|
And, as I have stated in a few other places...
Pathfinder OrgPlay GMs are human beings. They can't just be replaced by an iPad with a text-to-speech program and a die roller to run modules.
As human beings, they are going to make judgement calls. That judgement call can also include a consensus of the other players as to whether or not to allow a give player (or a given character) to play. They're allowed to boot players for being disruptive.
The argument that a Paladin of Pharasma is the start of an inclined plane with a fictional coefficient of zero leading to Inquisitor-Synthesist Summoner-Hellknights who Dimension Door-Spring Attack-Vital Strike with Bane and one-shot-kill any BBEG invented...doesn't really hold for me.
I differentiate strongly between "background inconsistency" and "breaks the balance of the game." I would far rather have Paladins of Asmodeus in PFS than see Dumas Sacco-Hammurz VII played by someone who sleeps until the GM says "Roll for Initiative."
I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with an individual GM saying "Sorry, not going to do it, because I don't want to have to explain it to my VO. What else have you got in tier?" I always present this as "I've got character X, Y and Z in tier; I'd like to play character X. The character is a minor background violation, but is mechanically identical to most other characters of her class and level. If you don't want her at the table, I'll play Y or Z."
And I have had zero problems with this approach. I've had two GMs say "Please play Y or Z, I'm sure X is fun and would be awesome, but, well, don't want to have to explain if someone complains." I've had one table where the GM was fine with it, but one of the other players (who also PFS GMs) was trying to bite his tongue to avoid saying "No, you shouldn't...", whom I then said, "If this bothers anyone at the table - including YOU - I'd rather play a different character than cause conflict."
So, I've played her to most of the way to 6th level and had 3 tables where I played an alternate instead. For my other characters who didn't get a gray area of background lit up and closed off to them, I've had a similar ratio - about one time in five or six, due to party makeup or balance issues, or the fact that the entire table had characters whose names were obvious pop culture riffs, I changed from the character I'd like to play to a character that works better for the overall group of players.
In other words, in return for not being called a horrible bad-wrong-person for merely asking, I'm willing to be reasonable in accomodating whom I play to match a given group.
I DO have a problem with someone ELSE categorically making that decision for the GM in advance with no exceptions, or having that overrule a table-consensus.
I'm in this for the experience, not the experience points.
|
First off, at no point have I called you a "Horrible bad-wrong-person", nor have I seen anyone in this thread do so either.
What you are being called on is the fact that you're actively asking GM's to let you bend/break the rules of Organized Play. If it were up to GM discretion, I'd walk around and ask my table GM's if it's cool if I play an evil character.
"Hey, I know it's against Organized Play rules to play an Evil character, but is it cool if I disregard those rules to make things more fun and entertaining?"
|
|
In the other thread, Andrew Christian (Minnesota VO) said he'd resent my asking with a knowingly "illegal" character, that doing so is putting the GM in a bad place, and is selfish. That is actually pretty easy to read as "yeah, bad-wrong-person." And he'd be tempted to not seat me at all for merely asking.
As this thread has progressed, it's becoming clear that Paladins have to follow one of the Seven Gods of Goodness (Torag, Iomedae, Shelyn, Abadar, Irori, Erastil, Sarenrae) in PFS play. This saddens me a little bit. It's not quite carven in granite yet, but it probably will be if Mike and Mark read this thread.
Your Evil Character example:
If you can find a table with a GM and everyone else at the table saying "I don't care/don't mind..." I'd have no problem with you playing an evil character in PFS, provided you abided by the "Don't be a griefer" social contract. I would object strongly if you were denied a chronicle sheet for your play under those circumstances. You came in, you made sure everyone else was OK with the plan, you completed the mission, everyone had fun. You should get the chronicle.
I suspect you won't get many opportunities to play the character outside of your local store play group or an online PFS game that's pretty experimental.
To me, rule zero of OrgPlay is this:
"Did everyone at the table have fun? Are they excited about the game, and looking forward to playing together in the future?"
|
|
In the other thread, Andrew Christian (Minnesota VO) said he'd resent my asking with a knowingly "illegal" character, that doing so is putting the GM in a bad place, and is selfish. That is actually pretty easy to read as "yeah, bad-wrong-person." And he'd be tempted to not seat me at all for merely asking.
