|
However, if I'm understanding this correctly-- there is no requirement in the core rules for being within one step of your deity unless you're a Cleric, Inquisitor, or Paladin? That, otherwise, the 1-step rule for all characters is strictly an interpretation/requirement for PFS, and that the core rules do not require a character to be within one step to count as a "worshiper" for all purposes?
Pretty much. As a matter of fact, a paladin does not have to declare a deity at all (which is weird IMO). Only cleric/inquisitor are limited to the one-step rule in core. However, it is assumed that the GM can adjudicate what would qualify you as a worshiper for purposes of divinely granted powers outside of those two classes. For example, there is nothing in the rules that says a LG commoner(farmer) couldn't worship lamashtu in hopes of avoiding monsters attacking ye old farmstead. Regardless of whether you think that is "legal" or not is largely a GM decision.
However, in OP, the GM is mostly limited to adjudicating things at their table only. So something that extends beyond that is subject to the guidelines, i.e. campaign rules. For PFS, it has been decided that if you are to be qualified as a worshiper of a deity, you must be within one alignment step.
Hope that makes sense.
|
|
So, in my mind, a Druid may say that they worship the Green Faith, but Gozreh is really granting the spells. A heretic, who acts out of spite, may have his or her spells be granted by Calistria or Zon Kuthon, without truly understanding the source.
I can accept this. Where it gets wonky is when someone who is not normally required to specific a deity, chooses a trait that require the worship of one. To me, this is a case of specific rules outweighing general ones. If the non-denomination druid wants to select the Gozreh trait, or paladin wants the Sarenrae trait, then s/he has to declare them the deity, in exclusion of all others. Of course, in PFS this means you must be within one-step of the deity's alignment. I just don't see why that should pose such a problem?
Religion and faith are such a hot-button item that it is nearly ridiculous to try and get everyone, or even many people, to agree on how this "should" work or how it relates to real life. It's futile. In the end, all we really need to focus on is what the rules do say. PFS has tried to define (apparently poorly) that you need to be one-step from the deity to qualify as a worshiper.
Religion and faith are such a hot-button item that it is nearly ridiculous to try and get everyone, or even many people, to agree on how this "should" work or how it relates to real life. It's futile. In the end, all we really need to focus on is what the rules do say. PFS has tried to define (apparently poorly) that you need to be one-step from the deity to qualify as a worshiper.
And as I posted before, I still do not get this part, when multiple times while Joshua Frost was in charge, he specifically said he would fix this in a future Guide so that only those who got their powers from a deity had to be within one step. He never got a chance to do this before he quit Paizo, and since then none of those who followed him have given any indication that they would follow through on this or explain why they have left it in the flawed way that it currently is.
|
|
And as I posted before, I still do not get this part, when multiple times while Joshua Frost was in charge, he specifically said he would fix this in a future Guide so that only those who got their powers from a deity had to be within one step. He never got a chance to do this before he quit Paizo, and since then none of those who followed him have given any indication that they would follow through on this or explain why they have left it in the flawed way that it currently is.
Josh made a lot of decisions and some of them are not what the the current leaders want. This appears to be one of those.
I agree that the use of "worship" could use some cleaning up, but there are many of us who feel the fundamental part of the mechanic is valid. If you want to follow the teachings of multiple deities, or none, you are welcome to. The only time is matters is if you are going to gain a divine power granted by a specific deity. In that case, the campaign requires you to be within one-step of the deity's alignment. There is a large group of us that feel this is a sound rule and want it to remain. It appears, Mike Brock is in that group because he is showing no signs of changing it.
If we try to rationalize the concepts through our personal religious tendencies and/or faith, it will just create a huge battle. Hell, in RL, we all cannot even settle on what is the "right" way to worship the one god we have, let alone pantheon's of them.
|
I agree that the use of "worship" could use some cleaning up, but there are many of us who feel the fundamental part of the mechanic is valid. If you want to follow the teachings of multiple deities, or none, you are welcome to. The only time is matters is if you are going to gain a divine power granted by a specific deity. In that case, the campaign requires you to be within one-step of the deity's alignment. There is a large group of us that feel this is a sound rule and want it to remain. It appears, Mike Brock is in that group because he is showing no signs of changing it.
