|
I also second that.
I am no longer certain where you disagree with me, Nefreet... other than maybe assuming that everyone who worships a banninated deity is going to fall into the former example rather than the latter, perhaps?
But I am not going to dwell on it either. I have some gaming to do tonight where I can just go kill my enemies and not have to have a moral conundrum about it. Peace my homies! ;)
|
If you sit down to the Star Wars roleplaying game, and start describing your character as a Klingon who flunked out of the Academy, it's you that's being the jerk, not the others at your table who are telling you to leave.Is anyone suggesting anything remotely like that other than you, Nefreet?
My analogy was in response to your example of worshiping Banjo the Clown.
How would you prefer I interpret your post?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, wanted to point out that there is no issue of Cthulhu about copyright. You can't say "Call of Cthulhu" in reference to gaming unless you are Chaosium but other than that the IP is pretty much free reign. Same goes for all Lovecraftian stuffs. It is all public domain. That is why Paizo can print stuff with his name on it. Kinda like Sherlock Holmes.I thought some of it was in or was out of public domain because of the age that it is and when Disney started patenting their stuff?
Disney is putting out Cthulhu stuff now? I always knew they were evil. I bet they turn it into a cartoon musical.
*duck*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
:)
Disney is putting out Cthulhu stuff now? I always knew they were evil. I bet they turn it into a cartoon musical.
That was one of the most enjoyable three-and-a-half-minute tangents I've encountered in quite some time.
|
|
My analogy was in response to your example of worshiping Banjo the Clown.
Yeah, cause it wasn't like you were opposed to the OP's idea before I even came along, right?
How would you prefer I interpret your post?
How about by not taking them in the worst possible light? Your knee jerk reaction (not just to me, but to the OP) was to assume that someone would be choosing to worship (/venerate?) Cthulhu (or another not specifically made legal deity) for no other reason than to get on the other player's nerves.
edit: Disney Cthulhu?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My analogy was in response to your example of worshiping Banjo the Clown.Yeah, cause it wasn't like you were opposed to the OP's idea before I even came along, right?
I'm not sure what sort of tone to read from your posts, so let me restate my position.
PFS Legal evil deities, such as Zon Kuthon and Asmodeus?
Big thumbs up.
Pathfinder deities that don't make the legal list, such as the Demon Lords and Great Old Ones?
I default to my very first post in this thread. The only mechanical effect you could be aiming for is annoying other people at the table, so why do it?
Deities from outside the Pathfinder universe?
Now you're just trying it, and you're clearly not interested in the game setting you sat down at, so I'd politely suggest looking for something else so that neither of us wastes our time.
|
|
How would you prefer I interpret your post?How about by not taking them in the worst possible light?
The language you were using came off as rather extreme, IMO, so I measured my response accordingly.
As I said, tone is difficult to interpret. If you were meaning your posts to be funny, I just didn't read them that way.
|
|
Pathfinder deities that don't make the legal list, such as the Demon Lords and Great Old Ones?
I default to my very first post in this thread. The only mechanical effect you could be aiming for is annoying other people at the table, so why do it?
... wait what? Why is someone going to get annoyed by an aroden worshiper or a cuthulu worshiper named 323? Much less that be the only possible intent of the other player.
|
|
Pathfinder deities that don't make the legal list, such as the Demon Lords and Great Old Ones?
I default to my very first post in this thread. The only mechanical effect you could be aiming for is annoying other people at the table, so why do it?... wait what? Why is someone going to get annoyed by an aroden worshiper or a cuthulu worshiper named 323? Much less that be the only possible intent of the other player.
Aroden is legal.
Perhaps it's just me, but I cannot understand any other intent in venerating Cthulhu than I described.
Can you give me another concrete example? I'm happy to challenge my preconceptions.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually don't like the term Venerate to be honest. It has no mechanical application so it is somewhat meaningless compared to Worship. Is there a need for creating another term when there can only be Worshiping and not Worshiping? It just makes people confused.
I'm kind of in the opposite boat, as I like the venerate/worship divide as defined in the Roleplaying Guild Guide. In fact, I think that if one carefully reads the definitions for the two terms in what is, after all, our guiding document, then it pretty much answers all the questions and concerns raised in this thread (with the exception of the tone and intention stuff that are probably ultimately unanswerable, though I must say I wish people would be more, well, thoughtful, before throwing around terms like "thought police.")
