Basically, using the feat for craft reliquary arms and shields. We crafted a reliquary Mace. The mace was for our party's Cleric of Casandalee; who's favorite weapon is the poly tool.
The GM took this as a transgression and forsaken the cleric; all Cleric spells, abilities, domains, etc... Were lost
I see this as a very questionable decision. When I made an argument about it, he provided several justifications for the action taken by the goddess.
"Identity, if you are going to punish evildoers, monsters and such. It should be with the goddess's weapon. They need to know who is behind their punishment"
"You can't be engraving the goddess's symbol anywhere" to which I argued, the weapon was consecrated, it is a blessed item, is not a doodle on a wall
When I questioned him about being able to make shields reliquary arms "He answered; that is fine since shields represent the protection of the goddess"
Among other reasons I think these were the most important.
But thinking that the purpose of reliquary weapons or shields is to make them a conduit. Just like a holy symbol. I think he is taking it too far.
I would like opinions on this, because for me is honestly game breaking. He gave a code of conduct (from the goddess herself) with tenets, transgressions, and anathema. And this was not there. He said that it was an "ethical" matter
Opinions? Is this de debatable? Any insight?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does seem like this was taking things too far. Removing all of a PC's abilities is a steep mechanical penalty for something that only one person at the table is interpreting as a trangression. I don't know a lot about the deity in question, but I've never heard of a cleric being required to use the deity's favored weapon. Clerics have more proficiencies than just the favored weapon, after all.
If this was such a serious transgression, then the Cleric PC should have known about it before the crafting even started. It was lame of the GM to wait until the resources were spent to speak up about how it's a transgression.
This should probably be in the advice forum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your GM seems to be being especially unreasonable, and probably needs to provide better explanations.
Looking at Archives of Nethys there does not appear to be rules for reliquary items in 2E thus far, and looking at 1E the rules allow for a weapon or armor to be consecrated or desecrated and used as a holy/unholy symbol. There are no restrictions about the weapons or armors that deities permit clerics to consecrate/desecrate.
Looking at the Pathfinder Wiki, Casandalee's "favored" weapon is polytool, it is not a "required" weapon. Looking at Casandalee's edicts and anathemas, the only real issue I can see is if your reliquary is intelligent and your was treating it poorly.
This should probably be in the advice forum.
sorry, don't know how to take it there.
Your GM seems to be being especially unreasonable, and probably needs to provide better explanations.
Looking at Archives of Nethys there does not appear to be rules for reliquary items in 2E thus far, and looking at 1E the rules allow for a weapon or armor to be consecrated or desecrated and used as a holy/unholy symbol. There are no restrictions about the weapons or armors that deities permit clerics to consecrate/desecrate.
Looking at the Pathfinder Wiki, Casandalee's "favored" weapon is polytool, it is not a "required" weapon. Looking at Casandalee's edicts and anathemas, the only real issue I can see is if your reliquary is intelligent and your was treating it poorly.
Is not intelligent at all. He said is an ethical issue, similar to like wearing the goddess colors, it is not required but Clerics tend to wear them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I also forgot to mention. I did ask him why didn't you ask the Cleric for a religion check. I understand that the character with knowledge religión should know that even if the player does not. His answer was something between the lines "is the player playing the cleric responsability to know that" to which I said; come on, If a player can't point a damn city in a world map, but the character has +15 on geography checks. You expect the player to do a research IRL to have that kind of insight
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is being totally old school (which, to most of us, translates as totally unreasonable).
It is absurd to do this without the GM giving the player very explicit guidance ahead of time.
I'm guessing the GM is either about 15 (mentally, at least) or well over 60 :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the others that the GM was unreasonable.
Even if it was a transgression, it's something that would be common knowledge for your character, a member of the clergy, and the GM remind you first, or be given a warning not to do something similar again. Even a strict deity wouldn't punish you that swiftly for something that wasn't a grievous transgression like slaughtering innocents in their name (or at all).
D&D and PF are certainly the wrong games to pull a "Oops, there go your powers because you didn't read the fine print!"
Not revolutionary advice or anything, but it is something you will need to discuss with them.