For my part-- I agree with you and the others in charge of PFS that the basic mechanic, requiring someone to be within 1 step of their Deity's alignment in order to qualify for any mechanical/game-rule benefits (such as traits, feats, and any other deity-derived powers) is a good rule to have. I have no argument or dispute with this part of it, there have to be some limits to keep things reasonable and to keep people from just trying to yank an advantage out of the rules without playing it.
If we try to rationalize the concepts through our personal religious tendencies and/or faith, it will just create a huge battle. Hell, in RL, we all cannot even settle on what is the "right" way to worship the one god we have, let alone pantheon's of them.
My issue with the rest of it, the terms that are being thrown around and the way they're being thrown around, which I admit is because I am probably over-sensitive to these sorts of issues (I think I've adequately explained why, with my apologies, earlier in this thread), is directly related to this point of yours. Especially since in RL, we can't settle on any of these issues (it even goes farther than that-- not all of us worship that one god-- some of us are Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, Asatruar, other Pagan faiths, Agnostics, Atheists, Taoists, etc.)-- I think we shouldn't be throwing around judgement (as players and GMs) on the way a player decides to play and portray his/her character's faith (characters in the game casting judgement on other people's faith, is a reasonable part of the game world and potentially an issue, challenge, or plot point for the PCs to deal with, IMO).
Yes, I think "worship" and "worshipers" are terrible terms to use to define the narrow limit for qualifying for abilities. It becomes a real problem (to me at least) when people in this thread have decided to proclaim that if your character doesn't qualify as a "worshiper" under the mechanical rule then your character can only pay "lip service" to the Deity he/she believes he/she is following (and many more comments going down that road of presuming to cast judgement on another's beliefs)-- even in relation to a game, that really yanks my chain the wrong way. And, while I agree with the ruling that you have to be within 1 step of alignment to qualify for the abilities, I do not think that rule should apply to deny the idea that a character can sincerely and dedicatedly worship a deity even though they are clearly not a 'perfect' (or anywhere near perfect) member of the faith (as evidenced by having alignment a little farther off)-- it shouldn't automatically mean they're not faithful, it should (IMO) just mean that character is not close enough to the Deity's mainstream morals to get abilities from his/her deity.
I personally wouldn't be raising such an objection to the terms in use (or be as sensitive to their use), if we were in the conversations about it here, strictly speaking of these terms in reference to qualifying for game abilities-- rather than having people raise these terms in reference to a character's beliefs, attitudes and actions-- which are more of a role-play thing than a crunch thing, IMO.
|
|
All I can say is I'm sorry if I have offended you or others.
That being said, while some people may be suggesting the things you are sensitive too, I do not believe the rules do. We are not telling you how to view your deities, in character, or how you feel they should be revered. What we are trying to describe is a connection to the mechanical aspects of the game, and that refers back to the part we agree on. Perhaps the mistake is trying to equate the word "worship" to some real-world level of divine dedication (or not). I really think we should leave this discussion/argument to die out. As I said, we are broaching subjects of religion, personal faith, beliefs, etc and in a fictional, fantasy game where gods talk directly to mortals, manifest on a semi-regular basis, undead exist, and magic abounds, IMO it is better to let this go.
|
|
All I can say is I'm sorry if I have offended you or others.
You personally have not. And you also have my apologies if you took the implication that I was accusing you of those statements that I found offensive (sometimes I'm not as careful in expressing myself, while addressing sensitive issues, as I should be).
IMO it is better to let this go.
And, I agree with the rest of your statement (including the parts not quoted in reply). For my part, I'll do my best to let it go-- hopefully others will also agree to let these issues sleep (and not stir them up at the gaming table if I see any of y'all at conventions). :)