I never said anyone was a bad person. :-)
|
I'm going to write on my character sheet that my character is an atheist (legal and true; he worships no legal deity).
In game, my character will act as if he venerates Cthulhu and, if asked, he may say that he worships Cthulhu (he's delusional and has convinced himself that this is true).
Am I playing my character wrong? Am I violating any PFS legality?
Possibly. There are traits and abilities that require atheism, which you really don't qualify for if you're that into cuthulu.
I would right "meh" under religion, since you don't have to have a strong affiliation to any particular god.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion is, "Yes." As long as one's veneration grants no in-game, mechanical effect, I am of the opinion anything or anyone can be venerated by one's character. Even something made-up and ridiculous... like this holy cactus I carry around in a pot; I call him the Prickly Patriarch.
|
|
There are traits and abilities that require atheism, which you really don't qualify for if you're that into cuthulu.
I would right "meh" under religion, since you don't have to have a strong affiliation to any particular god.
Please know I'm joking when I say...
If I worship no legal deity, I'm an atheist. Cthulhu is no legal deity. The worship of Cthulhu is atheism. Atheism is legal.But seriously, if I actually did what I described earlier, I would take no traits, feats, spells, etc. associated with either atheism or Cthulhu. My veneration of Cthulhu would be strictly fluff.
Captain Yesterday (not saying it):
Do you think someone who has a "contrary agenda" and doesn't "really care about "character concept" so much as finding a loophole." is a bad person?
No, absolutely not. :-)
Being contrary does not a bad person make. :-)
Edit: and you don't have call me by whatever alias I'm using at the moment, you can just call me Captain Yesterday, or Cap'n, or whatever you want. :-)
|
*blink*
Okay then BNW, how is "It's illegal because it is in fact illegal" a baseless, senseless, and nonsensical claim?
Circularity.
Equivocation (between veneration and worship)
Inconsistency (between Mengkare and Cuthulu)
???
That;s my point, they did not state when Venerate was coined if you can or cannot venerate an illegal deity.Please stop using your term "illegal deity" which is not in the additional resources, campaign guide, or in use by anyone but you. It is seriously guiding your thinking here. You are equivocating between "not allowed by additional resources" and illegal, which aren't the same thing.
They ARE the same thing.
all of the gods listed in the appendix are legal choices except daemon harbingers, great old ones, infernal dukes, malebranche, nascent demon lords, orc deities, outer gods, qlippoth lords, and whore queens.
Not legal = illegal
Example:
Character: "I have a girlfriend in irisen." Not covered by additional resources. No mechanical effects. Completely legal
Character: "I have a girlfriend in irisen. She hands out free potions" Not covered by additional resources, completely illegal
And has nothing to do with the rest of the conversation.
Curchonos is legal, Cthulhu is not.What source allows Curchonos?
A PC may worship a dead deity, but such gods grant no spells or other benefits;
The fact that they are illegal.This is your conclusion you cannot use it as your premise.
It's the premise as well.
This deity is illegal, Campaign Leadership has said so.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please know I'm joking when I say...
If I worship no legal deity, I'm an atheist.
Atheism doesn't work like that on Golarion. there's a scale
divine caster of __insert god here__
active follower of __insert god here__
I kinda like ___insert god here___
I like a lot of gods but not enough to wake up on sunday.
Meh. Gods. Who cares.
The gods are just very powerful outsiders, whats the difference?
I don't need gods. HUMANITY ALL THE WAY!
The gods suck: maltheist (most of rahdoum clocks in here)
Sunday Sleep in guy and I kinda like guy don't worship any gods, but aren't an atheist by golarion standards either.
|
|
This deity is illegal, Campaign Leadership has said so.
No, youare saying so.
That isn't what they said.You keep insisting that "not allowed to use those mechanics" somehow makes them more illegal than venerating a treestump when it makes them exactly as illegal as venerating a treestump.
Something that has not been allowed by additional resources (mengkare worship) is EXACTLY the same as something excluded by additional resources ( Great old one worship) . Never appearing in a book and having that part of the book excluded work exactly the same way. you have them working differently.
And has nothing to do with the rest of the conversation.
It has everything to do with the conversation.
A player does not have to justify the legality of non mechanical bits of their character. Veneration is a non mechanical bit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This deity is illegal, Campaign Leadership has said so.
No, youare saying so.
That isn't what they said.You keep insisting that "not allowed to use those mechanics" somehow makes them more illegal than venerating a treestump when it makes them exactly as illegal as venerating a treestump.
