|
So, for the record, here's a possible solution. Thoughts?
• We currently have a hodgepodge of deities, both dead and alive, that are a mix of legal, illegal and unknown.
• We have a hodgepodge of feats, spells, etc. that are legal, but require the worship of an illegal (or unknown status) deity.
Let's switch this up.
• Make all deities legal for worship, as currently defined by the Guide.
• Make the hodgepodge of feats, spells, etc. that were previously legal but unattainable, simply illegal.
• Add an expanded definition to the term "Venerate".
Result? People can actually worship the deity they want, roleplay however they want, and gain whatever benefits from doing so that they want (except for those that are banned via Additional Resources, as is normal).
Yes? No? Comments? Concerns?
|
I'm just going to address a few of your points nefreet in no particular order.
1.clarifying veneration. Simply putting somewhere official: veneration serves no game mechanical benifit and thus is up to GM discretion on what is suitable for your campaign. Say Jim worships Julio theagic singing cactus, this typically is not relevant aside from a few odd glances and maybe a question from an inquisitive NPC. However if in the desert the PC's are looking for water, I may give Jim a +2 bonus on cacti knowledge to harvest water from one.
2.many illegal diets are illegal to worship because they are disruptive and cause the flow of stories to not function in pfs, ie. Running into your buddy jack from the rovugug cult meetings. Feats areally made illegal due to "crunch" and are removed from the game for logistical reasons. Say they maDE a race 100% illegal, they would not need to go back and change the feats because you can't get the feats. There is no need to specify that a feat that requires yoh to worship cuthulu is illegal, because the act of worship is also illegal.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be neater to clean up "elements" (feats, traits, deity-specific spells etcetera) that are themselves not banned but have an impossible deity prerequisite. They're a little confusing, and sometimes get peoples' hopes up.
Veneration can basically stay as it is. I think it would be better to widen the definition a bit beyond "Golarion specific" things that are enumerated in a book somewhere. A Rahadoumi PC should be able to venerate Justice even though that's not a specifically enumerated faith or philosophy. In any case, Veneration doesn't let you take "elements". Conversely, because there should be no need to look up anything, you don't need any Additional Resource for it either.
Aroden should be a special case. I'd say include him as a deity that can be worshiped so that you can gain relevant traits and such, but of course with the note that he doesn't grant divine powers anymore.
Banjhulu and other "foreign" things, like people trying to worship the Greyhawk pantheon, should be discouraged. Again, there are good and bad faith cases. A player might want to play a slightly insane PC that follows a deity of his own imagining. Not out of the question for oracles really. Taking stuff from other games seems lame to me and I wouldn't encourage it. But I could see someone with a PC whose backstory is that he fell through a planar rift from a different world into this one and he's discovering it. That could either be fun, or it could be a bore if he keeps trying to draw other players into conversations about non-PF pantheons that they don't want to acknowledge.
But really, those are fringe cases. I don't think we need a big locked-down system for veneration just to prevent a few of those cases. Those are better handled by communicating with problem players, rather than saddling the rest of us with more baroque restrictions.
|
|
many illegal deities are illegal to worship because they are disruptive and cause the flow of stories to not function in pfs,
This is actually the crux of why I'd like to see the current rule revisited.
Currently, players are only allowed to Venerate illegal deities (but there's no restriction on which Golarion deities may be Venerated). It's a practice that results in no mechanical effect, no matter how dedicated the player or the character is to that deity. I, as the GM, have to ignore everything deity-related about that character. No bonus to interact with that deity's followers, no attention from enemies of that deity, no consideration of roleplay and no bonus to cactus juice drinking competitions.
The result? Something ranging from a frustrated player to a disruptive player.
Elaborating on Venerate and opening up all of the currently Venerable ("Venerateable"?) deities to full on worship, which is what those players really wanted to do the whole time anyways, solves this from both the player's and the GM's perspective.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
. I, as the GM, have to ignore everything deity-related about that character. No bonus to interact with that deity's followers, no attention from enemies of that deity, no consideration of roleplay and no bonus to cactus juice drinking competitions.
You do not have to. That's on you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nefreet gets it, it's done to be that one special person that does it to be special.