Yeah your GM is being totally out of line on this one. The rules do not support this interpretation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, especially when it comes to activities that are clearly defined as problems, the GM and the players need to be on the same page. That doesn't mean the players necessarily get there way, but before a GM imposes a penalty on a character the players need to understand that their activity would incur the penalty and be given a choice to proceed.
Crafting/using a weapon that isn't the favored weapon of their deity isn't something that would clearly be a transgression against that deity. It's not necessarily wrong for the GM to say "Hey, in this version of the game world this deity consider that a serious transgression, and if you do this you will lose her favor". Saying that isn't a problem unto itself, it's saying it after the character has taken the action and imposing the penalty without allowance for any alteration to the course of action. A cleric of a deity should generally know if something like that is going to anger their deity, not be surprised by it.
In this case the GM is being unfair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I also forgot to mention. I did ask him why didn't you ask the Cleric for a religion check. I understand that the character with knowledge religión should know that even if the player does not. His answer was something between the lines "is the player playing the cleric responsability to know that" to which I said; come on, If a player can't point a damn city in a world map, but the character has +15 on geography checks. You expect the player to do a research IRL to have that kind of insight
Honestly, a cleric knowing their own deity's tenets well enough to avoid running afoul of them isn't something that should even be a check. It's something the cleric should simply know about their deity.
And since nothing is Casandalee's entry remotely implies anything like what the GM is saying, they must believe this kind of thing (wearing the deity's colors and using favored weapons) are requirements for clerics. However, that is not a base part of the game at all, and if the GM is going to impose those additional rules they need to make it clear to the players.
Honestly, this GM sounds like the kind that would make me withdraw from the game for their being unreasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks everyone for the insight, the GM and I have been friends for a very long time, and when I questioned him about it, he questioned my years of experience (I have been playing since 1995), my ethic and my scientific training. My interpretation of real-life religion etc. So, at that moment I didn't know if it was him talking or if he was angry because I call him out
I thought better check with the community.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a power-tripping petty GM. I'm sorry to insult your friend, but this is not acceptable behavior.
You're now telling us in additional to this out of nowhere penalty he gave your character, he's insulting your ethics and knowledge. He's being a jerk.
The WORST that should have happened if he was being reasonable, is that the weapon didn't function as a reliquary weapon. That's it. Even THAT is making charitable assumptions in the GM's favor.
after the GM calm's down, you need to have a talk about this behavior, because you and your group deserve better from a friend.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks everyone for the insight, the GM and I have been friends for a very long time, and when I questioned him about it, he questioned my years of experience (I have been playing since 1995), my ethic and my scientific training. My interpretation of real-life religion etc. So, at that moment I didn't know if it was him talking or if he was angry because I call him out
I thought better check with the community.
Sounds like a very emotional response to what (from the GM's side) felt like questioning their authority.
Questioning your ethics, scientific training, and knowledge/interpretation of real world religion really goes too far.
I don't know the totality of your relationship with this person, but from my perspective it would really make me question what kind of person they are and how I value their friendship. What you have described above are not the actions of a good long term friend (from my perspective).
Perhaps (hopefully) outside that moment in the game they will be more open to listening and conversing on the topic.
For me, I'd likely walk away from this game and this GM.
Not because of the specific ruling, but because of their response to being questioned on it and how they justified their ruling.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is not playing by THE rules, though he may be playing by HIS rules, which is acceptable. However, it should be clear before hand, even if as people pointed out... when the plan of action was presented to him, the GM should have pointed out it would run afoul of the goddess's expectations. Unless somehow part of the plot of the story is how the Gods or that Goddess is becoming unpredictable. However, even then it would be best to give the players a 'warning' about the nature of the game.
You don't start a DragonLance Campaign without mentioning... ohhh... by the way the Clerics have lost their powers.
You don't start a post Godsrain Pathfinder game without telling someone looking at Gorum for their deity, about the recent ramifications.
Now, if the issue the GM had was that you were making a Relic, and the relic was supposed to be powered by that particular deity's power, giving it divine abilities. Well, then it could be reasonable in my mind for the deity to have simply had the first attempt fail. (If I felt so compelled, I'd almost assuredly warned the cleric of the chance for such a failure) If it were an item simply enchanted by other members of the party, the goddess should not care that they choose to use a mace rather than a Polytool. As pointed out it is the goddess's preferred weapon, not their required weapon.
