|
If I don't own (or am playing Core so can't use) materials which explain certain specific details of how a deity functions within the PFS setting, am I subject to those rules?
For example, If I'm playing core, or otherwise don't own any books which explain Pharasma's dislike of undead, am I going to be penalized as a PFS cleric of pharasma for creating undead (or otherwise working with undead)?
And it's not just pharasma, many of the deities have been fleshed out in the many supplements to pathfinder.
I'm under the impression that I can't use rules for my character creation that I don't own. Or in Core, I'm unable to use rules outside of the very limited rules selections. Does it go both ways? Or am I still subject to setting related rules even if I don't own/can't use some or all of the materials available on that topic?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I don't own (or am playing Core so can't use) materials which explain certain specific details of how a deity functions within the PFS setting, am I subject to those rules?
For example, If I'm playing core, or otherwise don't own any books which explain Pharasma's dislike of undead, am I going to be penalized as a PFS cleric of pharasma for creating undead (or otherwise working with undead)?
And it's not just pharasma, many of the deities have been fleshed out in the many supplements to pathfinder.
I'm under the impression that I can't use rules for my character creation that I don't own. Or in Core, I'm unable to use rules outside of the very limited rules selections. Does it go both ways? Or am I still subject to setting related rules even if I don't own/can't use some or all of the materials available on that topic?
I'm in a very grumbly mood today.
The backstory and setting of the campaign still exists. Don't mistake "character options" for "the entirety of the world."
"Hmmm, there's no Core book that says Absalom is an island, so instead of paying for a ship I'm going to walk to Sothis. Oh wait, I don't know what Sothis is."
People, stop trying to stretch the rules - particularly rules created to make Pathfinder Society function - in ways that let your characters ignore what you know is intended.
|
The GM can and should still use all sources of background to make reasonable rulings on how the campaign world works. The player can still use her knowledge of the campaign world, and if she doesn't know, can ask the GM.
Should your theorycraft come about, the player could attempt to cast the spell. edit: with an appropriate warning, not heeded, the GM could rule either that it doesn't work, the cleric has committed a gross violation of Pharasma's doctrine and can play as an Expert for the rest of the session, or most likely both.
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. One of the points of core is for new players to not have to have as many resources. You are suggesting a GM penalize a player for fluff that exists outside of what they are responsible for. This guy knows in this case, but it may just be an example.
Note that Starglim did mention "with an appropriate warning". The GM must warn that an action like that would have consequences.
If someone tries to raise dead as a cleric of Pharasma, it doesn't matter if it is Core Campaign or regular campaign. That player should get a clear warning explaining that Pharasma considers undead an abomination to be destroyed and that the god would not grant that spell -- pick a different spell. If they are trying to do it from a scroll, the warning is that it would be a gross violation of her religious tenants and require an atonement.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a teachable moment - rather than *just* a warning, the GM could do exactly what BNW suggests - have all the Pharasma lore you can muster happen that gives the player a better understanding of their deity.
Not many new players will arrive able to actually animate undead, so this isn't much of an issue.
|
|
Note that Starglim did mention "with an appropriate warning". The GM must warn that an action like that would have consequences.Sorry still disagree. If you wanted to have a campaign with a limited book set, you need to stick by the book set.
Forcing restrictions on players for knowledge/game play choices based on things outside those books defeats one of the very premises of that separate campaign
A cleric is getting into a relationship with an NPC. They need to learn a little about that NPC.
|
|
A cleric is getting into a relationship with an NPC. They need to learn a little about that NPC.They learned what is in the small blurb in the CRB. That is all they are responsible for.
Some may want to learn more, but no one in core can be required to or it defeats the concept of the limited resources campaign.
They can learn the hard way then. By being hit in the head by whippoorwills.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone tries to raise dead as a cleric of Pharasma, it doesn't matter if it is Core Campaign or regular campaign. That player should get a clear warning explaining that Pharasma considers undead an abomination to be destroyed and that the god would not grant that spell -- pick a different spell. If they are trying to do it from a scroll, the warning is that it would be a gross violation of her religious tenants and require an atonement.
I don't see what my dormitory has to do with anything, but I certainly oppose anything that would grossly violate me.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of a sudden the thought comes up that at any time in the future some GM may tell the person this or that and stop their character from doing something and they have no way to know or even check that.