There isn't a single religious non evil character concept that can't be realized using the hundreds of already allowed deities.
Nefreet gets it, it's done to be that one special person that does it to be special.
There isn't a single religious non evil character concept that can't be realized using the hundreds of already allowed deities.
Could that not be said of allowing new feats/spells/traits/items? Is there really going to be anything new under the sun with the next book to roll out, or will it just be a new possibly more efficient method of something that already exist?
|
|
Or, how about we do not advocate for change at all?
Myself and what appears to be the majority of players and GMs prefer the current rules. After this thread and the last one I have seen that it needs some clarification. We got that clarification from the writer of the rule in the form of his intent with the backing of Campaign Leadership. There is no question how they wanted it to work, only question in how their words portrayed their ruling.
I have had some characters get majorly screwed over by straight up changes in mechanics. That is tough and forces you to reconsider whether your build is even viable sometimes. I have one character who used Brawler armor enhancement, Maneuver Master Monk and a Jingasa. He was hit pretty hard. He not only couldn't use the Brawler enhancement any more but couldn't even use the enhancement he wanted it for.
These mechanical changes were a pretty big hit to the character. But what Nefreet is advocating is a change to the concepts that people have built characters on. In many ways that is a big enough hit to force you out of wanting to even play the character anymore. I am sure there are several people who already have characters that they have built and been playing for years. If a change is made in not only who they are allowed to worship but who they are allowed to venerate; a purely roleplay aspect of their character but one more important than any feat or ability is concerned; well ... how would you feel?
I would be upset that Paizo just crushed my concept that I put so much time into building and playing. I chose an option that was perfectly legal by the rules given to me, I bought all the resources that were required to bring my build to life, I not only had fun playing with friends but helped build a fun playing environment and those are all now just memories because someone who has never even played with me thinks that my choice in who my fictional character chooses to venerate was in "bad faith" and that I only chose to do it to "get on other players' nerves".
No, I don't think any change is needed. I honestly haven't seen anything indicating that it is even being considered so I don't see the point in advocating it. I am on board for clarification but it seems like a pretty simple thing to me. As I said before:
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."
Does that not cover all ambiguity left in the rules?
Could that not be said of allowing new feats/spells/traits/items? Is there really going to be anything new under the sun with the next book to roll out, or will it just be a new possibly more efficient method of something that already exist?Nefreet gets it, it's done to be that one special person that does it to be special.
There isn't a single religious non evil character concept that can't be realized using the hundreds of already allowed deities.
There's stuff not allowed from new books released all the time. :-)
It's nothing new. :-)
Could that not be said of allowing new feats/spells/traits/items? Is there really going to be anything new under the sun with the next book to roll out, or will it just be a new possibly more efficient method of something that already exist?Nefreet gets it, it's done to be that one special person that does it to be special.
There isn't a single religious non evil character concept that can't be realized using the hundreds of already allowed deities.
There's stuff not allowed from new books released all the time. :-)
It's nothing new. :-)
But following the deity logic then we could just stop approving new PFS content altogether. You can already make your build no need for anything else.
|
|
That said, how does "not allowed for play" significantly differ from "is not a legal choice" in this context?1) Legal choices come with mechanics. Domains, feats, traits, magic items, alternate spellcasting options, divine obediences. That is crunch. Veneration has no crunch, so it does not require legality
2) it is weird to assume that rules written a year in advance of the veneration /worship divide are going to take that divide, AND your interpretation of that divide, into your account.
Legal deity choices may be about more than mechanics. It may be that campaign leadership has decided that they don't want a particular deity to be part of the PFS campaign in any way, shape, or form. I am asking that they clarify this. I am not assuming that the information in the Additional Resources takes the new definitions of Worship/Venerate into account - on the contrary, I am assuming that it does not and I am asking that Additional Resources be updated to reflect this new divide.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a practice that results in no mechanical effect, no matter how dedicated the player or the character is to that deity. I, as the GM, have to ignore everything deity-related about that character. No bonus to interact with that deity's followers, no attention from enemies of that deity, no consideration of roleplay and no bonus to cactus juice drinking competitions.
