| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pharasma is just an example. The topic is really about deities in general, and what happens when a player breaks their rules.
No, the conversation is about breaking campaign story conventions because something wasn't mentioned in CRB or the Roleplaying Guild Guide.
And that something is the deity's tenets, which are not defined well in the CRB.
edit:
And it's not just pharasma, many of the deities have been fleshed out in the many supplements to pathfinder.
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I've had to teach new players about their PC's own gods three times now. I generally approach it with excitement. "Oh, did you know that Pharasma is a fascinating goddess? She's a god of the dead who hates undead! It's so cool. As a Pharasmite you have a sacred mission: ridding the world of these abominations and laying their souls to rest!"
I usually show them the Wiki so that they can read up on the fluff, but I make it such an interesting story that they get excited about their god too. (I've also done this with Erastil and with Irori, showing Paladin codes.)
If you as a GM can show them that their god is cool... the players get into it. I'm not admonishing them for not knowing what was not described in the core book -- I'm a friend whose helped them refine the nifty story in their heads about their character's relationship with their god.
This does not have to be adversarial. We're here to share story as GMs, and to make the world of Golarian come alive. This holds true, even in Core.
Hmm
Venture-Agent, Florida–Altamonte Springs
|
He gets all the powers and all the spells of every god...
I have one of those in the Iron Gods game I'm running but since he's a rogue not a cleric he's more like Benny.
|
No, the conversation is about breaking campaign story conventions because something wasn't mentioned in CRB or the Roleplaying Guild Guide.And that something is the deity's tenets, which are not defined well in the CRB.
edit:
And it's not just pharasma, many of the deities have been fleshed out in the many supplements to pathfinder.
Try all deities got fleshed out in supplements. They either weren't in the CRB to begin with, or only had a line with name/domains/alignment/favored weapon. It says clerics lose their powers if they grosely violate their deity's tenants, but then fails to explain what those tenants actually are.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
A GM in PFS shouldn't be 'out to get' the characters. The community standards talks about fostering a safe environment for everyone and supporting a diverse variety of characters. In the GM section of the Guide they even talk about how TPKs do not help the game.
There is a rule about having to give a warning for alignment infractions and stuff like that. Without first giving a clear warning to the player and a chance to change their action, the GM can not hit them with an alignment infraction or other such punishments. Failure to give warning would be grounds for the action being overturned.
That said, there is always a possibility of a few people that cause problems. There is no 'test' before someone becomes a GM. Hopefully the local VOs quickly hear of the problems and clear them up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try all deities got fleshed out in supplements. They either weren't in the CRB to begin with, or only had a line with name/domains/alignment/favored weapon. It says clerics lose their powers if they grosely violate their deity's tenants, but then fails to explain what those tenants actually are.
As to tenants, we are folk who rent out domiciles, and we don't appreciate being grossly violated.
If someone tries to raise dead as a cleric of Pharasma, it doesn't matter if it is Core Campaign or regular campaign. That player should get a clear warning explaining that Pharasma considers undead an abomination to be destroyed and that the god would not grant that spell -- pick a different spell. If they are trying to do it from a scroll, the warning is that it would be a gross violation of her religious tenants and require an atonement.I don't see what my dormitory has to do with anything, but I certainly oppose anything that would grossly violate me.
It's very simple. You can't prepare animate dead as a cleric of Pharasma... period. The restrictions of the world setting are not obviated by your not posssessing the relevant materials.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's very simple. You can't prepare animate dead as a cleric of Pharasma... period. The restrictions of the world setting are not obviated by your not posssessing the relevant materials.If someone tries to raise dead as a cleric of Pharasma, it doesn't matter if it is Core Campaign or regular campaign. That player should get a clear warning explaining that Pharasma considers undead an abomination to be destroyed and that the god would not grant that spell -- pick a different spell. If they are trying to do it from a scroll, the warning is that it would be a gross violation of her religious tenants and require an atonement.I don't see what my dormitory has to do with anything, but I certainly oppose anything that would grossly violate me.