As this thread has progressed, it's becoming clear that Paladins have to follow one of the Seven Gods of Goodness (Torag, Iomedae, Shelyn, Abadar, Irori, Erastil, Sarenrae) in PFS play. This saddens me a little bit. It's not quite carven in granite yet, but it probably will be if Mike and Mark read this thread.
Your Evil Character example:
If you can find a table with a GM and everyone else at the table saying "I don't care/don't mind..." I'd have no problem with you playing an evil character in PFS, provided you abided by the "Don't be a griefer" social contract. I would object strongly if you were denied a chronicle sheet for your play under those circumstances. You came in, you made sure everyone else was OK with the plan, you completed the mission, everyone had fun. You should get the chronicle.
I suspect you won't get many opportunities to play the character outside of your local store play group or an online PFS game that's pretty experimental.
To me, rule zero of OrgPlay is this:
"Did everyone at the table have fun? Are they excited about the game, and looking forward to playing together in the future?"
Considering the fact that I do play fairly frequently with VO's, just asking if you can play an illegal character more than once is enough to get you talked to and asked to stop doing it because you're asking to break the rules.
Also, the very fact that you'd let me play an evil character despite the express rules in the organized play guide strictly prohibiting it honestly concerns me. Yes, the idea behind organized play is to have fun, but not at expense of throwing inconvenient rules out the window.
Also, what Andrew was saying in the other thread was not, "If you ask I'll boot you out," it was, "You're asking a VO to knowingly and willfully break the rules that they're required to follow just so you can play your illegal character. That'd make me seriously uncomfortable." At least, that's what I got out of it.
The fact of the matter, is that if you want to play by different rules, you need to find a game that accommodates that. Organized Play rules are not subject to ignoring them for convenience or fun. The rules have to be followed everywhere, regardless of whether or not you like it, because that's how Organized Play works.
|
And, as I have stated in a few other places...
Pathfinder OrgPlay GMs are human beings. They can't just be replaced by an iPad with a text-to-speech program and a die roller to run modules.
As human beings, they are going to make judgement calls.
Sorry, I don't like to flat out say that someone is wrong. But this is a time that you are.
The human excuse only works for mistakes.
If they allow you to play that character at their table, it would be a mistake.
I could forgive them that, as being human allows that leeway (mistakes).
But it is hugely selfish of you to even bring that concept to a table and continuously ask people to cheat for you.
That's what you are doing. I don't care if you like that or not.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, what Andrew was saying in the other thread was not, "If you ask I'll boot you out," it was, "You're asking a VO to knowingly and willfully break the rules that they're required to follow just so you can play your illegal character. That'd make me seriously uncomfortable." At least, that's what I got out of it.
That's pretty much the brass tacks.
One thing to add.
I'm not saying that anyone's character concept is badwrongfun.
Personally, in a home campaign, I'm sure I could be talked into allowing a Paladin of Pharasma. We'd come to some sort of an agreement on how that would work within the context of the home campaign.
In PFS, part of my job as a V-L is to follow the rules as set forth by the campaign management, and to help to make sure the rules are adhered to in the region I cover.
Asking me to risk my position as V-L for a bit of self-indulgent roleplay is what I'm saying is inappropriate.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I am seeing some terms thrown around that I feel don't fit right...
Specifically Rules and ruining Fun..
Rules do not Ruining Fun, neither the Game rules or the PFS rules.
Specifically the PFS rules are not there to ruin anyone's fun, they are there to guide us in our shared world, which happens to be Golarion.
Now there are certain truths or certain guidance for that world we are all supposed to work with to have that shared world experience, those are described in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting and Pathfinder Player Companion books mostly. And as players that are all part of this shared world we are expected to follow that guidance.
If you come up with a concept that happens to not fit in the shared world we play in, it does not mean the rules are ruining your fun, it just means you need to adjust that concept or make a new one that you can have fun with within our shared world.