Something that has not been allowed by additional resources (mengkare worship) is EXACTLY the same as something excluded by additional resources ( Great old one worship) . Never appearing in a book and having that part of the book excluded work exactly the same way. you have them working differently.
And has nothing to do with the rest of the conversation.It has everything to do with the conversation.
A player does not have to justify the legality of non mechanical bits of their character. Veneration is a non mechanical bit.
Additional Resources aka Campaign Leadership have outright stated that Great Old Ones are not legal. Not legal means illegal.
|
|
Additional Resources aka Campaign Leadership have outright stated that Great Old Ones are not legal. Not legal means illegal.
No, it does not. You are the one making that leap of logic.
Not legal means you cannot use those mechanics. Which is exactly the same as not having any mechanics for something in the first place. Before the book was published I could not use great old one worship because there were no mechanics for it. After the book was published i cannot worship the great old ones because there's no mechanics for it. A book that excludes something is exactly the same as having nothing written in the first place. they are not super extra double illegal because they were excluded.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lies. Post where they have said that they are not legal for Veneration.
Additional Resources tells you what content is legal for play.
Below is a specific list of Paizo Inc. products and the equipment, traits, deities, spells, feats, and classes contained within that are legal for play in Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
Gods: all of the gods listed in the appendix are legal choices except daemon harbingers, great old ones, infernal dukes, malebranche, nascent demon lords, orc deities, outer gods, qlippoth lords, and whore queens.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Additional Resources aka Campaign Leadership have outright stated that Great Old Ones are not legal. Not legal means illegal.No, it does not. You are the one making that leap of logic.
Not legal means you cannot use those mechanics. Which is exactly the same as not having any mechanics for something in the first place. Before the book was published I could not use great old one worship because there were no mechanics for it. After the book was published i cannot worship the great old ones because there's no mechanics for it. A book that excludes something is exactly the same as having nothing written in the first place. they are not super extra double illegal because they were excluded.
Sorry, I'm just not really seeing how it's a leap of logic when they say "All are legal except" and then list what is not legal.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it legal to have a PFS character who is venerated by Cthulhu? Cause that would be much cooler than the other way round.
|
|
Sorry, I'm just not really seeing how it's a leap of logic when they say "All are legal except" and then list what is not legal.
These are the assumptions that you're making
1) That legality is required for veneration. Accepting that you can venerate Mengkare shows that this isn't the case.
2) That something that is excluded from a book is more illegal than something that has never appeared in a book at all: its not they work the same way.
3) that there is some mechanism stopping a character from engaging in non mechanical fluff.
4) Just because something is illegal in additional resources it means its out of the campaign. Fairy dragons have the same language, and they're in the campaign. (all over the place. really. they must breed like.. humans). Lissala Clerics abound (as foes)
5) That PFS automatically changes every past iota of wording to accomidate new clarifications.
|
|
Ragoz: You conveniently left off the rest of the quote. Let me fix that for you: "A PC may worship a dead deity, but such gods grant no spells or other benefits".
It is talking about what gods are allowed for worship. That is not being discussed here. I think it is a bit disingenuous for you to have left it out, honestly.
BNW: This is not just an honest disagreement. He is saying that Campaign Leadership specifically stated what is illegal to venerate and they haven't. That is a lie. I asked him to show where they said what is illegal and he has yet to show it. I am asking for the same evidence you are.
But they have made absolutely no statements that illegal Deities are now legal for Veneration.
That is also not true. In fact you can venerate things that are not even deities.
Again, the relevant rule states:
Player characters are able to venerate any Golarion- specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy they wish without alignment concern.
So you could worship a pantheon or philosophy if you wish. That is why BNW brough up Mengkare, Curchunas, Acavna, Razmir and others. Cthulhu doesn't have to worry about that as he is a "Golarion- specific deity".
To re-parse what this says:
Player characters are able to venerate Chthulhu without alignment concerns.
|
|
1.a)You're right, legality required is an assumption on my end, just like legality not required is an assumption on your end since Campaign Leadership hasn't stated one way or the other after coming up with Veneration.
1.b) And I stated worshiping Menge was questionable, but would probably fall into the same philosophy/cult of personality category as Razmir.
2) And I think they are both equally illegal. With the exception of Cults of personality of which I am unsure of.
3) The rules, just like reskinning/reflavouring is not allowed. Pretty sure it's not allowed.