To save time, Religious Tenant is just trying to use humor to point out that Bret meant to use the word tenet and not tenant.
|
|
To save time, Religious Tenant is just trying to use humor to point out that Bret meant to use the word tenet and not tenant.It's very simple. You can't prepare animate dead as a cleric of Pharasma... period. The restrictions of the world setting are not obviated by your not posssessing the relevant materials.If someone tries to raise dead as a cleric of Pharasma, it doesn't matter if it is Core Campaign or regular campaign. That player should get a clear warning explaining that Pharasma considers undead an abomination to be destroyed and that the god would not grant that spell -- pick a different spell. If they are trying to do it from a scroll, the warning is that it would be a gross violation of her religious tenants and require an atonement.I don't see what my dormitory has to do with anything, but I certainly oppose anything that would grossly violate me.
*Bows*
|
|
To save time, Religious Tenant is just trying to use humor to point out that Bret meant to use the word tenet and not tenant.It's very simple. You can't prepare animate dead as a cleric of Pharasma... period. The restrictions of the world setting are not obviated by your not posssessing the relevant materials.If someone tries to raise dead as a cleric of Pharasma, it doesn't matter if it is Core Campaign or regular campaign. That player should get a clear warning explaining that Pharasma considers undead an abomination to be destroyed and that the god would not grant that spell -- pick a different spell. If they are trying to do it from a scroll, the warning is that it would be a gross violation of her religious tenants and require an atonement.I don't see what my dormitory has to do with anything, but I certainly oppose anything that would grossly violate me.
My computer keeps auto correcting tenent to tenant. And when it doesn't auto correct, it helpfully informs me "tenent" is a misspelled word.
|
|
My computer keeps auto correcting tenent to tenant. And when it doesn't auto correct, it helpfully informs me "tenent" is a misspelled word.To save time, Religious Tenant is just trying to use humor to point out that Bret meant to use the word tenet and not tenant.It's very simple. You can't prepare animate dead as a cleric of Pharasma... period. The restrictions of the world setting are not obviated by your not posssessing the relevant materials.If someone tries to raise dead as a cleric of Pharasma, it doesn't matter if it is Core Campaign or regular campaign. That player should get a clear warning explaining that Pharasma considers undead an abomination to be destroyed and that the god would not grant that spell -- pick a different spell. If they are trying to do it from a scroll, the warning is that it would be a gross violation of her religious tenants and require an atonement.I don't see what my dormitory has to do with anything, but I certainly oppose anything that would grossly violate me.
That's because there's only one n in tenet.
|
|
Weird, because every time I've used spell check, that's not something that comes up. tenent. I get Tenant, Tenement, Entente, and Tent as options. Since I'm well aware that tenement, entente, and tent weren't what I'm trying for, well, you can see the conclusion being made. I know I'm a bad speller. That's why I use spell check so often. I'd dig out my dictionary, but I haven't been able to find it for years.
|
|
Ok, so, here's rhe run
Characters may only be built with the crb, but that doesn't exclude GMs from using non-CRB context. This is just like in standard. If a player in RPG only has the core rule book, the GM can add sanctions,whatever for an animating pharasmite. As I understand it, the same is true in core
Why? The rules are only about chatacter build options, not fluff. It would be true of a character in core as it is in RPG. Pharasma does not support animating dead. Either way, the GM should point this out for players (I have done this very thing )
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The death domain in the CRB is a legal choice for clerics in both campaigns. The death domain is a legal choice for clerics of Pharasma in both campaigns. There is an alternate Pharasma-friendly death domain in a blog post.
My concern is for the player in the Core Campaign who chooses to play a cleric of Pharasma and picks the death domain from the CRB, being unaware of its alternate version in that blog post.
Yes, the helpful GM can explain how Pharasma forbids the creation of undead and the consequences of doing so. Yes, the helpful GM can point the player to the Pathfinder Wiki for more details on Pharasma. Yes, the helpful GM can show them the pertinent passage in Inner Sea Gods. And if the player's character hasn't been played at 2nd level, it can be rebuilt into "compliance".
But what if this character is past the point of a free rebuild? The player followed all the rules for character creation, only to discover once it's too late that an invalid choice has been made (or rather, a valid choice that can't actually be used in game without dire consequences).
All I'm suggesting is that there be something in one of the Core Campaign's limited resources that would call out something like this and point a player to the needed information.