We are roleplayers which also means we have no lack of imagination, we should not be discouraged because one concept does not fit in the PFS shared world, we should just continue to use our vast imaginations to make one that does fit and we can all have fun with.
|
|
So I am seeing some terms thrown around that I feel don't fit right...
Specifically Rules and ruining Fun..
Rules do not Ruining Fun, neither the Game rules or the PFS rules.
Specifically the PFS rules are not there to ruin anyone's fun, they are there to guide us in our shared world, which happens to be Golarion.
Now there are certain truths or certain guidance for that world we are all supposed to work with to have that shared world experience, those are described in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting and Pathfinder Player Companion books mostly. And as players that are all part of this shared world we are expected to follow that guidance.
If you come up with a concept that happens to not fit in the shared world we play in, it does not mean the rules are ruining your fun, it just means you need to adjust that concept or make a new one that you can have fun with within our shared world.
We are roleplayers which also means we have no lack of imagination, we should not be discouraged because one concept does not fit in the PFS shared world, we should just continue to use our vast imaginations to make one that does fit and we can all have fun with.
I hate to agree with Dragnmoon for any reason...
But there you have it.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ok, here’s the part as I see it.
Characters can elect to worship any deity listed in a table of gods in the Core Rulebook, The Inner Sea World Guide, Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Gods and Magic, or any other source listed as an official Additional Resource.
This sentence makes sense, and doesn’t/isn’t contradicted by anything. It allows a drunken master monk to worship Cayden, no problem, full stop.
Characters may elect to worship an evil god, but must always be within one alignment step of their chosen deity.
This is the troublesome sentence. Note that the “but must always be” clause modifies the first part of the sentence. It is a grammatical stretch to say that it modifies a completely separate sentence.
For clerics, this is an especially important choice, since the deity’s alignment determines whether the cleric channels positive or negative energy, a decision with significant tactical implications for the cleric and her allies.
This sentence also does not seem connected to the evil deities comment. Nor does it need to. Since the core assumption already states.
Alignment: A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of her deity’s, along either the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis (see Chapter 7).
Alignment: An inquisitor’s alignment must be within one step of her deity’s, along either the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis.
So basic English shows that a) Clerics and Inquisitors are tied to the alignment of their deities. And b) for Pathfinder Society, characters worshipping evil deities have to be within one step. (no CG worshippers of Asmodaeus). Since Pharasma is a Neutral Deity, there are no restrictions on a Paladin worshipping her. (Paladins of Asmodaeus are right out, due to the one step rule)
But wait! James Jacobs says that only certain deities have Paladins! I’m more than happy to concede this point, since it boosts my own.
The article on Norberger (Price of Infamy) says that good and neutral alchemists, executioners, mercenaries, soldiers, thieves, and politicians (but I repeat myself) usually don’t worship Norberger. Emphasis intended. So I’ll see your James Jacobs and raise you a Sean Reynolds. (and published content vs message boards.)
So... in conclusion, non divine powered characters can worship whomever they want (or no one). If they worship evil gods, as an exception for PFS, they have to be within one step of the god’s alignment. Paladins are limited to the faiths that have Paladin codes. Clerics and Inquisitors still have to follow the ‘one step’ rule called out in their class descriptions.
Unless someone can specifically point to Mike/Mark saying my interpretation is wrong, I don’t see it is.
|
|
I tend to agree with Matthew Morris' interpretation, since that is closer to RAW, where only Clerics and Inquisitors are bound by their deity's alignment, and alignment is fluff for basically everyone else.
If the alternate interpretation is in fact correct, my question becomes why is this rule necessary in PFS? Is it a Golarion fluff thing that everyone everywhere is bound to their deity's alignment, or is there some other reason to make a special restriction for PFS?
|
|
My biggest issue with the interpretation that only Clerics, Inquisitors, and characters that worship evil deities must be within one step is that if you choose a deity as a patron, you are committing to that deity's ideals on a certain level.
I believe, that to gain the benefits of worshiping that deity (god granted powers/feats/traits/items with special abilities for having that patron/etc), you should have to be within one step of that deity to be able to get those benefits. A lawful neutral monk, even if they are a drunken master, should not be able to take advantage of all the benefits of a chaotic good deity of freedom and liberation. A lawful character follows and works within the laws of an area even if they are oppressive, while a follower of said god would aim to overthrow those same laws in the name of freedom.
