’s come in all shapes and sizes. Without some form of disease, birth defect, or dwarfism, they can normally range anywhere from like 4’ tall to 7’ tall, and be short, skinny, fat, muscular, athletic, tall, pear-shaped, petite, big-boned, slight, barrel-chested… etc. With skin tones from almost completely near-white to very dark (and all shades in between) or Bronzed or reddish or even yellowish. They can have natural hair colors ranging from white/gray or silverish to black. They can be yellow, red, strawberry, orange, blonde, brunette, raven, etc. Eyes come in many shades as well.
Describe your tiefling however you like.
But just know that no matter how you describe it; no matter how closely it may resemble some other race other than human, your tiefling is of human stock. Period.
In your own mind (I’m not a mind reader, so I couldn’t care less what you think in your own head about your character), it might be an elf/fiend tiefling. But as long as you don’t verbalize such, and roleplay your character during a scenario (should the issue every come up) as though he were human/fiend tiefling. Then I don’t care.
But if you verbalize such, and roleplay (should it every come up) that you are an elf/fiend tiefling, then that is where I would have to step in and say you aren’t following the rules of the campaign. If you persist, then I would have to take actions as though you were cheating.
That isn’t absurd for me to expect you to outwardly follow the rules. And I refuse to try and read your mind about what you really think about your character’s heritage.
|
|
That isn’t absurd for me to expect you to outwardly follow the rules. And I refuse to try and read your mind about what you really think about your character’s heritage.
You didn't answer my question, you just re-stated your position.
Why does it matter if I verbalize the idea of an elven parent or not? If it doesn't affect the way I play my character, what purpose does outlawing that statement serve?
|
|
That isn’t absurd for me to expect you to outwardly follow the rules. And I refuse to try and read your mind about what you really think about your character’s heritage.You didn't answer my question, you just re-stated your position.
Why does it matter if I verbalize the idea of an elven parent or not? If it doesn't affect the way I play my character, what purpose does outlawing that statement serve?
To make sure the rules, as set forth by the campaign administration, are followed.
No matter how insignificant or "unenforceable" you think they are, they are still rules.
I expect the rules, at my table, (and at game days that I coordinate--to include the 42 table Con of the North I'm coordinating in February) to be followed.
There is no equivocation on this. Either you are following the rules or you are not. If you are not, willfully and consciously, then that's cheating.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To make sure the rules, as set forth by the campaign administration, are followed.
No matter how insignificant or "unenforceable" you think they are, they are still rules.
I expect the rules, at my table, (and at game days that I coordinate--to include the 42 table Con of the North I'm coordinating in February) to be followed.
There is no equivocation on this. Either you are following the rules or you are not. If you are not, willfully and consciously, then that's cheating.
Being "a rule" and being "absurd" are not mutually exclusive. There are absurd rules. This is one of them.
Generally speaking, declaring that bending and/or breaking a rule which provides no mechanical change, either benefit or detriment to be "cheating" simply encourages blind faith in a system that is necessarily flawed, in that it was designed by human beings.
Specifically speaking, breaking this rule means nothing and hurts no one and often there's no way to know for sure if someone is breaking it anyway. Insisting that anyone who acknowledges that is a cheater, the same as someone who lies about their dice roles or builds illegal characters (which actions, I'll note, actually have an impact on other people at the table) is a textbook example of false equivalence.
Not all rules are created equal, Andrew, and you can insist that they are for as long as you want, but it won't change the fact that they aren't.