| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Brownie
One thought is that the Brownie entry is a case of specific trumping general. So regardless of the general rule of who can pick which kind of Improved Familiar there is more restrictive specific information regarding who can take a Brownie as a Familiar. I mean if we want to get overly pedantic with the reading of that line from Brownie then it would also mean that Eldritch Guardians and the like cannot take Improved Familiar at all (supporting arguments in these two threads). But we know that isn't true anymore due to the this ruling.
So you can be a LN or NG follower of Erastil. Both of those alignments have a neutral component. I know I'm a bit of a grognard by making this reference but back in my day we used to call an alignment with two neutral components "True Neutral". In fact, that term is still in use today even within the rules text. Take a look in the alignment chapter, it is still there. My point is if they wanted to be succinct and precise in their writing they could have used "true neutral" rather than "neutral". I believe there is an argument to be made that they could have meant neutral along one of the axis and not explicitly True Neutral. To infer either way requires one to make a statement about what the intention of the wording is. Without developer input I am afraid we will never know what the intention was.
If it matters this is for a character concept I have for an Elven Eldritch Guardian with a Brownie Familiar. Personally I think it is a little weird that one of the most naturey gods in Golarion is going to be all, "Ew! A Brownie! You aren't allowed to both associate with one of those disgusting Fey and still worship me!" while Gozreh is saying, "Chill. I like the little dudes. ...but I don't like archers enough for you to be a Deadeye Bowman."
Since we know that Paizo does not prefer an overly pedantic reading of individual Improved Familiar entries regarding what constitutes as a "5th level spellcaster" the only thing we need to know is if they prefer an overly pedantic reading of "5th level neutral spellcaster". Personally, I believe that them stating "neutral" is just reinforcing the general rules for Improved Familiar. I admit I am bias but I just can't see Erastil disliking Brownies that much.
One must consider more than how "naturey" a being is. Erastil is known for being highly tied to a traditional viewpoint. In the days before alignment divination were commonplace, there was little to distinguish any two beings with vulnerability to Cold Iron. Perhaps Erastil is very used to fey and demons being interchangeable, and thus is not willing to accommodate fey in his organization.
As an aside, I wholeheartedly believe that there is more to nature than the woodlands. The worlds are large and diverse, and there is little reason why certain environs here on The Cage would be the only ecosystems considered natural.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are we blaming Erastil?
Lots of Improved Familiars have this sort of restrictive language. I think it's more that the brownie won't hang with you unless you are true neutral.
Neutral here refers to TN, as far as I can tell. The term "true neutral" isn't used in a rules capacity. I checked something to make sure, though. The aligned outsider familiars are all limited to one specific alignment, so I looked at the Nosoi Psychopomp, and it used the same wording. It's not that Erastil has a problem with brownies, it's that if you're laid back enough to convince a brownie to become your familiar, you aren't dedicated enough to law and/or good for Erastil to grant you powers.
That said, there are a few workarounds. The easiest is a brownie that's more flexible. There's also the Summon Guardian Spirit feat if you're a caster. It's a nice way to get around familiar alignment restrictions.
You are correct. This can be taken as more of a general question:
Are the individual Improved Familiar entries language to be taken as more restrictive language than the Improved Familiar feat itself says?
Again, I reference the fact that Paizo already disclaimed the overly pedantic reading of such related topics as "arcane spellcasting class" and the specific individual Improved Familiar entries regarding the same text. And as it doesn't say "true neutral", "completely neutral", "neutral in regards to law and chaos" or some other more precise language we are left with trying to assume what they meant. It is just as possible that they mean "has a neutral component in their alignment" as "true neutral only". Either one of those is an assumption.
Yes, they are a more restrictive version. There are familiars that explicitly allow an alignment within one step in their description.
The overly pedantic reading of "arcane caster" makes sense because at the time of the writing, only arcane casters could acquire a familiar. There was a good reason to assume the rules had failed to account for something.
I believe that in this case neutral means true neutral. Look at the wording for cassisian angels and shadow dragons for confirmation.
QuidEst: That is not true in all cases. As an example take the Imp. The Familiar epitome of all that is evil and devilish. It has no further text in it's entry about who may select it. Similarly the Silvanshee says you only need to be "Good". Sure, you could claim that this is due to them not having another alignment component in their subtype the same way that say a Quasit does but that has no further alignment restrictions on it the same way an Imp does. There are some like the Lyrakien that specify that you have to be Chaotic AND Good.