4) I did not say they are absent from the campaign, they are absent as an option for player characters.
|
|
Ragoz: You conveniently left off the rest of the quote. Let me fix that for you: "A PC may worship a dead deity, but such gods grant no spells or other benefits".
It is talking about what gods are allowed for worship. That is not being discussed here. I think it is a bit disingenuous for you to have left it out, honestly.
BNW: This is not just an honest disagreement. He is saying that Campaign Leadership specifically stated what is illegal to venerate and they haven't. That is a lie. I asked him to show where they said what is illegal and he has yet to show it. I am asking for the same evidence you are.
But they have made absolutely no statements that illegal Deities are now legal for Veneration.That is also not true. In fact you can venerate things that are not even deities.
Again, the relevant rule states:
Player characters are able to venerate any Golarion- specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy they wish without alignment concern.So you could worship a pantheon or philosophy if you wish. That is why BNW brough up Mengkare, Curchunas, Acavna, Razmir and others. Cthulhu doesn't have to worry about that as he is a "Golarion- specific deity".
To re-parse what this says:
Player characters are able to venerate Chthulhu without alignment concerns.
"without alignment concerns."
It does not say "without alignment or legality concerns".
Great Old Ones are illegal to Worship.
Veneration was introduced after GOO were made illegal.
Until they say otherwise I take it to mean they are also illegal for Veneration.
You can Venerate things that aren't deities that are legal.
The "relevant" rule you keep posting is only in regards to alignment, not legality.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ragoz: You conveniently left off the rest of the quote. Let me fix that for you: "A PC may worship a dead deity, but such gods grant no spells or other benefits".
It is talking about what gods are allowed for worship. That is not being discussed here. I think it is a bit disingenuous for you to have left it out, honestly.
That sentence has nothing to do with the one before it nor does it have anything to do with the Outer Gods on its own. I didn't leave anything out.
Great Old Ones are illegal to Worship.
Not just worshiping but according to AR "that are legal for play." This goes beyond a single mechanic and is important to keep clear to everyone.
|
Not sure why people want multiple redundancies in definitions.
Venerate doesn't need to specify anything about legality where it talks about alignment, because it already stipulated that Golarion specific deity is allowed.
It doesn't say any Golarion specific legal to worship deity. It says any Golarion specific deity.
As I said above, any means any.
Then, because alignment had not been addressed yet, it addresses alignment. That line does not change the word any.
|
|
1.a)You're right, legality required is an assumption on my end, just like legality not required is an assumption on your end since Campaign Leadership hasn't stated one way or the other after coming up with Veneration.
Its not an assumption on my end. Razmir pretty much proves that you don't need to be a legal source for worship to be venerated. Razmir isn't a legal source anywhere.
1.b) And I stated worshiping Menge was questionable, but would probably fall into the same philosophy/cult of personality category as Razmir.
and you can't do that with cuthulu because...?
2) And I think they are both equally illegal. With the exception of Cults of personality of which I am unsure of.
You can have someone go full on stalker crush shrine of drendle dreng in their dorm room. I've seen it happen.
3) The rules, just like reskinning/reflavouring is not allowed. Pretty sure it's not allowed.
Reskinning is not allowed from one mechanical thing to another. It is not all banned.
4) I did not say they are absent from the campaign, they are absent as an option for player characters.
And you're assuming that banned mechanics= banned fluff, and that the fluff ban happens when the mechanics ban happens.
So what you have is a conclusion that is NOT the restatement of what the developers outright said. With that in mind Please look at the evidence, and consider that the burden is on the person who wants to tell someone else how they can play their character.
So can someone mancrush on cuthulu?
|
|
What this also means, is you don't get to create your own deity or bring in other IP deities to venerate.I will fight anyone who says the Prickly Patriarch is not the source of my martial prowess.
I know you're playing here, but it's a valid point. If you can steep your made up ideas in Golarion lore (i.e. Shoanti veneration thier ancestors) or have a really good backstory for your character, then as a GM, I'm probably going to be fine. But the stipulation of, Golarion Specific is meant to curb bringing in outside deities like Pelor or Kelemvor, or creating your own deity if ultimate power named Bob and expecting other characters to know it, accept it, etc.
|
|
Not sure why people want multiple redundancies in definitions.
Venerate doesn't need to specify anything about legality where it talks about alignment, because it already stipulated that Golarion specific deity is allowed.
It doesn't say any Golarion specific legal to worship deity. It says any Golarion specific deity.
As I said above, any means any.
