|
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.
Me saying you can't venerate an illegal is in no way, shape, or form, me attempting to control everything about a character. That's beyond absurd.
|
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.
I get that, but in practice I don't see how veneration of the Great Old Ones would be any more disruptive than worship of Groetus.
|
|
I get that, but in practice I don't see how veneration of the Great Old Ones would be any more disruptive than worship of Groetus.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.
In practice no, they'd be just as disruptive along with worshipping Rovagug or a Demon Lord.
The thing is though is that Rovi and Groetus are legal options. Do I like that Rovagug is a legal option? No, but that doesn't make him illegal.
|
Me saying you can't venerate an illegal is in no way, shape, or form, me attempting to control everything about a character. That's beyond absurd.
well, not the mechanics but...
Dress: Can't have a Cthulhu holy symbol, tentacle themed robes, (Cthulhu knit hat?)
Speech: Can't greet you by saying the blessings of Cthulhu's non notice upon you.
Actions: okay, its probably best that NO ONE describes much less mimes the secret non hand hand shake...
|
|
Me saying you can't venerate an illegal is in no way, shape, or form, me attempting to control everything about a character. That's beyond absurd.well, not the mechanics but...
Dress: Can't have a Cthulhu holy symbol, tentacle themed robes, (Cthulhu knit hat?)
Speech: Can't greet you by saying the blessings of Cthulhu's non notice upon you.
Actions: okay, its probably best that NO ONE describes much less mimes the secret non hand hand shake...
This is starting to fall in Slipper Slope Fallacy territory. Acknowledging they (and their merchandise) exist is different than venerating them.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get that, but in practice I don't see how veneration of the Great Old Ones would be any more disruptive than worship of Groetus.
Our Local CG Groetus worshiper is of the "The end is coming... PAAAAaRTY Like its your last day, because it is!" variety inspired by a number of idiots on the weather channel.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get that, but in practice I don't see how veneration of the Great Old Ones would be any more disruptive than worship of Groetus.Our Local CG Groetus worshiper is of the "The end is coming... PAAAAaRTY Like its your last day, because it is!" variety inspired by a number of idiots on the weather channel.
*offers hugs*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason why policing veneration gets people's hackles up is because we object to being told what our characters can *say* in character. Which is all that veneration is: who our character claims to worship.
Every other legality restriction has mechanical implications. This one does not.
Here are some actual examples of veneration I have seen at PFS tables that would be made illegal under that interpretation:
A summoner who venerated his eidolon (and converted several other characters through the years)
A character who venerated one of the Cults of the Failed (people who attempted the Test of the Starstone, but failed...or did they?)
A character who venerated himself, believing himself to be Aroden reborn.
These are some of the most memorable tables I have played at, and I would hate to have missed out on them due to misinterpretation of the veneration rules.
|
|
]This is starting to fall in Slipper Slope Fallacy territory. Acknowledging they (and their merchandise) exist is different than venerating them.Less slippery slope more like required secondary powers.
You stop a character from "Venerating" Cthulhu. What exactly do you stop?
At the Veneration, the worship-not-worship part. You can acknowledge they exist, you can use their name in a curse, you can carry your Cthulthlu plushy with you into battle. You just cannot venerate them.
|
|
At the Veneration, the worship-not-worship part. You can acknowledge they exist, you can use their name in a curse, you can carry your Cthulthlu plushy with you into battle. You just cannot venerate them.
That doesn't answer the question.
I'm asking what is veneration, you're answering with veneration.
You, the Dm, stop the character from venerating Cthulhu.
You, the DM, stop the character from __________ . ????
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason why policing veneration gets people's hackles up is because we object to being told what our characters can *say* in character. Which is all that veneration is: who our character claims to worship.
Every other legality restriction has mechanical implications. This one does not.
Here are some actual examples of veneration I have seen at PFS tables that would be made illegal under that interpretation:
A summoner who venerated his eidolon (and converted several other characters through the years)
A character who venerated one of the Cults of the Failed (people who attempted the Test of the Starstone, but failed...or did they?)