If you "venerate" a deity (or pantheon or philosophy) without gaining a mechanical effect, then you may do so so long as it's any Golarion-specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy without alignment concern. If you "worship" a deity that means you're gaining mechanical benefit, and you may only worship one campaign-legal deity and must always be within one step of the deity's alignment. I don't see that as confusing
|
|
Perhaps it's just me, but I cannot understand any other intent in venerating Cthulhu than I described.
they like cuthulu
black tentacles is overpowered and they love itexperiment 323 concept character
dark tapestry oracle seeking a more personal connection with the impersonal
scholar who looked too long into the mouth of madness
dark archiver that's really into their work
Aroden is not legal for worship. The god is dead and doesn't provide any mechanical benefits.
|
|
Is there a need for creating another term when there can only be Worshiping and not Worshiping? It just makes people confused.
Pantheists or those who otherwise venerate multiple deities for RP purposes?
Also, venerate covers those who may give lip service to Asmodius as loyal Chelaxians Dark Archivists and aren't within one step of the correct alignment...
|
I actually don't like the term Venerate to be honest. It has no mechanical application so it is somewhat meaningless compared to Worship. Is there a need for creating another term when there can only be Worshiping and not Worshiping? It just makes people confused.If you "venerate" a deity (or pantheon or philosophy) without gaining a mechanical effect, then you may do so so long as it's any Golarion-specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy without alignment concern. If you "worship" a deity that means you're gaining mechanical benefit, and you may only worship one campaign-legal deity and must always be within one step of the deity's alignment. I don't see that as confusing.
Yeah but venerating something has as much meaning as saying "I like bright sunny days". The term itself is worthless. It only has any context in being "Not-Worshiping". I don't think fluff really needs mechanical names.
Edit:
Yeah but again that is kinda fluff isn't it TimD? Does it need space in the Guild Guide which should contain the rules for organized play?
|
|
... wait what? Why is someone going to get annoyed by an aroden worshiper or a cuthulu worshiper named 323? Much less that be the only possible intent of the other player.
That.
Nefreet: You keep suggesting in your posts that it is the popular opinion that such characters would annoy most of the players at the table. I don't see it. It doesn't seem to be the popular opinion in this thread and it isn't what I have seen with those I have played with.
You keep saying that the only benefit of playing a character who worships a deity other than what your limited perception of what is acceptable is could only be to annoy others at the table but that seems to me like you projecting to me. As BNW pointed out; could it not be possible that someone wanted to do something because it fit the theme of their character and they would enjoy the roleplay? Not everyone is interested in character building choices for exclusively mechanical advantages. That is kinda what the Stormwind Fallacy is all about.
In my first post in this thread I gave a link to the concept that I had planned that brought me to this thread. Care to read it? If there was another legal tentacle god then I might consider it. But Cthulhu fits my theme and my concept. I will be worshipping Cthulhu. The fact that it annoys you has nothing to do with my choice. It is just a tasty bonus (joking! ...kinda) But honestly, when I sit down to develop a concept "what Nefreet will think of my idea" isn't something that even passes my mind. The fact that your knee jerk reaction is that someone is doing it just to mess with you seems a bit arrogant and egotistic, but the fact that you think everyone else must think the same thing is worse.
I count 6 people in the thread (7 with the OP) who see no issue with worshipping Chthulhu. So maybe I'd politely suggest looking for something else so that neither of us wastes our time.
|
Contributor
|
Not sure I made the count one way or the other, but put me down as someone who has an issue with a character "worshiping" the tentacled one, but no issue with a character "venerating" her/it/him.
And Ragoz "fluff" (now THERE'S a term I'd like to see retired) or not, it's precisely those definitions that provide Lune and other would-be whatever-venerator's campaign-legal avenues to their concepts, so I don't see how it's worthless at all.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you would like to use the term "venerate" rather than "worship" you can feel free to do so. My character will be using the term "worship" and there is no rule against what words my character can say to describe the fact that she will be gaining no mechanical benefit from her worship.
I don't suppose clarity and courtesy are rules for everyone, no. Knock yourself out.
|
|
If you would like to use the term "venerate" rather than "worship" you can feel free to do so. My character will be using the term "worship" and there is no rule against what words my character can say to describe the fact that she will be gaining no mechanical benefit from her worship.
just make sure the player uses venerate or you're going to have o have this conversation in person.