Where are you getting this idea? Illegal-to-worship deities are discouraged generally by not having access to feats and divine power. But, that doesn't mean you can't roleplay in a freaking roleplaying game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But following the deity logic then we could just stop approving new PFS content altogether. You can already make your build no need for anything else.Could that not be said of allowing new feats/spells/traits/items? Is there really going to be anything new under the sun with the next book to roll out, or will it just be a new possibly more efficient method of something that already exist?Nefreet gets it, it's done to be that one special person that does it to be special.
There isn't a single religious non evil character concept that can't be realized using the hundreds of already allowed deities.
There's stuff not allowed from new books released all the time. :-)
It's nothing new. :-)
That's not what I said.
But you know that already. :-)
If the list of deities is large enough and all encompassing enough that you can already fit your concept and is clearly only done to be a snowflake and that is the only reason, then it follows that nothing new is needed for the crunch side unless it allows for a concept not already available.
That's not what I said. :-)
You don't not get to make up random, baseless assertions about your follow gamers and you certainly don't get to get policy made about those random baseless assertions.Nefreet gets it, it's done to be that one special person that does it to be special.
You're not my baseless assertion supervisor!!!
|
|
So what do we call someone who wants to play an actual polytheist and is only getting mechanic benefits for one deity (as is stipulated in the Guide), but wants to effectively role-play their lifestyle devotion to multiple deities?Look at my third description of Veneration for that answer =)
I have a Vudran character that does just that, actually.
your post indicates that you either think that someone should not be able to role-play their equal devotion to multiple deities or that there should be a third term, I'm not sure which.
=/=
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.
I'm referring to characters who equally worship venerate perform faithful devotion to more than one deity in an equal basis or even the basis where they may actually revere a deity that they venerate more than the one from which they receive mechanical benefit.
I'm not referring in any way to illegal deity choices, btw, only the changes you're proposing to how venerate should viewed and how it will affect legal deities as well.
|
|
I also want to address something else that happened up thread.
You've called people wanting to worship an in cannon god griefers , immersion breaking attention seekers deliberately trying to push the boundary of the game just to annoy you. Whether you recognize that or not that is some serious hate on for other peoples characters.
You have a very interesting filter.
Knock that off. You said those things. They are not out of context, the problem isn't my filter its the dross you're throwing at your fellow players.
Nefreet, because I understand something of the environment that you work in I know you understand the concept of "perception is reality". If someone in your work place felt attacked by the personal opinions that you shared about your work but were within the rules with the actions that they took (that you were not present for and have no personal context of) do you think they would have a case to bring to HR? How do you think that would go?
To liken that to the current situation; you have never played with me or the original poster of this topic (crashcanuck), do not know the motives that exist in our head for playing the characters we choose to play and have chosen to be insulting despite this. Despite our choices being perfectly legal as pointed out by the writer of the rule. You have said such things as:
"There would be no mechanical effect other than to get on other players' nerves.
So, no. Do it in a homegame. Not PFS."
"I question your motives as a player."
You have insisted with the writer of the rule, against what was intended by Campaign Leadership that they not choose to define Venerate the way they do but in favor of the way that YOU do.
"And then the player gets irate about it when they don't get the attention they want."
"My biggest issue: either 100% ban these deities, or don't. We're not grown up enough to handle grey areas."
"But I do indeed question the motives of players who try to push the envelope with
"You can't in good faith tell me that the only character you want to play in the whole of the Pathfinder universe is
And you have done worse, and you know it. ...but I wont bring that up here.
So while you can say, "Godsdammitno! I have -zero- problem with people's characters. It's disruptive players that I have a problem with. Give them an inch and they'll go a mile. It is such a silly notion to "not like" someone's character. I would care zero licks if every deity was made legal." you don't make a very convincing argument for that point after saying what you had before. We don't have to "assume you don't like it". We know that you don't. It seems pretty clear that you equate a player playing a character who worships Cthulhu (the topics of two threads you posted in) as abuse. Or as Tallow said it, "I fail to see how a completely roleplay fluff option would create abuse."