So it is a valid thing that could happen, but it shouldn't happen out of the blue, as that would violate most people's baseline expectation of cooperative storytelling which underlies the base of Pathfinder's rules. People mention being Old-School, and there would be some truth that Old-school standards, GMs could be a bit dictatorial in their decisions, so if playing under those generalized play standards, the GMs choice might make more general sense. But by modern standards, and Second Edition pathfinder rules, such a ruling should not come out of the blue without being flagged/mentioned by the GM before the players proceeded with their actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm guessing the GM is either about 15 (mentally, at least) or well over 60 :-)
I am 64 years old and I don't make mistakes like Vanescence's GM. And I have been playing since 1979 AD--beat out by my wife who started in 1978 AD.
Looking at Archives of Nethys there does not appear to be rules for reliquary items in 2E thus far, and looking at 1E the rules allow for a weapon or armor to be consecrated or desecrated and used as a holy/unholy symbol. There are no restrictions about the weapons or armors that deities permit clerics to consecrate/desecrate.
Looking at the Pathfinder Wiki, Casandalee's "favored" weapon is polytool, it is not a "required" weapon. Looking at Casandalee's edicts and anathemas, the only real issue I can see is if your reliquary is intelligent and your was treating it poorly.
I do not know whether Vanescence is playing Pathfinder 1st Edition (PF1) or Pathfinder 2nd Edition (PF2). Create Reliquary Arms and Shields is a PF1 feat. PF2 instead has Emblazon Armament. Both systems put the holy symbol of the deity on the weapon or shield, so in Vanescence's game the god Casandalee is rejecting her own holy symbol because it is on the wrong weapon.
One possibility is that Vanescence's GM is allowing a PF1 feat in a PF2 game, so a compromise would be to convert the Create Reliquary Arms and Shields feat to Emblazon Armament, which allows changing which weapon the holy symbol is emblazoned on for free.
When I questioned him about being able to make shields reliquary arms "He answered; that is fine since shields represent the protection of the goddess"
More practically, gods don't have favored shields (unless you count Shield Boss and Shield Spikes as shields), so the GM cannot say, "Only on the god's favored shield."
He said is an ethical issue, similar to like wearing the goddess colors, it is not required but Clerics tend to wear them.
Wow, gods have sacred colors and sacred animals these days. I had not noticed. That appears to be new with the Divine Mysteries book from the PF2 Remastering.
Back in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, weapon restrictions on classes were about niche protections. Clerics were front-line combatants, but not as good at combat as fighters because clerics also had magic. They spent more time in religious training than martial training, so they had a lower attack bonus and were limited to bludgeoning weapons, such as maces, based on an old legend that Christian priests used maces because they were not supposed to shed blood. Later editions (2nd Edition D&D I think) invented a split between simple weapons, such as daggers and maces, and martial weapons, such as swords and warhammers. But the developers decided to give gods more individual flavor by giving them favorite weapons that their clerics also embraced. For example, if a war god is depicted as wielding a greataxe in combat, then the war god's clerics also got to wield a greataxe and had proficiency in it.
Pathfinder 1st Edition and later Pathfinder 2nd Edition copied that from D&D 3rd Edition. Some of the favored weapons were shoehorned in without much logic. For example, Clerics of Desna, god of night and stars, could use starknives because those round pointy looked a bit like a star.
The actual rules do not place much emphasis on the favored weapons.
Deity
As a cleric, you are a mortal servitor of a deity you revere above all others. The most common deities in Pathfinder have edicts, areas of concern, and the benefits you get for being a cleric of that deity. Your deity grants you the trained proficiency rank in one skill and with the deity's favored weapon. If the favored weapon is uncommon, you also get access to that weapon. Your deity also adds spells to your spell list. You can prepare these just like you can any spell on the divine spell list once you can prepare spells of their rank as a cleric. Any of these spells that aren't normally on the divine list are still divine spells if you prepare them this way.
For the clerics whose favored weapon is simple, the class offers the Deadly Simplicity feat that lets that simple weapon deal as much damage as a martial weapon.