So, Fromper, in your opinion does that mean that a non-divine class could not take the Bloodletting feat I linked above?
IF that feat requires worship of a non-legal diety, the answer is you can't have it.
Actually for that matter, one should check the Additional Resources section to see if either the feat in question is on the ban list or whether other provisions to make it legal are in effect.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually don't like the term Venerate to be honest. It has no mechanical application so it is somewhat meaningless compared to Worship. Is there a need for creating another term when there can only be Worshiping and not Worshiping? It just makes people confused.If you "venerate" a deity (or pantheon or philosophy) without gaining a mechanical effect, then you may do so so long as it's any Golarion-specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy without alignment concern. If you "worship" a deity that means you're gaining mechanical benefit, and you may only worship one campaign-legal deity and must always be within one step of the deity's alignment. I don't see that as confusing.
Yeah but venerating something has as much meaning as saying "I like bright sunny days". The term itself is worthless. It only has any context in being "Not-Worshiping". I don't think fluff really needs mechanical names.
Edit:
Yeah but again that is kinda fluff isn't it TimD? Does it need space in the Guild Guide which should contain the rules for organized play?
If you do some searching of historical threads, you will see that after very long arguments, "venerate" came to be used because the prohibition against worshipping invalid deities from a mechanical sense was being used by some people to disallow characters from "worshipping" invalid deities in the fluff sense. Disallow as in "your LN Fighter can not play at this table if he says he worships Desna".
So it was coined as a compromise term, and is absolutely needed in the guide.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry Gary, there is a logical part of my brain that refuses to differentiate between synonymous words; worship and venerate being among them. Honestly I think it is wandering close to "jerk land" to suggest locking a thread due to someone not seeing the difference between literally synonymous words. But, you know... you do you, I guess.
Your refusal to accept that the words, while synonyms, have distinct means within PFS simply shows that you just wish argue a pointless point.
|
|
If you do some searching of historical threads, you will see that after very long arguments, "venerate" came to be used because the prohibition against worshipping invalid deities from a mechanical sense was being used by some people to disallow characters from "worshipping" invalid deities in the fluff sense. Disallow as in "your LN Fighter can not play at this table if he says he worships Desna".
So it was coined as a compromise term, and is absolutely needed in the guide.
It looks like the issue came from the old wording saying a non-divine character could either worship, be atheist, or have no deity at all. This was a restriction on the beliefs a character could have. As soon as the wording is removed there is no longer an issue because then you are left with worshiping or not worshiping.
To me it just feels like both versions of the guide have unnecessary language which caused issues and can be fixed by removing that wording (the previous version's restriction and the new version's non-mechanical clarification).
The practical reasons for removing the current wording would be saving word count and reducing confusion for people trying to understand game mechanics.
|
|
@Ragoz: and just because it's "fluff" doesn't mean it wouldn't also have in-play repercussions.
Without the wording it may cause additional confusion for situations like: if a true-neutral fighter venerates Asmodeus / Aroden / Hamburgler Norger-burger The Reaper of Reputation and in-play finds themselves under the effect of Zone of Truth or Abadar's Truthtelling, then they are still a "follower" in play and may have to deal with the in play repercussions of that "fluff" choice.
Worship and venerate are two differnt things.
The Paladin who worships Iomedae can also venerate Pharasma as they bury a fallen comrade calling on her to see that the soul of their comrade is escorted safely to their reward in the afterlife, or that a mother and her unborn child survive the birth safely.
|
|
IF that feat requires worship of a non-legal diety, the answer is you can't have it.
I wasn't talking about a pretend feat. I gave a link to the feat in question. The point in asking this question was whether or not the Fighter could gain a mechanical benefit from (big W)orshipping an evil (but on the specifically allowed list) deity or not. This is basically establishing the thought about whether a non-divine class is able to gain a mechanical benefit from Worshipping, or if they can gain it from worshipping (small w, or venerating).
Or perhaps a more simple way of asking this question would be:
Are all deity specific resources banned if they require worship of a banned deity?
Personally, I do not believe that to be the case due to the trait that BNW pointed out for Aroden who is a banned deity.
|
|
Okay, since I'm not actually aware of it if they have, has the Campign Leadership at any time stated that as long as you don't get any mechanics associated with the illegal deity in question you can still worship/venerate them?
I cannot find any posts where campaign leadership directly states that.