A character who venerated himself, believing himself to be Aroden reborn.These are some of the most memorable tables I have played at, and I would hate to have missed out on them due to misinterpretation of the veneration rules.
I would not think these would be made illegal unless they were later called out as illegal.
The God Callers of Sarkoris are an actual philosophy and faith.
The second would fall under dead god/cult of personality.
The third would be cult of personality.
|
|
At the Veneration, the worship-not-worship part. You can acknowledge they exist, you can use their name in a curse, you can carry your Cthulthlu plushy with you into battle. You just cannot venerate them.That doesn't answer the question.
I'm asking what is veneration, you're answering with veneration.
You, the Dm, stop the character from venerating Cthulhu.
You, the DM, stop the character from __________ . ????
Veneration is, to my knowledge and the position I've seen it in this conversation, "the worship of a creature or faith while gaining no mechanical effects".
Cthulhu is not a philosophy or fake deity, but an actual Pathfidner deity. He is banned PFS. So that's not really fair that the Cleric can't worship (Worship) an actual Deity, but the Fighter can (Venerate).
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, I thought You just said evil deities, which Groetus is not.I get that, but in practice I don't see how veneration of the Great Old Ones would be any more disruptive than worship of Groetus.I don't either. That's why I think, as I said, both should be disallowed.
No, no, that was an error on my part. I thought Groetus was evil. I don't know enough about Groetus or--I don't even know enough about Groetus to know what pronoun is appropriate--or his/her/its following to know what kind of disruptions are likely. Something about the end times, entropy is all, embodied in a planar death moon thing, that's all I've got.
Anyway, that does bring up a fair and valid point about whether Chaotic Neutral (not that I'm saying Groetus is Chaotic Neutral if Groetus is not Chaotic Neutral) is likely to be disruptive. I don't think it has to be. Any alignment can be played in a disruptive way, probably. This organized play campaign bans evil characters, presumably because its been judged that evil alignments are definitionally disruptive.
|
And yet, all are illegal to worship. If you want me to respect your interpretation of my grammar, then it needs to be applied comprehensively. If you aren't willing to apply it comprehensively, and only choose selective things to declare are still illegal, then it just becomes what Rysky doesn't want to see.
|
|
And yet, all are illegal to worship. If you want me to respect your interpretation of my grammar, then it needs to be applied comprehensively. If you aren't willing to apply it comprehensively, and only choose selective things to declare are still illegal, then it just becomes what Rysky doesn't want to see.
?
I thought I was?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slap someone upside the head with a cuttlefish?Lets go with that. You've now banned people from slapping people upside the head with a cuttlefish. Not that druids local 704 isn't happy, but you are prohibiting actions.
No, you can still slap people upside the head with a cuttlefish (sorry Druids local 704. And Flutter), you just can't do it in veneration of Cthulhu.
|
|
]No, you can still slap people upside the head with a cuttlefish (sorry Druids local 704. And Flutter), you just can't do it in veneration of Cthulhu.
Whats the difference? The twist at the end?
You seem to be okay with the guy in the cuthulu robes with the cuthulu holy symbol, Cthulhu hat and Cthulhu plushie shouting out "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" slapping people with cuttlefish but not some ineffable idea of veneration.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm guessing it's not legal.
It seems like your distinction between "worshipping" and "veneration" is unnecessarily legalistic and disingenuous.
It seems you have a contrary agenda and you don't really care about "character concept" so much as finding a loophole.
I think that's what is annoying people.
Merry Christmas!
1. Please don't attack other posters or presume to know why they are asking questions. Because that kind of came off as an attack.
2. If you've got an issue with the distinction between worship and venerate, take it up with the Roleplaying Guild Guide.|
|
I like how the person who wrote the rule stepped in and said "this is what the rule means", and the response was "thanks for writing the rule, but NUH UH because GRAMMAR!"...
You have concrete proof of what the intention of the rule is; arguing past this point is not helpful.
it goes beyond simply grammar. He may have meant one thing when writing it but by adding on "in regards to alignment concerns" it became something else.
