|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are other ways, besides reskinning to accomplish the original goal—not ditching a valued animal companion for an upgrade. Let's focus on the OP and ways to make their idea work that don't violate the reskinning rules.
Tonya, I agree. But the OP has presented this as a questions, the responses indicate that he's locked into he wants to make, his interpretation of the rules, and a position of "I should be able to reskin". This in turn has turned this into a rehash of the reskinning rules. If there were a feat, trait, or otherwise that would permit him to do this I would happily mention it just to get the stupid argument to die yet again, but without appreciating that there are reskinning rules, and they're there for a reason, it's hard to get any give on the other side.
I want to have a pig, but I'm going to use the stats for a dog - but it's still a pig.
I want to have a griffon, but I'm going to use the stats for a horse - but it's still a griffon.
So now it's just an ongoing continuation of the reskinnning argument in the exact same lines as the original pig discussion.
|
|
The Celestial template doesn't change the creature type.That is not true and I have linked it several times.Go read the template. It's okay I'll wait.
Now please, come back, and with a copy/paste, please state EXACTLY where it changes the creature type. I'm guessing you can't.
It says right there in the feat that it becomes a magical beast. Later in your post you contradict yourself saying that the creature type does change so maybe I am confused by your wording?Yup, it does. Why does it? Because the celestial template does not. So that's what do we have to go on. In fact, the feat's wording needs to clarify that you gain the celestial template and change to a creature type of magical beast.
Auke responded to your exact question. Your celestial horse is a horse. Nothing but a horse. It's a horse that happens to live in the higher planes. It doesn't have an outsider template, it doesn't have magical flying powers, it doesn't have horns or feathers or scales, and it doesn't have anything else other than being a perfect specimen of a horse. Now because you're spending a feat, it also happens to be a magical beast, which has a different set of mechanical benefits. But it's still just a horse.You say that a Celestial horse must still be identifiable as a horse even though it isn't even an animal anymore because that is how the rules work. What rules?
Returning to the same question: can you tell me what a Celestial horse looks like? If not why are you opposed to me telling you what it looks like?
The template doesn't, but the feat he's using to give it the template explicitly does change it to a magical beast. He's posted the feat repeatedly (Celestial Servant). Thus, it's a rational question to ask what differentiators exist for a horse that is actually a magical beast and not an animal. Imagine for a moment that a druid with Kn: Nature, but not Kn: Arcana, tries to identify the creature. That druid could probably say "it looks horse-like" but wouldn't have a flippin' clue about it. Why would that be? There's gotta be some differentiation associated with that knowledge check.
Otherwise, I agree with you in principle about reskinning.
|
|
Sebastian Hirsch:
Familiars do not change their appearance because the rules (second sentence under Familiars, actually) it says, "It retains the appearance..." Needing to state that indicates this as the exception when changing types. There is also abit in there about the animal needing to be a "normal unmodified" critter of it's sort. I'm sure you can still describe it how you'd like within the reasonable limits of it's species.
Celestial Servant does not have a clause like that. In fact, it says it "gains the celestial template and becomes a magical beast" indicating that it would then have all the normal traits of its type.
...which is what?
Everyone seems to be in agreement at this point that you describe things however you want within the norms of it's type. No one has been able to describe what a Celestial horse looks like within the rules. Probably because there is no existing description. So, we are back to the question of why it would be ok for one person to describe it but not another?
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one has been able to describe what a Celestial horse looks like within the rules.
If you didn't know Tonya is the Organised Play Coordinator, AKA the person in charge of Pathfinder Society. So your orginial question: DO YOU ALLOW FLUFF WHEN IT DOESN'T AFFECT MECHANICS? has been answered with: No.
I do have a specific example in mind. I have just created and played my first session with an Aasimar Nature Seeker Oracle who took the Bonded Mount Revelation and Celestial Companion Aasimar feat. My plan is to take Monstrous Mount at 5th and Monstrous Mount Master at 7th. The issue that I have is that when I get to 4th I basically have to boot my trusty faithful former horse companion to the curb and get to trade up to a brand new shiny Griffon. I don't really like the roleplay of that. It kinda rubs me the wrong way. I feel the same way about Improved Familiar for that matter. *shrug*
Anyway, I had the idea of having my horse be a "Griffon". You know... just aesthetically speaking. He would still use all the stats of the horse and he would be a fledgling still and his little Griffon wings would not yet be powerful enough to establish the required lift to allow him to fly. In mechanics terms he would still be a horse but would otherwise look like a Griffon. That way when I get to 5th level I don't have to boot it to the curb when I want to upgrade. He would just have learned how to fly on his own. ...though his wings wouldn't be powerful enough to carry a rider until 7th.