I can find threads where that is the commonly understood rule, with only minor dissent. I have been involved in discussions where that was the conclusion most arrived at. That is my personal understanding of what the worship/venerate rules mean, and it is how I explain them.
But I cannot say that there is a definitive statement from campaign leadership to that effect, nor that it is a unanimous interpretation.
|
|
Aroden is not banned. Neither is the Peacock Spirit or Razmir, for that matter. They simply don't have statblocks like the other deities. And it's easy to understand why. Two are dead, and one is REDACTED.
They still exist in Golarion canon, and there are a number of PFS legal character options that require their worship as a prerequisite.
So, no, I don't have a problem with Aroden worshipers at my table. Or Razmiran Priests. I'll even sign off on your Chronicle that you purchased a Silver Holy Symbol of the Living God, if you wish.
But I wouldn't do it for something outside Golarion canon.
|
|
Okay, since I'm not actually aware of it if they have, has the Campign Leadership at any time stated that as long as you don't get any mechanics associated with the illegal deity in question you can still worship/venerate them?I cannot find any posts where campaign leadership directly states that.
I can find threads where that is the commonly understood rule, with only minor dissent. I have been involved in discussions where that was the conclusion most arrived at. That is my personal understanding of what the worship/venerate rules mean, and it is how I explain them.
But I cannot say that there is a definitive statement from campaign leadership to that effect, nor that it is a unanimous interpretation.
Once again, the Society Guild Guide's glossary covers this. The words "worship" and "venerate" are both in there, and explains all this. That was a response to all of the previous threads about this type of stuff here on the forums.
|
|
Because I am curious where people fall on this topic I will ask it outright. Please post if you have a a problem with any of the following as either a DM or player in PFS:
1. A player bringing a character to the table that is a worshipper of an evil god that is on the specifically allowed list and receives mechanical benefit from doing so?
2. A player bringing a character to the table who has it listed on their character sheet as "none" under deity but "venerates" a deity who is not on the specifically allowed list?
3. A player bringing a character to the table who has a deity listed from the specifically allowed list, receives mechanical benefit from that deity but venerates a different deity that is not on the specifically allowed list and in character attributes her mechanical benefits to the deity that they venerate?
4. A player bringing a character to the table who has "none" listed as their deity but venerates a deity that is not on the specifically allowed list?
5. Same as 4, except that the character attributes their class abilities as being derived from a deity that is not on the specifically allowed list?
6. Worshipping (technically "venerating") the equivalent of Banjo the Clown.
I think I put those in the order of extremeness ... extremity? Extremeyness? Whatever.
Here is an example the issue as I see it:
During the start of a scenario all players have been briefed of their mission by the venture captain (DM) and character introductions are afoot.
Player 1: Tzen Kruger is a waif of a girl with raven hair. A disturbing black ectoplasmic tentacle leaches out from her tattered sleeve along the length of her arm. It doesn't seem to disturb her in the least. In fact, she caresses it lovingly against her face and asks it to continue whispering to her mind. Watching her inspires strange otherworldly thoughts and looking into her eyes is akin to inviting madness. Nonetheless she seems eager to get underway in this mission and her devotion to the cause of the Pathfinder Society seems unquestionable. Tzen is a Ectoplasmatist Spiritualist archetype combined with a Bladebound/Kensai Magus. She fills the role of a spellcasting generalist and melee striker. If it wasn't clear she worships Cthulhu.GM: You can't worship Cthulhu as that deity isn't on the specifically allowed list.
Player 1: I understand. On my sheet I have "none" written under deity. While she technically "venerates" Cthulhu because the rules of PFS prevent her from "worshipping" the Great Old Tentacled One, the difference between these words means little to my actual character. As far as she is concerned she does worship Cthulhu. Her mental state is that she has deluded herself into believing that her class abilities and power comes directly from Cthulhu. But as she does not actually receive any mechanical benefit it doesn't much matter. This is all really just for roleplay and how I would like to play the character.
GM: While that isn't technically illegal I do not like having characters at my table who worship deities who are not on the specifically allowed list despite the fact that they are not receiving any mechanical benefits from that deity. I plan on enforcing the rule that not only is your character not allowed to worship deities that are not on the specifically allowed list but they are not allowed to be roleplayed in such a way that they believe they are worshipping one of those said deities either.
Player 1: Um... is that actually a PFS rule? Could you show me that in print?