And this isn't the first time writers intention and actual implementation have varied.
|
|
]No, you can still slap people upside the head with a cuttlefish (sorry Druids local 704. And Flutter), you just can't do it in veneration of Cthulhu.Whats the difference? The twist at the end?
You seem to be okay with the guy in the cuthulu robes with the cuthulu holy symbol, Cthulhu hat and Cthulhu plushie shouting out "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" slapping people with cuttlefish but not some ineffable idea of veneration.
The fact that you can't worship Cthulhu. Venerate and Worship (big W) are both worship (little W).
Worship is worship with mechanical benefits.
Venerate is worship without mechanical benefits.
|
|
it goes beyond simply grammar. He may have meant one thing when writing it but by adding on "in regards to alignment concerns" it became something else.I don't see how you're getting that out of what was said. You can handwave "grammar" and get anything you want out of it.
Player characters are able to venerate any Golarion-specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy they wish without alignment concern.
This does not read to me at all that you can venerate any deity whatsoever even if they are normalcy illegal. All this reads to me is they can venerate any of them without the one-step alignment rule.
|
|
No, you can still slap people upside the head with a cuttlefish (sorry Druids local 704. And Flutter), you just can't do it in veneration of Cthulhu.Slap someone upside the head with a cuttlefish?Lets go with that. You've now banned people from slapping people upside the head with a cuttlefish. Not that druids local 704 isn't happy, but you are prohibiting actions.
Yes, PC's can venerate Cthulhu. Look at my previous post that has the definitions of worship and venerate. Worship actually makes the distinction that the deity you worship has to be a campaign-legal choice. Venerate says any Golarion specific, it does not mention a necessity to being legal.
|
The writer's intention also doesn't overrule the campaign leadership who publishes the document in the case of daemon harbingers, great old ones, infernal dukes, malebranche, nascent demon lords, orc deities, outer gods, qlippoth lords, and whore queens who are not legal for play specifically. Again this is legal for play meaning any option available. It does not restrict it to worshiping.
|
Contributor
|
I'm losing the plot a little here, Rysky.
Is it true that what both what the original poster and you want is simple clarification on whether veneration of gods illegal to worship is itself legal?
Arguments about whether such should be legal, sidebars about grammar, and etc. are causing me to lose sight of what would actually satisfy everybody here. (I acknowledge I've contributed mightily to those derails, sorry.)
|
|
No, you can still slap people upside the head with a cuttlefish (sorry Druids local 704. And Flutter), you just can't do it in veneration of Cthulhu.Slap someone upside the head with a cuttlefish?Lets go with that. You've now banned people from slapping people upside the head with a cuttlefish. Not that druids local 704 isn't happy, but you are prohibiting actions.
Yes, PC's can venerate Cthulhu. Look at my previous post that has the definitions of worship and venerate. Worship actually makes the distinction that the deity you worship has to be a campaign-legal choice. Venerate says any Golarion specific, it does not mention a necessity to being legal.
Venerate says any Golarion Specific in regards to Alignment Concerns.
|
|
I'm losing the plot a little here, Rysky.
Is it true that what both what the original poster and you want is simple clarification on whether veneration of gods illegal to worship is itself legal?
Arguments about whether such should be legal, sidebars about grammar, and etc. are causing me to lose sight of what would actually satisfy everybody here. (I acknowledge I've contributed mightily to those derails, sorry.)
Yes, that is what I would like. Clarification on whether or not you can Venerate an otherwise specially illegal Deity.
|
|
The fact that you can't worship Cthulhu. Venerate and Worship (big W) are both worship (little W).
Why seperate the two, at all? The glossary doesn't have many words, what do you think the important difference is here that they decided to make sure these two got included?
Venerate is worship without mechanical benefits.
Right, but you seem to have a hard time explaining what a character DOES to worship. So far you're saying that the person that wrote that part is wrong, but you don't want to limit anyone's actions, so therefore that guy wearing a Cthulhu robe with a Cthulhu tentacle knit hat, carrying a Cthulhu plushie and hitting someone in the head with a cuttlefish in the proscribed manner of the Cthulhu cult while chanting "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn." is somehow NOT venerating Cthulhu.