Then, because alignment had not been addressed yet, it addresses alignment. That line does not change the word any.
It says any deity in regards to alignment, it doesn't mention legality at all, which is where the hangup is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@BNW
1) Because Cthulhu is illegal, those other two are not, to my knowledge.
2) I'm sorry :( *offers hugs*
3) ah, okies.
4)Without a statement from Campaign Leadership it would be on a burden from GM to GM, which as this thread and others have shown would range all over the place. Allowed at one table could be barred at the next.
At this point I'm not seeing either of us having more evidence than the other.
|
|
It says any deity in regards to alignment, it doesn't mention legality at all, which is where the hangup is.Not sure why people want multiple redundancies in definitions.
Venerate doesn't need to specify anything about legality where it talks about alignment, because it already stipulated that Golarion specific deity is allowed.
It doesn't say any Golarion specific legal to worship deity. It says any Golarion specific deity.
As I said above, any means any.
Then, because alignment had not been addressed yet, it addresses alignment. That line does not change the word any.
You keep ignoring the first line of the definition. There is no mention of legality at all, because the definition says any. Then it further defines that alignment is not a concern. That line doesn't theneed negate the word any just because it doesn't redundantly refer to legality.
You are adding meaning where there isn't any. The context says any and means any.
|
|
And you are ignoring the last line of the definition.It says any deity in regards to alignment, it doesn't mention legality at all, which is where the hangup is.Not sure why people want multiple redundancies in definitions.
Venerate doesn't need to specify anything about legality where it talks about alignment, because it already stipulated that Golarion specific deity is allowed.
It doesn't say any Golarion specific legal to worship deity. It says any Golarion specific deity.
As I said above, any means any.
Then, because alignment had not been addressed yet, it addresses alignment. That line does not change the word any.
You keep ignoring the first line of the definition. There is no mention of legality at all, because the definition says any. Then it further defines that alignment is not a concern. That line doesn't theneed negate the word any just because it doesn't redundantly refer to legality.
You are adding meaning where there isn't any. The context says any and means any.
Venerate refers to the relationship between a PC and a specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy of some sort where the PC follows the cause but gains no specific mechanical reward as a result of doing so. Player characters are able to venerate any Golarion- specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy they wish without alignment concern.
It does not state ",also, without any alignment concern." It is same sentence, not an addon.
|
|
Because Cthulhu is illegal, those other two are not, to my knowledge.
Cuthulu and razmir are both equally illegal. Neither one has a legal source.
Razmir is really good evidence that i'm right.
So is the very idea of veneration.
4)Without a statement from Campaign Leadership it would be on a burden from GM to GM, which as this thread and others have shown would range all over the place. Allowed at one table could be barred at the next.
I suppose A dm could make him replace Cuthulu with "unnamed tentacle monster 47 from the dark tapestry" or "*garigwgwlauelaweghaltpiwuathtpha*" but really, whats the point? Who demands that much control over the players actions lives and backgrounds ? What else do they say no to, blond haired Taldans? Its fluff, its setting thematic, just let it go.
At this point I'm not seeing either of us having more evidence than the other.
Then that REALLY has to tip towards someone getting to play their character.
|
|
Because Cthulhu is illegal, those other two are not, to my knowledge.Cuthulu and razmir are both equally illegal. Neither one has a legal source.
Razmir is really good evidence that i'm right.
So is the very idea of veneration.4)Without a statement from Campaign Leadership it would be on a burden from GM to GM, which as this thread and others have shown would range all over the place. Allowed at one table could be barred at the next.I suppose A dm could make him replace Cuthulu with "unnamed tentacle monster 47 from the dark tapestry" or "*garigwgwlauelaweghaltpiwuathtpha*" but really, whats the point? Who demands that much control over the players actions lives and backgrounds ? What else do they say no to, blond haired Taldans? Its fluff, its setting thematic, just let it go.
At this point I'm not seeing either of us having more evidence than the other.Then that REALLY has to tip towards someone getting to play their character.
With as many Razmir characters there you would think they would have somewhere stated that Razmir is illegal.
Because it's against the rules.
Would depend on the GM.
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While it's my opinion that veneration of any and all Golarion-specific deities is currently legal even if worship of those Golarion-specific deities is illegal, I must now acknowledge that Rysky has swayed me enough (because I think Rysky's arguments are based on sound logic and a demonstrated understanding of grammar and diction) that now I'm thinking maybe this does need to be addressed by Campaign leadership, whereas I initially did not.