A player should know of and have access to all of the information needed to build a character correctly before they sit at their first table. If the only way certain information or rules are disseminated to players is via word of mouth, a GM, a third party web site or a non-legal source, there's something wrong.
And informing a player that they've made a "bad" choice once it's too late for them to change, is something best avoided.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we get a ruling that the Pharasma-friendly death domain is legal in core via the blog? Or that we can offer retrains to core players who mistakenly take this option believing that they can animate dead?
Hmm
|
So, a follow-up. Can I worship non-core deities in Core (or if I don't own the book)?
I mean, if my choice of deity is subject to setting rules and not considered a mechanic of my character (as seems to be argued above), then why am I limited to just deities in the CRB/owned books?
Obviously, I could only use the domains/subdomains that were legal/owned materials. I could only acquire deity favored weapons that were from legal/owned materials. And I'd still need to be within alignment restrictions. But if the deity is part of the setting and subject to the GM's wide knowledge of PFS, rather than a mechanic of my character, then do I really have to play CRB deities in core (or if I don't own the book the deity is from)?
Murdock, I'd rule that you can worship Banjo the Puppet in Core if you're not receiving any mechanical benefits. But if your character is a divine caster or taking any mechanical benefit at all from a religious trait, you're stuck with the core deities.
Hmm
But not necessarily the rules (or absence thereof) in core about those deities? Which non-core rules apply to those deities? Which non-core rules apply to core in general?
In my opinion, he's got a valid point: If non-core benefits don't apply to his character, why would non-core restrictions? Conversely, if benefits from non-owned books don't apply to his character, why do restrictions from non-owned books apply?
It defiantly would help to have at the very least a clarifying post on the subject matter.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Murdock, I'd rule that you can worship Banjo the Puppet in Core if you're not receiving any mechanical benefits. But if your character is a divine caster or taking any mechanical benefit at all from a religious trait, you're stuck with the core deities.
Hmm
Banjo the puppet would have to be on the list of PFS legal deities. That I'm not debating. And PFS requires players to be within one step of their deity's alignment, divine class or no.
My point is more directed at where the mechanical benefit is determined. I mean, the domains, alignment restriction, and favored weapon are all mechanics of a cleric found in the CRB.
The Core deities themselves my be in the CRB, but if players are expected to adhere to ALL the aspects of a deity, not just the ones in owned books/Core, then it seems like the Deity itself is more a setting thing, and not a mechanic of the cleric/divine class.
So then the question arises, is the deity selection a mechanical benefit of the divine class, or is it consider a fluff/setting aspect?
I mean, if this was a custom setting and I, the GM, created all the deities, then the players would select from those. I don't really think there are any balance issues created by the selection of a deity, as I think the cleric is balanced with any favored weapon, any two domains, and any required alignment. Doesn't really seem like a mechanical benefit to the player, the selection of deity, it is a setting mechanic.
But what if this character is past the point of a free rebuild? The player followed all the rules for character creation, only to discover once it's too late that an invalid choice has been made (or rather, a valid choice that can't actually be used in game without dire consequences).
It doesn't matter, since it's not an allowed PFS choice, the Judge simply tells the player to make the change to make the character compliant. Zip, Zap, Done. The rebuild rules are about elective changes, not required ones.
It doesn't matter, since it's not an allowed PFS choice, the Judge simply tells the player to make the change to make the character compliant. Zip, Zap, Done. The rebuild rules are about elective changes, not required ones.
But what if this character is past the point of a free rebuild? The player followed all the rules for character creation, only to discover once it's too late that an invalid choice has been made (or rather, a valid choice that can't actually be used in game without dire consequences).
Except in this case it's completely legal just could cause you to lose grace with your god if you do it. So you are compliant and would have to retrain (if even possible) to get a new domain.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Murdock, I'd rule that you can worship Banjo the Puppet in Core if you're not receiving any mechanical benefits. But if your character is a divine caster or taking any mechanical benefit at all from a religious trait, you're stuck with the core deities.
Hmm
But not necessarily the rules (or absence thereof) in core about those deities? Which non-core rules apply to those deities? Which non-core rules apply to core in general?
In my opinion, he's got a valid point: If non-core benefits don't apply to his character, why would non-core restrictions? Conversely, if benefits from non-owned books don't apply to his character, why do restrictions from non-owned books apply?