First hit when searching with Google searching for "Pharasma Pathfinder". I wouldn't consider that "no way to check it out".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again that's something beyond what the person is responsible for.
Which is why you teach them in play.
This is why the the you need to tell someone about the alignment violation rule they're about to commit and give them backsies rules is there: so that there is no harm no foul in the cleric doing something their player doesn't know is wrong.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why you teach them in play.and the lesson will be that absolutely gigantic base of material outside the scope of core is going to be held against their characters while they are helpless to stop it
Okay, you're being overly dramatic. They're not being held down and beaten with d4 stuffed dice bags, someone is telling them that they chose to play a cleric of a specific god and that god has rules. In fact they were warned about this when they chose cleric.
Devoted to the tenets of the religions
and philosophies that inspire them, these ecclesiastics
quest to spread the knowledge and inf luence of their
faith.
Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required
by her god loses all spells and class features, except for
armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with
simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a
cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the
atonement spell description)
Its an opportunity to learn about golarion. Not some bizarre violation of their free will.
That's in the core rules. You pick a god, they have a code of conduct. Don't know what that is? Ask. Or google.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
Which is why you teach them in play.and the lesson will be that absolutely gigantic base of material outside the scope of core is going to be held against their characters while they are helpless to stop it
We were describing a GM explaining some world background and allowing the player a chance to adapt their character in order to fit in with that background.
You make it sound like the GM is victimizing the player.
There is a big difference between the two.
There has to be some consistency in the world background in order to make the storylines work. When a player isn't aware of some piece of the world background, you inform them. You help them make a character that does fit in with the world background.
|
|
Plaidwandering, the fact that the player doesn't have to know about more than the mechanics offered in the core rulebook doesn't change the lore. Pharasma didn't suddenly gain a hatred for the undead when Inner Sea Gods came out or whichever book that was declared in, it just elaborated on Pharasma's tenets, but those tenets exist whether you're playing in Core or not because they're a part of the setting, not a part of the mechanics. By your logic, if there's an enemy in a PFS scenario who's a swashbuckler and I attack him, and the GM says "I roll to parry," I don't get to say "swashbucklers aren't Core, so I ignore his parry." As of the ACG, Swashbucklers not only exist in Golarion, but have always existed, and were just never playable or showed up as enemies before the ACG came out.
You are absolutely right that PFS Core exists at least partially for new players who don't own a million books and don't want to get overwhelmed with new options and information. It's also for experienced players who don't want to deal with all of the options around making them feel like their relatively unoptimized character (whether for flavor or lack of owned books) does nothing in scenarios, and frankly for long time PFS players who are running out of scenarios they haven't played yet. But for those new players who haven't learned the setting or the greater rules yet, it's our responsibility as more experienced players to explain politely that, in this instance, Pharasma abhors undead and will make you lose your powers immediately if you try to raise one. Because their ignorance of the setting doesn't change its rules.
there's a big difference between telling someone their character works differently than what they read and an npc ability they don't have access to - that is a completely common thing
Nobody is going to punish the player by just saying "too bad you didn't know about this deity's rule, now you lose your powers".
It is more like this, "Your deity is against ____. Are you sure that you want to take that action?".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody is going to punish the player by just saying "too bad you didn't know about this deity's rule, now you lose your powers".Did you miss that exact thing being said upthread?
You clearly missed where everyone clearly said "we're not letting them take the action then stripping them of their powers, we're telling them 'hey, if you take that action you'll lose your powers, because *insert brief explanation of the lore here* if you'd like I can elaborate on all that later for you. In the meantime, are you sure you want to do that?"
Nobody is going to punish the player by just saying "too bad you didn't know about this deity's rule, now you lose your powers".Did you miss that exact thing being said upthread?
Did you not understand what I just said? If you did then explain the problem.
|
|
Been giving this one thought.
First, being directed to a third party web site (like a wiki page) to learn the mechanical rules that your PC is bound by in PFS is definitely wrong. Yes, you could suggest it, but to say the player is bound by the behaviour of a deity as depicted by a third party web site is beyond the scope of any PFS GM's ability. Even if they quote and source it perfectly, that is a third party bit and not part of the resources welcome in PFS games.
