Is it legal to have a PFS character that venerates Cthulhu?


Pathfinder Society

151 to 200 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
pH unbalanced wrote:

I have no problem with that wording.

But weirdly, by the same logic you used earlier, that disallows veneration of deities that would be legal to Worship.

Howso? I used "otherwise" while Christoper used "regardless" so it shouldn't exclude anything.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Tallow wrote:
SCPRedMage wrote:

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?

If I wrote, "They can venerate any golarion-specific deity." Then people would argue that they still must be within 1 step alignment. That phrase was merely to ensure that veneration did not have alignment requirements. That a LG character could venerate a CE deity (yeah, lets put aside how absurd that really is for a moment.)

Essentially, adding that phrase was not a qualifier on the word "any" to limit or restrict "any." It was not a qualifier to define the entire sentence (inform you as to what any was referring to.) It was a further defining phrase to allow for even more liberal options in regards to veneration. The word "any" has not been changed. There is a reason why "legal" or any variations of the word, were not used within the definition of venerate. Because legality is not a concern in regards to veneration, because it doesn't matter. There are no mechanical effects of veneration. So it literally does not matter who you choose to venerate. The only stipulation is that it must be Golarion-specific.

And why couldn't a cleric venerate one deity while worshiping another? Its already in the campaign rules that they can worship a pantheon but just need to pick a particular deity in that pantheon to get their mechanical benefits from. And if you pick the Godclaw as that pantheon, you are looking at LG to LE deities. It means that my cleric could worship the pantheon, choose Iomedae to get mechanical benefits from, and by default that means they are venerating the other 4.

Nothing stops a cleric from choosing to venerate one deity while worshiping another. But in play, they better make sure that those two deities have a common goal in kind, or they may end up falling and losing their powers. I doubt highly that Torag would accept someone venerating Rovagug. But I doubt highly he would be all that upset at someone venerating Erastil. As long as observing that veneration did not detract from the worship of Torag or create a conflict of interests to the goals of Torag worship.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Rysky wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

I have no problem with that wording.

But weirdly, by the same logic you used earlier, that disallows veneration of deities that would be legal to Worship.

Howso? I used "otherwise" while Christoper used "regardless" so it shouldn't exclude anything.

It goes to show, that anyone who doesn't like something, can find a way within written language, to disallow anything they want.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Rysky wrote:
Christopher Rowe wrote:
I'd keep it exactly as it is and just add an extra sentence. "Deities, pantheons, and philosophies may be venerated regardless of their legality for worship."

*nods*

Better stated.

Is it better stated?

Some might argue that because alignment isn't discussed, that you still have to be within one step to venerate. Sure, that can be argued that it is within the scope of legality for worship. But it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

Silver Crusade 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to go ahead and say that the language that Andy used for the guide regarding worship/venerate is fine, no changes needed. If the majority of the people here can read the same definition, and come to the same conclusion, then it is fine grammatically. I don't think it needs to be changed because a few people have an issue with it.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Mitch Mutrux wrote:
I'm going to go ahead and say that the language that Andy used for the guide regarding worship/venerate is fine, no changes needed. If the majority of the people here can read the same definition, and come to the same conclusion, then it is fine grammatically. I don't think it needs to be changed because a few people have an issue with it.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I am not so egotistical to believe that it couldn't be better worded. I'm not perfect.

But I have yet to see another wording that either didn't add a lot of unneeded redundancy or doesn't also have issue with clarity in a different way.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Oracles could, but Clerics cannot venerate other deities, at least on Golarion and in Society play.

Clerics can venerate other deities, provided such veneration is not itself a violation of what the first deity wants.

Torag certainly wants you to venerate his family (unless you like his wife more than him, in which case he's probably going to regift you)

Gozreh isn't going to mind if you think Desna is pretty cool and pray to her shrines when you travel...

Desna probably IS going to mind if you start making offerings to Lamashtu or Ravagog without a REAAAAALLY good reason.

Scarab Sages 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Oracles could, but Clerics cannot venerate other deities, at least on Golarion and in Society play.

Clerics can venerate other deities, provided such veneration is not itself a violation of what the first deity wants.

Torag certainly wants you to venerate his family (unless you like his wife more than him, in which case he's probably going to regift you)

Gozreh isn't going to mind if you think Desna is pretty cool and pray to her shrines when you travel...

