|
Ultimately, the Deific Obediance is, "Spend an hour each day showing devotion to your deity to gain the listed bonus."I disagree. I see it more as a sacrifice for your god. Like lent, flagellation, or a hair shirt.
Your thinking in roleplaying terms. My point was directed at game mechanics.
My understanding of the deific obedience descriptions is more flavor text, and to help people roleplay deity worshipers. Not that the GM couldn't impose them RAW, of course.
Just seems like extra work for the GM and is very much a "open a can of worms" type decision. Unless it really mattered in the campaign, I'd stick with the, "my PC spends an hour preparing spells and a second hour performing acts of deific obedience."
Unless the GM is forcing wizards to role play preparing spells or clerics communing with their deity, I'd leave it alone.
As a DM most obediences I would hand waive some require certain things the player would need to account for and any creative answer I would allow.
Although in certain adventures I would definitely not give them for free. Mask of the living god, or anything in Rahadoum(in this country doing one is punishable by death).
So yes, I may expect a little extra if it calls for it.
|
I don't see how imposing penalties for performing a deific obedience that is not inherently dangerous is a matter of table variation. If there would have been a possibility for a drawback, the obedience would have listed it. Imposing a penalty because you think there should be one is outside the purview of a PFS GM's duty.
True, but imposing consequences for a characters actions is well within the purview of a PFS GM. So some of these rituals may require some level of discretion else the public might object in some fashion.
|
I don't see how imposing penalties for performing a deific obedience that is not inherently dangerous is a matter of table variation. If there would have been a possibility for a drawback, the obedience would have listed it. Imposing a penalty because you think there should be one is outside the purview of a PFS GM's duty.True, but imposing consequences for a characters actions is well within the purview of a PFS GM. So some of these rituals may require some level of discretion else the public might object in some fashion.
I'll grant you that, a GM can impose consequences for performing obediences when doing so would have negative reprecussions, such as the Rahadoum example. But that is less a matter of the obedience and more a matter of the character being responsible for the choices they make.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll grant you that, a GM can impose consequences for performing obediences when doing so would have negative reprecussions, such as the Rahadoum example. But that is less a matter of the obedience and more a matter of the character being responsible for the choices they make.I don't see how imposing penalties for performing a deific obedience that is not inherently dangerous is a matter of table variation. If there would have been a possibility for a drawback, the obedience would have listed it. Imposing a penalty because you think there should be one is outside the purview of a PFS GM's duty.True, but imposing consequences for a characters actions is well within the purview of a PFS GM. So some of these rituals may require some level of discretion else the public might object in some fashion.
Agreed. But it does feel like many posters feel like because they took the feat, they could do whatever, whenever they want. This attitude is not specific to this issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. But it does feel like many posters feel like because they took the feat, they could do whatever, whenever they want. This attitude is not specific to this issue.I'll grant you that, a GM can impose consequences for performing obediences when doing so would have negative reprecussions, such as the Rahadoum example. But that is less a matter of the obedience and more a matter of the character being responsible for the choices they make.I don't see how imposing penalties for performing a deific obedience that is not inherently dangerous is a matter of table variation. If there would have been a possibility for a drawback, the obedience would have listed it. Imposing a penalty because you think there should be one is outside the purview of a PFS GM's duty.True, but imposing consequences for a characters actions is well within the purview of a PFS GM. So some of these rituals may require some level of discretion else the public might object in some fashion.
That, I agree with. Taking the feat is not a license to troll the rest of the table (PC's and GM) and use Deific Obedience as a way to avoid consequences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doing a Deific Obedience in Rahadoum won't get you killed. Almost certainly deportedif they catch you, but not killed.
It depends on the obedience. For example, I doubt that a follower of Irori would get into trouble for having a morning routine of spending 20 minutes in martial arts practice, 20 minutes reading, and 20 minutes braiding his hair unless somebody figured out that he was doing it for religious reasons. As I recall, the obedience to Shelyn is similarly innocuous.
