|
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).
What if the philosophy called out specific Golarion related places and things, wouldn't that then qualify it as a Golarion-specific philosophy? My example would be say a specific mountain in the Five Kings Mountains would explode to herald in the end of times.
|
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).
I would say it's a bit dubious. Unless the player becomes disruptive with it, I likely won't care. But rules-wise, it should be Golarion-specific. And there is a bit of gray area where making up something that can be considered Golarion-specific (e.g. your character's ancestors being venerated as a Shoanti) and not (created a local philosophy from a village where non of it is an actual defined or alluded to thing in Paizo published material.)
In other words, it should have some context from actual published material, and if it doesn't, it's fairly dubious.
|
|
What if the philosophy called out specific Golarion related places and things, wouldn't that then qualify it as a Golarion-specific philosophy? My example would be say a specific mountain in the Five Kings Mountains would explode to herald in the end of times.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).
There is a campaign book full of philosophies called Faith's and Philosophies, that define Golarion-specific philosophies. Real word indigenous peoples often consider mountains deities or spiritual places of power. If you were creating a mountain deity or philosophy to venerate based on real world stuff, them Macchu Pichu would be appropriate.
But to declare mountain veneration Golarion-specific you'd need more than just a mountain name and a real world concept. You'd need some Paizo published material that discusses mountain worship as a thing. Without that, you are just making up your own thing using Paizo created names, rather than using Paizo published concepts.
I'd go so far as to say it's actually more ok to create a name that doesn't exist in published material but uses a published concept, than vice versa.
|
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.
I don't think you have the authority to gainsay him. Especially since he was responsible for working on the revisions to the guide from season seven to season eight.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question essentially becomes, what agency does a player have to create things within a Paizo published shared or organized campaign?
I'd say very little if they want to be taken seriously.
For example, there have been many examples published by Paizo describing rural Taldan nobles. So I created a PFS character who is the son of one such hedge noble of northern Taldor. But I didn't create the name of the estate, land, village, etc. There was no need to in the context of PFS.
I have another character who's story of the border between the Hold of Belkzen and Realm of the Mammoth Lords could be true based on the alluded to history in published material. But I didn't create some extravagant history that redefines the history of a section of the world.
Players need to be careful when creating things like this in case some new published thing makes what they created false.
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I think we have more common ground than not. Perhaps we can focus this conversation in a more productive manner?
- 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.
Let's FAQ this so that we can get an actual clarification from our Campaign Leadership.
Hmm
I have some initial thoughts, but I'd rather discuss them with other team members before I make any statements for, against, or crosswise the several main stances.
|
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).
Pretty sure there's nothing against your character trying to become the next Iori and coming up with the perfect life philosophy that you live by.
many characters are writing books.What you can't do is make up a philosophy and insert it into the campaign as the big thing that's sweeping galt or the play that was so good Aroden came back to life to watch it (although that WOULD be great as a (false) advertising tag line...)
I think someone's ability to create the campaign world around their character tops out around a large villiage.
|
I don't think you have the authority to gainsay him. Especially since he was responsible for working on the revisions to the guide from season seven to season eight.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.
I didn't realize you needed authority to refute someone's change to the content published in additional resources.
He also doesn't have any official weight to the rules.
This post seems needlessly confrontational.
|
|
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).Pretty sure there's nothing against your character trying to become the next Iori and coming up with the perfect life philosophy that you live by.
many characters are writing books.What you can't do is make up a philosophy and insert it into the campaign as the big thing that's sweeping galt or the play that was so good Aroden came back to life to watch it (although that WOULD be great as a (false) advertising tag line...)
I think someone's ability to create the campaign world around their character tops out around a large villiage.
If even that much, but it does appear we are on the same page here again.
|
|
I don't think you have the authority to gainsay him. Especially since he was responsible for working on the revisions to the guide from season seven to season eight.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.I didn't realize you needed authority to refute someone's change to the content published in additional resources.
He also doesn't have any official weight to the rules.
This post seems needlessly confrontational.
I think the reply in tone was due to the perceived tone of your responses.
|
|
I think the reply in tone was due to the perceived tone of your responses.I don't think you have the authority to gainsay him. Especially since he was responsible for working on the revisions to the guide from season seven to season eight.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.I didn't realize you needed authority to refute someone's change to the content published in additional resources.