Desna probably IS going to mind if you start making offerings to Lamashtu or Ravagog without a REAAAAALLY good reason.

Sounds like you and I are really, really on the same page in this discussion.

Shadow Lodge

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

I have no problem with that wording.

But weirdly, by the same logic you used earlier, that disallows veneration of deities that would be legal to Worship.

Howso? I used "otherwise" while Christoper used "regardless" so it shouldn't exclude anything.

Yours was a structural argument, that the later clause restricted the scope of the first part of the sentence to only refer to the subject matter of that clause.

From a structural standpoint, I don't see a meaningful difference between the two phrasings. My normal inclinations are not to interpret either restrictively, but if I were to use the same parser for both, I would interpret them both restrictively.

No criticism at all, btw, I just expected you to make a change in sentence structure rather than vocabulary, since you had been making a grammatical argument.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:


Sounds like you and I are really, really on the same page in this discussion.

I am going to blame the more than copious amounts of painkiller i'm going through this weekend. :)

Liberty's Edge

no it is not allowed. from Additional Resources on the book Inner Sea Gods

Additional Resources wrote:
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. A PC may worship a dead deity, but such gods grant no spells or other benefits;

Scarab Sages 5/5

Swordjockey wrote:

no it is not allowed. from Additional Resources on the book Inner Sea Gods

Additional Resources wrote:
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. A PC may worship a dead deity, but such gods grant no spells or other benefits;

Certainly, they are illegal for worship.

Venerate works differently in PFS.

Scarab Sages 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Tallow wrote:


Sounds like you and I are really, really on the same page in this discussion.

I am going to blame the more than copious amounts of painkiller i'm going through this weekend. :)

chuckle... ;b

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Okay, lots of posts when I wasn't looking.

@Andrew, if it wasn't for that addition yes I would believe (and think they should, contrary to the rule) stay within one step of those they venerate.

But to me, from the way it is worded, it only talks about alignment concerns, instead of alignment concerns being an addition

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
Swordjockey wrote:

no it is not allowed. from Additional Resources on the book Inner Sea Gods

Additional Resources wrote:
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. A PC may worship a dead deity, but such gods grant no spells or other benefits;

Certainly, they are illegal for worship.

Venerate works differently in PFS.

No. That is not worship. That is the list for what is legal for play.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Ragoz wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Swordjockey wrote:

no it is not allowed. from Additional Resources on the book Inner Sea Gods

Additional Resources wrote:
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. A PC may worship a dead deity, but such gods grant no spells or other benefits;

Certainly, they are illegal for worship.

Venerate works differently in PFS.

No. That is not worship. That is the list for what is legal for play.

I do not see the distinction that you see.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Rysky wrote:

Okay, lots of posts when I wasn't looking.

@Andrew, if it wasn't for that addition yes I would believe (and think they should, contrary to the rule) stay within one step of those they venerate.

But to me, from the way it is worded, it only talks about alignment concerns, instead of alignment concerns being an addition

Understood. But I think its pretty clear that you are in the minority in that interpretation. Wouldn't you agree?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Tallow wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Okay, lots of posts when I wasn't looking.

@Andrew, if it wasn't for that addition yes I would believe (and think they should, contrary to the rule) stay within one step of those they venerate.

But to me, from the way it is worded, it only talks about alignment concerns, instead of alignment concerns being an addition

Understood. But I think its pretty clear that you are in the minority in that interpretation. Wouldn't you agree?

Vocal minority, but not the only person, in this or the other threads.

Shadow Lodge

Ragoz wrote:
Additional Resources wrote:
Last Updated Monday, November 7, 2016
Roleplaying Guild Guide (PFRPG) wrote:

Date Download

Last Updated August 2016

Oh boy, I didn't realize that the entire Additional Resources document was completely re-written every time it updates!

The Exchange

Tallow wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Swordjockey wrote:

no it is not allowed. from Additional Resources on the book Inner Sea Gods

Additional Resources wrote:
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. A PC may worship a dead deity, but such gods grant no spells or other benefits;

Certainly, they are illegal for worship.

Venerate works differently in PFS.

No. That is not worship. That is the list for what is legal for play.
I do not see the distinction that you see.

Re-posting from Page 2:

Additional Resources wrote:

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.

Quote:
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.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Rysky wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Okay, lots of posts when I wasn't looking.

@Andrew, if it wasn't for that addition yes I would believe (and think they should, contrary to the rule) stay within one step of those they venerate.