On the other hand, noisily clanging your shield and calling out to Gorum would definitely bring some bad consequences.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Agreed. But it does feel like many posters feel like because they took the feat, they could do whatever, whenever they want. This attitude is not specific to this issue.I'll grant you that, a GM can impose consequences for performing obediences when doing so would have negative reprecussions, such as the Rahadoum example. But that is less a matter of the obedience and more a matter of the character being responsible for the choices they make.I don't see how imposing penalties for performing a deific obedience that is not inherently dangerous is a matter of table variation. If there would have been a possibility for a drawback, the obedience would have listed it. Imposing a penalty because you think there should be one is outside the purview of a PFS GM's duty.True, but imposing consequences for a characters actions is well within the purview of a PFS GM. So some of these rituals may require some level of discretion else the public might object in some fashion.
I have now heard, several times, the arguement:
"The feat / spell / class feature / whatever is PFS legal. I took the whatever, so I get to use it. If you try to stop me from using it by imposing negative consequences, you are violating Rules-as-written which say I get to use it."
|
|
I have now heard, several times, the arguement:
"The feat / spell / class feature / whatever is PFS legal. I took the whatever, so I get to use it. If you try to stop me from using it by imposing negative consequences, you are violating Rules-as-written which say I get to use it."
If you read John Compton's posts early in this thread, that does seem to be his response to the Deific Obedience feat. Of course, he says that the PC has to choose the less evil route towards doing the obedience, which would avoid any possible consequences.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I have now heard, several times, the arguement:
"The feat / spell / class feature / whatever is PFS legal. I took the whatever, so I get to use it. If you try to stop me from using it by imposing negative consequences, you are violating Rules-as-written which say I get to use it."
If you read John Compton's posts early in this thread, that does seem to be his response to the Deific Obedience feat. Of course, he says that the PC has to choose the less evil route towards doing the obedience, which would avoid any possible consequences.
And you will note that I objected that his post further reinforced that argument, where his other posts elsewhere have argued against it and supported GM discretion.
However, since I respect his position, I am accepting his ruling that obediences do not provoke negative consequences, provided the PC takes reasonable precautions to avoid negative consequences.
That said, the people I am truly objecting to are the one arguing beyond that, to say "I don't have to take precautions, because negative consequences, in general, violate RAW"
|
However, since I respect his position, I am accepting his ruling that obediences do not provoke negative consequences, provided the PC takes reasonable precautions to avoid negative consequences.
That said, the people I am truly objecting to are the one arguing beyond that, to say "I don't have to take precautions, because negative consequences, in general, violate RAW"
Agreed, reasonable precautions should be taken. Just like any roleplaying, players should be behaving in a manner reasonable to their character's surroundings.
The improved steal feat, for example, does not allow players to just steal from every NPC they encounter without consequence. It's a neat feat than can be useful, but it doesn't exclude them from behaving reasonable within the setting.
Developer
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, the Deific Obedience feat is legal for play for most deities who have received such write-ups. Those characters who perform the respective obedience should note that there are less-evil options available to fulfill it, each of which would impose a negligible impact on one's alignment.
I think that part is clear now.
Power Attack is also a legal feat. A character might use Power Attack to kill a dragon, break down a door, or strike down a hostile human. Those sound like really solid uses of the feat. That said, one could also use Power Attack to kill a gold dragon delivering desperately-needed medical supplies to a good-aligned temple, break down a door that has sealed away a slumbering evil that's now unleashed upon the land, or use it to cut down an antagonistic (yet unarmed and non-violent) diplomat at a fancy party. Context is important, just as it is when aiming a fireball.
Not every feat can be used in every situation without provoking alarm and or some other unwanted response. Using any of the legal obediences should not be cause for an alignment shift (using the "nicer" obedience options available for evil deities). Using any of the legal obediences might trigger a response from bystanders, though I trust that most obediences will be relatively easy to accomplish in most locations and circumstances. I am trusting GMs to be judicious in deciding when making it difficult for a PC to perform her obedience would make the game more fun and/or best reflect the flavor of the adventure site.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
However, since I respect his position, I am accepting his ruling that obediences do not provoke negative consequences, provided the PC takes reasonable precautions to avoid negative consequences.