He also doesn't have any official weight to the rules.
This post seems needlessly confrontational.
Sure but mine was constructive criticism. He even points out it is criticism but then just says I'm not allowed to do that as if I need permission to do such a thing.
On top of that since our posts Hmm provided a good start to resolution to the topic.
So really I find his comment confrontational but not helpful.
|
|
If even that much, but it does appear we are on the same page here again.
Well, think about the alternative. There's a dearth of named, maped out and stated one horse towns in pathfinder (particularly if you're starting out and don't have all the scenarios yet) If everyone has to use the same ones for their mud footed adventurers it would be like "wait.. why don't I know you? Whats your background? that never happened there!"
There's blank space on the maps for good reason.
|
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question essentially becomes, what agency does a player have to create things within a Paizo published shared or organized campaign?
I'd say very little if they want to be taken seriously.
For example, there have been many examples published by Paizo describing rural Taldan nobles. So I created a PFS character who is the son of one such hedge noble of northern Taldor. But I didn't create the name of the estate, land, village, etc. There was no need to in the context of PFS.
I have another character who's story of the border between the Hold of Belkzen and Realm of the Mammoth Lords could be true based on the alluded to history in published material. But I didn't create some extravagant history that redefines the history of a section of the world.
Players need to be careful when creating things like this in case some new published thing makes what they created false.
I both agree and disagree. I agree insomuch as I appreciate playing this game (and working on it) with people who don't try to break canon. Not trying to put a pin on the map that says "This is where my country manor vanity is, and that's where my private island vanity shows up" certainly is playing it safe from a canon perspective.
I disagree from the perspective that this is a game about telling fun stories together, and penciling something into the setting that's true from a player's perspective helps build that foundation in the setting for a character—so long as it's not being used for some significant advantage at the table. Can this set the player up for disappointment later if we later say all of the duke's second cousins died in a tragic hunting accident? Sure, but I also like to think that our players are capable storytellers who can adapt the character's backstory or weave the new information into the ongoing narrative.
I used to be really persnickety about players introducing their own canon, but from a gameplay perspective, I've mellowed on that over the years; I remain vigilant as ever when it comes to official print products. So long as it's not proving a significant detriment to others' enjoyment of the game or being imposed as canon outside of that character's personal continuity, it doesn't both me terribly much. If, for example, the players in eastern Iowa have decided that they all buy their alchemist's fire from this one alchemist PC's shop** in Absalom because it's "certified organic and guaranteed to set fire to your enemies," that sounds to me like something that helps unite the community thanks to their shared and ultimately harmless lore.
|
|
If even that much, but it does appear we are on the same page here again.
Well, think about the alternative. There's a dearth of named, maped out and stated one horse towns in pathfinder (particularly if you're starting out and don't have all the scenarios yet) If everyone has to use the same ones for their mud footed adventurers it would be like "wait.. why don't I know you? Whats your background? that never happened there!"
There's blank space on the maps for good reason.
Agreed. But it's probably best to remain somewhat vague. Northern Taldor near the Verdun Forest, Along the border of Hold of Belkzen and Realm of the Mammoth Lords, along the River Selen somewhere in the River Kingdoms, etc. The more specific you get, the more chances you have of having your creation proven false by published material.
This is more a warning than a statement of can't do.
|
|
The question essentially becomes, what agency does a player have to create things within a Paizo published shared or organized campaign?
I'd say very little if they want to be taken seriously.
For example, there have been many examples published by Paizo describing rural Taldan nobles. So I created a PFS character who is the son of one such hedge noble of northern Taldor. But I didn't create the name of the estate, land, village, etc. There was no need to in the context of PFS.
I have another character who's story of the border between the Hold of Belkzen and Realm of the Mammoth Lords could be true based on the alluded to history in published material. But I didn't create some extravagant history that redefines the history of a section of the world.
Players need to be careful when creating things like this in case some new published thing makes what they created false.
I both agree and disagree. I agree insomuch as I appreciate playing this game (and working on it) with people who don't try to break canon. Not trying to put a pin on the map that says "This is where my country manor vanity is, and that's where my private island vanity shows up" certainly is playing it safe from a canon perspective.