When a module or sourcebook presents NPC clerics, then they usually carry their deity's favored weapon. The weapon serves like a holy symbol to mark which deity the cleric follows. But they don't necessarily use that weapon in combat. For example, a cleric whose god offers a melee weapon can still pull out a ranged weapon for Striking distant enemies. A cleric whose god offers a two-handed weapon could use a one-handed weapon and shield if the cleric needs the extra defense from the shield.
Another bit of history is Casandalee herself. She is a very young god, because she became a god in the PF1 Iron Gods adventure path in 4714 AR, only 12 years ago present Golarion time. She had been a recording of an Androffan android's mind playing on a Compact AI device before ascending to godhood. When I ran Iron Gods Casandalee instead chose to return to life as an android again rather than become a god, and she made a cameo appearance in one of my later campaigns.
The polytool did not exist during Iron Gods. Casandalee could not immediately select it as her favored weapon. Instead, both the official stats for pre-Remastered Casandalee and the polytool waited until Pathfinder 2nd Edition. Casandalee appeard in Lost Omens Gods & Magic, released on January 29, 2020, and the polytool appeared on page 121 of that book.
Polytool: The polytool is a small metal rod with a number of simple tools folded inside. The user can extend a long ceramic blade, as well as an awl, chisel, file, flint and steel, hook, inkpen, magnifying glass, pliers, scissors, and a small saw. The flint and steel can be used up to 10 times before needing to be replaced. Though inspired by advanced Numerian technology, the polytool is a simple enough feat of metalworking that any blacksmith could produce it—perfect for the goddess Casandalee to spread innovation farther than actual Numerian tech could reach.
In other words, the Paizo developers wanted to give Casandalee's clerics a weapon that represented Numeria's Androffan high technology without actually being high technology. The polytool was invented specifically for Casandalee's clerics, and her clerics probably spent the years between 4714 AR and 4720 AR without a favored weapon. Thus, I can see the clerics of Casandalee being very attached to their polytool, because it was invented for them, but Casandalee herself would have become accustomed to her clerics using other weapons.
And the polytool is an uncommon item with common access only in Numeria, so non-Numerian clerics of Casandalee would have to commission a blacksmith to forge one special for them once they could afford the 10 gp. A 1st-level village blacksmith would typically take 25 days to make a polytool.
Vanescence's GM chose the wrong god to make fussy about a favored weapon. Casandalee's Edicts are, "advance the development of artificial intelligence, encourage understanding between artificial and organic life." Her Anathema are, "treat artificial life as lesser than organic life, foment distrust between artificial and organic life." A god who blindsides her cleric about consecrating the wrong weapon is not encouraging understanding. Rather she is fomenting distrust.
As for the ethical issue of not dressing exactly like a priest of your religion, my Lutheran pastor once told the story of going around visiting people in the typical traveling outfit of a black shirt and a clerical collar (the little white patch in front of the neck) rather than in full worship vestments. At a toll plaza the tolltaker addressed him as "Father," which means Catholic priest rather than Lutheran pastor. Since that pastor had been raised Catholic, he simply replied as a Catholic priest would to avoid embarrassing the tolltaker. Real priests (and their God) don't make a fuss.
|
|
I'm guessing the GM is either about 15 (mentally, at least) or well over 60 :-)I am 64 years old and I don't make mistakes like Vanescence's GM. And I have been playing since 1979 AD--beat out by my wife who started in 1978 AD.
Youngster :-).
To be clear, I was not intending to make a blanket insult of anybody because of their age. I've played with very good players and GMs of all ages (well, from 6 to about 90 anyways :-)).
What I meant was that this GM sounds (based, obviously, on very little information and so possibly quite wrong) to me to be either quite immature or somebody set very much in their ways who is utterly convinced their opinion is universally held by all right thinking people.
Youngster :-)
My 63-year-old wife is the youngster. She has been married to me for 41 years and still has not caught up to my age.
I just described this thread to her and she responded, "That is a very gotcha GM." Some GMs like to set traps and enjoy letting the players and their characters walk into them because they did not say, "I am checking for traps," in the last 10 feet of dungeon exploration.