I asked around my area and every single GM I ran into said that they would actually prefer that method than switching it out and that they would allow it at their table. But they did, of course, say that this would be something that I would have to expect table variation on. I was apprehensive to even bring it up but after such positive response I wondered what you fine people thought.
There are more elegant ways of handling situations like this... The game operates in a world of magic. So when you upgrade your mount, your familliar, your whatever, you can always put in a magical event in your "between issues" backstory to introduce a transformation. So you can have your horse and eat it too.
|
|
No one has been able to describe what a Celestial horse looks like within the rules.If you didn't know Tonya is the Organised Play Coordinator, AKA the person in charge of Pathfinder Society. So your orginial question: DO YOU ALLOW FLUFF WHEN IT DOESN'T AFFECT MECHANICS? has been answered with: No.
Few things here.
Yes, I know who Tonya is. She knows who I am too. We have met in person. If she is anything like Mike Brock she will be the first to tell you that her position doesn't make her infallible.
That being said she didn't say "no", nor could she as this was a question to the PFS community.
|
|
My thoughts:
Look at the inside cover of Weapon Master's Handbook at the different longswords of the Inner Sea.
That's about as much variance as you can have with your description.
Note, it's a TON of variance, but they are still all the same thing at heart.
If we were to cast a silhouette of your horse, would we instantly recognize it as a horse? Or would we think it to be some other fantastic beast?
Is my gut reaction "That's not a horse!...no.... Wait...I see it now..." or is it "That's a horse...but something's not quite right about it..."?
The first is reskin, the latter description.
*Separate but related note*
I find it a little odd that, by mechanics, a tiefling with no hint at their heritage but serpentine eyes and a qlippoth-born tiefling with the maw and natural armor racial substitutions are treated the same when it comes to social interaction.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone seems to be in agreement at this point that you describe things however you want within the norms of it's type. No one has been able to describe what a Celestial horse looks like within the rules.
At the core, the argument seems to be player creativity vs. GM rules enforcement. How about this? Describe your "horse" any way you want. Say it has wings, hands/feet instead of hooves, blue scales instead of hair, a hundred legs instead of four, and as GM I will say, "so its a celestial horse." If you are just trying to customize the description of your horse, fine. I really don't care. If you are trying to gain an advantage, mechanical or otherwise, I will just block you. In the end, it is a celestial horse (magical beast). I will be sure to announce that to the other players and NPC/monsters will identify it that way. Even if they fail to make the requisite knowledge check, they will assume it is a horse, not a griffon or anything else other than what it is "suppose" to look like. That's your compromise, best I can do for you and still comply with the intent of the rules.
I think you are using the lack of an "official" description for a celestial horse (magical beast) to make up for yourself what it would look like. Nothing in the descriptions for magical beasts or the celestial template suggests a special version of a normal animal suddenly gains new physical attributes unless it is a specific creature. Example, a pegasus does not get wings BECAUSE it is a magical beast, otherwise all magical beasts would gain wings. Tonya provided some descriptive text that would be acceptable: gold, silver, beautiful, light,divine, graceful, flawless, perfection, neat, gleaming, tranquility, patient, lustrous, majestic, prismatic, magnificent, glimmering, regal, & glorious. Since she is at Paizo, she has the benefit of consulting the design/development team on this so her statement carries the weight of the rules.
The key point of the re-skinning rules is that you cannot describe one creature (celestial, magical, or otherwise) as appearing like that of another one. It confuses the game and provides you with a mechanical benefit through misdirection.
IMO, you should have left things alone. You say your local GMs have been permissive. Okay, cool. They can either claim ignorance of the re-skinning rules or just GM fiat. Either way, you were getting what you wanted. However, you've pushed the issue to the point that the OPC has weighed in. Now, it is official, you cannot do what you intended to do. No, exceptions, no loopholes. At worst, you have now crwated a situation where your GMs are forced to deny your "creativity" else they risk running an illegal table and that is certainly not something anyone wanted.
