Venture-Agent, Virginia—Alexandria
|
| 14 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Dear campaign leadership,
Is Lissala legal, or can you please make her legal?
I know that this has been covered by a lot of people who spend a lot of time on the forums and they have come to a consensus. However, I have not seen leadership yet step in and say yay or nay one way or the other. Further muddling this is the fact that there is a blog post that specifically states that you can use the blog post as legality, however, without a source book listing her as valid...
Please, will someone give us a simple yes or no. With all the activity of worshippers of Lissala that are rumored to be abounding, I'd really like to play a character who worships her.
In all things, I obey.
Venture-Captain, Alabama—Birmingham
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The only thing that the blog makes legal is the subdomains for otherwise legal deities.
It is not likely that she will be made legal at any point in the future, since
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Dragnmoon is not campaign leadership.
Lissala appears in a blog that is listed in Additional Resources as legal for PFS.
Unless clarified otherwise, Lissala is legal.
EDIT: I apologize for publicly contradicting another venture officer, but PFS campaign leadership has not publicly commented on this issue with an answer one way or the other. Until such time, we are left with GM interpretation of whether everything in this blog is legal for PFS or just the sub-domains. It is my belief that if Lissala has legal sub-domains for PFS then the deity must also be legal.
It may be a little awkward, however.
-j
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
but PFS campaign leadership has not publicly commented on this issue with an answer one way or the other.
I very much doubt Mike Brock would have added Dragnmoon's thread to the main list of message board clarifications if it had significant omissions, especially as up to the point of Mike's post, no-one had stated the view that those blogs could be read in such a way as to construe that Lissala was a legal deity choice.
Anyway, how can you choose Lissala as a deity when you don't know what alignment he/she/it is? That information isn't sanctioned.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Lissala is LE according to page 235 of the Inner Sea World Guide and while she may not be available in Additional Resources under that book directly, she is listed in a blog that is listed as legal for PFS.
One of my players has an Oracle that worships Lissala. I communicated privately with Mike Brock and Mark Moreland about this several months ago to make sure it was legal. I was not led to believe that the player must alter their character. Of course, it is possible that I misunderstood what was said.
But as I currently understand it, Lissala is still a legal option via this blog.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Lissala is LE according to page 235 of the Inner Sea World Guide and while she may not be available in Additional Resources under that book directly, she is listed in a blog that is listed as legal for PFS.
So it makes sense to you that the Blog makes her legal but the inner sea world guide does not when that is actualy where you have to go to use Lisalla as a Deity?
You Can't Say the Blog makes Her Legal then Direct her to the Source to use her which says she is not Legal.
|
|
This is the only comment I can find from Paizo staff that directly discusses this matter.
Read further down the thread. I point out the blog and there is no further comment publicly from campaign leadership about it one way or the other.
Personally, I think it would be easier if Lissala was not a legal deity for PFS player characters, but based on the information I have, I'm not going to tell players they can not worship Lissala.
|
|
Dear campaign leadership,
Is Lissala legal, or can you please make her legal?
I know that this has been covered by a lot of people who spend a lot of time on the forums and they have come to a consensus. However, I have not seen leadership yet step in and say yay or nay one way or the other. Further muddling this is the fact that there is a blog post that specifically states that you can use the blog post as legality, however, without a source book listing her as valid...
Please, will someone give us a simple yes or no. With all the activity of worshippers of Lissala that are rumored to be abounding, I'd really like to play a character who worships her.
In all things, I obey.
What is your character concept Czrenobog? Maybe if Mike sees your reasoning for playing the deity, it might influence his decision. Please include spoiler tags if it includes details for any scenarios.
|
|
... but I agree that Mike's stickying of Dragnmoon's post counts as officially agreeing with it.
Just to be clear, are you saying that you feel Mike's stickying of Dragnmoon's post means he agrees with the list at the beginning of that thread - that it, that Lissala is not a legal choice of deity?
No offense intended, I'm just trying to unravel your meaning. I read it as "I think Don is correct, but Mike seems to hold with Dragnmoon's view." Is that what you meant?
|
|
... but I agree that Mike's stickying of Dragnmoon's post counts as officially agreeing with it.Just to be clear, are you saying that you feel Mike's stickying of Dragnmoon's post means he agrees with the list at the beginning of that thread - that it, that Lissala is not a legal choice of deity?
No offense intended, I'm just trying to unravel your meaning. I read it as "I think Don is correct, but Mike seems to hold with Dragnmoon's view." Is that what you meant?