You have said repeatedly that you are giving other players the benefit of the doubt, but I don't see it. You have asked others to consider that the forums should be a positive place but it seems hypocritical from your lips considering the above statements. People came to ask a question and rather than answering you attacked their motives for even wanting play such a concept. You don't get to dismiss BNW bringing that up when he points out that the problem you have isn't JUST with the the stated definition of RAW and RAI of veneration (as clarified by the writer and backed up by Campaign Leadership), but with the players who choose to use those mechanics.
That is what you said. And unlike myself or crashcanuck you haven't even given us the benefit of the doubt and played with us to judge how responsibly we could play such a concept (as if your personal opinion on that would matter to any player). You are basing your judgements on preconceptions of players. Do not be surprised and play the victim when they react defensively. In the above work/HR example, it is recorded for consistency's sake that you were the one leveling these preconception judgements and accusations. And in the "perception is reality" side I can tell you that I definitely felt attacked. I think you would feel the same way if someone was attacking your motives, maturity, reading comprehension, honesty or sincerity.
You know what, to a certain extent I can see where you are coming from. There are plenty of players who cannot play this game responsibly. I dealt with a potential player recently who's first question about the game was "Is there any way to cheat?" I think we can all agree that these players are not the right choice for people to sit at the table with. But guess what... those players with that mindset are not going to change. And that has nothing to do with whether or not Cthulhu is a legal target for veneration or not (the topic of this thread, remember?).
|
|
You don't not get to make up random, baseless assertions about your follow gamers and you certainly don't get to get policy made about those random baseless assertions.Nefreet gets it, it's done to be that one special person that does it to be special.
I was also frustrated by Nefreet's assumptions, but we can take a step back. Campaign Leadership can achieve clarity by adding the word "worship" to the Additional Resources, and making "without alignment restrictions" a new sentence in the definition of "venerate" in the Guide.
I don't mind a few harmless cultists in the Society, but I'd rather there were no clerics trying to commune with the Great Old Ones.
In hindsight I should have said "more often than not"
For the record I had my Serpent's Skull campaign end because I let someone worship a demon lord.
Honestly, doesn't matter to me, I'm just trying to ignore the cold outside. :-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
KingOfAnything: Kinda funny that your post came just after mine by 4 seconds, so that timing considered I can say that I'm not sure if I can take a step back. Nefreet's issue has just as much to do with his baseless assertions about his fellow gamers as with what is actually legal or not. Coming from someone who is currently the target of his ire (as I now have a totally legal Cthulhu venerator) I think that part of the opinion worth consideration.
For the record I am just as opposed to PFS Clerics worshipping Cthulhu as I am Rovagug so I think we are in agreement there.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Most of the deity restrictions have little to do with disruptiveness, really.
Most of it comes down to the Inner Sea World Guide. That book lists the pantheons that are significant to Golarion, with a few examples from each of them. Pretty much all of them (that are still alive) are legal.
Inner Sea Gods has a few more categories, and a lot more deities for each category repeated. All the categories that appear in ISWG are legal in ISG, including archdevils, horsemen and demon lords. Any of which could be disruptive. But the new categories in ISG are almost completely illegal (nascent demon lords, infernal dukes, whore queens, and yes, outer gods).
So the extremely-broad-strokes rule for deity inclusion is, "you have to be relevant enough to Golarion that someone from your pantheon was mentioned in ISWG, Dragon Empires (Tien pantheon) or Empty Graves (Ancient Osiriani pantheon)".
If the fear of disruptiveness was the driving cause, why would Lamashtu, Rovagug, Fumeiyoshi, Ayrzul, Deskari, Cyth V'Sug, Shax or Sifkesh be legal? Those are the ones that leap to mind as the deities the Society would be most at odds with.
|
Legal deity choices may be about more than mechanics. It may be that campaign leadership has decided that they don't want a particular deity to be part of the PFS campaign in any way, shape, or form. I am asking that they clarify this. I am not assuming that the information in the Additional Resources takes the new definitions of Worship/Venerate into account - on the contrary, I am assuming that it does not and I am asking that Additional Resources be updated to reflect this new divide.That said, how does "not allowed for play" significantly differ from "is not a legal choice" in this context?1) Legal choices come with mechanics. Domains, feats, traits, magic items, alternate spellcasting options, divine obediences. That is crunch. Veneration has no crunch, so it does not require legality
2) it is weird to assume that rules written a year in advance of the veneration /worship divide are going to take that divide, AND your interpretation of that divide, into your account.