GM: No. It is how I choose to interpret the rule that IS in print. If you don't like my interpretation of the rule then I would suggest that you find another table to play at. You have already been enough distraction at my table and I can't see any other reason for your roleplaying choice of what deity you chose to venerate other than to annoy the other players at my table.
Player 1: !!!
Other players at the table: *in shocked confusion as they haven't expressed any such annoyance and actually liked the character description and were rather excited to play in a game with such a character*
|
|
Aroden is not banned. Neither is the Peacock Spirit or Razmir, for that matter. They simply don't have statblocks like the other deities. And it's easy to understand why. Two are dead, and one is REDACTED.
i am seeing pink elephant at the moment.
Well, Banjo isn't Banned either, they're just not a legal object of Technical Worship
So, no, I don't have a problem with Aroden worshipers at my table. Or Razmiran Priests. I'll even sign off on your Chronicle that you purchased a Silver Holy Symbol of the Living God, if you wish.
But I wouldn't do it for something outside Golarion canon.
Okay, so why the problem with Cthulu? he's in bestiary 4 and has a better claim to divinity than redacted or Abadar...
*ow ow ow coins to the head hurt ow ow o ow*
|
|
Because I am curious where people fall on this topic I will ask it outright. Please post if you have a a problem with any of the following as either a DM or player in PFS:
1. A player bringing a character to the table that is a worshipper of an evil god that is on the specifically allowed list and receives mechanical benefit from doing so?
2. A player bringing a character to the table who has it listed on their character sheet as "none" under deity but "venerates" a deity who is not on the specifically allowed list?
3. A player bringing a character to the table who has a deity listed from the specifically allowed list, receives mechanical benefit from that deity but venerates a different deity that is not on the specifically allowed list and in character attributes her mechanical benefits to the deity that they venerate?
4. A player bringing a character to the table who has "none" listed as their deity but venerates a deity that is not on the specifically allowed list?
5. Same as 4, except that the character attributes their class abilities as being derived from a deity that is not on the specifically allowed list?
6. Worshipping (technically "venerating") the equivalent of Banjo the Clown.
I think I put those in the order of extremeness ... extremity? Extremeyness? Whatever.
The only one of those that I have a problem with is 3). My problem there is that I consider "worship" to include acknowledging the mechanical benefits you get from your patron, and that if you cease to do so, the patron will cease to provide those benefits. I would have no problem with "worship" of a legal deity + "veneration" of a non-legal deity, as long as the source of mechanical benefits were not misascribed.
This is different than 5), because "none" is not going to take back their gifts.
|
|
20 questions
Seeing pink elephants. If something seems off don't get mad.
1. A player bringing a character to the table that is a worshipper of an evil god that is on the specifically allowed list and receives mechanical benefit from doing so?
Absolutely 100% allowed. Take the DMs call at the table, then try to work it out after, something that flagrantly wrong kick it up the heirarchy as need be.
2. A player bringing a character to the table who has it listed on their character sheet as "none" under deity but "venerates" a deity who is not on the specifically allowed list?
Perfectly allowed. You can call to whatever god you want. They don't have to answer.
3. A player bringing a character to the table who has a deity listed from the specifically allowed list, receives mechanical benefit from that deity but venerates a different deity that is not on the specifically allowed list and in character attributes her mechanical benefits to the deity that they venerate?
Wait,.. they venerate the other deity MORE than their own god? No. Being a cleric means you have to put that god first, otherwise you'd be the cleric of another god.
A torag worshiper is obviously going to venerate Torags family. A follower of Desna Could probably venerate the glory of nature that they travel to, everyone prays to desna before they get on a ship.
If you are a torag follower and you start "venerating" say Lamashtu, expect the divine HAMMER TO THE HEAD! (after the appropriate warning .. in this case all of your beer spoiling and the dm explicitly stating that Torag doesn't want you to do that)
4. A player bringing a character to the table who has "none" listed as their deity but venerates a deity that is not on the specifically allowed list?
Mechanically allowed, i reserve the right to headdesk if it doesn't match the worlds flavor.
5. Same as 4, except that the character attributes their class abilities as being derived from a deity that is not on the specifically allowed list?
Their Character is free to do that, the NPCs are allowed to cough *horsefeathers*
6. Worshipping (technically "venerating") the equivalent of Banjo the Clown.
I like the difference between veneration and worship, and have no idea where that's a burr for you.