That said, the people I am truly objecting to are the one arguing beyond that, to say "I don't have to take precautions, because negative consequences, in general, violate RAW"
Agreed, reasonable precautions should be taken. Just like any roleplaying, players should be behaving in a manner reasonable to their character's surroundings.
The improved steal feat, for example, does not allow players to just steal from every NPC they encounter without consequence. It's a neat feat than can be useful, but it doesn't exclude them from behaving reasonable within the setting.
I agree. Sadly, I did actually once see someone argue that if the GM had the NPC call the guard when he caught them, he was violating RAW...
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
In the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, the Deific Obedience feat is legal for play for most deities who have received such write-ups. Those characters who perform the respective obedience should note that there are less-evil options available to fulfill it, each of which would impose a negligible impact on one's alignment.
I like this language better than the previous language, and feel that it is very clear. It elucidates that this is still evil, but not so evil that it needs tracking or altering alignments. It does not eliminate the fluff, and yet still lets the ability be used. This is what I was looking for in my previous response to your post.
Thank you.
|
However, since I respect his position, I am accepting his ruling that obediences do not provoke negative consequences, provided the PC takes reasonable precautions to avoid negative consequences.
That said, the people I am truly objecting to are the one arguing beyond that, to say "I don't have to take precautions, because negative consequences, in general, violate RAW"
Agreed, reasonable precautions should be taken. Just like any roleplaying, players should be behaving in a manner reasonable to their character's surroundings.
The improved steal feat, for example, does not allow players to just steal from every NPC they encounter without consequence. It's a neat feat than can be useful, but it doesn't exclude them from behaving reasonable within the setting.
I agree. Sadly, I did actually once see someone argue that if the GM had the NPC call the guard when he caught them, he was violating RAW...
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Not true.However, since I respect his position, I am accepting his ruling that obediences do not provoke negative consequences, provided the PC takes reasonable precautions to avoid negative consequences.
That said, the people I am truly objecting to are the one arguing beyond that, to say "I don't have to take precautions, because negative consequences, in general, violate RAW"
Agreed, reasonable precautions should be taken. Just like any roleplaying, players should be behaving in a manner reasonable to their character's surroundings.
The improved steal feat, for example, does not allow players to just steal from every NPC they encounter without consequence. It's a neat feat than can be useful, but it doesn't exclude them from behaving reasonable within the setting.
I agree. Sadly, I did actually once see someone argue that if the GM had the NPC call the guard when he caught them, he was violating RAW...
I didn't say he was correct. But yes, that was basically my counter argument at the time. Also the reason I have that post bookmarked.
Doing a Deific Obedience in Rahadoum won't get you killed. Almost certainly deportedif they catch you, but not killed.
That might depend on the obedience. Doing Lamashtu's might get you sentenced to a burning at the stake.
|
|
Doing a Deific Obedience in Rahadoum won't get you killed. Almost certainly deportedif they catch you, but not killed.That might depend on the obedience. Doing Lamashtu's might get you sentenced to a burning at the stake.
Thats why that one managed to get called out as an exception, as there is no reformed church of the mother of monsters option available. Which is a shame, a lamashite monster affeciondo could make a great pathfinder.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thats why that one managed to get called out as an exception, as there is no reformed church of the mother of monsters option available. Which is a shame, a lamashite monster affeciondo could make a great pathfinder.Doing a Deific Obedience in Rahadoum won't get you killed. Almost certainly deportedif they catch you, but not killed.That might depend on the obedience. Doing Lamashtu's might get you sentenced to a burning at the stake.
|
|
@kinevon: Just wear a cloak... All adventurers are oddballs of society that choose to not live a normal life. If they ask what's under the cloak, just leave it a mystery. Unless you've got a peeping tom in the party, they should respect your desire to keep your flesh a secret.