Again, veneration does not require a game source, so AR isn't a good place to put this.
My argument would be that I could decide to venerate Cthulhu from his listing in Bestiary 5 -- he now meets the Guide's requirement of being any Golarion specific being. (Or to be less confrontational, Cernunnos or Korada from Bestiary 3.) A note in AR for Inner Sea Gods is meaningless, as I have no reason to look there for legality.
Worship would be different, specifically because worship requires a legal source. But because veneration does not *nothing in AR* restricts veneration in any way.
|
|
To put it more succinctly: I need permission to worship. Because the Bestiary 5 AR does not give me permission to worship Cthulhu, I cannot use that as a source to worship.
Under current Guide wording, I do not need permission to venerate, only proof of existence. Because the Bestiary 5 AR does not restrict veneration of Cthulhu, I may venerate Cthulhu by referring to Bestiary 5.
|
|
pH unbalanced: I can agree that AR might not be the best place to put it but I also do not see the downfall of it. If it satisfies the crowd wanting the clarification provided in this thread to be made clear then why not do it? Just because it is listed in the right place (the Guide) doesn't mean that it is mutually exclusive to list it also in the wrong place (AR).
I mean, I dig what you are saying. You think it is already clear. Many of us do. But being pro-clarity, I don't see the downfall to listing it elsewhere as well.
|
|
The main reason I am making this argument is so that if leadership wants a different interpretation, they make changes that will lead to what they want.
Putting a veneration restriction for Cthulhu in AR for Inner Sea Gods won't fix anything, if I am using Bestiary 5 as my source, because I won't ever have cause to look at the AR for Inner Sea Gods.
|
|
So don't put it near Inner Sea Gods? Put it in some more universally visible place. Maybe at the end and just put an asterisk next to every part about worship.
Still don't see a reason to oppose a small section on veneration being in AR. There seems to be no down fall that I can see. I mean, if that is the only thing the naysayers want to satisfy them to allow characters who may already be using the current rules then why not do it?
edit: But yeah, totally opposed to a straight up change in rules and then putting said change in the AR.
|
|
The main reason I am making this argument is so that if leadership wants a different interpretation, they make changes that will lead to what they want.
Putting a veneration restriction for Cthulhu in AR for Inner Sea Gods won't fix anything, if I am using Bestiary 5 as my source, because I won't ever have cause to look at the AR for Inner Sea Gods.
Just a note, but Bestiaries are not Golarion-specific. They wouldn't be a "legal source" for veneration either.
|
|
Just a note, but Bestiaries are not Golarion-specific. They wouldn't be a "legal source" for veneration either.The main reason I am making this argument is so that if leadership wants a different interpretation, they make changes that will lead to what they want.
Putting a veneration restriction for Cthulhu in AR for Inner Sea Gods won't fix anything, if I am using Bestiary 5 as my source, because I won't ever have cause to look at the AR for Inner Sea Gods.
They are setting neutral, but isn't there a presumption that everything in there *does* exist in Golarion, if not otherwise stated? Or am I wrong about that?
|
They are setting neutral, but isn't there a presumption that everything in there *does* exist in Golarion, if not otherwise stated? Or am I wrong about that?Just a note, but Bestiaries are not Golarion-specific. They wouldn't be a "legal source" for veneration either.The main reason I am making this argument is so that if leadership wants a different interpretation, they make changes that will lead to what they want.
Putting a veneration restriction for Cthulhu in AR for Inner Sea Gods won't fix anything, if I am using Bestiary 5 as my source, because I won't ever have cause to look at the AR for Inner Sea Gods.
I believe that is the Campaign Setting product line.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a note, but Bestiaries are not Golarion-specific. They wouldn't be a "legal source" for veneration either.They are setting neutral, but isn't there a presumption that everything in there *does* exist in Golarion, if not otherwise stated? Or am I wrong about that?
That said... Bestiary 6 may buck this trend. We know that the Adventurer's Guide is Golarion-specific; the sixth Bestiary may be subject to that change as well.
