Venture-Agent, Texas—Houston
|
You missed the part of the Bladebound archetype's description which prevents it from having a familiar of any kind, even from another class. The PFS FAQ allows homunculi as improved familiars only.
The typical way for magi to contribute with healing if the Infernal Healing spell from the Inner Sea World guide.
|
|
Well, there are a number of things not legal in Society play that simply boggle my mind, both as a player and GM.So, I have yet to find a ruling against this.
if you start a conversation that way, the answer is most likely no.
The important thing to remember is that Society Play is actually a campaign, with an ongoing storyline in a specific version of the world. There is a "head GM" and a group of writers who create each encounter within the guidelines from that "Head GM".
No one denies a "normal" GM the right to say, "My world, my rules, and this [class/race/archetype/magic item] doesn't fit in my world." The "GM" for PFS has the same right.
Some of this is right in the guide. Other bits are less obvious, like the archetype restrictions.
Everything is laid out on the Additional Resources list. They can't constantly update the guide as new material comes out, so they refer players to this list. If it's listed as legal here, you can play it. If it isn't, you can't.
|
Well, there are a number of things not legal in Society play that simply boggle my mind, both as a player and GM...evil...grave robbing...race restrictions...
Most things that are banned are typically because the campaign leadership has decided they fall into one of three categories; (1) not appropriate for the campaign's style/theme, (2) not balanced for community-based play, and/or (3) too much ambiguity in the rules leading to exploitation of "loopholes" and heated disagreements at the gaming table.
There will always be people who disagree with the decisions of the campaign leadership (you cannot please all the people all the time), but we place our trust in them to provide us with the framework for a stable, balanced, fun campaign. Sometimes, we have to give up a particular shiny that we personally like to maintain the continuity of the game.
I will say this.
Virtually zero "official" campaigns sponsored by the company who makes the game will ever allow "evil" alignments of behavior.
I don't care what game it is or who the developer is. They can't afford the negative press that allowing player to run evil characters would inevitably accrue.
I can see perhaps a tiny indie developer allowing it, or one where the game itself has "being evil" as a primary component, but not really any other case.
-j
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will say this.
Virtually zero "official" campaigns sponsored by the company who makes the game will ever allow "evil" alignments of behavior.
I don't care what game it is or who the developer is. They can't afford the negative press that allowing player to run evil characters would inevitably accrue.
I can see perhaps a tiny indie developer allowing it, or one where the game itself has "being evil" as a primary component, but not really any other case.
-j
You do realize that the Organized Play campaign for 5e allows Evil PCs (LE only)
|
|
Why would any non-evil society tolerate evil characters to comprise any of its members?
Depending on when your going off of, I'm not sure the society is "non-evil". While Current campaign leadership has been steadily moving away from this, pretty sure at one time the society was INDEED evilish. My take is overall its True Neutral, so why would a neutral organization allow good but not evil? As long as your goals were aligned. From an organized play perspective it makes total sense, but not so from within the campaign world.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I'm evil" is not a justification for being a greifer/troll, but plenty of people would justify it as so. Better to remove that element completely.
Besides, if evil is fair game, who would be the antagonists? Angels? Paladins? Clerics of Desna? That wouldn't sit well with the majority. All to justify Timmy's griefer negative channelling STR penalizer?
|
|
I think it's inevitable that the Ten have evolved over the years in their outlook/approach to the world.
When you're a small, ragtag group of amateur archaeologists, your actions don't have a lot of impact on the world as a whole, so you can go wild and do whatever you want. (Chaotic neutral, chaotic evil, whatever! Live it up!)
When you're starting to accumulate enough power to get enemies and want allies, you actually need to abide by treaties and contracts, or else you're going to get you ass kicked. (Lawfulish, at least--behave yourself or get in trouble.)
Once you've become a global power, your actions start to have serious consequences. Hopefully, you have enough foresight to realize that blowing up the world means that you don't have anywhere to live anymore, and that all your power is kind of pointless if you turn Rovagug loose in your house. (Lawful-ish neutral-ish? maybe? Don't mess up your own good thing, is really the point.)
It's likely that the Society is kind of "actively" True Neutral overall. When the demons swarm out of the Worldwound and drag the rest of the world towards evil, the Society shifts towards good to counteract them. If the rest of the world swings towards good to the point that the Ten feel their power is threatened, they might step the Society towards evil to balance that out.
(The Pathfinder Society is really a limited liability corporation, when you think about it.)