Second, regarding unowned books. I'm unclear on this one. It definitely seems fishy to give players mechanical benefits or restrictions based on materials they don't own. PFS has made it pretty clear that you can't make characters with mechanical effects from books the player doesn't own. Yeah, background on the deity isn't mechanical, but the GM imposing that background to dictate the validity of the character's actions, makes it mechanical. Undecided here.
Third, Core only uses the selected materials. Although a player is welcome to research additional fluff for their deity, using anything from outside materials to confer mechanical effect (positive or negative) seems beyond the scope of Core PFS (unless a scenario specifically calls it out). This means that Core PFS GMs shouldn't be able to penalize PC clerics for not behaving as their deity wishes in any respect not directly covered in the legal materials (or specifically allowed by the scenario). Regarding the example, since nothing the CRB's very limited description calls out Pharasma's hatred of undead, I don't believe PC clerics of pharasma in core are expected understand this aspect of their deity or are bound by this outside source requirement to not create undead.
|
Quotes or it didn't happen. No context snipping either.yes they said they would warn first, but the player has no idea why it's happening, or how they should ever know when something else is going to come out of the blue at them again
The core campaign does not include any info on deities other than what is in the CRB, thus you should only be making rulings based on that.
The player would have every idea why it is happening. That's part of the whole "Hey, Pharasma is actually really against the Undead. Totally not down with them at all. Since you're new and didn't know that, do you want to change your action to something else? After the game we can go over the deities and see if someone else is a better fit if you're really looking to animate the dead."
Which could be stepped up to, "Okay, I just want you to know that this will be a gross violation of Pharasma's code which could, as stated in the CRB, lead to you losing certain cleric powers. Are you absolutely sure you want to do this?"
At that point, if they continue then yes, they are going to lose their clerical abilities for the remainder of the scenario. Because at that point, they are aware of the repercussions of their decision. If they turned to me as the GM and said, "Hey, I know this is my first game, but this is the concept I want to go with, and it's kind of central to the character," then I could respond with "That's fine, Pharasma isn't the right fit for that concept. For this scenario, let's say you're a follower of Urgathoa, and afterwards we can hammer out some details to be a better fit."
Also, as a GM, I cannot make rulings based only on what's in the CRB. I *HAVE* to make rulings based on the breadth of Pathfinder, as well as I know it, as fairly as possible, as is relevant to the scenario I'm running. If there's a magus in the scenario, I can't simply say that spellstrike doesn't work simply because I'm running Core.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quotes or it didn't happen. No context snipping either.don't be asinine, this isn't a long thread, you can very well see that multiple people made references to stripping powers, atonements, playing as an expert etc.
yes they said they would warn first, but the player has no idea why it's happening, or how they should ever know when something else is going to come out of the blue at them again
The core campaign does not include any info on deities other than what is in the CRB, thus you should only be making rulings based on that.
Since you don't want to find quotes I will help you out.
"The GM can and should still use all sources of background to make reasonable rulings on how the campaign world works. The player can still use her knowledge of the campaign world, and if she doesn't know, can ask the GM.
Should your theorycraft come about, the player could attempt to cast the spell. edit: with an appropriate warning, not heeded, the GM could rule either that it doesn't work, the cleric has committed a gross violation of Pharasma's doctrine and can play as an Expert for the rest of the session, or most likely both."
This is one of the first quotes and it says a warning should be given first.
That player should get a clear warning explaining that Pharasma considers undead an abomination to be destroyed and that the god would not grant that spell -- pick a different spell. If they are trying to do it from a scroll, the warning is that it would be a gross violation of her religious tenants and require an atonement.
another one of the first quotes suggesting a warning
This is a teachable moment - rather than *just* a warning, the GM could do exactly what BNW suggests - have all the Pharasma lore you can muster happen that gives the player a better understanding of their deity.
Not many new players will arrive able to actually animate undead, so this isn't much of an issue.
another quote suggesting a warning
Sorry still disagree. If you wanted to have a campaign with a limited book set, you need to stick by the book set.
This is you saying you disagree despite people saying to give a warning.
All of a sudden the thought comes up that at any time in the future some GM may tell the person this or that and stop their character from doing something and they have no way to know or even check that.
This is you disagreeing again.
Which is why you teach them in play.
