Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Wolf

BigNorseWolf's page

RPG Superstar 7 Season Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 28,990 posts (30,414 including aliases). 16 reviews. 4 lists. No wishlists. 29 Pathfinder Society characters. 5 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 28,990 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

Nefreet gets it, it's done to be that one special person that does it to be special.

You don't not get to make up random, baseless assertions about your follow gamers and you certainly don't get to get policy made about those random baseless assertions.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
. I, as the GM, have to ignore everything deity-related about that character. No bonus to interact with that deity's followers, no attention from enemies of that deity, no consideration of roleplay and no bonus to cactus juice drinking competitions.

You do not have to. That's on you.

Shadow Lodge ****

Nefreet wrote:
You have a very interesting filter.

Knock that off.

You said those things. They are not out of context,

The problem isn't my filter its the dross you're throwing at your fellow players.

Quote:
Care to comment on my ideas for a solution, instead?

There is no problem to solve. You're getting your tailfeathers twisted because veneration as a lifestyle choice is somehow immersion breaking.

-Well yes I keep talking to god and he never answers- Nope. Completely unrealistic that anyone would ever do that.

Quote:
The other seems, to me, to appease everybody, but requires more work from Campaign Leadership.

The current situation is fine. Campaign leadership controls mechanics (worship) individuals control their flavor (veneration)

Shadow Lodge ****

Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Regulating the fluff they want to use for their character should be limited to the most extreme violations of cannon, immersion, and metagaming. People using that to Grief are a small enough subset of players that the DMs can handle it without needing a blanket ban on how 9 other people play their characters.
Are you even reading what I'm typing?

Yes.

Are you even reading what you're typing?

You've called people wanting to worship an in cannon god griefers , immersion breaking attention seekers deliberately trying to push the boundary of the game just to annoy you. Whether you recognize that or not that is some serious hate on for other peoples characters.

-I mean, i called him a puppy kicking kitten eating jaywalker with the personal magnetism of a slime mold, but i didn't say anything BAD about him...-

Shadow Lodge

M Tall dwarf Level 3 druid

I like how this conversation gives you the idea that, as short as it was, Justin's childhood was pretty interesting....

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Or just assume someone doesn't "like" it, right?
You are equating everyone taking the option with a troll deliberately trying to disrupt the campaign. That goes well beyond dislike.
I was referring to you =|

Yeah, I got that, but it's not an assumption when someone says it flat out.

Some mechanics with a backdoor ban (faith of a fallen god trait, racial heritage +anything you want to use racial heritage for) need to be addressed. That does not mean..

Quote:
My biggest issue: either 100% ban these deities, or don't. We're not grown up enough to handle grey areas.

Banning a player from the crunch they want to use is a big necessity in organized play where a small(ish) subset of players are going to run for the crunch that breaks the sound barrier. Regulating the fluff they want to use for their character should be limited to the most extreme violations of cannon, immersion, and metagaming. People using that to Grief are a small enough subset of players that the DMs can handle it without needing a blanket ban on how 9 other people play their characters.

Shadow Lodge ****

Christopher Rowe wrote:


Man, your degree may be in trees, but you can selectively quote with the best of us literary theory folks.

It saves paper :)

Shadow Lodge ****

Christopher Rowe wrote:

Huh. I actually chose "vicious bigotry" because I don't think of it as a hot button topic

DC -5 spot check for the giant red button that says "hot topic" and the clearly labled "11 foot pole" with the manufacturers warning "do not press hot button topic even with this"

Shadow Lodge ****

PFS already has a reputation as limiting player options for no good reason, why limit players violating neither mechanical limits OR setting appropriateness?

Shadow Lodge ****

Nefreet wrote:
Or just assume someone doesn't "like" it, right?

You are equating everyone taking the option with a troll deliberately trying to disrupt the campaign. That goes well beyond dislike.

Shadow Lodge ****

Pete Winz wrote:


That said, how does "not allowed for play" significantly differ from "is not a legal choice" in this context?