Non-core benefits would apply to his character, though. That Core Fighter that venerates the Empyreal Lords would get the scenario bonus on their Knowldedge(religion) check to realize the cultists are pretending to be worshipers. The Core Cleric of Pharasma also benefits from her disdain for the undead.
Players would have a pretty bad time if they transferred that cleric from Core to Standard play. The blog post should be considered available to the Core campaign.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My vote is that no, you cannot enforce setting lore outside the CRB on someone in the Core Campaign based on what the core Campaign is.
The Core Rule Book says that a cleric must follow the tenets of their god or risk losing their powers, but it fails to define those tenets. You vote is that you cannot enforce the tenets that are defined outside of the Core Rule Book. If no tenets are ever defined, how are they to be enforced? Do you support the idea that a Core player can choose any tenets they like as long as they don't violate the deity's alignment? That is a very bad idea, in my opinion.
I understand and support the desire to keep the Core campaign simple to make it an easy entry point for new players, but to say that because the Core deities are not sufficiently defined in the CRB, there are no rules governing their tenets is an error, in my opinion. While we cannot expect that new players will be familiar with the setting, I think that anyone playing a cleric should know that their character is supposed to have a code to follow based on their deity and they should research that code online or ask their GM before selecting their deity.
The world of Golarion is not defined in the Core rules, but the setting is an integral part of the campaign nonetheless and I think that we need to be consistent in they way that setting is presented whether we allow more than just the Core rules or not.
|
|
So, a follow-up. Can I worship non-core deities in Core (or if I don't own the book)?We're trying to address a problem for new players here, not find loopholes to allow more stuff into Core. Please try to stay on target.
This is my topic that I started, and the topic is not directed at new players, of whom I have not mentioned. The topic is directed at the deities and how their mechanics function in relation to the limit on players characters being unable to use selected texts due to mechanical gain or loss.
In Core, there is a limit on texts which are not of the very short specified list. There isn't really a change in topic between asking to use non-core dieities, and asking if the non-core aspects of deities apply in Core. The issue is on regarding how dieties are defined realtive to the player's mechanical gains.
In standard mode, I'm prohibited from mechanical gains for rules that I lack don't own. It is otherwise very similar to core.
The issue I'm seeing is that all the domains, alignment rules and most of the favored weapons are in fact found in the CRB, so the mechanical gain is related to rules found in a book I do own and is Core legal. The deity rules are related to the Setting, which is the Inner Sea in PFS. The Setting is still used in core, despite the setting materials being banned in Core. So why do I have to pick a Core deity in Core? And on the same point, are the Core deities regulated based on setting materials not legal for Core?
Seems like the two should logically have the same answer. Either the deities are a player mechanical benefit and all related information is limited to that player and what is legal for them to apply. OR. The deity is a setting thing, thus subject to the GM and not considered a mechancial benefit for the player and can be drawn from any source, rather than just the legal materials.
|
|
I see a few given statements and a reasonable assumption that can be made from the given statements.
GIVEN: In PFS, clerics, paladins, warpriests, and some others who draw power from divine sources, must choose a deity to worship.
GIVEN: In the CRB, clerics who worship a deity must adhere to that deity's tenets.
GIVEN: Because the CRB is not Golarion-specific, none of the deities have any of their tenets listed
GIVEN: In PFS Core, we are to default to the CRB as much as possible, but are allowed to access books like Bestiary 1 to obtain stats for things listed in the CRB but not statted out there, eg Summon Monster spells.
REASONABLE ASSUMPTION: We can use Inner Sea Gods, or the Paizo Blog, or a deity's entry in an AP, etc., to get tenets for a deity.
It seems rather straight forward, to me.
Using the Pharasma example -
ME: I wish to play a cleric of Pharasma in Core. The guide to organized play says that I must follow my deity's tenets but I do not see them listed in the CRB. I do know what the tenets are, as I have 2 years of play under my belt in Classic PFS, so I shall continue to use those tenets. I will check and see if the spell replacements listed on the blog are still Core spells and if they are, then I shall prepare those as my domain spell instead of the ones that do not fit with Pharasma's idiom.