I don't think anybody is saying anybody's a bad person.
I understand the impulse to and would myself most likely give the side-eye to any PC (not player) who claimed to venerate any of the illegal deific figures, not just Old Spaghetti Mouth.
But Lune is, I think, right to give me the side-eye right back for the assumptions built into my initial mistrust. There's nothing in my reading or understanding of the Old Ones as presented in either the Mythos literature or in Pathfinder's repackaging of same that indicates a character exhibiting such a veneration could be anything but a disruptive and actively evil presence, but that's my reading and understanding, which doesn't trump, well, the wide world, and so I should give such a PC the benefit of the doubt.
If I were up to me--and thankfully it's not--I'd ban the veneration, too. But if it were up to me, all evil deities would be illegal for worship or veneration, "alignment steps" notwithstanding. A minority opinion, I'm sure, and not one I hold strongly enough to die on a hill for.
|
|
And you are ignoring the last line of the definition.It says any deity in regards to alignment, it doesn't mention legality at all, which is where the hangup is.Not sure why people want multiple redundancies in definitions.
Venerate doesn't need to specify anything about legality where it talks about alignment, because it already stipulated that Golarion specific deity is allowed.
It doesn't say any Golarion specific legal to worship deity. It says any Golarion specific deity.
As I said above, any means any.
Then, because alignment had not been addressed yet, it addresses alignment. That line does not change the word any.
You keep ignoring the first line of the definition. There is no mention of legality at all, because the definition says any. Then it further defines that alignment is not a concern. That line doesn't theneed negate the word any just because it doesn't redundantly refer to legality.
You are adding meaning where there isn't any. The context says any and means any.
Venerate refers to the relationship between a PC and a specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy of some sort where the PC follows the cause but gains no specific mechanical reward as a result of doing so. Player characters are able to venerate any Golarion- specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy they wish without alignment concern.It does not state ",also, without any alignment concern." It is same sentence, not an addon.
Frankly, I'm not ignoring anything. I wrote the rule. I know what it means and what it's intent is. If Tonya, John or Linda want to redefine it, that's thier choice. But parsing g an added phrase on a sentence to have meaning outside exactly what it says is ludicrous. You can venerate ANY Golarion specific without alignment concern. Doesn't need to say anything about legality, because the word any just did that.
|
|
Frankly, I'm not ignoring anything. I wrote the rule. I know what it means and what it's intent is. If Tonya, John or Linda want to redefine it, that's thier choice. But parsing g an added phrase on a sentence to have meaning outside exactly what it says is ludicrous. You can venerate ANY Golarion specific without alignment concern. Doesn't need to say anything about legality, because the word any just did that.And you are ignoring the last line of the definition.It says any deity in regards to alignment, it doesn't mention legality at all, which is where the hangup is.Not sure why people want multiple redundancies in definitions.
Venerate doesn't need to specify anything about legality where it talks about alignment, because it already stipulated that Golarion specific deity is allowed.
It doesn't say any Golarion specific legal to worship deity. It says any Golarion specific deity.
As I said above, any means any.
Then, because alignment had not been addressed yet, it addresses alignment. That line does not change the word any.
You keep ignoring the first line of the definition. There is no mention of legality at all, because the definition says any. Then it further defines that alignment is not a concern. That line doesn't theneed negate the word any just because it doesn't redundantly refer to legality.
You are adding meaning where there isn't any. The context says any and means any.
Venerate refers to the relationship between a PC and a specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy of some sort where the PC follows the cause but gains no specific mechanical reward as a result of doing so. Player characters are able to venerate any Golarion- specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy they wish without alignment concern.It does not state ",also, without any alignment concern." It is same sentence, not an addon.
First off, thank you for writing these rules, but secondly "Player characters are able to venerate any Golarion-specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy they wish without alignment concern" does not read to me as "can worship any deity", it reads to me exactly as it is written, which is to say in regards solely to alignment and nothing else, and does not give the ability to venerate an illegal deity.
|
|
With as many Razmir characters there you would think they would have somewhere stated that Razmir is illegal.
That isn't how PFS works. He's not listed anywhere as Legal. Therefore he's as illegal as the Great old ones specifically excluded from the book.
All the razmiri characters show is that I'm right, veneration/ worship without mechanics don't require a legal source.
Because it's against the rules.