This is why the the you need to tell someone about the alignment violation rule they're about to commit and give them backsies rules is there: so that there is no harm no foul in the cleric doing something their player doesn't know is wrong.
This is BNW again saying give a warning.
People continue to suggest giving warnings well after this. So with so many people saying to give a warning it seems to me that you read the first message you did not like, and ignored all of the "warning" post.
So if you have quotes that say the opposite feel free to post them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Been giving this one thought.
First, being directed to a third party web site (like a wiki page) to learn the mechanical rules that your PC is bound by in PFS is definitely wrong. Yes, you could suggest it, but to say the player is bound by the behaviour of a deity as depicted by a third party web site is beyond the scope of any PFS GM's ability. Even if they quote and source it perfectly, that is a third party bit and not part of the resources welcome in PFS games.
Second, regarding unowned books. I'm unclear on this one. It definitely seems fishy to give players mechanical benefits or restrictions based on materials they don't own. PFS has made it pretty clear that you can't make characters with mechanical effects from books the player doesn't own. Yeah, background on the deity isn't mechanical, but the GM imposing that background to dictate the validity of the character's actions, makes it mechanical. Undecided here.
Third, Core only uses the selected materials. Although a player is welcome to research additional fluff for their deity, using anything from outside materials to confer mechanical effect (positive or negative) seems beyond the scope of Core PFS (unless a scenario specifically calls it out). This means that Core PFS GMs shouldn't be able to penalize PC clerics for not behaving as their deity wishes in any respect not directly covered in the legal materials (or specifically allowed by the scenario). Regarding the example, since nothing the CRB's very limited description calls out Pharasma's hatred of undead, I don't believe PC clerics of pharasma in core are expected understand this aspect of their deity or are bound by this outside source requirement to not create undead.
You make valid points. I do agree that a 3rd party site should not be used. As for a GM enforcing flavor from a book, that is a good question for the PFS leadership, whose name currently escapes me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quotes or it didn't happen. No context snipping either.don't be asinine,
Sorry, law of identity and all that.
this isn't a long thread, you can very well see that multiple people made references to stripping powers, atonements, playing as an expert etc.
I didn't ask for me. I asked for you.
what i see is that you completely misread something, because there is no way anything there says that you can loose your powers without the player knowing that it's going to happen and why so i am trying to figure out what it is you're misconstruing and frankly, seem to be TRYING to make a problem.
You are trying to make it a problem that the DM has to tell the player about their deity, but that isn't really a problem, so you're attacking some strawman about clerics losing powers out of the blue without warning and being forced and cats singing with dogs.
DM: You are hit in the head with a whippoorwill. You know pharasma is displeased. She is the goddess of death, not undeath. Raising unholy mockeries of life from their rightful rest is an anathema unto your goddess. Do you wish to procede and loose all your powers? (ppssst.. you do NOT wish to proceed)
Player: ermm..no?
Dm: Good! the whipporwhill gives that creepy cry*, comes back to life and flies off. What do you really want to do with your action?
THAT is what you're objecting to, and THAT is what you need to make an argument against.
yes they said they would warn first, but the player has no idea why it's happening, or how they should ever know when something else is going to come out of the blue at them again
The DM has to explain the problem. Nothing happens without the player knowing why.
The core campaign does not include any info on deities other than what is in the CRB, thus you should only be making rulings based on that.
The DM does. The DM has information on the setting thats required to run the adventure: how npcs work, who they are, what they want, how big the town is, how far is it if i want to teleport, what happens if an air ship traveling at 14 knots with a south easterly wind leaves absolom at 7:30 am ....
*Seriously i have almost stepped on rattlesnakes and stepping on a whipporwill is way creepier.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The DM does. The DM has information on the setting thats required to run the adventure: how npcs work, who they are, what they want, how big the town is, how far is it if i want to teleport, what happens if an air ship traveling at 14 knots with a south easterly wind leaves absolom at 7:30 am ....
The core campaign does not include any info on deities other than what is in the CRB, thus you should only be making rulings based on that.
....The airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow.
|
|
That's in the core rules. You pick a god, they have a code of conduct. Don't know what that is? Ask. Or google.
Not really arguing against you here. Just pointing out that if someone only has the core rule book, chances are they aren't going to know much about the actual tenants of the gods. Looking in the CRB, I find the following information on Pharasma.