But to me, from the way it is worded, it only talks about alignment concerns, instead of alignment concerns being an addition

Understood. But I think its pretty clear that you are in the minority in that interpretation. Wouldn't you agree?
Vocal minority, but not the only person, in this or the other threads.

I agree. You are not alone in your opinion.

But I think that being in the vocal minority has to at the very least make you re-evaluate your opinion on the grammar of the sentence?

Scarab Sages 5/5

Ragoz wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Swordjockey wrote:

no it is not allowed. from Additional Resources on the book Inner Sea Gods

Additional Resources wrote:
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. A PC may worship a dead deity, but such gods grant no spells or other benefits;

Certainly, they are illegal for worship.

Venerate works differently in PFS.

No. That is not worship. That is the list for what is legal for play.
I do not see the distinction that you see.

Re-posting from Page 2:

Additional Resources wrote:

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.

Quote:
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.

Reposting doesn't change the fact I do not see the distinction between "illegal" and "illegal to worship" that you see.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Tallow wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Okay, lots of posts when I wasn't looking.

@Andrew, if it wasn't for that addition yes I would believe (and think they should, contrary to the rule) stay within one step of those they venerate.

But to me, from the way it is worded, it only talks about alignment concerns, instead of alignment concerns being an addition

Understood. But I think its pretty clear that you are in the minority in that interpretation. Wouldn't you agree?
Vocal minority, but not the only person, in this or the other threads.

I agree. You are not alone in your opinion.

But I think that being in the vocal minority has to at the very least make you re-evaluate your opinion on the grammar of the sentence?

Not really. For one this is over one time of day on the weekend, what if tomorrow 10 new posters join this thread and agree with me? Just because more people are in agreement with you doesn't change the way I read what you wrote.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Rysky wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Okay, lots of posts when I wasn't looking.

@Andrew, if it wasn't for that addition yes I would believe (and think they should, contrary to the rule) stay within one step of those they venerate.

But to me, from the way it is worded, it only talks about alignment concerns, instead of alignment concerns being an addition

Understood. But I think its pretty clear that you are in the minority in that interpretation. Wouldn't you agree?
Vocal minority, but not the only person, in this or the other threads.

I agree. You are not alone in your opinion.

But I think that being in the vocal minority has to at the very least make you re-evaluate your opinion on the grammar of the sentence?

Not really. For one this is over one time of day on the weekend, what if tomorrow 10 new posters join this thread and agree with me? Just because more people are in agreement with you doesn't change the way I read what you wrote.

Fair enough. But rather than arguing that it isn't legal, because now you know the intent of the language, can we re-direct to how it could be clearly and concisely (think brevity) written without too much redundancy?

That would be much more productive.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
Reposting doesn't change the fact I do not see the distinction between "illegal" and "illegal to worship" that you see.

I'm not sure I follow. It isn't a legal choice for play. I don't make any distinction between that and worshiping in my argument. I don't reference worship at all because it isn't part of my argument.

Liberty's Edge

the reason it matters is because there are feats liked to certain gods.
as for Venerate
Merriam Webster dictionary.

Merriam Webster wrote:

venerate

transitive verb
1: to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference
2: to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion

Scarab Sages 5/5

Ragoz wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Reposting doesn't change the fact I do not see the distinction between "illegal" and "illegal to worship" that you see.
I'm not sure I follow. It isn't a legal choice for play. I don't make any distinction between that and worshiping in my argument. I don't reference worship at all because it isn't part of my argument.

I understand. But the fact you aren't making a distinction is the distinction.

You are saying that "illegal for play" means exactly that in all forms. Where I am saying that "illegal for play" means "illegal to worship."

Because before the "venerate" term was officially defined, the only "in play" option for the deities, was to worship them.

In other words, before venerate was officially defined, essentially any player had the right to venerate anything they wanted to, up to and including non-Golarion-specific deities, like Pelor, Kelemvor, Bobo the Clown, etc.

What has happened, is that the definition of venerate has officially said its ok to do that, for Golarion-specific things. It has actually become more restrictive with the official definition.

But "illegal for play" does not mean you cannot venerate an entity that exists within Golarion.

As a GM, are you going to tell me that I can't choose whatever fluff I want, within Golarion-specificity? And what does it change or hurt to allow it? If it has no mechanical effect...