1) Legal choices come with mechanics. Domains, feats, traits, magic items, alternate spellcasting options, divine obediences. That is crunch. Veneration has no crunch, so it does not require legality

2) it is weird to assume that rules written a year in advance of the veneration /worship divide are going to take that divide, AND your interpretation of that divide, into your account.

Shadow Lodge ****

Christopher Rowe wrote:

Really? What if the completely roleplay "fluff" option (and as ever, I wince at that word and all its dismissive connotations) is that a character is a vicious bigot

No. Enough. No deliberately linking an argument to an emotionally charged topic to invest it with more outrage than it deserves. Argue the topic on its merits or admit you don't have any.

Someone is so offended by the idea of someone playing a cthulu worshiper in a world where cthulu worshipers exist that they want a campaign rule prohibiting that behavior. That is N V T S nuts without lame attempts to weld real world hotbutton topics onto the issue.

Shadow Lodge ****

Nefreet wrote:


It's people pushing the limits of the rules, plain and simple.

thats not a slippery slope thats a greased ski jump.

Shadow Lodge ****

Pete Winz wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

or just keep it where it is. /QUOTE]

The problem is that there are disagreements about where it currently is. Does "not allowed for play" apply to both Venerate and Worship, or to Worship only, given the definition of Venerate? I, personally, find Andrews glossary of terms to be clear and useful. However, I feel that "not allowed for play" is applied universally (i.e., it trumps the Venerate definition). Obviously, YMMV, which is why we need some clarification from campaign leadership.

Except the words "not allowed for play" do not appear ANYWHERE on the additional resources list.

Not allowed only refers to: following feats are not allowed in Pathfinder Society Organized Play: Expert Driver, Field Repair, Master Combat Performer, Master Siege Engineer,

you are making really weird arguments and stirring up a problem because the rules say one thing, you translate that into something else, and then go with the exact words that YOU translated them into as if they were what the campaign, not you, said.

Shadow Lodge ****

Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You do not like how some other people play their characters and want that stopped.

Godsdammitno!

I have -zero- problem with people's characters. It's disruptive players that I have a problem with. Give them an inch and they'll go a mile.

You've accused people of wanting to be disruptive players just because they wanted to play one of these characters. You cannot make that distinction after equating the two. By your own words, one is the other.

Disruptive players already have 5,200 feet. Just let it go. Other people do just think these options are cool and want to play them, curtailing their character options will get you nothing towards your goal.

Quote:
But Campaign Leadership presumably banned these for some reason other than the mechanical benefits of worshipping them, because the benefits themselves could have simply been banned otherwise.

That is completely unknown to you, and isn't the sort of thing you can base an argument off of.

Quote:
So either make them legal, or don't. I don't care one way or the other. And I will happily adventure side by side with a Cleric of Cthulhu and a Warpriest of JuJu.

or just keep it where it is.

Shadow Lodge ****

What happened in actual play?

Some people refer to killing you all as a joke.

If someone didn't know me they might think that taking pizza slices to ensure survival was a joke.

Shadow Lodge ****

Nefreet wrote:


Previously I used Cthulhu as an example of a Golarion specific but illegal deity.

We saw how that turned out, so I made something up.

How can I explain my position appropriately?

You're explaining your position just fine.

I have a problem with your position and the inconsistencies in it.

You do not like how some other people play their characters and want that stopped.

"it doesn't fit the setting" might be grounds for that.

"That god is banned" is not the same as "that god doesn't exist" and you're treating them the same because you see it being used to make characters you don't like.

Shadow Lodge ****

Steven Lau wrote:


What I don't see is "Venerate" as a means to get around the legal Deity list. There is a reason that there is a list of deities that are not legal, they don't fit the campaign and/or can be disruptive. IMO I don't want to see the idea of veneration as a means to get around that.

Really? A follower of Ihys , Curchanas or Amaznen doesn't fit the campign and are more disruptive than Ravogag worshipers?

You're comparing the effects of veneration to how you want everyone else to play the game rather than how the game is played and thats not a legitimate comparison.

Shadow Lodge ****

"I'm from the peoples front of judea! Lets fight the romans!