Then she added that the GM should have told Vanescence about the favored weapon requirement before she consecrated the mace.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think as a GM the best way to handle "potential anathema transgressions" is to confront the player with "why did your character think doing [x] was okay, given the prohibition against [y]?" Then I'm inclined to take basically any response that includes thought behind it.
The point of Anathemas (like alignment before it) is to get players to think about why their characters do what they do (and avoid doing other stuff). If it's doing that, then it's working.
I'm playing pathfinder 1st edition
I'm playing pathfinder 1st edition
In that case, the moderators should move this thread from the PF2 Advice subforum to the PF1 Advice subforum. And I should explain that edicts and anathema are PF2 inventions that determine what a god wants their followers to do and what offends the god.
The official description of Casandalee does not exist in PF1 except for suggestions on page 64 of The Divinity Drive under the title "An Iron Goddess." The players largely determine the features of Casandalee as a goddess, though her domains depend on which technological memory facets they managed to acquire. About her favored weapon, the text says:
The favored weapon and symbol of Casandalee’s faith is her choice, although if she remains allied with the PCs, she takes their suggestions over her own ideas.
The polytool does not exist in PF1, but we can assume that Casandalee's followers have recently invented the polytool so that their clerics can have a weapon that represents that Casandalee is a god of invention and encouragement rather than of violence. Porting the polytool to PF1 requires that the GM also port the modular weapon quality to PF1. The PF2 modular weapon trait requires an Interact action to change its damage type, and the Interact action is not a standard action. It is more like a move action. However, Interact actions provoke Attacks of Opportunity.
there was another thing he mention "spiritual weapon doesn´t say you cannot change the weapon type, but still nobody does that"
Also the PF1 cleric rules about a cleric losing their divine powers state:
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).
A gross violation would be an action immediately clear as a violation, not an action that relies on a technicality about favored weapons, except maybe for a god of weapons. The Atonement spell defines a difference between delibrate and non-deliberate misdeeds, so Vanescence would have to argue with the GM whether deliberately crafting a weapon that violates the god's secret code of conduct counts as a deliberate misdeed.
Finding a cleric of Casandalee who can cast a 5th-level Atonement spell probably requires traveling to Numeria (if Casandalee is so touchy about using the wrong weapon, then using the wrong cleric for Atonement would be even worse). Retiring Vanescence's cleric from the campaign to make that pilgrimage and creating a new character would be the simplest way avoid derailing the campaign. However, dropping the GM's currently prepared adventure so that the entire party can take the pilgrimage with the depowered cleric is what the GM deserves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think as a GM the best way to handle "potential anathema transgressions" is to confront the player with "why did your character think doing [x] was okay, given the prohibition against [y]?" Then I'm inclined to take basically any response that includes thought behind it.
The point of Anathemas (like alignment before it) is to get players to think about why their characters do what they do (and avoid doing other stuff). If it's doing that, then it's working.
Exactly. The GM should say "hey just to be clear, you understand what you're planning on doing is anathema, right?"
Clerics know the tenants of their own faith. This is not a thing that should be a "gotcha" trap. If it's going to come up, you should be being told that before it happens.
there was another thing he mention "spiritual weapon doesn´t say you cannot change the weapon type, but still nobody does that"
I once played an Iron Kingdoms campaign, which is Dungeons & Dragons adapted to the Warmachine miniatures game, in which my character was an inventor and a cleric of Cyriss, the clockwork goddess of mathematics also known as the Maiden of Gears. My cleric invented a scimitar whose cutting edge was a fractal and a sling that threw gears. When he cast Spiritual Weapon, the weapon appeared as a a one-foot-wide spinning gear. The GM of that campaign loved the flavor of those inventions. I don't remember anything about Cyriss having a favored weapon.
I think as a GM the best way to handle "potential anathema transgressions" is to confront the player with "why did your character think doing [x] was okay, given the prohibition against [y]?" Then I'm inclined to take basically any response that includes thought behind it.
The point of Anathemas (like alignment before it) is to get players to think about why their characters do what they do (and avoid doing other stuff). If it's doing that, then it's working.