New Player: I too wish to play a cleric of Pharasma in Core! I am confused because although the guide to organized play says I must follow my deity's tenets, there are none listed. I shall ask my friendly local VL for some further assistance in clarifying this!
VL: These are the tenets of Pharasma that I know, because I own a copy of this other book. Also, if you check out this blog post, you'll see that Pharasma has an alternate domain spell list, replacing the Undead creation spells. So long as those spells are also in Core, you can prepare them in your domain slot.
New Player: Thank you, Venture Lieutenant.
</scene>
|
|
I see a few given statements and a reasonable assumption that can be made from the given statements.
GIVEN: In PFS, clerics, paladins, warpriests, and some others who draw power from divine sources, must choose a deity to worship.
GIVEN: In the CRB, clerics who worship a deity must adhere to that deity's tenets.
GIVEN: Because the CRB is not Golarion-specific, none of the deities have any of their tenets listed
GIVEN: In PFS Core, we are to default to the CRB as much as possible, but are allowed to access books like Bestiary 1 to obtain stats for things listed in the CRB but not statted out there, eg Summon Monster spells.
REASONABLE ASSUMPTION: We can use Inner Sea Gods, or the Paizo Blog, or a deity's entry in an AP, etc., to get tenets for a deity.
It seems rather straight forward, to me.
That seems perfectly reasonable if we consider the deity to be a Setting thing and not something related to a PC's mechanical benefits. BUT, if we allow the deity to be a Setting thing, then there's no real reason to not allow any PFS legal deity selection for Core characters. If it's just a setting thing, then that's perfectly reasonable.
If the deity represents mechanical benefits, then the GM or player using outside resources to add mechanical effects to the player's character is outside the scope of PFS Core rules.
For example, if my PC wants to run a non-core deity in Core, I'm told I can't. This isn't directly addressed in the PFS guide, but the assumption is that Core deities are the only legal options because they are present in the CRB and they present mechanical benefits (and limitations).
Personally, I don't really think the Deities are a mechanical benefit, even for the divine classes. This is especially true if I don't own the book that details their feats/traits/spells, because I can't use feats/traits/spells I don't own. Same with Core, if don't have access to the feats/traits/spells that deity specific, there isn't a mechanical benefit at all.
Domain access and my legal weapon options are still limited by my selection of legal texts (owned or core). My alignment is also limited there, as only PFS aproved deities are legal in PFS.
As far as I can tell, the only reason to keep regarding deities as a mechanical benefit is if players in Core don't want those other deities allowed in play. Doesn't seem to be a balance thing. And with outside sources legal in core for deity selection, then the pharasma thing resolves itself.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. There actually is plenty of mechanical benefits between gods, namely weapon profiencies and domain choices.
I'd actually go so far as to suggest there's a mechanical benefit to not having to follow the gods' codes: you don't have a chance of getting your powers ripped away.
There's no way the intent of Core PFS was to cut off the flavor of each of the available gods.
If you show up at a table with a cleric of Pharasma and start casting Animate Dead silly-nilly, expect the god-ban-hammer to slam down pretty quickly.
To me, your proposal of a Core Pharasmin using Animate Dead (after being told that she'd lose her powers for it) only indicates that you're trying to get the "cool" domains without having to pay the flavor-cost.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the deity represents mechanical benefits, then the GM or player using outside resources to add mechanical effects to the player's character is outside the scope of PFS Core rules.
Except we are given a small amount of leeway in access to use sources beyond the CRB, so long as we are ONLY using them to bolster information from the CRB. Again, an example is the Summon Monster spell. We are allowed to use stats from Bestiary 1 for the list of monsters in the CRB, because the CRB gives us a defined list of creatures. We are NOT allowed to add creatures from Bestiary 4, or Monster Summoner's Handbook, or anything else, because we have a specific list to work off of in the CRB. Similarly, we can use the tenets of faith we find in ISG, the Paizo Blog, certain APs, etc. but only for the deities explicitly listed in the CRB.
And yes, this may be a setting thing, but the setting is a part of the mechanics. The certain mechanics of the cleric class are dependent on the setting, and the deities are part of that. Because we are given a list of deities in the CRB, that is the list that must be used if you want to gain some sort of divine mechanical benefit.