Shadow Lodge

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Swordjockey wrote:

the reason it matters is because there are feats liked to certain gods.

as for Venerate
Merriam Webster dictionary.
Merriam Webster wrote:

venerate

transitive verb
1: to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference
2: to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion

Venerate has a definition in the Guide to play. You need to look there rather than the dictionary.

PFS does not use the words worship and venerate interchangeably.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Swordjockey wrote:

the reason it matters is because there are feats liked to certain gods.

as for Venerate
Merriam Webster dictionary.
Merriam Webster wrote:

venerate

transitive verb
1: to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference
2: to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion

Have you actually read the definitions in the Glossary to the Season 8 Guide? PFS makes a specific distinction between worship and venerate. I don't care what the dictionary defines it as. It means something different in game speak for PFS purposes.

If you want any kind of mechanical benefit (be a cleric or other divine casting class that gains spells and abilities from a deity, get a feat, take a trait, etc.) from a deity, you must worship the deity. The season 8 guide glossary has a specific definition of what worship means and the requirements to be considered doing so.

Venerate does not allow any mechanical benefits per the season 8 guide glossary. So you can be considered to venerate a deity and not meat the specific requirements of worshiping one. And by claiming to venerate a deity, you cannot then use that to take any mechanical benefits such as spell casting classes that require a deity or feats or traits or anything else.

If you are going to chime in on the discussion, please make sure you actually understand the definitions being used.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
You are saying that "illegal for play" means exactly that in all forms. Where I am saying that "illegal for play" means "illegal to worship."

I don't think you have the authority to say that and have it mean anything in an official capacity to be honest.

Liberty's Edge

you are correct, so as long a the PC takes nothing that gives a mechanical effect it should be ok. Paizo needs to update the additional recesses guide on this subject.

Contributor

I have often suspected that a minority (at least in my area) of PFS players actually thoroughly read the Guide. Some of the posts here reinforce that suspicion a little. How many people have posted about the lexical semantics of the words "venerate" and "worship" in seeming ignorance of the definitions used by the campaign? They're not even in some (relatively) obscure place like a blog post or the Campaign Clarifications document, they're right there in one of the two resources we're all required to have.

Oh well, as a guy I was once playing PFS with said, "It says I have to have it, it doesn't say I have to have read it."

Scarab Sages 5/5

Ragoz wrote:
Tallow wrote:
You are saying that "illegal for play" means exactly that in all forms. Where I am saying that "illegal for play" means "illegal to worship."
I don't think you have the authority to say that and have it mean anything in an official capacity to be honest.

You are correct. I don't have any authority. But I still contend that I am correct.

It's about letting folks roleplay what they want but defining how they can do so in relation to mechanical benefit.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Cthulhu is not a legal option.

Per Additioanl Resources:
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.

Note that this just flat out calls these items as non-legal options in general for PFS. It does not clarify between Veneration or Worship, it simply states that the listed options are not legal options for PFS Characters. We know this because of the first paragraph of the Additional Resources page.

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.

As the AR clarifies what is legal for play, and as the Inner Sea Gods book line makes clear those are not legal options.

As the AR clarifies the legality in general, any discussion of "Veneration vs Worship" doesn't matter. Great Old Ones are not a legal option for PFS Characters.

Contributor

NightTrace wrote:

Cthulhu is not a legal option.

Per Additioanl Resources:
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.

Note that this just flat out calls these items as non-legal options in general for PFS. It does not clarify between Veneration or Worship, it simply states that the listed options are not legal options for PFS Characters. We know this because of the first paragraph of the Additional Resources page.

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.

As the AR clarifies what is legal for play, and as the Inner Sea Gods book line makes clear those are not legal options.

As the AR clarifies the legality in general, any discussion of "Veneration vs Worship" doesn't matter. Great Old Ones are not a legal option for PFS Characters.

This argument is why I think the definition of venerate needs to make some reference to legality, contextualizing it in terms of legal for worship/legal for veneration.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/55/55/5 Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

14 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Gang, we've cycled through endlessly on this thread and are making no further progress.

IN SUMMATION

We've discussed the PFS definitions of worship and venerate over and over.

1) Everyone is in agreement that you can only worship legal gods for PFS.

2) There is some disagreement about what gods you may venerate.