Exactly. The GM should say "hey just to be clear, you understand what you're planning on doing is anathema, right?"
Clerics know the tenants of their own faith. This is not a thing that should be a "gotcha" trap. If it's going to come up, you should be being told that before it happens.
My thoughts exactly. The religious classes are heavier on roleplay than most and losing your powers should be a momentous occasion.
|
|
I think as a GM the best way to handle "potential anathema transgressions" is to confront the player with "why did your character think doing [x] was okay, given the prohibition against [y]?" Then I'm inclined to take basically any response that includes thought behind it.
The point of Anathemas (like alignment before it) is to get players to think about why their characters do what they do (and avoid doing other stuff). If it's doing that, then it's working.
Exactly. The GM should say "hey just to be clear, you understand what you're planning on doing is anathema, right?"
Clerics know the tenants of their own faith. This is not a thing that should be a "gotcha" trap. If it's going to come up, you should be being told that before it happens.
To be clear, I absolutely and totally agree with you.
But PF1 has (inherited from 3.5 and I think from earlier editions) the Phylactery of Faithfulness
"The wearer of a phylactery of faithfulness is aware of any action or item that could adversely affect her alignment and her standing with her deity, including magical effects. She acquires this information prior to performing such an action or becoming associated with such an item if she takes a moment to contemplate the act."
Now. most groups just assume that this is a totally useless item except for the magical effects clause and it is pretty much there for the player to defend from a jerk GM.
But an argument could be made that this implies that the GM is SUPPOSED to be a jerk.
I violently disagree with that argument, to again be clear. But it is not totally obviously invalid.
I think as a GM the best way to handle "potential anathema transgressions" is to confront the player with "why did your character think doing [x] was okay, given the prohibition against [y]?" Then I'm inclined to take basically any response that includes thought behind it.
The point of Anathemas (like alignment before it) is to get players to think about why their characters do what they do (and avoid doing other stuff). If it's doing that, then it's working.
Exactly. The GM should say "hey just to be clear, you understand what you're planning on doing is anathema, right?"
Clerics know the tenants of their own faith. This is not a thing that should be a "gotcha" trap. If it's going to come up, you should be being told that before it happens.
To be clear, I absolutely and totally agree with you.
But PF1 has (inherited from 3.5 and I think from earlier editions) the Phylactery of Faithfulness
"The wearer of a phylactery of faithfulness is aware of any action or item that could adversely affect her alignment and her standing with her deity, including magical effects. She acquires this information prior to performing such an action or becoming associated with such an item if she takes a moment to contemplate the act."Now. most groups just assume that this is a totally useless item except for the magical effects clause and it is pretty much there for the player to defend from a jerk GM.
But an argument could be made that this implies that the GM is SUPPOSED to be a jerk.
I violently disagree with that argument, to again be clear. But it is not totally obviously invalid.
It really feels like a roleplay item, though not bad for keeping you from accidentally freeing the infohazard monster the deity was trying to keep under wraps.
I think as a GM the best way to handle "potential anathema transgressions" is to confront the player with "why did your character think doing [x] was okay, given the prohibition against [y]?" Then I'm inclined to take basically any response that includes thought behind it.
The point of Anathemas (like alignment before it) is to get players to think about why their characters do what they do (and avoid doing other stuff). If it's doing that, then it's working.
Exactly. The GM should say "hey just to be clear, you understand what you're planning on doing is anathema, right?"
Clerics know the tenants of their own faith. This is not a thing that should be a "gotcha" trap. If it's going to come up, you should be being told that before it happens.
To be clear, I absolutely and totally agree with you.
But PF1 has (inherited from 3.5 and I think from earlier editions) the Phylactery of Faithfulness
"The wearer of a phylactery of faithfulness is aware of any action or item that could adversely affect her alignment and her standing with her deity, including magical effects. She acquires this information prior to performing such an action or becoming associated with such an item if she takes a moment to contemplate the act."Now. most groups just assume that this is a totally useless item except for the magical effects clause and it is pretty much there for the player to defend from a jerk GM.
But an argument could be made that this implies that the GM is SUPPOSED to be a jerk.
I violently disagree with that argument, to again be clear. But it is not totally obviously invalid.