I read it as Patrick agrees with me and that my interpretation is official because Mike posted Dragnmoon's post to the clarification thread.
Which can't be what Patrick meant.
I still hold that the issue of Lissala was not considered when Mike added Dragnmoon's post to the clarification thread and that Lissala and the blog she is listed in needs further clarification.
|
|
If they decide that they will allow the Blog to be a legal source of Gods, they will need change Additional Resources to authorize them in their source books.
The Blog does not give enough information as a single source to use the deities, and the sources you can get the information from don't list the deities as Legal.
|
|
I'm definitely going to go with Dragnmoon here. I know that there's probably no chance of persuading people who disagree, but I'll sum it up, thus:
1) Lissala has been called out by Mark as NOT LEGAL. He's even asked players to point out where it says it's legal, so he can excise it.
2) The Blog is legal, yes. The blog gives subdomains for deities, IF YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THAT DIETY.
Here's the converse of what you're arguing. If the Blog made everything therein legal...then does it make it it so you do not need the additional resource of a non-CRB god? Of course not.
Most likely, it was simply an oversight that they didn't say "except Lissala" in the additional resources.
|
|
... but I agree that Mike's stickying of Dragnmoon's post counts as officially agreeing with it.Just to be clear, are you saying that you feel Mike's stickying of Dragnmoon's post means he agrees with the list at the beginning of that thread - that it, that Lissala is not a legal choice of deity?
No offense intended, I'm just trying to unravel your meaning. I read it as "I think Don is correct, but Mike seems to hold with Dragnmoon's view." Is that what you meant?
Sorry, yes. Just woke up when I posted that.
Personally, I think Don has the right of it. But Mike clearly agrees with Dragnmoon's list, which is the important part.
|
|
As I've said previously, I'm on the same side of this as Dragnmoon (and Nani.) However this:
I still hold that the issue of Lissala was not considered when Mike added Dragnmoon's post to the clarification thread and that Lissala and the blog she is listed in needs further clarification.
is absolutely true in my book as well. While for the moment we have an older post from Mark that says No to Lissalan characters, and that's what I'm sticking with, a clarification would not go amiss. Hence:
CLICK FAQ ON THE FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD. ;)
|
|
I'm sorry, but just because a blog post, which has been made legal for PFS, has a list of deities, does not mean those deities are legal.
The blog post is on a completely different topic. It only lists what sub-domains which deities can have. And to top it off, the blog post is not a PFS specific blog post.
You still need access to the deity, to be able to access the blog post.
Since Lissala has no other legal source, then the blog post cannot be used to say she's legal. All it says is what subdomains she gets if you have access to her.
|
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Alexandria
|
As to concept, I have a fetchling boon that I've been kicking around with what to do. I finally figured it was time to blow the dust off of it and make a character.
I want to make a cleric of Lissala based on the fact that Pathfinder society has definitely roused the attention of Lissala. Her worshipers have seen individuals sent to infiltrate their cult. Lissala sees an organization of fanatical heretics who kick down the doors of innocents, slaughtering without discrimination and then claim they are simply following orders. They are obedient, willing and often times take orders that even contravene what their own gods preach. This fanatical devotion is exactly what she is looking for.
So she sends a priest of hers to scourge the impure, to whip them onto greater tasks all for the glory of the Grand Lodge. It goes neither against her tenants, in fact creating a "friendly" face to act as her representation, able to claim that the other cults are in fact false devotees, nor does it go against the societies mission statement.
The reason I created this post though is exactly what we see above, people have and are playing worshipers if not clerics of hers. We have Venture Officers arguing. I'd just like clarification before I scrap this concept and move on or create her.
In this and all things, I obey.
|
I'm sorry, but just because a blog post, which has been made legal for PFS, has a list of deities, does not mean those deities are legal.
This is how I read it as well. The blog specifically says it is a list of all named deities from the inner sea world guide, common sense would dictate that you would have to check the available deities in inner sea world guide to see if they are valid. Especially since the additional resources page on blogs also says "Please note that this applies to the context of the blog post only" the context of the blog post was sub domains, not the gods themselves
|
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Alexandria
|
This is how I read it as well. The blog specifically says it is a list of all named deities from the inner sea world guide, common sense would dictate that you would have to check the available deities in inner sea world guide to see if they are valid. Especially since the additional resources page on blogs also says "Please note that this applies to the context of the blog post only" the context of the blog post was sub domains, not the gods themselvesI'm sorry, but just because a blog post, which has been made legal for PFS, has a list of deities, does not mean those deities are legal.