You seem to think that it's a very important rule that no one venerate Cthulu, but have left [venerate Cthulhu] as a null set of actions. Even for this crowd that is a weird position.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The writer's intention also doesn't overrule the campaign leadership who publishes the document in the case of daemon harbingers, great old ones, infernal dukes, malebranche, nascent demon lords, orc deities, outer gods, qlippoth lords, and whore queens who are not legal for play specifically. Again this is legal for play meaning any option available. It does not restrict it to worshiping.You mean the document that predates the "venerate/worship" distinction, and has not been updated to reflect that distinction?
Yeah, sorry, go with the newest rule. Veneration was created with the specific intention of not being restricted by the Additional Resources document.
Last Updated Monday, November 7, 2016
Date Download
Last Updated August 2016
|
|
Venerate says any Golarion Specific in regards to Alignment Concerns.No, you can still slap people upside the head with a cuttlefish (sorry Druids local 704. And Flutter), you just can't do it in veneration of Cthulhu.Slap someone upside the head with a cuttlefish?Lets go with that. You've now banned people from slapping people upside the head with a cuttlefish. Not that druids local 704 isn't happy, but you are prohibiting actions.
Yes, PC's can venerate Cthulhu. Look at my previous post that has the definitions of worship and venerate. Worship actually makes the distinction that the deity you worship has to be a campaign-legal choice. Venerate says any Golarion specific, it does not mention a necessity to being legal.
Venerate says any Golarion Specific even if there would have been alignment concerns.
I understand how you get at your interpretation, but to do that you have to ignore the context in which the rule was written and the intent expressed by the person who wrote the rule.
Let's come at this from another direction...given what you've been told about intent, how would you have worded the rule?
|
|
This does not read to me at all that you can venerate any deity whatsoever even if they are normalcy illegal.
Well, you're reading it wrong. I don't know what to tell you.
You keep coming back to the matter of illegality and it doesn't mean exactly what you think it means.
All this reads to me is they can venerate any of them without the one-step alignment rule.
No. Because it's any deity. You could arbitrarily divide the deities into any group and say "Well the definition didn't mention..." nation of origin, elemental alignment, what plane of existance they live on, etc. Without regard to alignment is just double checking that requirement, it doesn't mean that it ONLY fixes that requirement.
|
|
I like how the person who wrote the rule stepped in and said "this is what the rule means", and the response was "thanks for writing the rule, but NUH UH because GRAMMAR!"...
You have concrete proof of what the intention of the rule is; arguing past this point is not helpful.
I still contend that the grammar of the rule is fine. But I do understand that different people read things differently (and I'm not necessarily saying one is right and the other wrong.) My ability to write 100% clearly is obviously not perfect as is evidenced by this very discussion.
However, in conceding that this could be interpreted incorrectly, easily, can I please get a concession that the wording could mean exactly what I say it means? And if that's the case, why are we choosing to still argue about it? In that, this is why I am copying what SCPRedMage wrote.
I'm unclear exactly what gets solved if you limit veneration to legal deities? I don't see there being a problem.
Rysky thinks its unfair that a fighter can venerate Cthulu but that a cleric cannot worship Cthulu. But a Cleric can venerate any number of other gods while still worshiping a different one. That's what pantheons are for after all. But more than that, I would imagine that Cthulu and Groetus could have a shared agenda. So a cleric could worship Groetus and venerate Cthulu. They just choose to work towards Groetus's ends by using Cthulu's methodology.
|
|
Something likeVenerate says any Golarion Specific in regards to Alignment Concerns.No, you can still slap people upside the head with a cuttlefish (sorry Druids local 704. And Flutter), you just can't do it in veneration of Cthulhu.Slap someone upside the head with a cuttlefish?Lets go with that. You've now banned people from slapping people upside the head with a cuttlefish. Not that druids local 704 isn't happy, but you are prohibiting actions.
