|
By the rules they'd be wrong. Even if in your bizarre world toddlers, blind folks, and goblins are literate, the fact that the Canon mentions pre-literate cultures means that literacy is not universal in-Canon and thus the CRB cannot be correct even under the most narrow, obtuse, interpretation even if you ignore the text of the bestiary.Seriously, someone just claimed that blind races and goblins are literate and you're calling me out for trolling?????And by the rules, they are right. Because the language rules have no exception for blind races or goblins.
Now, what does this have to do with the unchained summoner, I ask you.
You didn't answer my question.
As for the rules....
Languages: The languages most commonly spoken by the creature are listed here.
You apply your character's Intelligence modifier to:
The number of bonus languages your character knows at the start of the game. These are in addition to any starting racial languages and Common. If you have a penalty, you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3.
Special: You must be trained to use this skill, but you can always attempt to read archaic and strange forms of your own racial bonus languages.
Now, unless you show a rule stating that blind or goblin creatures do not gain literacy, by the rules you are wrong. Because the Bestiary rule does not contradict the CRB rule.
Edit: In fact, I've done half the work for you now.
Goblins believe that writing steals words out of your head, and as a result of this belief, goblins are universally illiterate.
Now you just need to find specific text about blind creatures and literacy.
|
|
And you still haven't answered the question about how this relates to the unchained summoner.
Edit: Now we are getting somewhere. The blinded condition does say that visual checks like reading fail. However, I would say not all forms of reading require sight. In any event, this is better support than your 'pre-literate society' comment, as that only applies to the specific societies that it refers to, and is not a general rule.
Celanian,
I agree with you that these things are common sense and should be reflected in actual gameplay.
But, there's a kind of separation of Rules and Setting at work in Pathfinder, and most people around here abide by it.
Therefore, it does not matter if goblins have setting info that declares they can't read; the rules do not specifically forbid it.
In fact, there's even room in the setting for a heretical goblin who goes against the normal goblin beliefs, or a blind seer who can read graven runes with his fingers. Much like the separation of church and state in government, there is actually much to be gained from seeking rigid clarity in one and flexibly creativity in the other.
The heart of the disagreement here is that you are talking to people who see the rules like MATH requiring PROOFS -- and while your sense for implicit truths from the setting might make excellent qualities in a player or GM, they don't contribute meaningfully to the wonky world of rules parsing.
Try to remember that while it may seem obtuse, in their heart of hearts these rules wonks are really just trying to aspire to an all-inclusive, consistent rule set. (Impossible, but an aspiration nonetheless).
Don't take it personally! And now, back to the Unchained Summoner please.
There is what the rules say, and then there is what we actually do at the table.
These do not always coincide.
Honestly, anyone who's that much of a rules lawyer and who completely ignores common sense as well as any text that doesn't support their arguments, doesn't sound like a person who would be fun to game with. I'm glad my players have at least a modicum of common sense!
It may seem crazy, but when it comes to actually working with the rules, it really helps to know what is literally printed on the page in case there is a misunderstanding during play. That doesn't mean you have to abide by it... but it there IS a logical paradox in the text, it can help communication to know about its existence.
Well, many groups play happily for years without venturing into this territory... but all it takes is ONE TIME to screw everything up.
Go easy on the rules lawyers. Some of them do good work so we don't have to.
By the rules they'd be wrong. Even if in your bizarre world toddlers, blind folks, and goblins are literate, the fact that the Canon mentions pre-literate cultures means that literacy is not universal in-Canon and thus the CRB cannot be correct even under the most narrow, obtuse, interpretation even if you ignore the text of the bestiary.Seriously, someone just claimed that blind races and goblins are literate and you're calling me out for trolling?????And by the rules, they are right. Because the language rules have no exception for blind races or goblins.
Now, what does this have to do with the unchained summoner, I ask you.
No, it means it WAS NOT universal. Meaning in the past. Nothing about the present.
And blind people can read using braille so there.|
|
Tell me, do you also insist dead characters can act continue to act normally?
Dead characters gain the unconscious condition on the way to negative Con and cannot act. The only exception is anything that kills without HP damage.
Common sense.
The CRB mistakenly assumes everyone has some.
Common sense tells you what the rules SHOULD say.
It doesn't tell you what they ACTUALLY say.
|
|
The CRB does not state braille. It specifically states "your racial language". So rules lawyers taking things literally must believe that a slithering tracker (a blind ooze with 3+ int) can read undercommon even though they're blind.
Here is the disconnect.
You are saying 'it should not be so, and thus it is not so'.
We are saying 'it should not be so, but it IS so according to the rules'.
|
Tell me, do you also insist dead characters can act continue to act normally?Dead characters gain the unconscious condition on the way to negative Con and cannot act. The only exception is anything that kills without HP damage.
The dead condition has nothing to do with hit points, and may be reached by means that leave a characters hit points untouched.
By strictest possible RAW without regard for common sense, as is being argued in this thread, Circle of Death has no affect. It imposes the dead condition without dealing damage.
|
|
And blind people can read using braille so there.
Please provide RAW demonstrating the existence of braille.
Literacy rates and the existence of specific languages are not covered in the core rules for good reason. Literacy rates are setting specific. One setting may have near universal literacy, in another only priests and highly educated scholars may be literate. Neither setting violates RAW.