What players in this type of situation don't seem to realize or learn is that when you press an ambiguous case under the guise of creativity, especially when there are rules that cover your situation, to the point the OPC/CC has to respond, good or bad, you have to adhere to their comment. In this case, you forced Tonya to respond since it appeared you would not accept the feedback of other community leaders. She has stated flatly that no, you cannot "re-skin" your horse (celestial, magical, or otherwise) into a gryphon or even a gryphon-like creature. Unfortunately, that means the case is closed. Anything you do hereafter will be perceived as you trying to find a loop-hole in the ruling to exploit. I think you are a reasonable person, and I know what you want to do. I do not object to the creativity and I even like the imagery and the character continuity you are truing to achieve, but at this point, the door has been closed on you. Sorry
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing to consider: You can fluff the transformation between horse and griffon all you want (within the rules), but the sad fact is you are giving up a horse to get a griffon and you'd have to follow another PFS FAQ as well. So as long as you have 6 ranks in Handle Animal when you get the griffon you'll be fine after you actually train it.
How can I teach tricks to an animal using Handle Animal?
|
|
Tabletop Giant: Thank you for posting that. I appreciate it. It does really speak my opinion of how childish I have seen people acting in this thread. I appreciate you coming to my defense and the defense of others who might have wandered to these boards unaware of the type of community that is offered. I can stand up for myself but it is nice to see others sharing the same opinion as myself.
I want to clear the air about a few things, though.
People in this thread have insinuated and suggested that I:
-don't know who Tonya is
-am new to the boards/community
-don't know how PF and/or PFS rules work
-don't know how the boards work
etc...
I didn't want to drag down the thread with a pissing match or dropping street cred. It is honestly pretty ridiculous to need to do that to get the respect that any poster deserves. However, for the sake of this one thread lets see if it makes any difference.
I have been around these boards for a fairly long time and likely have a higher post count than most of the people in this thread. Not that I think that should matter.
Even though I don't have the little stars before my name I have been a DM for greater than 2 decades for more systems than I can count on two hands. Not that I think that should matter. I am somewhat new to PFS mostly because there are things that I dislike about community play and the subset of rules that need to exist for community play to exist. I also was resistant due to previous experiences with other systems organized play mostly having to do with the attitudes of people enforcing their understanding of this subset of rules upon others for the gain of no one. Luckily I have found a PFS group who shares in my concept of how to have a good time in organized play. I thought that might carry over to he PFS forums as well... so far, not so much.
As far as knowing the rules go, well I spend most of my time on the forums in the rules and advice sections. I have started threads for clarifications that made it into FAQs, errata, etc. I have contributed to more than one guide. I have fought for one side or another of different rulings and helped countless fellow gamers achieve the concept for a character they wanted to build. Not that I think that should matter.
As far as rubbing shoulders with Designers, Developers, etc go... I have met several of them at conventions (Tonya, Mike Brock, Mark Seifter, Tracy Hickman and more. I have interviewed Sean K Reynolds for a different site back before the days of Pathfinder. Not that I think that should matter.
The point is none of this should matter. I actually would feel worse if I got treated any differently due to who I am or what I have done than any other poster that comes by. As Tabletop Giant pointed out every poster that comes here deserves to be treated with the same level of patience and respect.
If that level is truly as low as has been displayed in this thread then there are several people that should be ashamed of their mocking, snarky, unhelpful, trollish behaviors. Is that really the type of community you want to be a part of and have others come to?
There are several posts made in this thread with no other reason than to stop by and mock someone. It doesn't matter whether it is me or some previous person who had a question that you are deciding is similar enough to deserve it. Who does it help? I'm sure the defense is that you thought you were being funny but when it is at the cost of someone else it isn't worth it for anyone.
More importantly, it is against the rules of the boards. An end should have been put to this long before now. I get that Tonya was trying to give a warning to bring the thread back on track and salvage the topic. That is no excuse for continuing that type of behavior. I have a feeling some are trying to thread on the line carefully enough to not get in trouble but specifically to get the thread locked.
So my question has been asked before? You think that it is similar enough to some other question that has been asked before? So what?! That is allowed. You not liking how a different conversation went that didn't involve me is no reason for you to hold that against me. Look, if you took part in a different thread in a similar topic that does not give you the right to come to my thread and take out your aggression against some entirely different poster on me!
First of all I already addressed why it doesn't matter who is posting here as far as how they should be treated. I would like to follow that up with it doesn't matter who YOU are about how valuable your opinion is either. Who decides how much weight each person's opinion has on topics? The number of stars before your name doesn't make your opinion more valid than any other poster's opinion.
