is this a bad idea?


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

right, so, I've had this idea in my head for a CN summoner whose eidolon is a chaotic evil 'succubus-in-training'. Surprisingly, this is (for now) PFS legal. Now, in PFS (and also all other games I would consider playing in), you have to play nice. So no obvious psychopathy, PK-ing, or what have you. That's fine.

This character (or, uh, this character's eidolon) would be more interested in tempting PCs and NPCs into doing things that they think are wrong, but are not necessarily evil acts. E.g., offering consensual relations to standard-code-of-conduct paladins, monks (or others) with a vow of chastity, or married worshippers of Erastil. Basically tempting others to indulge in sin (which aside from all the horror movie nonsense, is really a demon's raison d'être).

Keep in mind that an eidolon (unchained or otherwise) has no business carting around something like a scroll of suggestion, a wand of unnatural lust, or eyes of charming. This is for RP-only.

In D&D alignment-parlance, is this evil (and thus is a no-no for PFS), or merely chaotic? Regardless of that, if the party was made up of real-life grown-ups (and you know, you know them well enough), would it be a bad idea to bring this concept to the table anyway?

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

Expect Table Variation.

Some people will say that causing a paladin (especially one who is an ally) is an evil act.

Some will say the paladin's code of conduct forbids him to travel with your eidolon (an evil outsider trying to tempt him? Paladins are prohibited from having evil companions) And that this violates the whole "cooperate" and "don't be a jerk."

In a private home game, where the GM and players are cool with it, go ahead. In a public game open to the public, where people can drop in, including teenagers, please don't do this.

If you show up to con, and sit at my table, tread *very lightly.* (And don't sit at the table with some of the other GMs in my area, as they will just mark it as an alignment shift.)

Silver Crusade 5/5

It's a bit weird, some of your fellow players might give you some weird looks, but I don't really think I would call it PvP. Except for the part where you talk about trying to get other PC's to break Code, that's kind of a jerk move. Either way, PFS is a public game, so be sure to keep in mind who you are playing with before you pull any antics.

5/5 5/55/55/5

6 people marked this as a favorite.

While there's nothing wrong with the code temptations (the player can't be forced into it, and the DM has to inform them that they'll break it) I'd say that hitting on other players to offer succubus type services requires knowing your audience fairly well

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

BigNorseWolf wrote:
While there's nothing wrong with the code temptations (the player can't be forced into it, and the DM has to inform them that they'll break it)

Well, except that:

Paladin code wrote:
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.

I am honestly less worried about you committing an evil act, and more worried that a paladin traveling with a succubus who is trying to tempt him needs to have a known evil threat or has to leave the table, and needs to pay for an atonement at the end of the adventure.

Yes, some paladin players will be able to work this into their code (You are sent by my god to test my faith, do your worst foul fiend, and I will show you through shinning example the true and proper way and redeem you from your sin!) But other players may feel that they have to withdraw their character or lay out 1000gp (not sure on exact cost) every game they play with you.

Silver Crusade

Actually FLite, the simple solution if for the Paladin player to look at the GM and say "They can't do that it's PvP and not allowed."

It's not a killing attack but it is an attempt to make a character unplayable unless they are willing to pay for an atonement.

I would say that as a player, and as a GM that's how I would rule.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eh... Yeah. Lets not restart that flame war.

Search Paladin, Undead, PvP if you want to fight that fight. Some GMs will buy that argument, others will not. (The counter arguement winds up being "the paladin preventing me from having my eidolon will get my character killed, so thats PVP too." I'm not interested in debating the merits of either position, beyond "Lets all be grown ups here.")

back to my original statement.

Expect Table Variation.

Silver Crusade

Actually, my paladins ignore undead pets, fiendish summoners, fiendish pets, etc etc. It's the blatant attempt through spells and roleplay to cause another player to "fall." I'm not saying to disallow the summoner from using his eidolon, I'm saying the paladin doesn't have to be force to participate.

My advice for paladins in PFS is to ignore other players who violate their code.

Sir Osric wrote:
*sighs* My, what fine yet rustic architecture. I think I will examine it more closely.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If you have to ask whether it's a bad idea or not, it's probably a bad idea.

Sczarni 4/5

Some people might feel a bit of discomfort in such behavior. It really does boil down to knowing people very well as BNW said, so probably close friends or mature enough individuals in such case.

5/5 5/55/55/5

FLite wrote:


But other players may feel that they have to withdraw their character or lay out 1000gp (not sure on exact cost) every game they play with you.