Name: Pharasma
Alignment: Neutral
Portfolios: Goddess of fate, death, prophecy, birth Death, Healing, Knowledge, Repose, Water
Favored Weapon: dagger
There's no mention of exactly who she is. No mention that she's the judge of the dead. No mention of how people worship her. Nor is there any mention that she hates undead. Just a name, alignment, domains she grants, and favored weapon. To get more then that you need the campaign books. And since the GM is only required to have the core rule book, the guild guide, and access to the D20PFSRD the GM may not know more then these details either.
Heck, you aren't even told common titles attributed to the deity. Can make it hard for a new player to know what the code of conduct they're suppose to adhere to actually is.
|
|
....The airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow.The DM does. The DM has information on the setting thats required to run the adventure: how npcs work, who they are, what they want, how big the town is, how far is it if i want to teleport, what happens if an air ship traveling at 14 knots with a south easterly wind leaves absolom at 7:30 am ....
The core campaign does not include any info on deities other than what is in the CRB, thus you should only be making rulings based on that.
But unless the scenario specifically calls out in it's GM only text somewhere that this goddess really really hates the undead but loves toast smothered in strawberry jam in the mornings, hard to assume that the GM is going to know details of what the goddess likes or doesn't like. Yes, the hatred of undead is mentioned in Inner Seas Guide, but that's implied to be a hate held by the clergy but maybe not by Pharasma. Does the goddess hate the undead, or just her church?
For that matter, does Pharasma enjoy toast with strawberry jam? Now I'm curious about this question.
|
|
Heck, you aren't even told common titles attributed to the deity. Can make it hard for a new player to know what the code of conduct they're suppose to adhere to actually is.
Even in core, the book isn't the sole source of information about characters.
If you have a group of sola core amish players that are hermetically sealed off from the internet and other players then it's possible they don't know anything about the major deities... but then their particular personalities won't be a problem here.
If you have a group where at least some of the people have been around for a bit, someone's can provide the basics on "so.. i'm a cleric of this god. What do they want exactly?" And you at the very least learn that pharasma doesn't like undead when it's relevant.
DM doesnt know pharasma: nothing happens.
Dm knows pharasma: DM warns the player, player learns about pharasma, nothing else happens.
|
|
I'm not saying anyone said they would strip powers without warning, I'm telling you that the warning and any stripping of powers is not legal by the definition of core
This is absolutely false. The possibility that you can loose your powers for operating against the interests of your deity is both in the cleric section of the core rules and in guide to pathfinder society organized play
Hence, you can issue
a warning to the player through a “feeling” he receives
from his deity, a vision he is given, his conscience talking
to him, or some other similar roleplaying event.
The player CANNOT do that without knowing the interests of their deity because the DM HAS to tell them. In the middle of the action may not be the best time to learn that pharasma really doesn't like it when you raise skeletons but you will know it when you need to.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, Monty Python jokes aside, I've gotta side with BNW on this one.
Look, it sucks that Pharasma's hatred of undead isn't mentioned in the CRB. However, it still exists in the world of Golarion, which is the setting for Organized play. And Pharasma doesn't just dislike undead, She !@#$%^% HATES them. There's no way a cleric of Pharasma could go around raising undead without losing their powers. Like not even once.
Thus, if a player unfamiliar with the setting was in a CORE game, and thus could not technically legally use the altered Pharasman Death Domain, and was about to cast a spell to raise undead, then the GM would have to step in and warn them that it's not something that a Pharasman priest would do. It violates everything she stands for, plain and simple.
And I agree that this should be something you know from the CRB or the Guide to Organized play. But its not. And Organized play takes play in the setting of Golarion. And in Golarion, Pharasma is a god who does not tolerate the creation of undead.
So yes, a new player who created a cleric of Pharasma without any resources outside the CRB might not know that they shouldn't create undead or they'd lose their powers. But thats where the GM steps in and goes "Whoa are you sure you wanna do that? You know Pharasma hates undead right?". And the player learns, and decides not to cast that spell as a faithful cleric of Pharasma. And maybe goes on to research a little more about their character's god.
All in all a win win situation.
And in the rare case that the GM isn't familiar with the Setting, its almost certain a fellow player knows about Pharasma's hatred of undead and could say something. I can honestly say I've never sat down at a table for PFS and had no other person know that Pharasma is the Death Goddess of Golarion who views undead as an abomination.