For that matter saying that I "would not accept the feedback of other community leaders" is patently false.
Aside from the 4 separate GMs at my local group who all said they would allow it:
Tabletop Giant said, "I'd allow it myself"
Paulicus said, "It depends on how strict your local GMs are, but in situations like this I've had no trouble RPing the fluff, and just letting the GM know the mechanical reality in case it matters (it usually won't)."
Bob Jonquet (ironically, the one who said that I am not accepting the feedback of community leaders) said, "However, many GMs (and most players) are willing to allow it..."
Kerney had several posts about how they are doing something similar with several characters.
gnrrrg said, "...it will vary from GM to GM."
Lord Twitchiopolis posted about the differences between "reskinning" and "description" which I honestly think is the crux of the difference here.
Now, I ask.. to the naysayers who believe there is no support for my perspective:
Am I not accepting their feedback on this topic? Or are you?
Andrew Christian, John Compton, The Fox, Jayson MF Kip, Kalindlara, Wire Paladin, Fromper, Nefreet, Quintin Verassi, Bob Jonquet, Tonya Woldridge herself and more offered different solutions to the same problem.
I responded to some of them saying that I liked their story, concept or alternate method. I didn't respond to all of them. Does that mean I ignored them? Of course not! I have taken their opinions in stride.
Now, perhaps some people in my play group have been doing it wrong and not following a rule. But take a step back and take a look at the issue from my perspective:
This started with me reading the FAQ but still looking for a way to not have to kick my horse to the curb when I upgraded to a Griffon. So I approached some GMs in my area and they said they didn't have an issue with it.
I decided to bring the topic to the PFS boards and see how widely this opinion was shared and find out if anyone else had similar experiences with similar situations.
I was attacked by members of the community (and community leaders) for even having the sheer gall to post such a topic as it has already been brought up before and not following what they said.
Now I ask, can you blame me for being defensive? I didn't come here asking for that kind of treatment. I did nothing to deserve it. I haven't done anything to any of you people. I have a feeling that some people are hanging onto the animosity they had towards some person in a different thread and directing that at me.
And it isn't just me! What of the people that are part of my local group? Some of them have already read this thread. One of them has posted in it. How do you think they feel about the situations that they have let transpire at their game tables that are opposed to people's perspectives expressed here as a violation of the reskinning rules? Are you all so ready to condemn them as well? Or maybe do they just have a different interpretation of the differences between “reskinning” vs “description” than you do?
|
|
I have dropped the idea of "making my horse a griffon" a long time ago. So everyone who wants to draw similarities to the "making my pig a wolf" thread can stop that now. The conversation (at least my posts) have taken a turn towards what is allowed within the bounds of "description" that does not violate the "reskinning" rules.
I get it that some may not have picked up on that and are thinking that I'm just sitting here with the goal of arguing a topic. I am not. I am trying to figure out what would work best for my situation.
Let me focus on some important differences between a horse and a Celstial Servant:
1. It is a Magical Beast, not an Animal.
2. It isn't affected by several spells cast by anyone other than my character.
3. It is not from around here. It is from the "heavenly realms" and thus is not indigenous to ANYWHERE on Golarion.
4. It is not identified with Knowledge: Nature.
5. It IS identified with Knowledge: Arcana.
6. It is not affected by Handle Animal, wild empathy, or any other spells or class abilities that specifically affects animals except those done by my character.
7. It is unusually intelligent due to it being obtained as a Bonded Mount and has a 6 Int.
8. It understands Common though it cannot speak it.
Now, I would think that due to several of these points that it would be difficult to mistake this creature as a horse. Mostly because it isn't an horse. It isn't even an animal. It is a Magical Beast that must look different enough from a horse for it to not be readily identifiable by a Knowledge: Nature check.
Before anyone jumps down my throat and says that I am ignoring Tonya's post about her perception on what this critter might look like how about I just put her words here.
Looking through Pathfinder published material for celestial items or beings, you get some of the following descriptives: gold, silver, beautiful, light,divine, graceful, flawless, perfection, neat, gleaming, tranquillity, patient, lustrous, majestic, prismatic, magnificent, glimmering, regal, & glorious. Avian features are only on specific types of celestial creatures, and not a key component of celestial. So while your description of a celestial horse and my description of a celestial horse may vary based on preference of celestial-type adjectives used, the base is going to be a large, four-legged, hoofed, herbivore mammal with a flowing mane and tail.