I always took that item as a defense against bad GMs, to give players a way to deal with a Gotcha GM while remaining in the game. It's never really established why (as far as I know) the item exist, but to me it only makes sense when considered it a metaknowledge fashion.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always argued that the phylactery was to protect the Cleric from being tricked into breaking their deity's rules.
Not as an excuse for GMs to punish the players who did not spend the long years studying their deity's creed that their Cleric PC would know inside out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not as an excuse for GMs to punish the players who did not spend the long years studying their deity's creed that their Cleric PC would know inside out.
This is the real issue, the GM is effectively punishing a player for having the audacity to play a character that they don't necessarily understand the minutiae (from the GM's point of view) of the deity of that character.
What's worse though, is in this specific case it's a minutiae which doesn't have support in any official source from Paizo about how this deity behaves, and may be whole cloth invented by the GM based on their personal beliefs about RPG deities.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading through this and a bit of documentation, my takeaways are the following:
All together, my conclusion is that the GM had a fit of pique, overreacted dramatically against the player by making a decision that has no solid roleplaying or rules basis, and is presumably refusing to budge on the issue. I think the GM's decision is not only debatable, but patently ridiculous, and I suspect it would be very difficult to find out their honest motivation for the decision given the disproportion and anger involved. I'm not going to ask you to challenge your friendship with this person, OP, but I will point out that they acted in a way that is disrespectful of that friendship, and I don't think you should have to put up with this behavior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Now. most groups just assume that this is a totally useless item except for the magical effects clause and it is pretty much there for the player to defend from a jerk GM.
But an argument could be made that this implies that the GM is SUPPOSED to be a jerk.
I violently disagree with that argument, to again be clear. But it is not totally obviously invalid.
I adhere to the Social Contract principle of tabletop roleplaying games. Seth Skorkowsky spends 21 minutes explaining that principle in the YouTube video The RPG Social Contract (Revisited) - RPG Philosophy, but in short, the GM and the players ought to agree on what kind of game they are playing. For example, some of my players play Pathfinder because they want to try out cool character builds. They want challenging combat to test those builds. Others of my players play Pathfinder because they love roleplaying a fictional character, their personality, and their development. For them, the combat has to have story meaning. As a GM, I run the game for the amazing stories that my players create through their characters, both ingenious tactics and personal connections. I start with a Paizo adventure path to provide a detailed setting and customize it for the particular player characters.
A PF1 cleric who follows Casandalee is unusual, because Casandalee lacks official stats in PF1. I guess that either the player played the Iron Gods adventure path and developed fondness for the NPC Casandalee before godhood, or the cleric character's values connect with a goddess of technology and artificial life. Either way, having Casandalee turn her back on the cleric for a minor infraction (which most tables would not consider an infraction at all) will have an enormous roleplaying impact on the character. Unless the GM's social contract for the campaign was, "I will give you lemons and you will desperately try to make lemonade," then this is a jerkish breach of the social contract. Almost all players who build a cleric character want to use the cleric's divine abilities.
Yesterday, I had said, "Dropping the GM's currently prepared adventure so that the entire party can take the pilgrimage [to find atonement in Numeria] with the depowered cleric is what the GM deserves." I had wondered whether I would feel the same way this following morning. I do. If the GM makes rulings like depowering a cleric and won't reconsider, then that GM should live with the consequences that the player characters could dramatically react to Casandalee's choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A PF1 cleric who follows Casandalee is unusual, because Casandalee lacks official stats in PF1. I guess that either the player played the Iron Gods adventure path and developed fondness for the NPC Casandalee before godhood, or the cleric character's values connect with a goddess of technology and artificial life. Either way, having Casandalee turn her back on the cleric for a minor infraction (which most tables would not consider an infraction at all)
I also find this decision odd from an in-game perspective. With Casandalee being a very recent divinity (less than 10 years in PF1), would the neutral diety really be that punishing to what is likely a very small flock of worshipers in what is probably still-developing roles of worship, rituals, and norms?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m sorry. You’ve been playing DnD’s since 1995, and you need to ask “the community” if your “DM” is being “fair”!?! I think the better question is “Is the DM at all interested in playing a game with friends or are they just here to make people regret playing with them.”