The Brownie lacks such language. It doesn't say say you have to be "true neutral" even though such language does exist elsewhere. It just says "neutral". It is possible that reasoning would be that Brownies are only aloof enough to care if you have some neutral alignment component and aren't as inflexible as something like a Lyrakien.
That is why it is a judgement call either way on what the intention of "neutral" is. You could just as easily claim that it is "some neutral component in their alignment" as "true neutral only. Both of these are making an assumption as to the intention of the rule without developer input.
Orfamay Quest: I believe the opposite. Contrast the rules for Lyrakien vs the rules for Imps and Quasits. These are all representatives of the alignment extremes but do not have those alignment extremes as part of their requirements.
Brownies aren't even a representative of an alignment extreme. They don't even possess a subtype like a Psychopomp or Inevitable. Judging from their ecology they don't even champion a cause like other Improved Familiars might. So even from a fluff standpoint I can't see them caring that much about your alignment.
I don't think I've seen "true neutral" used in the rules beyond a brief mention that the alignment is sometimes called tue neutral. The alignment rules are a bit of a mess, honestly, and it's not going to break anything to take the looser interpretation on this.
Huh. Didn't notice that imps lacked the usual additional restriction. Must be bigger on the temptation aspect, I guess?
Maybe it would help to take a different perspective on this. If I were playing my NG Eldritch Guardian and the DM asked me if I were a "5th-level neutral spellcaster" would I be wrong to answer him "yes"? What if I were LN?
The character is neutral regardless of whether he is true neutral or not.
Or if we take it from a purely RP perspective I still can't see a Brownie not wanting to be a Familiar for a NG Eldritch Guardian worshipping Erastil while an Imp or Quasit would be absolutely fine with it. A elven archer Erastil worshiper would have FAR more in common with a Brownie than with an Imp or Quasit. Their alignment would even more closely match. I don't buy in to Erastil not drawing a difference between Demons and Fey.
Azothath: This character is being considered for PFS play. Asking the GM is not an option during character design.
Azothath: Why? This is a rules forum. I am looking for a ruling. It doesn't have to be specific to PFS. If it did than any non PFS rules question ever could be answered with "ask your GM". "Ask your GM" is a cop out answer. Anyone can do that even in PFS.
quibblemuch: You are incorrect, sir. Search the Alignment Rules, yourself. It is there plain as day.
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”).
It is also referenced in several other places in the rules. Such as the Karmic Monk, Reliquary Guardian, and the Psyche Serpent which, ironically, is an Improved Familiar choice.
Again, Brownie doesn't use such language. It only says "neutral". Assuming that it means "true neutral" when it could have outright just said it like it does for Psyche Serpent is just as much conjecture as saying that they intended "some neutral component in their alignment". In fact, with having found another Improved Familiar that does use "true neutral" in the language that makes me lean even heavier in the direction of "some neutral component in their alignment".
Orfamay Quest: I believe the opposite. Contrast the rules for Lyrakien vs the rules for Imps and Quasits. These are all representatives of the alignment extremes but do not have those alignment extremes as part of their requirements.
... which actually supports my point, not yours. The general rule is that one can only acquire a familiar within one step of your alignment still applies, so only a Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, or Neutral evil caster can acquire an imp familiar. That being the case, the text for the Imp doesn't even mention alignment restrictions.
As you point out, if they intended to use "neutral" to mean "true neutral," they could have added the extra word,.... except that Paizo doesn't use the phrase "true neutral."
Specifically, searching the PRD reveals only 5 instances of "true neutral," and only three of them (AFIACT) are actually referring to a specific alignment.
By contrast, if they intended to use "neutral" to mean "any alignment whatsoever with a neutral component," they didn't even need to add the word, which would have both helped to minimize page count and also been in keeping with standard Paizo practice.
Orfamay Quest: See my previous post. Paizo does indeed use the phrase "true neutral". Even particularly when describing Improved Familiar requirements. They just didn't use it for the Brownie.
Since they apparently didn't care about word count (literally one single word) when they typed up the Psyche Serpent in Occult Bestiary why would they care about word count for Brownie in Bestiary 2? In fact, if they cared about word count in both cases why mention alignment at all? That seems to support my point, not yours. That way neutral would be the short way of saying "some neutral component in their alignment" but with less words and "true neutral" can mean, well... true neutral with as few words as I can figure.
quibblemuch: Not sure why you posted in the first place then being that I said that "I admit I am bias" in my opening post. I mean... do you only post in rules threads that contain people who do not have rules preconceptions or a preference for how they would like something to be? Maybe this forum isn't the place for you if that is the case. ;)
If this is for PFS, there's no point in debating it. If most of the people come on and say it doesn't work, then that's sufficient evidence that, at the very least, you can expect enough table variation that you shouldn't do it. You can't have a long debate with every GM, after all.