I disagree from the perspective that this is a game about telling fun stories together, and penciling something into the setting that's true from a player's perspective helps build that foundation in the setting for a character—so long as it's not being used for some significant advantage at the table. Can this set the player up for disappointment later if we later say all of the duke's second...
I agree. My commentary was more a warning that the action of rewriting personal continuity could be necessary should details be too extravagant. I've seen some players absolutely devastated because thier characters entire history was nullified by printed product.
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Popping in here to ask whether worshipping the dead gods can also be clarified in your ruling, John.
The Additional Resources document states it's legal to worship dead gods, but there's disagreement on whether it's possible to take legal options that require you to worship one (such as the Aroden religion trait).
Same thing with Razmir. If someone worships him, could they gain access to options that require you to worship no gods (such as Godless Healing)?
|
|
Wow. This thread has 139 posts in it after I stopped reading it to go to my PFS game last night. It certainly blew up. Lesse what transpired here. Oh... whats this?
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.
Thank you so much for posting, Chris. That honestly was the only clarification I needed. Well, not so much that I needed personally, but to reference in case anyone casts doubt in person I guess. Most people tend to back down on a controversial opinion after intent is shown clearly by the writer.
...most people. Because after that for some reason there was still disagreement? Clearly there was still some concern over whether the intention of the writer matched with the opinion from campaign leadership?
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.
Double (less emphatic) BOOM! Mostly because I didn't think it required Chris to back his words up further unless someone actually thought he was lieing?
I will thank Hmm for posting her breakdown. I did hit FAQ, but don't honestly think it is needed. What has been provided in this thread by the writer and campaign leadership already is perfect for my standards (and not just because it matched my interpretation on their meaning).
However, if further clarity is needed I think the only point of disagreement here is that what the intention is doesn't match what is on the Additional Resources page, correct? Wouldn't it just be simple to add a line somewhere on that page stating, "Veneration (as per the definition listed in the Guide) does not require the Golarion-specific deity, pantheon or philosophy to be legal for worship."
Would that not clear up any remaining confusion? Well, I guess to satisfy Nefreet's curiosity you could also add "...or that they even still be alive or exist currently in canon."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finally had a chance to read through the entire thread and had something I thought might be worth adding. It seems clear to me that the Guide to Organized Play intends that deities that are not legal for Worship may still be Venerated. What is less clear is whether the Additional Resources intends to outlaw some deities all together or merely to outlaw their Worship. I don't think an update to the definition of Venerated is needed, but rather the text in Additional Resources could be updated to clarify exactly where a particular deity stands. For example, "Deities aa, bb, and cc are not legal for play. Worship of xx, yy, and zz is not legal, but these deities may be Venerated." This would allow a case-by-case decision on how much a particular deity is allowed in the campaign.
So, in PFS, what penalty if any would a GM impose on a player who says, falsely but in character, that he worships a PFS-illegal deity?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, in PFS, what penalty if any would a GM impose on a player who says, falsely but in character, that he worships a PFS-illegal deity?
Assuming by illegal you meant evil or destructive in some way most NPCs won't be able to recognize an obscure religion because of the DC knowledge check. The information they would be working with his most likely coming from the player at that point.
|
And some feats didn't work as originally written, despite the best intentions of the author and needed revision. We have an additional resources page and now a campaign clarifications page for a reason.
This seems like a good candidate for the campaign clarifications page.This kind of ultra-sensitive rules parsing in the face of being explicitly told what the rule is supposed to mean is why we can't have nice things.Except it's not explicit. It's simply an opinion and not official until someone like John makes a statement, or it's clarified on one of the official documents. Chain of command, too many cooks in the kitchen, etc.
Additional Resources and Campaign Clarifications are there to provide rulings for documents that are not under the purview of PFS leadership. That is not the case here.
PFS leadership would never issue a Campaign Clarification to the Guide for Play. They would just update the Guide.
ETA: The real disagreement in interpretation is whether or not the limitations on worship in Additional Resources have anything to do with the rules for veneration in the Guide.