It's not. You have a questionable argument that veneration of something not on the additional resource list is against the rules: arguments that lead to the idea that a lot of legal options are not legal and require some questionable parsing when veneration outright says you can venerate any deity you want. If you can go to any park in new york regardless of the time of day, then you can go to any park in new york.
You're looking for the power to control a characters thoughts, words, actions, and appearance, something very personal to the player and something that requires an extraordinary level of evidence for rules breaking or immersion breaking for the DM to step in. That takes WAY more than what you have here.
|
|
With as many Razmir characters there you would think they would have somewhere stated that Razmir is illegal.That isn't how PFS works. He's not listed anywhere as Legal. Therefore he's as illegal as the Great old ones specifically excluded from the book.
All the razmiri characters show is that I'm right, veneration/ worship without mechanics don't require a legal source.
Because it's against the rules.It's not. You have a questionable argument that veneration of something not on the additional resource list is against the rules: arguments that lead to the idea that a lot of legal options are not legal and require some questionable parsing when veneration outright says you can venerate any deity you want. If you can go to any park in new york regardless of the time of day, then you can go to any park in new york.
You're looking for the power to control a characters thoughts, words, actions, and appearance, something very personal to the player and something that requires an extraordinary level of evidence for rules breaking or immersion breaking for the DM to step in. That takes WAY more than what you have here.
Well actually, it just means you can venerate something that is neither legal nor illegal because it hasn't been brought up. The GOO on the other hand are explicitly illegal.
Veneration only states that you can worship any deity in regards to alignment, not legality.
And wtf dood? And I am definitely NOT looking for that kind of power, not in the slightest. Wtf?
|
|
Well actually, it just means you can venerate something that is neither legal nor illegal because it hasn't been brought up. The GOO on the other hand are explicitly illegal.
Do or do not there is no t...no wait wrong speech.
There is no "not brought up yet" "legal" and "not legal". This distinction doesn't exist in pfs. Something that has not been brought up yet is just as illegal as something thats been excluded.
Veneration only states that you can worship any deity in regards to alignment, not legality.
It doesn't have to. Anything after "any golarion specific deity" is redundant.
And wtf dood? And I am definitely NOT looking for that kind of power, not in the slightest. Wtf?
Thats what it takes to stop veneration. If you're telling a character they can't venerate, thats what you're telling them they can't do. So if you're getting a wtf dude from some posters... thats why. you ARE trying to do that.
It's like being a Wizard but calling yourself a mage, sorceror, or warlock. You should be fine, just leave it out of the character sheet.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're looking for the power to control a characters thoughts, words, actions, and appearance, something very personal to the player and something that requires an extraordinary level of evidence for rules breaking or immersion breaking for the DM to step in. That takes WAY more than what you have here.
Wow, I haven't seen that from anybody here.
On another front, since we message boarders tend to be the worst logicians in the world, at least in terms of thoughtfully and complexly deploying terms of logic, I say up front that the intentional fallacy is not such a term, being sourced in literary theory instead. I say this because I'm about to bring up the intentional fallacy.
To thoughtlessly and over-simply use an argument from authority, I have been a professional writer for almost two decades, and even if grad school hadn't pounded the truth of the intentional fallacy into my noggin, my experience of having people actually read my words and, well, apprehend them in exciting and unexpected ways, would have. Which is to say, just because you intended a certain meaning in something you wrote--and just because you think what you wrote was clear--you, whoever the hypothetical you might be in this case, don't get to decide that. You, in fact, might be the person least well equipped and "authorized" (ethically, logically, and artistically) to do so.
Oh, and BNW, while I agree that we (whoever that is) can't tell them (players, presumably) they can't venerate a Golarion-specific deity, we do tell them what they can and cannot do with their characters and even their personal behaviors. We do it all the time. It's built into everything from the Additional Resources Document to the Community Standards Policy.
|
|
Wow, I haven't seen that from anybody here.
You have. People don't realize that that IS what they're asking for when they're trying to stop someone from venerating something.
On another front, since we message boarders tend to be the worst logicians in the world, at least in terms of thoughtfully and complexly......
zzzzzz
My degree is in trees if you're going to say something you have to say something.
Oh, and BNW, while I agree that we (whoever that is) can't tell them (players, presumably) they can't venerate a Golarion-specific deity, we do tell them what they can and cannot do with their characters and even their personal behaviors. We do it all the time. It's built into everything from the Additional Resources Document to the Community Standards Policy.
The additional resources are mechanics.
Characters and personal behavior require someone to be waaaaay out of line before the DM should be stepping in.