I doubt that Tonya meant her list to be an exhaustive list of the ways that a Celestial horse can be described. And, no, I don't think she was making a ruling. Designers, Devs, Coordinators, etc can make posts about opinion without believing their words are being taken as gospel. Alas, some people still take it that way.
Tonya said that my description and her's may differ. She gave a base description of a horse as a starting point for where things can change. I agree with what she said. I do not believe that it is counter to my current goal.
With that in mind and drawing from sources of how other celestial creatures in published Paizo material have been presented where do you think the line between "description" and "reskinning" lies?
Right now erase the idea of a Griffon from your mind. This isn't a pig/wolf, Griffon/horse, hair dye, skin tone, etc. discussion. This is a discussion about the physical variances that a Celestial horse can have.
Could I, for instance, describe my Celestial horse as the following?:
A large, four-legged (with small scale-like patterns on the fore-legs), hoofed (though the front hooves are split and somewhat resemble developing talons), herbivore mammal with a flowing mane (of feathers) and tail (that looks more feline than equine with a tuft of hair at the tip).
Remember, it has to be different enough to not be identifiable as a horse or even an animal. It is a Magical Beast and is identifiable via Knowledge: Arcana. What physical traits must (or can) exists for this to be true? How much of this should have a hard rule that a player is shackled by and how much of it should be left to the GM to decide what is allowable?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've avoided this thread for a long time, but a bunch of stuff was posted that needs clarification.
Lune: For reference, *all* posts made by campaign staff are rulings according to the Guide. Yes, it means they don't get to just offer opinions or think out loud on the boards, but that's why they pay them the big bucks. Tonya's post that you can't have a horse that looks like a griffon, etc. is now a campaign rule. Ignoring this, and trying to tell Tonya whether she made a "ruling" or not, *may* be one reason why people suspect you of being new to PFS. You're right, that shouldn't matter, but for those of us who have been in PFS a long time, we do see the same questions come up over and over.
You finish your last post with "How much of this should have a hard rule that a player is shackled by and how much of it should be left to the GM to decide what is allowable?"
That is not how PFS works. "GM discretion" in PFS is in large part defined by the OPC, not the individual table GMs. It is the (small) price we play for an Organized Play campaign that spans continents where we can sit down at any table and have a (mostly) uniform play style and experience. This misunderstanding is going to cause you a lot of grief in Organized Play.
I'm sorry that you feel you haven't been shown the proper respect, but at some point you need to realize that PFS is not a home campaign, and rules are there for the campaign as a whole, not just for your table.
I'd be happy to discuss the "new" question you pose, since this one has been settled, but the tone on both sides needs to be a little less defensive.
|
|
Response to the off topic part of GM Lamplighter:
I understand that anything that Tonya or others say is a campaign rule. However, nothing that Tonya said has changed anything that existed prior to this thread. As I stated, I am NOT ignoring anything that she or anyone else said. What Tonya gave was some possible ways of describing a Celestial horse. Nothing in her post states that this is an exhaustive list and that these are the only ways you are able to describe such a critter.
You still seem to be focusing on describing a Celestial horse as a Griffon. As I have already stated, that is not my intended goal and I am not trying to break any rules. I am trying to describe my Celestial horse within the guidelines that I am given.
As far as "GM discretion" goes I feel like this isn't something you should be discussing with me. This should be something, that if you feel strongly about, you should be discussing with my local GMs who while saying "they would allow it" had accidentally lead me astray to believing that this was both common in the PFS community and was accepted as providing creative description rather than reskinning.
Please, understand that I did not make that decision! I asked them what their opinions were and they reacted positively to it. I do not slight them for this. They were just trying to be helpful. If you believe they are in the wrong then discuss it with them. I'm not giving their names out publicly on these boards because I do not believe they would deserve the accusations and attacks that would invariably be leveled against them any more than I did. However, if you want their names I would be happy to provide them in a private message.
Nothing. Because nothing on topic was discussed. ;) Sorry, couldn't resist.
Seriously, though. I welcome your opinion on the on-topic discussion. That is what these boards are for, after all, right?
|
|
I guess I'm confused—and I'm being sincere here—what is the topic if GM Lamplighter's post was entirely off-topic?