To put that statement in context, assume the setting for a game is Numeria just after Starfall. The players are all playing Kellid characters dealing with the aftermath of the cataclysm. Cannon dictates all players will be illiterate. This is in accordance with published material, not a houserule, and no amount of pointing at the CRB will change this.
|
|
The fact that it's mentioned shows that they exist.
And? The rules weren't written with them in mind. The writers expect GMs to use that common sense that Artanthos hypes so much and say 'the rules say these people are literate, but they exist before literacy was a thing, so I'm ignoring them'. Ignoring rules does not change them.
I think I'd take the word of an official published product over the opinion of some random internet poster.
Then why are you even discussing this?
|
|
The fact that it's mentioned shows that they exist.And? The rules weren't written with them in mind. They expect GMs to use that common sense that Artanthos hypes so much and say 'the rules say these people are literate, but they exist before literacy was a thing, so I'm ignoring them'. Ignoring rules does not change them.
I think I'd take the word of an official published product over the opinion of some random internet poster.Then why are you even discussing this?
The rules provide a broad, generic framework. They do not describe every possible society in every possible world, nor should they.
At this point you are arguing the existing cannon for Golarion, the world that Pathfinder sprang from, cannot be correct because the core rules do not cover everything that exists within Golarion.
|
|
At this point you are arguing the existing cannon for Golarion, the world that Pathfinder sprang from, cannot be correct because the core rules do not cover everything that exists within Golarion.
No, I am arguing that the canon of Golarion does not change the wording of the CRB.
I have already said that the rules fail to model a pre-literate society.
*canon
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some folks: "The rules say X."
TOZ: "Actually, the rules say Y."
Some folks: "No, the rules can't say Y, common sense is X, so the rules say X."
TOZ: "The rules still say Y, it's just that common sense means you should abandon the rules in order to do X instead. But that doesn't change that what the rules actually say is Y."
Some folks: "Now you're arguing that everything not covered in the rules is wrong!"
The core PF rules are different than Golarion.
Case in point, Aasimar ages
TOZ... Don't feed trolls.
Play something... :-)
Some folks: "The rules say X."
TOZ: "Actually, the rules say Y."
Some folks: "No, the rules can't say Y, common sense is X, so the rules say X."
TOZ: "The rules still say Y, it's just that common sense means you should abandon the rules in order to do X instead. But that doesn't change that what the rules actually say is Y."
Some folks: "Now you're arguing that everything not covered in the rules is wrong!"
This guy gets it.
Also Cel you've been verbally abusive in this thread. Be professional and disagree with people without insulting them.
|
|
What else am I supposed to do with my time? Something productive?
Like arguing that anything the rulebook does not disallow must work.
While arguing that anything the rulebook does not allow cannot work.
The rulebook does not dictate canon. Literacy rates are setting specific specific and cannot be defined in rules built to allow many possible worlds. That may not sit well with people who are trying to use "the rulebook does not say X," but it is the way the rules work.
I have already pointed to very specific Paizo published material and settings demonstrating this. Feel free to ignore published material that conflicts with your viewpoint, but when you show up to a real game, your arguments won't fly. Handing explosive runes to a primitive in the jungle won't get you anything but a blank stare if canon dictates they are illiterate.
Then your argument remains, "Canon for Golarion violates the rules."It's allowed to, you know.
True facts, Campaign setting material is completely separate from the core rules and thus are under the jurisdiction of the DM. DM's decisions supersede the core rules at 99% of tables.
It's important to know where core rules end and DM fiat begins and in the case of literacy you'll have to take it up with the GM. In most campaigns literacy doesn't matter all too much, but if a player wants to make literacy important then they will need to ask the DM beforehand just like how if a player wants to run a necromancer or benefit from leadership they need to talk with the GM.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics in Golarion must worship a deity as well, in direct contradiction to the Core rules as well.
Since this entire discussion was based on the Golarion specific setting (see numerous postings in this thread mentioning it), then why are you even arguing this?
Because my response was on the basis of rules from the moment I first responded to you. Even when I finally reviewed the rest of the thread, nothing led me to believe you were limiting yourself to a specific setting.
Then your argument remains, "Canon for Golarion violates the rules."It's allowed to, you know.
that makes me think, isn't it impossible to have godless clerics on golarion even though its in the rules? so like a baseline for something being allowed by the rules but disallowed by the setting. of course i could be remembering wrong.
edit:damnit toz|
|
Count how many times I mentioned "Golarion" in this thread. It's pretty hard to miss.
It's hard to equate that to setting when you keep talking rules.
By the rules they'd be wrong.
The CRB rules are not absolute.
So either that official publication is wrong (and since it's official with no errata, good luck showing it), or the rules do not give 100% literacy to everything and everyone.
I really hope this thread gets locked sooner rather than later. It's been entertaining, but we have no hope of this thread getting back on track. This argument has gotten stale too since now we have people desperately pulling quotes from flavor text.
|
|
Clearly it was intended that some entities must be illiterate in the CRB since that line would be superfluous otherwise.
And those entities are called out as such. True Primitive Barbarians and the like.
Now that we have resolved our differences, can we let the thread try to get back to the unchained summoner?
I also think that evolutions are badly priced.