Now, if you just want to be a fighter in Core, and you have no religion traits, and no feat or anything that draws power from the Divine, and you want to say that you worship The Lantern King, or Feronia, or Ragathiel, or Lymneris, or Banjo the Puppet, or the Socks you Wore Last Sunday, it doesn't matter. At that point, it is just fluff, and you can fluff your heart out. But the second you want to draw some mechanical benefit, that deity has to be in the CRB. If you need information (not feats. not spells. Information) on your deity, then you can use ISG, or ISF, or one of the other allowed resources to supplement the information in the CRB.
|
|
To me, your proposal of a Core Pharasmin using Animate Dead (after being told that she'd lose her powers for it) only indicates that you're trying to get the "cool" domains without having to pay the flavor-cost.
First, the GM has no right to say the cleric can't use domain powers granted by their deity. That's obvious. That's deliberately ignoring RAW to impose personal beliefs on how the game should function. RAW, the death domain is granted to a cleric of pharasma by their deity for the purpose of using the spells.
I also don't like being accused of trying for angles I'm not. No, I'm not trying to make undead raising cleric of pharasma. That was an example, and remains an example as mentioned many times. It is a good example because it illustraites the CRB's rules vs the rules to the setting that have been added later.
I actually noticed the issue when trying to create a normal cleric of Pharasma in core and noting how many spells I couldn't use as a legit follower of pharasma. Then I saw the blog post, which I can't really use in core as written. So in terms of trying to work the system, granting clerics of pharasma the modified death domain is actually working the system, since it gives them extra spells they can use to replace spells they can't use in good faith.
As for trying to get the "cool" domains, the cleric class as written is balanced so the cleric can pick any 2 domains without a deity. They can pick a deity, and gain a favored weapon, but they don't have to. Pharasma's favored weapon is the dagger, which clerics are already profiecent in, so that's not the issue here. PFS is the one imposing the deity requirement on a normally balanced class. Adding futher penalties to using the class as writtens seems excessive.
As for trying to get the "cool" domains, the cleric class as written is balanced so the cleric can pick any 2 domains without a deity. They can pick a deity, and gain a favored weapon, but they don't have to.
For PFS, because it uses the Golarion setting, it's not an option, you HAVE to pick a patron from the legal list in Additional Resources which IS allowed in the Core Campaign.
|
|
First, the GM has no right to say the cleric can't use domain powers granted by their deity. That's obvious.
Obviously wrong.
That's deliberately ignoring RAW to impose personal beliefs on how the game should function.
Multple times times it is stated in the core rulebook and the guide to organized play that deities have expectations and codes of conduct for their followers.
RAW, the death domain is granted to a cleric of pharasma by their deity for the purpose of using the spells.
Huh. if only there was a Pharasma friendly death domain to deal with that obvious discrepency.
I also don't like being accused of trying for angles I'm not.
Look, you say the sky is falling on one corner case, maybe it was a problem and something happened.
Four, five, six, seven.. HOW many of these topics have you brought up and advanced as though someone's real life rights were being violated.
As for trying to get the "cool" domains, the cleric class as written is balanced so the cleric can pick any 2 domains without a deity. They can pick a deity, and gain a favored weapon, but they don't have to.
This is not how PFS works and PFS was explicit that that's not how it works in the gude.
Characters with any number of levels in any of these
classes must select a deity.
PFS is the one imposing the deity requirement on a normally balanced class. Adding futher penalties to using the class as writtens seems excessive.
Because it fits the campaign world. Just like not raising armies of the dead fits Pharasma in the campaign world, that people are a part of.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Murdock, I was going to send you a PM, but I cannot.
I don't think that anyone enjoys being accused of seeking an angle. I'm sorry that you have been accused of this not once, but multiple times. On the other hand, I also understand why others think that you might be. You've explored so many extreme and edge cases that a pattern has emerged. It's fascinating. You find questions that I never considered and raise them. But while some of these questions are intellectually stimulating, they are also exhausting, in part because their tone is less exploratory than alarmist. Even I'm not sure whether you're driven to this by a need for clarity or a desire for debate. Someday, maybe the two of us will meet over tea, laugh about this, and you can tell me.