QuidEst: Or I could, you know... get a ruling before playing the character in PFS so I don't have to get an individual ruling from every GM. I don't want to make a character on shaky ground. I would think I would be applauded for trying to do the responsible thing and ask for a ruling rather than expect everyone to play by my interpretation rather than ridiculed for it.
And anyway, hashing things out on the board is a good way to discover parts of the rules you didn't see before. It wasn't until minutes ago that I found the distinction between requirements for the Psyche Serpent and the Brownie Familiar. One says "true neutral" and the other says "neutral".
If you were put in the GM chair and had to rule after this was pointed out would you make an impartial ruling? Or are you still sticking to your guns and declaring that there is no distinction between "true neutral" and "neutral"?
Azothath: This character is being considered for PFS play. Asking the GM is not an option during character design.
In that case, the answer is, in practical terms, "no, you can't," as any GM who would disagree with you at character creation time would be within her rights to disallow you to play this character at actual playing time. Saying "but a whole bunch of randos on the Paizo forum said it would be okay" isn't actually a reason that will sway her mind.
M'kay, that's reasonable.
If I were put in the GM chair (and required to make a RAW ruling), I would consider whether LN is "neutral". That doesn't seem right. Psyche Serpent's text is good evidence, but as was pointed out, it's non-standard, and there's the Nosoi Psychopomp as a reasonable counter-argument, published closer. We have more examples of carefully spelling out neutral-on-either-axis. Additionally, I don't have any examples of "neutral" by itself referring to neutral-on-either-axis, but "N" is standard for indicating TN. In the end, I'd say no, but I'd still allow it as a reasonable request if it fit the character (NE and LN would require some convincing).
Azothath: I did. But only me clicking it will not matter. Others need to.
Orfamay Quest: By that logic neither is saying "but a whole bunch of randos on the Paizo forum said it wouldn't be ok" a reason to NOT do it. Table variation already exists on this one prior to a ruling. Just as many people could think that it is fine as there is a distinction between "neutral" and "true neutral" even within Improved Familiar entries.
QuidEst: So then what would you do with me sitting down at your table? Declare the character illegal and not allowed to play at your table? Request it gets edited at the end of the scenario? Remember, we are talking about PFS here.
I'm not arguing a point to try to convince you but I don't see how someone can take a leap of logic to say, "Even though other Improved Familiars have specific language spelling out that you need to be 'true neutral' and Brownie only says neutral I am going to declare designer's intention and say that in all cases 'neutral' always means 'true neutral' to the point of telling you 'no'."
I mean, a home game is one thing. You can house rule stuff and I'm typically ok with that. But in PFS they have their own set of house rules and all GMs need to abide by those. Sadly there is still table variation for ambiguous rules. The crux of my issue is that I would like to take Deadly Bowman which is an Erastil specific Trait. There has been brought to my attention the possibility that an Erastil worshiper may not be able to obtain a Brownie Improved Familiar. In a home game I would be willing to bet most people here would be fine with that trait being taken on a different deity or a Brownie being able to be the familiar of a NG Erastil worshipper. But in PFS you have to go by what is written (which has as much support for my perspective as against it) and deal with table variation.
...unless you get a ruling. Which is what I'm shooting for.
Ah, there we go. Hard and fast rules.
Azathoth's link shows that the rules list "neutral" as a specific, individual alignment. A quick search shows it is used as such in the rules (e.g. Sentinel's aligned strike). Most importantly, reading over the alignment descriptions, "neutral" is stated to be equivalent to "true neutral".
(and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”)
So in PFS, I would definitely have you fix your character.
Wait, what? The link he gave was the same one I did saying that "true neutral" is an alignment. You know, as opposed to any other partially neutral alignment. That link and your quoted text is defining what true neutral is. It isn't defining all other partially neutral alignments.
I just pointed out where "true neutral" was used for the Psyche Serpent but that verbiage was specifically not used for Brownie. Are we just back to ignoring that now?
There exists a difference between "neutral" and "true neutral".
Orfamay Quest: By that logic neither is saying "but a whole bunch of randos on the Paizo forum said it wouldn't be ok" a reason to NOT do it.
Actually, it is. It demonstrates very clearly that there is no rules text that clearly supports your interpretation. Since Pathfinder, and particularly PFS, is a system where the rules define what is permissible, the absence of rules text supporting an action is active evidence against it.