"Sorry, these cultists are from the judean peoples front.

"Every. Freaking. *ow ow ow o wow * time.

Shadow Lodge ****

Nefreet wrote:

Veneration as a lifestyle destroys verisimilitude.

Player describes their character as wearing butterfly wings, dressing in tutus, and drinking cactus juice in veneration of (let's assume a Golarion specific but illegal deity) Juju the Desert Butterfly.

As opposed to if they had said Desna , who is known to have at thing for butterflies and psychedelic plants that would explain the tutu? Would that make the character any less silly or annoying to you?

You're telling someone "your character sucks so much you can't play it" and you're doing it over some pretty arbitrary grounds.

Quote:
In awareness of the "no mechanical effects" clause, NPCs and players cannot react in any way to this character. They could walk into a temple of JuJu, encounter JuJu priests, or roleplay with JuJu enemies, and nobody would blink an eye either way.

Oh come on. Non mechanical aspects of characters come up all the time.

Shadow Lodge ****

Firebug wrote:
Because Specific vs General is how rules are interpreted when they potentially come into conflict?

That is not the only way they can be interpreted when someone thinks they come into conflict. "They have nothing to do with one another" is another option, such as a race trait and a racial trait, or trying to apply the rules for exotic weapons to any eastern weapons.

Shadow Lodge ****

Firebug wrote:


I just want the campaign leadership to chime in how to interpret it correctly, and which is the specific case, and which is general.

Specific vs general doesn't enter into it.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The mechanics of a deity not being allowed does not mean that the character was removed from cannon (ie, Lissala)

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Firebug wrote:

You need to own the source for literally everything else, what makes this different without explicitly saying it's different?

So whats your source for blond hair, blue eyes, nation of origin? You need a source for the ulfen language you don't need a source to be ulfen. That's the difference between venerate and worship.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:


Veneration is not performing daily rituals, regular prayers, weekly sacrifices, self adornment, personal trials, quiet whispers, scarification, or any other indication that you regularly follow a deity.

Veneration is quick and fleeting, without any long term focus.

Worship is a lifestyle.

No, thats not the difference in PFS and this is why we need the difference. You're trying to tell a player what their character's lifestyle is and that very much isn't your call. Something has to be an egregious violation of immersion or metagaming for that to even be an option.

Shadow Lodge ****

Firebug wrote:


It is a fact that most people hold opinions, but that doesn't make those opinions into facts.

What also doesn't turn opinion into facts is a one sided Aristotelian argument arguing "if then" logic as if every pathfinder rule were a perfectly coherent, and non contradictory system and how someone reads things and the tea leaves of "grammar".

If you accept that, then the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of venerate over non venerate.

Shadow Lodge

M Tall dwarf Level 3 druid

The snot monster hates whiskey...

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

So, in PFS, what penalty if any would a GM impose on a player who says, falsely but in character, that he worships a PFS-illegal deity?

Snide glances from NPCs

VERY SNIDE GLANCES!

Shadow Lodge ****

andreww wrote:


Or he could have just moused over the number and it would have told him where any typed bonuses or penalties were coming from.

That wasn't working (and i've never really gotten that to work when i've tried to fix someone's character)

Shadow Lodge ****

"Climb check of... 56..no sorry. 46.

"*blink...* Let me see that...

"18 on the die, + 2 raging, 7 ranks 3 trained 7 dex , +1 vs creatures larger than me, 6 on the daring do die, 2 on the explosion, +8 from spiderclimb...

Character level and abilities are laid out in booklet

*character layout summons cuthulu*

Closes booklet

"yeaaah lets call that a success..."

Shadow Lodge ****

Matthew Downie wrote:
Could be someone wearing heavy armor they're not proficient with and taking a massive penalty to their attack bonus without knowing why?

It wasn't that it wasn't encumbrance and that was the end of my technical expertise.

Shadow Lodge ****

Watches player dice at a last minute 3-7 run.

"I'm a 5th level cleric with an attack bonus of -2...

"how far down did you dump your strength?

"12...

"wait.. what?

"thats what herolab says...