Yes, Cayden is the "drunken hero" god, but his chaotic ways should not appeal to one who holds to the laws and traditions required of being a monk. Yes, they may like the drunken aspects of him, but the difference between law and chaos is as night and day as good and evil.
.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
My biggest issue with the interpretation that only Clerics, Inquisitors, and characters that worship evil deities must be within one step is that if you choose a deity as a patron, you are committing to that deity's ideals on a certain level.
I believe, that to gain the benefits of worshiping that deity (god granted powers/feats/traits/items with special abilities for having that patron/etc), you should have to be within one step of that deity to be able to get those benefits. A lawful neutral monk, even if they are a drunken master, should not be able to take advantage of all the benefits of a chaotic good deity of freedom and liberation. A lawful character follows and works within the laws of an area even if they are oppressive, while a follower of said god would aim to overthrow those same laws in the name of freedom.
Yes, Cayden is the "drunken hero" god, but his chaotic ways should not appeal to one who holds to the laws and traditions required of being a monk. Yes, they may like the drunken aspects of him, but the difference between law and chaos is as night and day as good and evil.
I understand, but it's also canon that some good and neutral alchemists worship Norberger.
There's a difference between worshiping and getting power from directly IMHO.
|
|
Functionally if you diety does not provide you any benefits for worship you are not supposed to have them on your character sheet, you can respect their tenets, you can even say that you do worship them but when it comes down to it you are actually not a core worshipper of the diety and thus certain things dont function for you.
I would dispute this. There are items (such as the Dawnflower Sash from Gods & Magic) that give worshippers of a given deity special abilities, and do not require that those worshippers be any particular class. I would say that to gain those abilities, you have to have that deity noted as your patron, and you have to follow the "one step" rule.
Venture-Captain, Oregon—Portland
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest issue with the interpretation that only Clerics, Inquisitors, and characters that worship evil deities must be within one step is that if you choose a deity as a patron, you are committing to that deity's ideals on a certain level.
I believe, that to gain the benefits of worshiping that deity (god granted powers/feats/traits/items with special abilities for having that patron/etc), you should have to be within one step of that deity to be able to get those benefits. A lawful neutral monk, even if they are a drunken master, should not be able to take advantage of all the benefits of a chaotic good deity of freedom and liberation. A lawful character follows and works within the laws of an area even if they are oppressive, while a follower of said god would aim to overthrow those same laws in the name of freedom.
Yes, Cayden is the "drunken hero" god, but his chaotic ways should not appeal to one who holds to the laws and traditions required of being a monk. Yes, they may like the drunken aspects of him, but the difference between law and chaos is as night and day as good and evil.
So you're saying if you're lawful, you have to obey ALL laws of an area, regardless of what you think of them? A LG Andoran, adventuring in Cheliax, would NEVER free slaves there illegally because slavery is legal in Cheliax, thus "Sorry guys, I'm lawful, I can't break these chains to free you because the law in Cheliax says you're a slave, and I can't afford to buy you legally."
Back on topic, unofficially and during the course of gaming my characters will worship who I feel they want to. My characters will swear by their god, go to worship, etc. Officially, as far as record keeping goes and to keep my characters legal, deity will be left blank.
If the PFS leadership wants to keep deity-specific abilities out of the hands of the masses as far as alignment goes, that's their call. I'll live by it and play within their rules. Do I agree? No, and it's definitely not the only thing I disagree with. Will I abide by it and play by their rules? Yes, it's not worth it to do otherwise.
|
I'd really like to see an official ruling from Mike Brock or someone on this stuff.
Related question: can someone be a "worshiper" (by whatever definition) of more than one deity?
I have a bard who is a freed former slave, primarily an archer in combat, and primarily a storyteller as a performer. He has a lot of respect for most of the good and neutral gods, and they often play a role in the stories he tells as an entertainer.
But beyond that, he's actually fairly religious, and he gives thanks every day to Erastil for his archery skill, Shelyn for his performance ability, Cayden Cailean for his freedom, and Nethys for his bardic magic. And because my bard is NG, he actually is within one alignment step of all four of these gods, despite the fact that they have four different alignments.