Yes, PC's can venerate Cthulhu. Look at my previous post that has the definitions of worship and venerate. Worship actually makes the distinction that the deity you worship has to be a campaign-legal choice. Venerate says any Golarion specific, it does not mention a necessity to being legal.
Venerate says any Golarion Specific even if there would have been alignment concerns.
I understand how you get at your interpretation, but to do that you have to ignore the context in which the rule was written and the intent expressed by the person who wrote the rule.
Let's come at this from another direction...given what you've been told about intent, how would you have worded the rule?
Venerate: 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 that would otherwise be ineligible.
|
|
I like how the person who wrote the rule stepped in and said "this is what the rule means", and the response was "thanks for writing the rule, but NUH UH because GRAMMAR!"...
You have concrete proof of what the intention of the rule is; arguing past this point is not helpful.
I still contend that the grammar of the rule is fine. But I do understand that different people read things differently (and I'm not necessarily saying one is right and the other wrong.) My ability to write 100% clearly is obviously not perfect as is evidenced by this very discussion.
However, in conceding that this could be interpreted incorrectly, easily, can I please get a concession that the wording could mean exactly what I say it means? And if that's the case, why are we choosing to still argue about it? In that, this is why I am copying what SCPRedMage wrote.
I'm unclear exactly what gets solved if you limit veneration to legal deities? I don't see there being a problem.
Rysky thinks its unfair that a fighter can venerate Cthulu but that a cleric cannot worship Cthulu. But a Cleric can venerate any number of other gods while still worshiping a different one. That's what pantheons are for after all. But more than that, I would imagine that Cthulu and Groetus could have a shared agenda. So a cleric could worship Groetus and venerate Cthulu. They just choose to work towards Groetus's ends by using Cthulu's methodology.
Oracles could, but Clerics cannot venerate other deities, at least on Golarion and in Society play.
As to the writing then, why did you you put "alignment concerns" at the end then?
|
|
This does not read to me at all that you can venerate any deity whatsoever even if they are normalcy illegal.
Well, you're reading it wrong. I don't know what to tell you.
You keep coming back to the matter of illegality and it doesn't mean exactly what you think it means.
All this reads to me is they can venerate any of them without the one-step alignment rule.No. Because it's any deity. You could arbitrarily divide the deities into any group and say "Well the definition didn't mention..." nation of origin, elemental alignment, what plane of existance they live on, etc. Without regard to alignment is just double checking that requirement, it doesn't mean that it ONLY fixes that requirement.
BNW and I don't always agree (read hardly ever) on how to interpret things. But he and I are in 100% agreement on the language used here. Now the fact that he is interpreting what I wrote the way I intended it to be written does kinda shade the impact of this agreement a bit, considering that I am not an objective observer.
But I'm not sure what else to say. You know the intent. The campaign leadership understood the intent of what I wrote, because I had a meeting over skype with them before I wrote it, so that they'd understand the intent and that I understood what they wanted the intent to be.
And it did not get changed during development.
|
|
This does not read to me at all that you can venerate any deity whatsoever even if they are normalcy illegal.
Well, you're reading it wrong. I don't know what to tell you.
You keep coming back to the matter of illegality and it doesn't mean exactly what you think it means.
All this reads to me is they can venerate any of them without the one-step alignment rule.No. Because it's any deity. You could arbitrarily divide the deities into any group and say "Well the definition didn't mention..." nation of origin, elemental alignment, what plane of existance they live on, etc. Without regard to alignment is just double checking that requirement, it doesn't mean that it ONLY fixes that requirement.
BNW and I don't always agree (read hardly ever) on how to interpret things. But he and I are in 100% agreement on the language used here. Now the fact that he is interpreting what I wrote the way I intended it to be written does kinda shade the impact of this agreement a bit, considering that I am not an objective observer.
But I'm not sure what else to say. You know the intent. The campaign leadership understood the intent of what I wrote, because I had a meeting over skype with them before I wrote it, so that they'd understand the intent and that I understood what they wanted the intent to be.
And it did not get changed during development.
Then I'm curious as to why you added "without alignment concern" at the end of it.