The description literally states that the GM ultimately decides what this command can accomplish.
That said, just two cards in the deck involve any sort of saving throw:
1. The Avalanche, which affects the character, not another creature.
2. The Snakebite, which puts a permanent effect on the character, which in turn affects every creature that touches him henceforth.
On the other hand, the other cards vary in power, and none of them allow you to will death upon someone.
As for who he's trying to use the card against? The Tyrant replicates the Dominate Monster spell, but not limited by the spell's range. Yes, it can be used on an immortal creature... but he can't kill it, even with this power. More to the point, said creature will in turn will know who used this card and where they are. That's the real trump on the card.
RAW the card I have to agree with the player. The description does not say it can attempt to command any creature, it says it can issue a single command and have the order obeyed. The description also states that immortal creatures cannot kill themselves and it only causes them to feel considerable but fleeting pain. That means he cannot have the god kill himself.
In Pathfinder god do not have statblocks because they can accomplish anything (the GM wants them to). This also means they can reverse anything they cause to happen. The description of the card specifically states that powers that grant boons usually revoke them once the command releases them. If I were running this, I would allow the command to go into effect and then have the god immediately reverse it. Since the card can only be used once the player has no way to prevent the god from nullifying the command. Basically, the player is wasting the card.
As stated an Immortal won't die. just suffer Fleeting pain.
but these words always troubled me:
"..Additionally, creatures with the ability to grant such boons typically also possess the power to revoke them, and do so as soon as the command releases them..."
now if it would have said the same without the ending and only say:
"creatures with the ability to grant such boons typically also possess the power to revoke them"(and stop here)
I would say the gods can just revoke the order the moment it is given. but the wording seem to indicate the order is carried out and then revoked after the order release the god from the pain it causes:
1. order is given > 2. god get zapped > 3. zapping stop 4. god take away the power to give orders.
which is a kind of a puzzler since the power is wasted on use (it's a one time use power after all) so what is actually revoked here? and how is that a fitting answer of the god who was just shamed?
'you zapped me so now i'll take that power you no longer have away from you to never be used again!'
- he already lost that power by this time!
i always thought that there was a slight mistype in this sentence and that it miss two important letters, I think it should be read like this:
"..Additionally, creatures with the ability to grant such boons typically also possess the power to reinvoke them, and do so as soon as the command releases them..."
with this it should make perfect sense. the god that just got the 'kill yourself' order has the same power that was used against him. And so the moment he stop getting zapped by the order, he can send the same order back at the one who started it:
1. order is given > 2. god get zapped > 3. zapping stop 4. god send back the order at the fool who abused godly power.
- "now you 'kill yourself'!!!"
REVOKE : To cancel or invalidate by withdrawing or reversing.
REINVOKE : To invoke again or renew.
The do so as soon as the command releases them allows the card user to request a boon that takes some time to complete. If it takes a creature a full round to grant a wish the creature would be occupied for a full round granting the wish before they could revoke it.
The other thing to consider is are deities creatures? In Pathfinder as a game design philosophy deities do not have stat-blocks. The stat-block includes things like saving throw, so without having a saving throw how can you fail it.
In all Honesty I would take one of two approaches with this. If this fit into my plot I would allow it to succeed. If it did not fit my plot it would fail. I would ignore any rules or arguments about them. That is the proper way to deal with players interacting with a true deity.
that still doesn't answer why the comeback of the god would be to revoke the power to give orders after it already finished performing the order and after the character no longer has the power that is now being revoked.
even if performing the order take time. the words indicate that the order is first carried out, then the god is freed from it (after all the order can also be 'dance for an hour') and then the god revoke the ability to give orders. which by now is gone already.
the way i fixed it, it reads - since the god also has the same power, to give orders, he can just issue an order back at the one who just insulted him as soon as that order no longer hold power over him.
that still doesn't answer why the comeback of the god would be to revoke the power to give orders after it already finished performing the order and after the character no longer has the power that is now being revoked.
I think you're misreading it. I understand that to mean that just because the target has done what the caster asks for, it doesn't mean they can't undo the effects of the command. e.g. if the order was something like "make me the strongest man in the world" or "bring me every diamond in Cheliax", if the god has the ability to do this (which presumably, being a god they can), they also have the ability to put the caster back to his original strength 10 straight away, or send all the diamonds back home after the caster has drooled over them.
I see so 'revoking' the boon and not the order.
seem right as long as we don't talk about straight up zapping the god.
Methinks there's a sentence missing. I'm willing to bet that in the initial draft there was another sentence, which had to do with using the Tyrant card to compel creatures such as noble djinn to grant a wish. The "revoke" sentence probably pertains to such creatures revoking the benefits of the wish.
|
The typo is likely one extra word.
Additionally, creatures with the ability to grantsuchboons typically also possess the power to revoke them, and do so as soon as the command releases them.
So you could use the Tyrant to demand that Shelyn give you her Divine Gift, but she'll immediately revoke it.
In the case of a god even if they were affected by it they would obey the command and then undo what the command was. All the character would gain is a fleeting illusion he had gained what he wanted. This gets back to the fact that a deity has no stat-block and as such can do anything the GM wants them to. That also means they can undo anything the GM wants them to.
Who says a god fails a save on a 1? In 1st edition AD&D gods always made all saves. As I have pointed out gods don't have stat-blocks.
This post should be in the third party forum instead of the rules forum. The campaign you are running in is not using the standard Piazo rules.
A god in Piazo could easily reverse anything he did, not just take back a wish or similar “boon”. He could give back the heart and then in the next second take it back again. A god in Pathfinder can do anything the GM wants them to do.
This post should be in the third party forum instead of the rules forum. The campaign you are running in is not using the standard Piazo rules.
A god in Piazo could easily reverse anything he did, not just take back a wish or similar “boon”. He could give back the heart and then in the next second take it back again. A god in Pathfinder can do anything the GM wants them to do.
The Harrow Deck of many things comes from the remaster version of Crimson Throne, just an FYI. Not quite standard play, but definitely not 3pp.
Yes, but the BECMI rules are not.