Its the DMs job to tell them that thats not how it works.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Just a general statement, if you have to ask if it is a bad idea then you already know it is a bad idea and are looking for excuses that it is not. So you know already this will cause problems with some people and are trying to justify it within the rules.

Silver Crusade 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
FLite wrote:


But other players may feel that they have to withdraw their character or lay out 1000gp (not sure on exact cost) every game they play with you.
Its the DMs job to tell them that thats not how it works.

Your assuming that there is an experienced GM at the table. I could easily see an inexperienced GM getting put into a very awkward situation (that is, any time two opposing voices at the table expect the GM to make a ruling).

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber

Sex is a touchy subject in modern society.

Especially right now, if you're anywhere near a college campus, you can get yourself in serious trouble by talking about it.

Given that context, it's a really bad idea to create a character with an eidolon that will be trying to seduce other player characters, especially one that will seduce other player characters that really don't want to be seduced.

In a home game, if you really know your players and everybody present, great, go for it. You can play naked, too, if you know everybody is comfortable with it. But you wouldn't show up at a PFS game naked, and likewise, you shouldn't show up at a PFS game with potential strangers and a sexual-harassment-machine PC. You are very likely to make other people uncomfortable, uncomfortable enough that they either give up on PFS, or they complain to the VC about you.

Scarab Sages 4/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Pathfinder is an adult game. Do it.

Silver Crusade 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
RocMeAsmodeus wrote:
Pathfinder is an adult game. Do it.

Pathfinder Society is friendly for all, so exercise good judgment and dial it back when need be.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

Pathfinder Society is nominally PG13. That's why there is a language filter on the board. :) (Well, okay, maybe NC-17, but definitely not R.)

Dark Archive 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Plains

^ What he said, PG13 should be the guidelines unless you are with a known group of adult players who are okay with the RP

Shadow Lodge 4/5

*insert affronted roaring about double standards across the pond*

I'd ask people if they mind it before getting into character. Should they, just tone it down. With a good group your eidolon sounds like a fun addition.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Depends on the other players, if you think that you make them uncomfortable... or they even say so - stop immediately.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

FLite wrote:
Pathfinder Society is nominally PG13. That's why there is a language filter on the board. :) (Well, okay, maybe NC-17, but definitely not R.)

Uh, NC-17 is worse than R.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

Hmm... I have them backward then. Wasn't there one between PG13 and R?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber

PG13 is the between one. There used to only be PG and R. With Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, they didn't want to make it R, but they thought it was too violent for PG13, so PG13 was invented.


yeah, I'm think if there actually is a paladin, a monk with a vow of chastity, or an Erastilite I might just make the summoner ditch the eidolon and go to town with fiendish wolves and see how that goes.

and yeah, I'd never hit on other PCs if I didn't know their players wouldn't find it funny. same goes for NPCs and the GM.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

NC-17 is a pretty interesting rating: horror, Jodorowsky and documentaries. Sometimes it just gets funny though.

Silver Crusade

Muser wrote:
I'd ask people if they mind it before getting into character. Should they, just tone it down. With a good group your eidolon sounds like a fun addition.

This.

If you want to make a questionably acceptable PC, expect to occasionally run into groups that might not accept it. Just ask in advance, and tone it down to an acceptable level for the group involved. In other words, act like an adult.

It could actually be funny to play your eidolon trying to hide its true nature if it knows there's a paladin in the group, for fear of the paladin smiting it. Make sure the eidolon has a good bluff score. :)

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This would actually be a fun bit of roleplay for my paladin of Andoletta (Grandmother Crow). She's a mother-hen sort that will try to help anyone who has even the least bit of good to them to get onto the right path, but she's no fool and she is... exceptionally diplomatic.

Now if the eidolon was irretrievably and permanently EVIL with no hope of change? Well, that would change the equation a bit then, wouldn't it?


In a private PFS game the OP character would be fine assuming he actually had the consent of the other players and the GM.

In a public game this clearly crosses the don't be a jerk rule.

BTW while I'm sure there must be someone somewhere who can RP sexual situations well IME most players who initiate them use it as an excuse to tell off color jokes and/or to leer at female players which uniformly leaves others at the table uncomfortable.

Sovereign Court

Don't make this character for public games.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jessex wrote:


BTW while I'm sure there must be someone somewhere who can RP sexual situations well IME most players who initiate them use it as an excuse to tell off color jokes and/or to leer at female players which uniformly leaves others at the table uncomfortable.

Hadn't thought of that, yeah, that's kinda... bleh. Part of the reason I left a different campaign I'd played in for years was because some of the players engaged in that sort of activity...

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

My wife seems to do it fairly well. But I may be biased. (She an a friend once broke a GM while vamping a NPC.)