Even if you want to play the "well, there may be evidence, but I can't find it" card, that doesn't help, because it's your responsibility to bring the evidence that the GM needs. If you can't find the evidence, then as far as she's concerned, it doesn't exist.
Orfamay Quest: By that logic neither is saying "but a whole bunch of randos on the Paizo forum said it wouldn't be ok" a reason to NOT do it.
Actually, it is. It demonstrates very clearly that there is no rules text that clearly supports your interpretation. Since Pathfinder, and particularly PFS, is a system where the rules define what is permissible, the absence of rules text supporting an action is active evidence against it.
Even if you want to play the "well, there may be evidence, but I can't find it" card, that doesn't help, because it's your responsibility to bring the evidence that the GM needs. If you can't find the evidence, then as far as she's concerned, it doesn't exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It says true neutral is another way to say neutral.
I'm not ignoring it, just considering it weak- Psyche Serpent appeared several years later in a Campaign Setting book using unusual phrasing. Additionally, the use of "true neutral" does not necessitate that "neutral" is something different, it's just one piece of evidence, like nosoi using the same phrasing as brownie and following the pattern of most (but not all) aligned outsiders.
In PFS I would let you know that your character was illegal and thus not let you play it. An illegal character by definition requires changing to make it legal to play before you can play it.
You always have the right to leave the character build as illegal and never play it.
Writers are very much not intending small things to prove a difference. It's similar to me on how every archetype (even new ones) doesn't need to say, "this alters/changes X" to alter or change X.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me give you the real-talk version of my answer as a PFS GM. I don't know if the rules allow a NG or LN character can have a Brownie or not based on the text, but if I had a "natury" player arrive at my table and tell me they had a brownie familiar I would shrug my shoulders and move on without a second thought. When I'm getting a table ready, bookish question on whether or not "neutral" really means "true neutral" on an obscure Improved Familiar choice ranks about a 43 on a checklist of 10 items. Make a good faith judgment based on the information available and stick with your choice.
So the Karmic Monk, Reliquary Guardian, Pysche Serpent and all other references to true neutral are just coincidence? Despite the fact that several of these are from fairly recent books (Occult Adventures, 2015). Neutral could only mean true neutral ever?
So when it says, "A good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) can channel stored spell energy into healing spells that she did not prepare ahead of time." on Cleric it only means a true neutral Cleric? Of course it doesn't mean that. We know this because the rest of the text shows the context it was used in is referencing good vs evil. When we approach the Envoy of Balance and it says, "Alignment: Neutral". But we know it means true neutral because it provides context.
Without context saying "neutral" is not enough to go on. It could mean neutral on either axis. Like Outer Dragons it only means neutral on the Law/Chaos axis. There are several situations where you need more to go on to make an impartial judgement. Several familiars say that you need to be "true neutral" or "within one step of neutral" (Psyche Serpent and Brain Mole respectively). Brain Mole was printed in 2015 and it is still using this precise language.
The Bestiary 2 has went through 2 reprintings. If they wanted to correct it to match the other Improved Familiars they have certainly had time since 2012. Some may think that it was given this wording as an inadvertent slip. Some may think that it was on purpose. But making any kind of blanket statement that it was clearly one or the other in all circumstances the word is used is folly.
Azothath: I am assuming that. I assume that when they mean "true neutral" that they type that. They have elsewhere. I assume that when they say "true neutral" that is what they mean.
You are the one taking the leap of logic and saying that when they say "neutral" they always mean "true neutral".
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
reiterating
...
The Alignment Descriptor reference (above) seals the deal for PFS to NN Master only. I think that any GM who reads that will immediately say "NN" only.the above declares "Neutral" as the alignment. This equates neutral to NN or true neutral. So, if neutral is used in an alignment context it means NN.
The text in the Brownie entry in Bestiary Two overrides the very general allowance in Improved Familiar based on the table listing. The rules for the table listing in improved Familiar would allow all alignments.One has to assume that jargon used in context is used in a specific way and not casually.
Reiterating...
There is no way to be sure. As the term true neutral sees use as well as one track alignments.The problem is the writers don't actually have a definite format for writing alignments. If every time they meant only one alignment track they used the word any... then your argument would hold water as the definite answer. But that isn't what is in the books.(EX. Any evil, any chaotic, any neutral... et al)
So we are definitely left with no way to know for sure. Like it or not.
This is just one of the many points in which the improved familiar system is unclear.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Improved Familiar alignment specifications could all use some clarification.
