|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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.
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)
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...-
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..
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.
Pete Winz wrote:
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.
Christopher Rowe wrote:
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.
Pete Winz wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Steven Lau wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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*
"yeaaah lets call that a success..."
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.
That they'll be putting something together, so just wait for the clarifications coming down the pipe. It takes a while.
So you're more powerful AND you get your party killed?
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.
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.
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.