Re: fine. The character doesn't worship anyone, they just have a necklace with a tentacle monster and babble in aklo a lot.
|
|
Because I am curious where people fall on this topic I will ask it outright. Please post if you have a a problem with any of the following as either a DM or player in PFS:
1. A player bringing a character to the table that is a worshipper of an evil god that is on the specifically allowed list and receives mechanical benefit from doing so?
2. A player bringing a character to the table who has it listed on their character sheet as "none" under deity but "venerates" a deity who is not on the specifically allowed list?
3. A player bringing a character to the table who has a deity listed from the specifically allowed list, receives mechanical benefit from that deity but venerates a different deity that is not on the specifically allowed list and in character attributes her mechanical benefits to the deity that they venerate?
4. A player bringing a character to the table who has "none" listed as their deity but venerates a deity that is not on the specifically allowed list?
5. Same as 4, except that the character attributes their class abilities as being derived from a deity that is not on the specifically allowed list?
6. Worshipping (technically "venerating") the equivalent of Banjo the Clown.
I actually have a single character who hits both #1 and #3, though in my case, both the deities involved in #3 are legal for PFS.
Julian Lightfoot is an inquisitor of the evil god of secrets (Norgorber) who pretends to be an inquisitor of Pharasma. Norgorber would approve, because Julian is keeping secrets, finding out secrets, etc, and being secretive about his worship is standard operating procedure in that religion. Ironically, Pharasma should also approve, because Julian makes a point of doing his job as one of her priests correctly, even if he isn't devout in his heart. He knows he'll have to meet her some day, and wants to stay on her good side.
As for #5, I have a friend who played a paladin of Aroden (before paladins were required to have a legal source for their divine powers) all the way to level 15. I didn't have a problem with it then, and still wouldn't from a non-divine PC, though it wouldn't work for a paladin any more.
Needless to say, I don't have a problem with 2 or 4, either.
#6 would result in some facepalming, though it could work if played for laughs. If the player expects anyone else at the table to take it seriously, they're going to get into trouble.
|
|
Fromper: Good example of how that could be acceptable. It was something very akin to that which I was going for.
Out of curiosity for #5 with your Aroden Paladin friend how would you feel if he wanted to continue playing the character at your table the way he had all the way along? I understand what the rules state. I am asking how you would run it? Bear in mind, specifically choosing not to ask his character's inner thoughts IS an option. ;)
|
|
Ironically, Pharasma should also approve, because Julian makes a point of doing his job as one of her priests correctly, even if he isn't devout in his heart.
Don't get mad if someone reaches the other (imo more likely) conclusion that the goddess of childbirth and death doesn't exactly approve of Norgorber, especially as you ping evil and as a priest of pharasma you shouldn't even if you are. Your character doesn't play pharasma, the DM does.
You don't actually venerate pharasma. You pretend to.
|
|
I dunno if the GM really plays Pharasma. I mean I think Paizo kinda does more than anyone. Everyone else's opinions are just opinions. I don't think a GM's is any more likely than a player's. Even back in 2nd ed where there was a rule that actually said that the GM was always right I never subscribed to that idea. The GM can be sent packing to find another table to GM at just as easily as a player can.
I also disagree that his character pings evil. Why would he? Or more accurately HOW could he as a PFS character?
Venture-Lieutenant, Nebraska—Omaha
|
you ping evil and as a priest of pharasma you shouldn't even if you are.
You don't actually venerate pharasma. You pretend to.
Julian can still honor Pharasma even if he is only pretending to be part of her order.
And a Neutral Evil cleric of Pharasma will ping as evil at level 5 and beyond.
|
|
I dunno if the GM really plays Pharasma.
The DM Plays pharasma. Paizo is not at the table. Paizo doesn't see the characters build, paizo doesn't see what your character is doing. The DM is charged with
I mean I think Paizo kinda does more than anyone. Everyone else's opinions are just opinions. I don't think a GM's is any more likely than a player's.
The DM's opinions are the ones that matter for that game. Thats why it's imperative that the DM warn the player explicitly when the DM thinks that the player is violating the cleric's gods precepts. "how are the laws of physics working today?"
No warning from the deity you're not worshiping though.
I also disagree that his character pings evil. Why would he? Or more accurately HOW could he as a PFS character?
never mind, thought he was a cleric not an inquisitor.
Being a cleric of an evil deity will give you an evil aura, which can be beneficial or problematic depending..
I kn..ermm. assume the society has other ways of knowing how evil you are.