Beheaded - bestiary 4
Cat Sith - familiar folio
Caypup - CG native outsider - familiar folio
Ceru - inner sea bestiary
Clockwork familiar - bestiary 5
Cacodaemon - bestiary 2
Dire Rat - bestiary 1
Quasit - bestiary 1
Imp - bestiary 1
Dweomercat cub - Sound of a Thousand Screams
Small Elemental - bestiary 1
Gremlin, Nuglub - bestiary 2
Hellfire Ignis - fey, cheliax setting
Impundulu - AP
Mockingfey - Inner sea bestiary
Pipefox - bestiary 4
Mephit - bestiary 1
Pseudodragon - bestiary 1
Pseudosphynx - familiar folio
Sin Seeker - worldwound incursion
Stirge - bestiary 1
Wysp - bestiary 5
Xiao - bestiary 5
Specify "any":
Almiraj - bestiary 4
Homunculus - bestiary 1 - ("same as creator")
Specify one step:
Coral Capuchin - "one step of neutral" - island of empty eyes AP
Faerie Dragon - "one step of CG" - bestiary 3)
Tidepool Dragon - "one step of CN" - wormwood mutiny AP)
Pyrausta - "one step of CN" - bestiary 5)
Specify partial alignment:
Agathion, silvanshee ("good") - bestiary 2
Chuspiki - "chaotic" - bestiary 5 - a magical beast)
Shadow Drake "evil" - bestiary 4 - is CE
Isitoq - "evil" - undead - bestiary 4)
Pooka - "non-lawful" - bestiary 4
Sprite, Liminal - "chaotic" - fey, bestiary 5
Specify "neutral":
Aeon, paracletus - bestiary 2
Brownie - bestiary 2 - fey
Carbuncle - bestiary 3 - a magical beast
Psychopomp, Nosoi - bestiary 4
Skvader - shards of sin AP - magical beast
Wolpertinger - shards of sin AP - magical beast
Specify single alignment:
Angel, cassissian - LG - bestiary 2 - is NG
Archon, harbinger - LG - bestiary 3
Asura, tripurasura - LE - bestiary 3
Azata, lyrakien - CG - bestiary 2
Div, Doru - NE - bestiary 3
Inevitable, Arbiter - LN - bestiary 2
Kami, Shikigami - LN - native outsider - bestiary 3
Kyton, Augur - LE - bestiary 3
Nycar - CN - dragon - bestiary 4
Oni, Spirit Oni - LE - bestiary 3 - is NE native outsider
Protean, Voidworm CN - bestiary 2
Qlippoth, Cythnigot - CE - bestiary 2
Ratling - CE - bestiary 4 - magical beast
Sahkil, Esipil - NE - bestiary 5
Rakshasa, Raktavarna - LE - bestiary 3 - native outsider
Sprite - CN - bestiary 3 - fey
Zoog - CN - bestiary 5 - magical beast
There doesn't seem to be a consistent rule for determining what alignment is specified for a familiar.
Imps, Quasits, and Cacaodaemon say one-step is fine, despite most of the other aligned outsiders wanting specific alignment restrictions. Outsiders without alignment subtypes are also mixed (Caypup and elementals are fine with one step but the Kami, Oni, and Rakshasa need a matching alignment).
The Cassissian Angel requires a LG master despite being itself NG. (The Silvanshee by comparison is fine with just "good.")
Most dragons follow one-step either explicitly or by default, except the shadow drake (which wants any evil master as a CE creature) and the nycar (only accepts CN).
Magical beasts are all over the place, with one accepting "any" alignment, several being weirdly picky about a specific alignment, and several in-between.
I note that all the familiars in the Bestiary 1 and the Familiar Folio follow the general guideline - the more specific restrictions crop up in the later bestiaries.
Hm. I didn't actually realize it was as bad as Weirdo pointed out. It seems I have only hit the tip of the iceberg here.
I hate to make John's job any harder than it is but it seems like this would be something good to include in the Familiar update that he is working on. I don't want to delay that any more than has already been done but I also don't want ambiguities left after he is finished.
It seems like the only internal consistency is with Elementals. It makes me wonder why even have a general rule of choosing "an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis" with so much wild internal inconsistency. I would think any rule adjustment would be better than what we currently have to work with.
To me it seems like the simplest resolution is to keep close to the general rule. Perhaps change it to just ignore the individual entries entirely. And I hope after Weirdo's post people understand that isn't just my bias talking. The individual entries are what seems to be in contention for a lot of the Improved Familiars.