  • Some people believe that you should only be able to venerate PFS legal deities.
  • There's a question of whether dead gods like Aroden may be worshipped. Since there is a PFS legal Aroden trait, I would say that the campaign currently allows both the worship and veneration of dead gods, you just cannot get spells and domains from them.
  • Some people believe that you can venerate any Golarian specific deity so long as you get no mechanical value from that deity. Cthulhu is on this list. Others believe that if a deity is not legal for PFS general worship, it should not be allowed for veneration either.
  • Some further believe that illegal deities should be considered unavailable for PFS PCs in any context.
  • Some people contend that they should be able to venerate non-Golarian gods like Banjo the Clown. Others strongly disagree, feeling that this would violate the flavor of the campaign world.
  • There were questions about veneration of things not covered by the current list of Golarian deities that still might fit into Golarian lore: witch patrons, shamanism with spirits, Mwangi ancestor worship. Many GMs feel that this would fit the flavor of Golarian lore and the PFS world and could be allowed.
I think we have more common ground than not. Perhaps we can focus this conversation in a more productive manner?

Let's FAQ this so that we can get an actual clarification from our Campaign Leadership.

Hmm

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Tallow wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Okay, lots of posts when I wasn't looking.

@Andrew, if it wasn't for that addition yes I would believe (and think they should, contrary to the rule) stay within one step of those they venerate.

But to me, from the way it is worded, it only talks about alignment concerns, instead of alignment concerns being an addition

Understood. But I think its pretty clear that you are in the minority in that interpretation. Wouldn't you agree?
Vocal minority, but not the only person, in this or the other threads.

I agree. You are not alone in your opinion.

But I think that being in the vocal minority has to at the very least make you re-evaluate your opinion on the grammar of the sentence?

Not really. For one this is over one time of day on the weekend, what if tomorrow 10 new posters join this thread and agree with me? Just because more people are in agreement with you doesn't change the way I read what you wrote.

Fair enough. But rather than arguing that it isn't legal, because now you know the intent of the language, can we re-direct to how it could be clearly and concisely (think brevity) written without too much redundancy?

That would be much more productive.

I like how Rowe stated it. And as for alignment I would actually leave that out so that normal alignment restrictions are still followed. Otherwise you lead to situations where players of Paladins and other Good aligned divine classss will try to venerate Rovagug. Which also wouldn't gel with your current writing.

Quote:
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.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If they were to do an update and provide a new AR entry specifically in regards to Veneration then that's one thing. I think this entire thread is encapsulating RAI vs RAW.

RAW the answer is clear because the option isn't legal for a PFS character.

RAI the answer might change because I'm not going to pretend I know the intent, I can only talk to what is written.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Gang, we've cycled through endlessly on this thread and are making no further progress.

IN SUMMATION

We've discussed the PFS definitions of worship and venerate over and over.

1) Everyone is in agreement that you can only worship legal gods for PFS.

2) There is some disagreement about what gods you may venerate.

  • Some people believe that you should only be able to venerate PFS legal deities.
  • There's a question of whether dead gods like Aroden may be worshipped. Since there is a PFS legal Aroden trait, I would say that the campaign currently allows both the worship and veneration of dead gods, you just cannot get spells and domains from them.
  • Some people believe that you can venerate any Golarian specific deity so long as you get no mechanical value from that deity. Cthulhu is on this list. Others believe that if a deity is not legal for PFS general worship, it should not be allowed for veneration either.
  • Some people contend that they should be able to venerate non-Golarian gods like Banjo the Clown. Others strongly disagree, feeling that this would violate the flavor of the campaign world.
  • There were questions about veneration of things not covered by the current list of Golarian deities that still might fit into Golarian lore: witch patrons, shamanism with spirits, Mwangi ancestor worship. Many GMs feel that this would fit the flavor of Golarian lore and the PFS world and could be allowed.
I think we have more common ground than not. Perhaps we can focus this conversation in a more productive manner?

Hmm

FaQ?

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/55/55/5 Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I FAQed my own post. Maybe others will join in too.

Hmm

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Well I saw that 3 people had FAQed when I went to do so :3


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't help myself!!!

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
  • Some people believe that you can venerate any Golarian specific deity so long as you get no mechanical value from that deity. Cthulhu is on this list. Others believe that if a deity is not legal for PFS general worship, it should not be allowed for veneration either.
  • Again it goes beyond that. The options aren't only not available for worship. They aren't available full stop.