Seriously, these are the sort of teenage responses I haven’t seen since I was…a teenager. I’m 52 in a few days. Your DM is being mean spirited. Questioning *you* and *your thoughts/personality/ethics* is an absolute “game-over”. Playing “gotcha” is an immediate game-over.
I’m with Dr Funkelstein. No Pathfinder is much better than bad Pathfinder. We play these games for so many reasons, and the social contract Mathmuse talks about is the first pillar of the game. If you can’t trust the people you play with to treat you with grace and common courtesy, then you aren’t playing a game, you are a victim of their personality disorder.
Tell the DM to grow up, reconsider their response to the actions *your character* took and if they refuse then take your 30 years of experience somewhere else.
A PF1 cleric who follows Casandalee is unusual, because Casandalee lacks official stats in PF1. I guess that either the player played the Iron Gods adventure path and developed fondness for the NPC Casandalee before godhood, or the cleric character's values connect with a goddess of technology and artificial life. Either way, having Casandalee turn her back on the cleric for a minor infraction (which most tables would not consider an infraction at all)I also find this decision odd from an in-game perspective. With Casandalee being a very recent divinity (less than 10 years in PF1), would the neutral diety really be that punishing to what is likely a very small flock of worshipers in what is probably still-developing roles of worship, rituals, and norms?
We played the iron gods campaign and participated on her ascension
I’m sorry. You’ve been playing DnD’s since 1995, and you need to ask, “the community” if your “DM” is being “fair”!?! I think the better question is “Is the DM at all interested in playing a game with friends or are they just here to make people regret playing with them.”
Seriously, these are the sort of teenage responses I haven’t seen since I was…a teenager. I’m 52 in a few days. Your DM is being mean spirited. Questioning *you* and *your thoughts/personality/ethics* is an absolute “game-over”. Playing “gotcha” is an immediate game-over.
I’m with Dr Funkelstein. No Pathfinder is much better than bad Pathfinder. We play these games for so many reasons, and the social contract Mathmuse talks about is the first pillar of the game. If you can’t trust the people you play with to treat you with grace and common courtesy, then you aren’t playing a game, you are a victim of their personality disorder.
Tell the DM to grow up, reconsider their response to the actions *your character* took and if they refuse then take your 30 years of experience somewhere else.
I always try to be kind to anyone, If I were to make mistakes, I would like to be treated like that. And when situations like this arouses, I like to be pretty sure before I take an action that I might regret later.
So, I want everyone who have participated in this topic, to know that I really appreciate and value your time and opinions.I do feel that the situation got out of control. But I 'am not thinking only about myself but my team, some of them play because I do, I own the car that everyone rides back home at night and some friends ride with me to get to the sessions. Plain quitting will disturb the whole table, so I wanted to think this through carefully
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That makes sense, and I understand that this person is someone you consider a friend. please understand that, while some of us may come off as short and brusque, we are voicing out of concern for you.
I hope your GM takes the criticism you need to give him, and grows. His behavior was not acceptable toward anyone, let alone a friend. You, and your other friends at the table don't deserve to be treated like that.
And there is no reason to walk away from the table (assuming it's not literally his table). You can ask him to leave the group IF he's unreasonable. Consider it may be time to step up and be the GM your group deserves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always try to be kind to anyone, If I were to make mistakes, I would like to be treated like that. And when situations like this arouses, I like to be pretty sure before I take an action that I might regret later.
So, I want everyone who have participated in this topic, to know that I really appreciate and value your time and opinions.
I do feel that the situation got out of control. But I 'am not thinking only about myself but my team, some of them play because I do, I own the car that everyone rides back home at night and some friends ride with me to get to the sessions. Plain quitting will disturb the whole table, so I wanted to think this through carefully
That is rough. Asking others was the right choice. I hope things get resolved peacefully.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And there is no reason to walk away from the table (assuming it's not literally his table). You can ask him to leave the group IF he's unreasonable. Consider it may be time to step up and be the GM your group deserves.
I want to echo this. Unless you're playing at the GM's house...and even if you are, another location can likely be found.
It may be time to promote your friend from GM to player and someone else to take the reins.