Could I, for instance, describe my Celestial horse as the following?:
A large, four-legged (with small scale-like patterns on the fore-legs), hoofed (though the front hooves are split and somewhat resemble developing talons), herbivore mammal with a flowing mane (of feathers) and tail (that looks more feline than equine with a tuft of hair at the tip).Remember, it has to be different enough to not be identifiable as a horse or even an animal. It is a Magical Beast and is identifiable via Knowledge: Arcana. What physical traits must (or can) exists for this to be true?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You may describe your celestial horse however you wish, as far as I'm concerned, provided that it is still identifiable as a celestial horse (not something else). The feat that you are taking changes its type to magical beast.
It is not clear whether all animals with the celestial template become magical beasts with the extraplanar subtype. That's the way it was in 3.5, but it was not written that way in the PF template. This is neither here nor there for the current topic, however.
Celestial X is still an X, though.
You keep bringing up aasimar as a point of example, but really you should be looking at celestial humans as the comparison. Celestial humans are still humans—and probably have the extraplanar subtype.
If someone were to succeed on a Knowledge (arcana) check against your Celestial Servant, they would identify it as a celestial horse.*
If someone were to use a +1 horse bane dogslicer against your Celestial Servant, they would get +2 to attack and damage, and add +2d6 damage.
If someone were to use a +1 animal bane dogslicer, it would have no additional effect.
If someone were to use a +1 magical beast bane dogslicer, they would again benefit from the added bonuses.
If they beat that by 5 or more, I would tell them it is not a natural horse, and does not have the animal type.
It would be a Knowledge (arcana) check with a DC equal to 10 + the horse's CR to identify that it is a celestial horse.
Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
This horse is dead!
In my prior post, I did make a ruling. I upheld the reskinning rules as already published.
I also offered examples as to what descriptives could be used to describe a celestial creature.
In a nutshell, its base class feature is Animal Companion that has had the celestial template applied to it and is a magical beast. The template doesn't change the fact that it is a HORSE that has some of your assimar goodness rubbed off on it. It is your racial feat that is imparting the Celestial nature to the horse, not inherent in the Animal Companion. If you were to get rid of Horse and get Tiger, then Tiger would be celestial and Horse would turn back into plain Horse.
KN:Nature says its a funky horse. KN:Arcana says its a magical horse.
For PFS, it needs to be described first and formost as a Horse.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing a lot of players and GMs seem to forget is there are indeed rules for reskinning in game. They're called disguise checks. You want your horse to look like a Griffin? Fine. Get a disguise kit and make little Griffin wings for it to wear. This way it needs to be described first and foremost as a Griffin and only with a successful perception do you have to admit it's really a horse.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This horse is dead!
What does this statement even mean? Are... are you killing my character's horse?
I also offered examples as to what descriptives could be used to describe a celestial creature.
So ...are these just examples? Or is everyone limited to only using these descriptive terms for their Celestial horses?
Look, I have a feeling people are thinking that I am trying to skirt some PFS rules. I'm not. I am trying to find out what the rules are that I have to operate within.
Tonya, I get the feeling that you are getting upset with me and I do not understand why. Is it not better to come and ask if what I want to do is ok than to try to do something that is against the rules regardless of what I'm told?
I don't really appreciate you starting off your post with "This horse is dead!". I'm not really sure what you meant by it but it hardly seems a positive statement and well... almost seems like a threat. Maybe I'm just taking it wrong.
|
Lune: she was making a joke based around the metaphor Steven mentioned.
She was also trying to make a point. Your question has been answered, so please stop belaboring the issue (i.e. beating the dead horse.)
And if people want to be really, really pedantic, yes, the list she gave is exhaustive. But I think if you come up with another synonym for supernaturally pretty, nobody will complain. As long as your horse looks like a horse. Of course.
|
For the record... Tonya is another gamer soul who wants to be able to banter with the rest of us. "Beating a dead horse" is a fairly common saying.
I do not think her post elicited any negative emotion. A one line joke, followed by a straight forward logical explanation of the facts as well as her ruling.
I would take the suggestions and play within them, rather than push the buttons that appear to when as I read it.. "by 'examples', do you mean 'examples of' or 'limited to'?"
|
|
So if a dead celestial horse is raised, can it get the Risen trait?
Or is it a brand new horse because the previous horse is living it up in the frolicking afterlife wondering what is taking so long for their person to get there?
Well if you left the faction what would happen? Since he can not leave are you forever alone since it stays with the Sages?