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
FLite wrote:
My wife seems to do it fairly well. But I may be biased. (She an a friend once broke a GM while vamping a NPC.)

I have found several GMs think to go down that route and are quite humbled by the response their players give them. It's quite the learning experience, and also kind of informative to watch as another player at the table does it to the GM.

5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Hamburg

Trying to force a PC who has some kind of code or ethical standing against sex or cheating on their wife into any kind of sexual act is clearly an evil act. Basically, the eidolon would be aiming at causing someone to lose mechanical benefits.
(note: a character with such a vow could never get into a consesual relationship with the eidolon. Their vow says they will never want that.)

Also, allowing an eidolon to perform evil acts is an evil act on part of the summoner, because a summoner has full control over the eidolon's actions and can simply forbid something if he/she doesn't like it.

On the other hand, I wouldn't have any problems with a paladin traveling with an evil eidolon. Paladins are not only good, but also lawful, and their superiors just told them to go on the mission with that particular summoner.

In general, I agree that involving any kind of sexual act into a character's behavior should only be done if all players at the table are comfortable with that topic.
Personally, I don't like going too much into detail when it comes to sexual encounters between PCs and NPCs (or other PCs). We all know that characters, like any other person, have a libido (unless, of course, they've taken a vow of celebacy), but the game table is not the place to play out the details. Even for especially sex-oriented characters a simple "they go to the bedroom together and have some fun" is enough (and even that is too much if there are players at the table that don't want to touch the subject in their games).
There are some parts of life, that don't have to be played out, just like nobody wants to roleplay the details of their character using the bathroom.

Silver Crusade

Andreas Forster wrote:
On the other hand, I wouldn't have any problems with a paladin traveling with an evil eidolon. Paladins are not only good, but also lawful, and their superiors just told them to go on the mission with that particular summoner.

Yeah, this is something that people always seem to forget in the paladin vs necromancer threads that come up regularly, discussing whether paladins can work with undead.

The Core Rulebook specifically says that paladins can work with evil beings for a short time for the greater good. Not only did every paladin in the Society swear to "Explore, Report, Cooperate" when they joined, but the apparently think that helping the Society succeed and helping to aim its vast resources towards helping the world is a worthy, good goal, or they wouldn't have joined.

So there's no reason that ANY paladin can't work with an evil eidolon or necromancer's undead minions for a short time (single mission) to advance the Society's goals. They might not like it, and they might swear to destroy the necromancer's temporary abominations as soon as the mission's over, but they did swear to cooperate with their fellow Pathfinders.

Paladins don't have to be lawful stupid. Even the dumb ones are smart enough to know that not all Pathfinders are fine, upstanding citizens. As long as their compatriots don't do anything blatantly evil right in front of them, the fact that those compatriots might be evil or work with evil creatures doesn't mean the paladin will smite them immediately

Andreas Forster wrote:

In general, I agree that involving any kind of sexual act into a character's behavior should only be done if all players at the table are comfortable with that topic.

Personally, I don't like going too much into detail when it comes to sexual encounters between PCs and NPCs (or other PCs). We all know that characters, like any other person, have a libido (unless, of course, they've taken a vow of celebacy), but the game table is not the place to play out the details. Even for especially sex-oriented characters a simple "they go to the bedroom together and have some fun" is enough (and even that is too much if there are players at the table that don't want to touch the subject in their games).

This is pretty much what I was thinking with my comment above about making sure it's ok with the table first. Even if it is ok with the table, you only role play some flirting. How graphic that gets is up to the comfort level of the table. But the details in the bedroom are inappropriate for any public table. Save that for your close circle of friends in a home game, if at all.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

Fromper wrote:
Andreas Forster wrote:
On the other hand, I wouldn't have any problems with a paladin traveling with an evil eidolon. Paladins are not only good, but also lawful, and their superiors just told them to go on the mission with that particular summoner.

Yeah, this is something that people always seem to forget in the paladin vs necromancer threads that come up regularly, discussing whether paladins can work with undead.

So there's no reason that ANY paladin can't work with an evil eidolon or necromancer's undead minions for a short time (single mission) to advance the Society's goals. They might not like it, and they might swear to destroy the necromancer's temporary abominations as soon as the mission's over, but they did swear to cooperate with their fellow Pathfinders.

Well, that and the atonement they have to do afterwards... "A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance"

I am not fond of GMs that make a paladin fall for trivial things, but cooperating with a succubus who is trying to corrupt them "for the greater order" (rather than for the greater good) is pretty far down the scale of what paladins are allowed to do.

