Log in

Talk:Grishan Maldris

From PathfinderWiki
← $1


We decided some while ago to incorporate familiars, animal companions, etc. on their master's or mistress's page. Should we do the same with phantoms? I am not familiar enough yet with the occult classes to make a decision, but merely point out a potential discrepancy. I suppose it might boil down to whether a phantom has any existence without its owner. Whatever the decision, we should document it. --Fleanetha (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If we decide to merge, noting here we'll need to delete Category:Phantom/Inhabitants. --Fleanetha (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
We could merge them, although in this case we also know quite a bit about this particular phantom's life before he died. Do you think that should make a difference? --Brandingopportunity (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Merging will keep characters and supporting creatures that are class features in one easy-to-read place. We can simply put another header below the character write-up to cover all the backstory for the phantom. We don't need to remove the category, especially because there may someday be unfettered phantoms in future adventures. Just leave the existing article for the phantom in the category, and replace the article's text with a redirect to the section of the main article that covers the phantom.—Paizo Publishing, LLC.png Yoda8myhead (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I've never been a fan of the policy of merging class companions with characters, and this case of a phantom that would have their own person article if they weren't tied up in a class mechanic is especially dicey. I approve of this merger in this specific case because of the length of Junia Dacilane but think merging phantoms should be handled case-by-case and not with a blanket guideline or rule. -Oznogon (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)