PFS has a lot of rules, but there is also room within those rules for GM discretion. I for one would rather some of the rules remain fluid as a GM rather than having every edge case explored on these boards. The more we do this, the more we push campaign management to lay down further rules to tie things down. Bad rules should be clarified. Grey areas though should, in my opinion, be worked out between the GM and the players. Do we need to push on these questions, over and over? Can some grey areas be allowed to remain grey?
I sincerely hope so.
____
Back to the topic at hand:
Part of the reason PFS works is that it's very faithful to its world. Golarian is a delight to play in. Yes, the PFS rules are a great big wonky and confusing mess at times. But they are the rules that we all implicitly agree to when we join the society.
For non-setting rules, you can lobby politely to have them changed. I did so, and succeeded in opening up quests to non-pregen characters. For setting specific rules, it can be a lot harder.
However, I find that the privilege of being in Organized Play -- the people, the stories, the variety of setting -- far outweigh the nuisance of dealing with the few rules that I dislike.
I hope that you find it so too.
Yours,
Hmm
|
|
@HMM. Thanks for that. Yeah, not sure why I can't message people in this. Doesn't show up as an option, never has. I've only infered that others can send messages, so nice to see confirmation of what I've suspected.
You are correct, I do like certainty in a game like this. And tea would be fun. As for debating, yeah, I do tend to do it, but I'm not sure enjoy is the right word. I don't hate it, and I can enjoy it when others enjoy it. More so, I like to understand things, even if I'm wrong. I don't mind being wrong, but I like the reason I'm wrong to make sense. I have found that in forums, one should always debate strongly against the majority, as the majority will not fully define their response unless they need it. Often the majority will just assume that the majority is correct, and not actually verify. Yeah, it can be exhausting, but has proven the only reliable means of gaining the knowledge I seek. Plus, if I'm wrong, I can just take your arguements and use them as my own when it comes up in play. That is the point of the forum - resolve the rules here so we don't have to resolve them during play.
As for the topic at hand, I looked up the PFS FAQ on the matter because of something else that someone else posted. There is a list of PFS legal deities according to the FAQ. It does not give exception for Core. It does include the blog post. So, as written, I think I can pick any deity on that list for Core and the Pharasma clerics in Core use the blog. That is, unless you can't use the FAQ in Core....
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Murdock --
Go to your account page. Go to the privacy settings. Click the box that allows other members to message you, and you'll be able to send messages as well. I believe that the FAQ is one of the CORE assumptions, since it lays down so many of the rules for PFS.
Hmm
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Murdock --
Go to your account page. Go to the privacy settings. Click the box that allows other members to message you, and you'll be able to send messages as well. I believe that the FAQ is one of the CORE assumptions, since it lays down so many of the rules for PFS.
Hmm
Ah, that's what that one means. I've been thinking that "contacted by paizo.com" meant that they'd send me email spam. Think I fixed it.
Speaking of misunderstanding, for the longest time, I've been thinking you were lost in thought at the end of your posts, since you end them with
hmm....
dots are mine, but that's how I was reading it. Only, maybe 6 hours ago, did it occur to me that it was initials. Very humorous.
|
My vote is that no, you cannot enforce setting lore outside the CRB on someone in the Core Campaign based on what the core Campaign is.
That would mean that you couldn't run the scenario, since the actions of the NPCs are largely based on the setting lore. There's lots of non-Core stuff in scenarios.
Try all deities got fleshed out in supplements. They either weren't in the CRB to begin with, or only had a line with name/domains/alignment/favored weapon. It says clerics lose their powers if they grosely violate their deity's tenants, but then fails to explain what those tenants actually are.No, the conversation is about breaking campaign story conventions because something wasn't mentioned in CRB or the Roleplaying Guild Guide.And that something is the deity's tenets, which are not defined well in the CRB.
edit:
And it's not just pharasma, many of the deities have been fleshed out in the many supplements to pathfinder.
Why use "all" as long as you get my point.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
Speaking of misunderstanding, for the longest time, I've been thinking you were lost in thought at the end of your posts, since you end them withhmm....dots are mine, but that's how I was reading it. Only, maybe 6 hours ago, did it occur to me that it was initials. Very humorous.
It also stands for "Helpful Minnesota Maven."
Hmm