I don't think just a cloak would serve to disguise her .. uniquenesses.
|
|
@kinevon: Just wear a cloak... All adventurers are oddballs of society that choose to not live a normal life. If they ask what's under the cloak, just leave it a mystery. Unless you've got a peeping tom in the party, they should respect your desire to keep your flesh a secret.I don't think just a cloak would serve to disguise her .. uniquenesses.
Besides, that NPC was proud of her unique physiology, and showed it off intentionally.
|
|
One thing I was thinking of making was an Unchained Summoner with a Devil Eidolon and having that eidolon generally mistreat the summoner - either be a bully to the summoner or perhaps be the "owner" with the summoner being the devil's slave. If the Devil Eidolon were to take Deific Obedience as a feat and perform the obedience on the Summoner, would that be allowed (note: this is probably not something I will do because this specific case would be a low mechanical benefit for the eidolon)? If the Summoner were also to take Deific Obedience, would being the victim of the obedience confer the benefit to the summoner (presumably, Asmodeus, deity of slavery, is worshiped by slaves as well as slave owners, even if it's only because they have to)?
I suspect this would set off a lot of nerves at tables, as there'd be no good way to 'model' this without coming off well into the 'alternate lifestyle' approach.
There are some gaming communities that have had issues over the years with other communities attempting to subvert what should be a fun experience for everyone into... something else.
Zon-Kuthon would probably be on board with torture though, so couldn't tell you for sure how it would fly at a table? I'd probably feel a bit uncomfortable with it, especially if children were present?
|
|
I suspect this would set off a lot of nerves at tables, as there'd be no good way to 'model' this without coming off well into the 'alternate lifestyle' approach.
There are some gaming communities that have had issues over the years with other communities attempting to subvert what should be a fun experience for everyone into... something else.
Zon-Kuthon would probably be on board with torture though, so couldn't tell you for sure how it would fly at a table? I'd probably feel a bit uncomfortable with it, especially if children were present?
Don't worry - I've had to deal with a player in a home game that kept trying to play out his fetishes at the gaming table (despite repeated objections), so that's absolutely not what I'm going for.
I had an idea to have a summoner with a meek/sad sack personality that gets constantly bullied by his eidolon by doing things like interrupting (just the summoner, not the other players), name-calling, wet willies, etc. I was going for a comedic feel, so the things done would be lower-end, childish bully tactics (wedgies, wet willies, etc). If I wanted to go for something like the Deific Obedience (or similar mechanical benefits) it would probably have to become a more serious situation like a slave/slave owner kind of thing. And I prefer bringing comedy to the table.
It sounds like a fun idea to have character - familiar / companion / eidolon interactions at the table, but it can be a trap. When you are interacting with your companion you are denying another Player at the table the spotlight. (I'm sure somewhere there is an RPG blog on this topic somewhere.)
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I suspect this would set off a lot of nerves at tables, as there'd be no good way to 'model' this without coming off well into the 'alternate lifestyle' approach.
There are some gaming communities that have had issues over the years with other communities attempting to subvert what should be a fun experience for everyone into... something else.
Zon-Kuthon would probably be on board with torture though, so couldn't tell you for sure how it would fly at a table? I'd probably feel a bit uncomfortable with it, especially if children were present?
Don't worry - I've had to deal with a player in a home game that kept trying to play out his fetishes at the gaming table (despite repeated objections), so that's absolutely not what I'm going for.
I had an idea to have a summoner with a meek/sad sack personality that gets constantly bullied by his eidolon by doing things like interrupting (just the summoner, not the other players), name-calling, wet willies, etc. I was going for a comedic feel, so the things done would be lower-end, childish bully tactics (wedgies, wet willies, etc). If I wanted to go for something like the Deific Obedience (or similar mechanical benefits) it would probably have to become a more serious situation like a slave/slave owner kind of thing. And I prefer bringing comedy to the table.
So, basically Crona, from Soul Eater?