*replaces program with index card, fights start going much better*

Shadow Lodge

A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would<---- this says flat out that the monks unarmed damage is higher. Its not some virtual increase, their fists hurt more.

A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.<---- and you can strongjaw that 1d8 fist to 3d6.

Shadow Lodge ****

Can't reskin archetypes

Shadow Lodge ****

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:


Which one is that? I know a Razmiran priest that would like to play in that one.

]Razmiri priest

Shadow Lodge ****

Rysky wrote:
Lune wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner: The writer of the rule says otherwise and Campaign Leadership doesn't disagree. You are, at this point, arguing against both RAW and RAI.
Did you even read what Compton said?

That they'll be putting something together, so just wait for the clarifications coming down the pipe. It takes a while.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SCPRedMage wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

That is not my understanding.

Have you seen it stated somewhere?

Let me turn that around on you: have you ever seen it stated anywhere that you can still suffer from something you are "immune" to?

yes. When you would normally not be fatigued.

Shadow Lodge ****

Rysky wrote:
So we ban the Cleric.

Not the same niche

Shadow Lodge ****

things don't get banned for being overpowered: they get banned for being overpowered relative to other things in that niche A fighter with a feat every level wouldn't be overpowered compared to a wizard, but it would make the standard fighter obsolete and so would get banned.

Shadow Lodge ****

Rysky wrote:
Might be saving it for a boon, do they save Archetypes for Boons?

They do but usually the more flavory ones, this one looks more crunchy

Shadow Lodge ****

CigarPete wrote:
Fairly sure there is nothing in the description of the Razmirian Priest that indicates that they need to worship Razmir -

You can't mess with the flavor of that archtype for pfs. I can find the ruling on that if you want. I was going to use it for my Aroden worshiping sorcerer.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No charge!

YOur death is free

Shadow Lodge

for pfs only rogues can get the skill unlocks

Shadow Lodge

Okay, what was pointing at the

Spoiler:
double timelines?

Shadow Lodge ****

Selvaxri wrote:

I meant Tharks were introduced as a new race, not creature.

What's could be a good thing, is the "character creation" guide in the comic said that any encounter with Tharks, the APL is increased to compensate for the large and powerful Thark.

So you're more powerful AND you get your party killed?

Shadow Lodge

its dorable for an arcanist , you get so much out of your class that you don't NEED to put feats into it to be useful.

Shadow Lodge ****

Tallow wrote:


If even that much, but it does appear we are on the same page here again.

Well, think about the alternative. There's a dearth of named, maped out and stated one horse towns in pathfinder (particularly if you're starting out and don't have all the scenarios yet) If everyone has to use the same ones for their mud footed adventurers it would be like "wait.. why don't I know you? Whats your background? that never happened there!"

There's blank space on the maps for good reason.

Shadow Lodge ****

Rysky wrote:
crashcanuck wrote:
So what about venerating a philosophy based on cataclysms, dreams, the stars and madness?
That just adds to the question of can you venerate a philosophy you come up with yourself (unless there is one).

Pretty sure there's nothing against your character trying to become the next Iori and coming up with the perfect life philosophy that you live by.

many characters are writing books.

What you can't do is make up a philosophy and insert it into the campaign as the big thing that's sweeping galt or the play that was so good Aroden came back to life to watch it (although that WOULD be great as a (false) advertising tag line...)

I think someone's ability to create the campaign world around their character tops out around a large villiage.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:


Sounds like you and I are really, really on the same page in this discussion.

I am going to blame the more than copious amounts of painkiller i'm going through this weekend. :)

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Oracles could, but Clerics cannot venerate other deities, at least on Golarion and in Society play.

Clerics can venerate other deities, provided such veneration is not itself a violation of what the first deity wants.

Torag certainly wants you to venerate his family (unless you like his wife more than him, in which case he's probably going to regift you)

Gozreh isn't going to mind if you think Desna is pretty cool and pray to her shrines when you travel...

Desna probably IS going to mind if you start making offerings to Lamashtu or Ravagog without a REAAAAALLY good reason.

1 to 50 of 28,990 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.