My bard gets no mechanical benefit from his worship. I haven't seen any deity specific spells or items from any of those deities that I'd want for that character, though I haven't really looked for that stuff for him, either.
Should I list all four of them on my character sheet in the space for "deity", or just include them in his back story as fluff? If I do find a deity specific spell or item that I'd want him to have that's tied to one of these four gods, could he use it? What if there's more than one, from two different of these gods?
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I'd really like to see an official ruling from Mike Brock or someone on this stuff.
Related question: can someone be a "worshiper" (by whatever definition) of more than one deity?
I think the definition is fundamental to the answer. A worshiper who shows due respect, and even makes the appropriate offerings, would be one thing, especially if the deities in question have clearly-defined and non-overlapping (and non-competing) areas of operation.
It's when there are mechanical benefits (and in particular divinely granted abilities or powers) that it starts getting complicated. For the sake of simplicity I think it's reasonable to impose limitations there.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really like to see an official ruling from Mike Brock or someone on this stuff.
Related question: can someone be a "worshiper" (by whatever definition) of more than one deity?
Well, Historically this has always been the case. During ancient times the egyptians, romans, greeks, etc worshipped multiple gods sometimes they would say a prayer or blessing to appease gods who in their eyes were 'evil' I dont think it made the people evil - they just were appeasing a wrathful god. Others gave lip service to appease the local rulers who may not have worshipped local gods.
The same can be said of a fantasy world - a midwife offering the blessing of pharasma to a couple expecting the birth of their child would be considered such. Even if the midwife worshipped one of the empyreal lords.
I am sure lay people in Golarion have the same mannerisms. " Oh by Gorum, I do hope our soldiers find and kill the goblins and if not may Gozreh swallow them into the sea."
|
|
So you're saying if you're lawful, you have to obey ALL laws of an area, regardless of what you think of them? A LG Andoran, adventuring in Cheliax, would NEVER free slaves there illegally because slavery is legal in Cheliax, thus "Sorry guys, I'm lawful, I can't break these chains to free you because the law in Cheliax says you're a slave, and I can't afford to buy you legally."
Back on topic, unofficially and during the course of gaming my characters will worship who I feel they want to. My characters will swear by their god, go to worship, etc. Officially, as far as record keeping goes and to keep my characters legal, deity will be left blank.
If the PFS leadership wants to keep deity-specific abilities out of the hands of the masses as far as alignment goes, that's their call. I'll live by it and play within their rules. Do I agree? No, and it's definitely not the only thing I disagree with. Will I abide by it and play by their rules? Yes, it's not worth it to do otherwise.
Oh, definitely. A lawful character would NEVER try to find some legal loophole to get these slaves freed or at least under their "ownership" rather than just giving up because slavery is legal. They'd NEVER try to haggle with the slavers, or try to catch them doing something illegal to invalidate their ability to sell said slaves, because the ONLY options available to any character is to give up and deal with the laws or blatantly break the laws. There's never an in-between option. Ever.
[/sarcasm]
Seriously though, any Andoran in Cheliax, Lawful Good or no, would have issues with the way the place operates. A Lawful character, however, would be more likely to try to push the laws, get the laws changed, use loopholes, etc, while a chaotic, or even a neutral, character wouldn't necessarily have issues breaking the law so long as they didn't get caught.
I'm not saying Lawful characters would never break the law, just as I'm not saying Chaotic ones always do. I'm just saying that on that axis, they are more inclined toward Law or Chaos.
Then again, I guess my interpretation of Law vs Chaos is just that. My interpretation. So, warning to players at my tables, I expect Lawful characters to generally act Lawful. If you don't, I might point out that perhaps a Neutral alignment might be more suited to your playstyle for this character.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The same can be said of a fantasy world - a midwife offering the blessing of pharasma to a couple expecting the birth of their child would be considered such. Even if the midwife worshipped one of the empyreal lords.
As well as the evil gods. A "Not in the face! Not in the face!" prayer to an evil god isn't out of the question.