Edit: Oh and Kahel. I don't have the source or quotes right now, but I'm pretty sure its stated somewhere directly that Pharasma herself abhors undead, not just her clergy. Not sure of her stance on toast with strawberry jam though. I'd assume positive considering everyone loves toast with strawberry jam (Everyone that matters anyways).
|
|
Is OP Guide pg 12 relevent?
GMs may use other Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor to the scenario, but may not change the mechanics of encounters. Specifically, the mechanics of an encounter are the creatures presented, the number of opponents in the encounter, and the information written into the stat blocks for those opponents.
Pharasman tenets could very well be part of flavor added by the GM, maybe...
|
|
Yeah, wasn't actually disagreeing with BNW. Just pointing out how sparse the information is. Not even a short 1 paragraph blurb about each god or goddess. The CRB just lists their domains, alignment, and favored weapon. Just going off the CRB for example, it's hard to tell that Calistria is the goddess of lust and vengeance. And impossible to know that she has holy prostitutes working in her temples. Amusing and possibly important details, which the CRB doesn't mention at all. Doesn't mention anything about how wasps are connected to Calistria either.
|
|
Yeah, I'm willing to acknowledge this might be a weakness of what, officially, constitutes Core or not. I firmly believe that a Core divine caster is still responsible for knowing the tenets of their deity (not necessarily through Googling them, but hey look here we have this entire online forum dedicated to this game system and universe where a person can ask a question, not to mention Reddit, assuming in the first place that literally no one in their local lodge knows anything either) and that those tenets don't just change just because the CRB doesn't mention them, because the CRB isn't what set the setting.
|
Despite the rudeness of plaidwandering, I have to agree with thier general stance. I fully understand the reasoning behind using setting lore and why it makes sense to help immerse players in that. The verisimilitude broken for a player who knows and built thier character with self-imposed restrictions based on setting lore might get upset when a new person is allowed to do things that feel anathema to those who know.
All that being said, if part of the intent for the Core Campaign is to be friendly to new players, you can't then yank the carpet out from under thier feet by enforcing lore on them that you have no right to assume they would know.
My vote is that no, you cannot enforce setting lore outside the CRB on someone in the Core Campaign based on what the core Campaign is.
So how do you get an official answer on this? I see both sides as having valid points.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how do you get an official answer on this? I see both sides as having valid points.
If this ends up on Compton's, Tonya's, or Linda's radar, then there's a fair chance we'll get a ruling. Keep in mind that they are extremely busy, so I'd advice patience.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PFS still takes place in Golarion, even if it's Core Campaign. It also doesn't tell you in Core that there will be consequences if you cast [b]charm person[/i] on a guard and get caught or fireball in a crowded street in Absalom... does that mean a GM shouldn't intervene here either because it limits a character's mechanical actions?
Allowing a player to be a Pharasmin undead-maker might seem like the "right" thing here, but it's not. It prevents a player from learning about the setting, but also breaks the verisimilitude for anyone at the table who *does* know about it.
Perhaps the Pharasma Domain item should go into the next version (revision?) of the Guide, along with the other character changes? "Clerics of Pharasma who choose the Death domain gain A instead of B and X instead of Y as domain spells, and may not create undead." Right next to "Wizards gain Spell Focus instead of Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat at first level."
|
|
In the interim, if this ever came up as a GM, I'd tell the player about it, ask them if they want to change their PC to match the lore of their goddess, and then make a note that the discussion occurred on their Chronicle. No stripping of powers in that first game, lots of whippoorwills and "omens" to enrich the play, a frank discussion after the game, and a note to the next GM on the Chronicle that the discussion occurred. It's also a Core rule that "you may not ignore clarifications once you become aware of them", so that should deal with the issue.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is over a half-page of empty space in Appendix 3 (pg. 33) of the Roleplaying Guild Guide.
Perhaps each god listed in CRB could get a sentence describing them?
Until then, if the rule is that we have to break the story in core that is another reason for me to not GM core. When the story doesn't matter, I no longer have any interest.
Doesn't creating undead turn you evil, seems like another Murdock Corner Case Argument Hour to me.
I very seriously doubt something like this has ever, or will, come up.