My opinion is that it is a complete non-sequitor. But the place you fix that is in the Guide. The Guide is the ruling document for PFS -- AR and CC are subsidiary to what it says in the Guide, so because veneration never points you to AR, and nothing in AR addresses veneration, what is in AR is irrelevant to this question. Again, IMO.
So, in PFS, what penalty if any would a GM impose on a player who says, falsely but in character, that he worships a PFS-illegal deity?
Snide glances from NPCs
Of course, wouldn't some perfectly legal deities get the same reaction?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So at the risk of repeating myself, I think that the cleanest way forward is:
Leave the wording in the Guide alone, that is not actually the problem.
and then Campaign Leadership should either say
"We meant for the worship restrictions in AR to apply to venearation" and update AR appropriately to read "worship or venerate"
or say
"Campaign Worship restrictions do not automatically apply to veneration, we will list any future veneration restrictions explicitly in AR" and then trust that a definitive statement by leadership will settle the matter.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion is that it is a complete non-sequitor. But the place you fix that is in the Guide. The Guide is the ruling document for PFS -- AR and CC are subsidiary to what it says in the Guide, so because veneration never points you to AR, and nothing in AR addresses veneration, what is in AR is irrelevant to this question. Again, IMO.So which document would you go to for more information on Cthulhu or the other Great Old Ones?
Would that source be listed on another offical document that has these exact words "...are legal choices except daemon harbingers, great old ones, infernal dukes, ...etc"?
We've gone around and around on which takes priority, and I explained my view is general vs specific, and how I would handle it at a table. I agree that the Guide is the first place to start, and the Guide says to refer to the AR for the legality of anything not in the core rulebook.
You don't need to own a source to use Golarion world-flavor. Maybe they got their inspiration from one of the novels. As long as a deity exists in canon it is fair game to venerate.
The guide's definition of 'venerate' specifies "Golarion-specific deity," not "legal deity." Whether or not a deity is legal in the AR is not a consideration.
I think I may have identified the single case where veneration of a deity could have mechanical implications. It is quite possible that there will be a future PFS scenario in which the PCs encounter a cult of Cthulhu worshipers. It will certainly occur to many of these PCs to tell the members of that cult that they worship Cthulhu too.
If veneration of Cthulhu is illegal in PFS, then of necessity these PCs will be lying and will always need to attempt Bluff checks.
On the other hand, if veneration of Cthulhu is allowed, then any player who can show that item on his character sheet would be able to bypass the Bluff check (since he would in fact be telling the truth).
|
|
It is a fact that most people hold opinions, but that doesn't make those opinions into facts.
What also doesn't turn opinion into facts is a one sided Aristotelian argument arguing "if then" logic as if every pathfinder rule were a perfectly coherent, and non contradictory system and how someone reads things and the tea leaves of "grammar".
If you accept that, then the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of venerate over non venerate.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. No. No no no. The author of the rule told us what he meant when he wrote the bloody rule. That is not an opinion; that is an objective fact. Calling that an opinion shows a clear lack of understanding of what the word "opinion" means. Hint: you can have opinions about facts, but opinions are not facts, and facts are not opinions.
Full stop at "he meant". Is the author in campaign leadership?
No? That makes it opinion.
Now, campaign leadership will likely weigh his opinion very heavily, but they ultimately make the decision and update (or not) any documents.It is a fact that most people hold opinions, but that doesn't make those opinions into facts.
I agree that it is a fact that the author made those comments. That doesn't make the author's comments into facts, or binding in any way.
So it's only my opinion that what I meant is what I meant? Can you tell me what your opinion of what I meant is? I'd like to know so I can revise my own internal dialogue with alternate meanings of my intent.
Look. I'm not trying to claim any authority here. I have none. And I won't feel slighted in the least if campaign leadership clarifies differently than initially intended. Intentions and decisions can change over time, and we are talking about a non documented verbal conversation from last March.
Is it possible I misinterpreted thier intent and thier level of understanding of my intent? Sure it is. I'm just relaying my recollection of the way things transpired to help with clarity. But it seems some will only be happy with an official statement. That's fine.