    Scarab Sages 5/5

    Rysky wrote:
    Tallow wrote:
    Rysky wrote:
    Tallow wrote:
    Rysky wrote:
    Tallow wrote:
    Rysky wrote:

    Okay, lots of posts when I wasn't looking.

    @Andrew, if it wasn't for that addition yes I would believe (and think they should, contrary to the rule) stay within one step of those they venerate.

    But to me, from the way it is worded, it only talks about alignment concerns, instead of alignment concerns being an addition

    Understood. But I think its pretty clear that you are in the minority in that interpretation. Wouldn't you agree?
    Vocal minority, but not the only person, in this or the other threads.

    I agree. You are not alone in your opinion.

    But I think that being in the vocal minority has to at the very least make you re-evaluate your opinion on the grammar of the sentence?

    Not really. For one this is over one time of day on the weekend, what if tomorrow 10 new posters join this thread and agree with me? Just because more people are in agreement with you doesn't change the way I read what you wrote.

    Fair enough. But rather than arguing that it isn't legal, because now you know the intent of the language, can we re-direct to how it could be clearly and concisely (think brevity) written without too much redundancy?

    That would be much more productive.

    I like how Rowe stated it. And as for alignment I would actually leave that out so that normal alignment restrictions are still followed. Otherwise you lead to situations where players of Paladins and other Good aligned divine classss will try to venerate Rovagug. Which also wouldn't gel with your current writing.

    Quote:
    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.

    I think that liberalized the alignment thing is a good idea though. It allows Paladins to venerate Pharasma, which would not usually go against thier deity or code. Sure there would be choices like you suggest, but then a GM has the leeway to call them on it, and if they actually act in game towards aspects that don't fit the deity or code, then you have a fallen paladin. I'm really not all that concerned about a players baseless claims just to be wierd.

    Grand Lodge 5/5 5/55/55/5 Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Ragoz wrote:
    Again it goes beyond that. The options aren't only not available for worship. They aren't available full stop.

    That's why we need to FAQ this, Ragoz. Because there is some disagreement here.

    Hmm

    Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    Tallow wrote:
    Rysky wrote:
    Tallow wrote:
    Rysky wrote:
    Tallow wrote:
    Rysky wrote:
    Tallow wrote:
    Rysky wrote:

    Okay, lots of posts when I wasn't looking.

    @Andrew, if it wasn't for that addition yes I would believe (and think they should, contrary to the rule) stay within one step of those they venerate.

    But to me, from the way it is worded, it only talks about alignment concerns, instead of alignment concerns being an addition

    Understood. But I think its pretty clear that you are in the minority in that interpretation. Wouldn't you agree?
    Vocal minority, but not the only person, in this or the other threads.

    I agree. You are not alone in your opinion.

    But I think that being in the vocal minority has to at the very least make you re-evaluate your opinion on the grammar of the sentence?

    Not really. For one this is over one time of day on the weekend, what if tomorrow 10 new posters join this thread and agree with me? Just because more people are in agreement with you doesn't change the way I read what you wrote.

    Fair enough. But rather than arguing that it isn't legal, because now you know the intent of the language, can we re-direct to how it could be clearly and concisely (think brevity) written without too much redundancy?

    That would be much more productive.

    I like how Rowe stated it. And as for alignment I would actually leave that out so that normal alignment restrictions are still followed. Otherwise you lead to situations where players of Paladins and other Good aligned divine classss will try to venerate Rovagug. Which also wouldn't gel with your current writing.

    Quote:
    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.
    ...

    *nods*

    Fair point.

    The Exchange

    Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
    Ragoz wrote:
    Again it goes beyond that. The options aren't only not available for worship. They aren't available full stop.

    That's why we need to FAQ this, Ragoz. Because there is some disagreement here.

    Hmm

    I'm just making sure the argument is included in the FAQ because this position wasn't even though the list seemed to imply it was exhaustive.

    Grand Lodge 5/5 5/55/55/5 Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

    I've added a line:

    Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
  • Some further believe that illegal deities should be considered unavailable for PFS PCs in any context.
  • Hmm

    Sovereign Court 3/5 Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka crashcanuck

    So what about venerating a philosophy based on cataclysms, dreams, the stars and madness?

    Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    crashcanuck wrote:
    So what about venerating a philosophy based on cataclysms, dreams, the stars and madness?

    That just adds to the question of can you venerate a philosophy you come up with yourself (unless there is one).

    151 to 200 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Is it legal to have a PFS character that venerates Cthulhu? All Messageboards