In fact "I am going to ignore whether this is good or evil, because it is an order and therefore I must obey" is pretty much exactly the sort of temptation I would expect from a demon trying to get a paladin to fall.

After all, just following orders covers a multitude of sins...

The Exchange

Unless they've updated the Advanced Player's Guide and changed the rules for Eidolons, you can't do this anyhow. The Eidolon is always the same alignment as the summoner.

"The eidolon forms a link with the summoner, who, forever after, summons an aspect of the same creature. An eidolon has the same alignment as the summoner that calls it and can speak all of his languages. "

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RocMeAsmodeus wrote:
Pathfinder is an adult game. Do it.

IN PFS "Adult" translates into "Don't Be A Jerk", not expying the "Adult" section of your local video store.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
teribithia9 wrote:

Unless they've updated the Advanced Player's Guide and changed the rules for Eidolons, you can't do this anyhow. The Eidolon is always the same alignment as the summoner.

"The eidolon forms a link with the summoner, who, forever after, summons an aspect of the same creature. An eidolon has the same alignment as the summoner that calls it and can speak all of his languages. "

UnChained! does change the rules for the Eidolon (and the Summoner)... Drastically. PFS now only allows the Unchained! version.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

teribithia9 wrote:

Unless they've updated the Advanced Player's Guide and changed the rules for Eidolons, you can't do this anyhow. The Eidolon is always the same alignment as the summoner.

"The eidolon forms a link with the summoner, who, forever after, summons an aspect of the same creature. An eidolon has the same alignment as the summoner that calls it and can speak all of his languages. "

PFS has banned the APG Summoner and now only allows the Unchained Summoner. (Outside of grandfatherd character)

The APG's eidolon is an outsider of a specific type, who must be within one step of the summoner's alignment.


This has more to do with the other players. You are playing a group game where as a group you are here to have fun.

I have my drug addled alchemist barbarian and if the tier for him i offer him or other characters. I let everyone know he is heavily drug themed and ask if anyone has an issue with it.

This is me showing respect for the table. I never had someone say they would not prefer and most people that played with him get excited when he is a choice to play.

I think you should do the same with succubus. In life there are wrong ways to do the right thing. Just because you CAN do something does not mean you should.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Hmmm.. Kids at the table.

Putting away the Sorcerer that specializes in charm person, grease and black tentacles. Taking out the Kangaroo pouch riding Lancer named Joey.

Shadow Lodge

Fromper wrote:
Andreas Forster wrote:
On the other hand, I wouldn't have any problems with a paladin traveling with an evil eidolon. Paladins are not only good, but also lawful, and their superiors just told them to go on the mission with that particular summoner.

Yeah, this is something that people always seem to forget in the paladin vs necromancer threads that come up regularly, discussing whether paladins can work with undead.

The Core Rulebook specifically says that paladins can work with evil beings for a short time for the greater good. Not only did every paladin in the Society swear to "Explore, Report, Cooperate" when they joined, but the apparently think that helping the Society succeed and helping to aim its vast resources towards helping the world is a worthy, good goal, or they wouldn't have joined.

So there's no reason that ANY paladin can't work with an evil eidolon or necromancer's undead minions for a short time (single mission) to advance the Society's goals. They might not like it, and they might swear to destroy the necromancer's temporary abominations as soon as the mission's over, but they did swear to cooperate with their fellow Pathfinders.

Paladins don't have to be lawful stupid. Even the dumb ones are smart enough to know that not all Pathfinders are fine, upstanding citizens. As long as their compatriots don't do anything blatantly evil right in front of them, the fact that those compatriots might be evil or work with evil creatures doesn't mean the paladin will smite them immediately

Andreas Forster wrote:

In general, I agree that involving any kind of sexual act into a character's behavior should only be done if all players at the table are comfortable with that topic.

Personally, I don't like going too much into detail when it comes to sexual encounters between PCs and NPCs (or other PCs). We all know that characters, like any other person, have a libido (unless, of course, they've taken a vow of celebacy), but the game table is not the place to play
...

The Pathfinder Society is pretty much the opposite of a legitimate authority, so really has no say on what a Paladin's code of ethics means.

The Pathfinder Society is a lot closer to being servants of the greater evil and chaos than the great good, and they know that many of their agents are not so moral, and have burned a lot of bridges and destroyed what little good name they might have had. The Decimverate and Venture Captains, well the ones that are not idiots know they need as many righteous, non-fallen, non-broke paladins (and other specialists).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Andreas Forster wrote:
On the other hand, I wouldn't have any problems with a paladin traveling with an evil eidolon. Paladins are not only good, but also lawful, and their superiors just told them to go on the mission with that particular summoner.