For the record, and for complete transparency, while I have helped craft rules for the guide since as early as 2012, I have never been the primary lead on a guide revision until the season 8 Guide. Rules I've helped craft include the worship rules that I think first showed up in the season 6 guide, the animal companion FAQs, some wordings in additional resources regarding tge advanced race guide stuff and animal companions, how animal companions can be chosen on respect to what your class list sayscand how that interacts with multiclassing, the posts by Mike Brock and the FAQ on sorcerer crossblooded and wild blooded archetypes interact, seeker rules in i think season 4 or 5 guide, and a few others I can't recall off the top of my head. But I've been directly involved in directly helping policy crafting for several years.
My particular baby, though, is the season 8 glossary. Particularly proud of worship, venerate, affinity, class feature entity (a Compton coined term), clergy, and the regional languages for half breeds and native outsiders.
So there you have it.
Any adjustments, changes, or clarifications don't invalidate what actually happened though. And what happened and my telling you what happened, while anecdotal only, is not an opinion. The opinions are only what people choose to do with or think about those anecdotes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We need a better definition of "Venerate" for PFS.
Some people are equating it to full on worship, just without mechanical benefits.
But that's not what veneration is.
Veneration is when you're about to get on a ship, and you utter a quick prayer to Gozreh that they don't blow you off course.
Veneration is crossing a narrow precipice over a volcano, and praying to Yamatsumi that he doesn't blow you to smithereens.
Veneration is storytelling about the entire Vudran Pantheon, and explaining why each and every god is crucial to the whole, while still maintaining that Irori is best.
Veneration is not performing daily rituals, regular prayers, weekly sacrifices, self adornment, personal trials, quiet whispers, scarification, or any other indication that you regularly follow a deity.
Veneration is quick and fleeting, without any long term focus.
Worship is a lifestyle.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I may have identified the single case where veneration of a deity could have mechanical implications. It is quite possible that there will be a future PFS scenario in which the PCs encounter a cult of Cthulhu worshipers. It will certainly occur to many of these PCs to tell the members of that cult that they worship Cthulhu too.
If veneration of Cthulhu is illegal in PFS, then of necessity these PCs will be lying and will always need to attempt Bluff checks.
On the other hand, if veneration of Cthulhu is allowed, then any player who can show that item on his character sheet would be able to bypass the Bluff check (since he would in fact be telling the truth).
I can take this out of the theoretical.
There is a Season 7 scenario (I forget the name), where the only way to proceed is to win a combat, make a social skill check, or convert to worshipping/venerating the Cultist's deity. When I GM'd this, one of the characters was a CN Rogue who had no deity, and enthusiastically volunteered to convert. I allowed him to do so (and there were definite later implications to that choice). The character still proudly sports the brand of that deity's (un)holy symbol.
If AR were a controlling document for veneration, that conversion would have been disallowed, as that deity is not listed in any legal source. But that was not an intended restriction for that scenario (judging from author comments in the GM thread), and it would have detracted from the fun of everyone at the table.
ETA The scenario is
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Veneration is not performing daily rituals, regular prayers, weekly sacrifices, self adornment, personal trials, quiet whispers, scarification, or any other indication that you regularly follow a deity.Veneration is quick and fleeting, without any long term focus.
Worship is a lifestyle.
No, thats not the difference in PFS and this is why we need the difference. You're trying to tell a player what their character's lifestyle is and that very much isn't your call. Something has to be an egregious violation of immersion or metagaming for that to even be an option.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You need to own the source for literally everything else, what makes this different without explicitly saying it's different?
So whats your source for blond hair, blue eyes, nation of origin? You need a source for the ulfen language you don't need a source to be ulfen. That's the difference between venerate and worship.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Veneration is roleplay, and none of the rulebooks (not even the CRB) are necessary for roleplay-only elements.
The only document that controls roleplay elements is the Guide, with things like the "don't be a jerk" rule (which I know is different in Season 8 but I don't remember what the new version is called.)
If the only Golarion book I had read was People of the River, and from that I thought that Hanspur was cool and I wanted to have my Rogue venerate him, the fact that the AR for People of the River doesn't mention that Hanspur is a legal deity, does not mean that I can't point to that (even if I don't own it) to prove that Hanspur is Golarion-specific, and thus meets the Guide's veneration rules.