Looking at all the discussion, I'm starting to get the feeling that Lissala isn't allowed intentionally. That said, I'm hoping they will then revisit her, which was the second part of my question. I've played through the plot thus far of season four, which is *why* I want to play a cleric of Lissala. If they say no, she never has been and no, she never will be, then I'll drop it and figure out a new concept. Or... I might just have to wait for the new book with empyreal lords and hope one fits the concept better than the current gods.
In all things, I obey.
|
|
Per that blog post, Page three:
Bear in mind that the deity you worship must herself be legal for PFS play.Mark's going to kill me but since he's out of town until Tuesday....
Yes, this blog post is legal for PFS. You must bring a printout though to any game where a character uses one of the subdomains.
Hyrum.
I had to dig a little to find this. So, what it looks like, is that if you worship a god that is legal, you have access to those sub domains. However, if a god, like Lissala, is NOT legal for PFS, then those sub domains for that god are also NOT legal for PFS.
Just my two cents on it. Hope that helps.
|
|
Per that blog post, Page three:
Bear in mind that the deity you worship must herself be legal for PFS play.Mark's going to kill me but since he's out of town until Tuesday....
Yes, this blog post is legal for PFS. You must bring a printout though to any game where a character uses one of the subdomains.
Hyrum.
I had to dig a little to find this. So, what it looks like, is that if you worship a god that is legal, you have access to those sub domains. However, if a god, like Lissala, is NOT legal for PFS, then those sub domains for that god are also NOT legal for PFS.
Just my two cents on it. Hope that helps.
Except that the AR quote says that the blog post is legal, but the comments aren't. Argh! ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
My guess the reason Mike, Mark or John have not put their 2 cents in, is because they are most likely having an inner super-secret discussion about opening up Lisalla and the other not authorized gods as Legal Choices, and once they decide they will chime in.
This is just a guess.
I bet they're just going back for seconds at the ice cream bar.
|
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Alexandria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at Mark's comments, I don't think I'll be allowing Lissala-worship at my table. I'm not sure what god I might recommend to the player to adopt as a replacement.
Depends on what they want from that god. It's one of the reasons I'm looking at Ragathiel as a possible replacement if Lissala is a no go. I'll lose the whole scourging individuals to inspire them, but ah well. Thus goes flagellation. Sometimes the act itself is what one must redeem oneself from.
Anyway, Ragathiel has a couple of the things I'm looking for in a deity sans the whip, and his flavor of being the child of Dispater and Feronia is amusing since he's a Lawful good god. Revenge and fire and brimstone and all that. May his eyes fall upon me and his wings shield me... but until then...
In all things, I obey.
|
|
Except that the AR quote says that the blog post is legal, but the comments aren't. Argh! ;)Per that blog post, Page three:
Bear in mind that the deity you worship must herself be legal for PFS play.Mark's going to kill me but since he's out of town until Tuesday....
Yes, this blog post is legal for PFS. You must bring a printout though to any game where a character uses one of the subdomains.
Hyrum.
I had to dig a little to find this. So, what it looks like, is that if you worship a god that is legal, you have access to those sub domains. However, if a god, like Lissala, is NOT legal for PFS, then those sub domains for that god are also NOT legal for PFS.
Just my two cents on it. Hope that helps.
I believe this comment is simply to save people from printing out the entire discussion or some random comment by some random person being construed as legal.
Remember that at a later date, the guide actually noted that all message board clarifications are legal.
As such, Mark's statement above should not be ignored, as it is a message board clarification.
|
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Alexandria
|
Except that the AR quote says that the blog post is legal, but the comments aren't. Argh! ;)Per that blog post, Page three:
Bear in mind that the deity you worship must herself be legal for PFS play.Mark's going to kill me but since he's out of town until Tuesday....
Yes, this blog post is legal for PFS. You must bring a printout though to any game where a character uses one of the subdomains.
Hyrum.
I had to dig a little to find this. So, what it looks like, is that if you worship a god that is legal, you have access to those sub domains. However, if a god, like Lissala, is NOT legal for PFS, then those sub domains for that god are also NOT legal for PFS.
Just my two cents on it. Hope that helps.
I believe this comment is simply to save people from printing out the entire discussion or some random comment by some random person being construed as legal.
Remember that at a later date, the guide actually noted that all message board clarifications are legal.
As such, Mark's statement above should not be ignored, as it is a message board clarification.
If all that is true, then ignore the question about *if* she is legal and instead focus on the request to *make* her legal. =D