Yeah, this is something that people always seem to forget in the paladin vs necromancer threads that come up regularly, discussing whether paladins can work with undead.

The Core Rulebook specifically says that paladins can work with evil beings for a short time for the greater good. Not only did every paladin in the Society swear to "Explore, Report, Cooperate" when they joined, but the apparently think that helping the Society succeed and helping to aim its vast resources towards helping the world is a worthy, good goal, or they wouldn't have joined.

So there's no reason that ANY paladin can't work with an evil eidolon or necromancer's undead minions for a short time (single mission) to advance the Society's goals. They might not like it, and they might swear to destroy the necromancer's temporary abominations as soon as the mission's over, but they did swear to cooperate with their fellow Pathfinders.

Paladins don't have to be lawful stupid. Even the dumb ones are smart enough to know that not all Pathfinders are fine, upstanding citizens. As long as their compatriots don't do anything blatantly evil right in front of them, the fact that those compatriots might be evil or work with evil creatures doesn't mean the paladin will smite them immediately

Andreas Forster wrote:

In general, I agree that involving any kind of sexual act into a character's behavior should only be done if all players at the table are comfortable with that topic.

Personally, I don't like going too much into detail when it comes to sexual encounters between PCs and NPCs (or other PCs). We all know that characters, like any other person, have a libido (unless, of course, they've taken a vow of celebacy), but the game table
...

Someone told me that the Decemvirate is structured to have one person of each alignment, plus one.

Shadow Lodge

I don't believe so. Not sure, but from what I've seen and heard, many of them, if they are still alive after Torch, are pretty vile and evil individuals.

Shadow Lodge 1/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

The miopic viewing of the Paladin Code bans a great number of LEGAL options...

I have a character that any Detect Evil using Paladin can't play with... Detects as evil... Based on the other PCs violating the Paladin Code is PvP arguments.

We play Pathfinder Society agents, they are our legitimate authority, and I run under a basic assumption that if the Society forces the association violation, the Society pays for the atonement... If the PC makes a choice that causes a violation, the PC foots the bill.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tempest_Knight wrote:

The miopic viewing of the Paladin Code bans a great number of LEGAL options...

I have a character that any Detect Evil using Paladin can't play with... Detects as evil... Based on the other PCs violating the Paladin Code is PvP arguments.

We play Pathfinder Society agents, they are our legitimate authority, and I run under a basic assumption that if the Society forces the association violation, the Society pays for the atonement... If the PC makes a choice that causes a violation, the PC foots the bill.

Basically the PFS guidelines partially overrule stiffnecked interpretations of the Paladin code. After all, not everyone Seelah associates with is a paragon of moral virtue. Mr. Lawful Evil Seltyiel comes to mind.

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Hmmm.. Kids at the table.

Putting away the Sorcerer that specializes in charm person, grease and black tentacles. Taking out the Kangaroo pouch riding Lancer named Joey.

I...I've seen too much anime...


Tamec wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Hmmm.. Kids at the table.

Putting away the Sorcerer that specializes in charm person, grease and black tentacles. Taking out the Kangaroo pouch riding Lancer named Joey.

I...I've seen too much anime...

Thou doth protest too much, methinks

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tempest_Knight wrote:

The miopic viewing of the Paladin Code bans a great number of LEGAL options...

I have a character that any Detect Evil using Paladin can't play with... Detects as evil... Based on the other PCs violating the Paladin Code is PvP arguments.

We play Pathfinder Society agents, they are our legitimate authority, and I run under a basic assumption that if the Society forces the association violation, the Society pays for the atonement... If the PC makes a choice that causes a violation, the PC foots the bill.

Again, just because someone detects as evil, that doesn't mean a paladin has to smite them immediately. That would be lawful stupid.

Paladins have to prevent evil acts, not evil people. Many paladins would see someone with evil in their heart, who doesn't act on it for fear of the consequences, and commend them for their restraint and encourage them to try and become a better person. Especially paladins of Sarenrae.

I actually remember GMing a table with a paladin, a cleric of Asmodeus (who detects as evil, obviously), and a worshiper of Cayden Cailean. The Asmodean liked the paladin better than the Caydenite. At least the paladin is lawful! LOL

I can also think of several scenarios off the top of my head where you're supposed to work with (or even obey orders from) evil NPCs. Zarta Dralneen being the obvious example there, but also the guy who traveled with the group in First Steps, part 3, though I don't remember if he was high enough level to detect as evil yet.

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / is this a bad idea? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.