It is a mystery. ^_^
|
|
Just a note, but Bestiaries are not Golarion-specific. They wouldn't be a "legal source" for veneration either.The main reason I am making this argument is so that if leadership wants a different interpretation, they make changes that will lead to what they want.
Putting a veneration restriction for Cthulhu in AR for Inner Sea Gods won't fix anything, if I am using Bestiary 5 as my source, because I won't ever have cause to look at the AR for Inner Sea Gods.
The term "legal source" has already been debated and found lacking. Suffice it to say that the target of your worship need only be Golarion-specific. Agreed?
But, accepting your definition for the time, neither is Aroden listed in any of those sources. His name doesn't appear in tha AR at all, in fact. The only thing close is the Arodenite Historian trait which is specifically banned.
|
|
But what Nefreet is advocating is a change to the concepts that people have built characters on.
What?
Where are you getting that from?
I am advocating to streamline this illegal/legal/worship/venerate hiccup.
It has zero impact on a character, their concept, or your roleplay.
|
|
Sigh...
You mean, aside from what I posted addressing what I quoted you as having said in your last post?
If it has zero impact on roleplay and you are not advocating for change in something that isn't within the current rules then lets go with your first statement in the topic:
There would be no mechanical effect other than to get on other players' nerves.
So, no. Do it in a homegame. Not PFS.
Or, you know, the rest of my post which you chose to ignore. Mostly everything under my second spoiler. My personal favorite being "You have insisted with the writer of the rule, against what was intended by Campaign Leadership that they not choose to define Venerate the way they do but in favor of the way that YOU do."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But what Nefreet is advocating is a change to the concepts that people have built characters on.What?
Where are you getting that from?
I am advocating to streamline this illegal/legal/worship/venerate hiccup.
It has zero impact on a character, their concept, or your roleplay.
As far as I can tell you are advocating exactly what they think you are. That certain non-mechanical roleplaying choices should not be allowed because of the purely oout of game mechanical difference between worship and veneration
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.
From a out of game rules perceptive yes, but the characters don't know they are governed by game rules. They could be doing the exact same thing as "worshipppers" and just not get mechanical benefits. In-universe they'd use the word worship to describe what they are doing. OOC, the player would use the term venerate if they are asked to be specific about their character.
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.
These are all perfectly good RP fluff for what a devout character might do. They are not, nor should they be, reflective of a limit on fluff.
Veneration is quick and fleeting, without any long term focus.
Worship is a lifestyle.
Why? This is where the wheels come off your argument. By your logic people get bounced out of church in Golarion for being the wrong alignment.
|
|
. I, as the GM, have to ignore everything deity-related about that character. No bonus to interact with that deity's followers, no attention from enemies of that deity, no consideration of roleplay and no bonus to cactus juice drinking competitions.You do not have to. That's on you.
Not according to this Season's Guide.
|
|
Sigh...
You mean, aside from what I posted addressing what I quoted you as having said in your last post?
If it has zero impact on roleplay and you are not advocating for change in something that isn't within the current rules then lets go with your first statement in the topic:
Or, you know, the rest of my post which you chose to ignore. Mostly everything under my second spoiler. My personal favorite being "You have insisted with the writer of the rule, against what was intended by Campaign Leadership that they not choose to define Venerate the way they do but in favor of the way that YOU do."There would be no mechanical effect other than to get on other players' nerves.
So, no. Do it in a homegame. Not PFS.
If my proposed addition to the definition of Venerate is what you disagree with, then say that. That's constructive.
It was an idea I was putting forth. If people don't like it, that's fine.
What about the meat and potatoes of my suggestion above?
|
|
Nefreet. This is not just me that thinks this. Regardless of what you claim to have meant to convey with your words this is what people are getting out of them. It isn't just me! Other people are posting the same thing, man. The common denominator here is you.
It isn't me not being constructive here. I am not being constructive with you because I feel that you are attacking me as a player with no basis. You have never played with myself or crashcanuck, but you seem to have it out for our "bad faith", "disruptive", motives, maturity, reading comprehension, honesty and sincerity. This is direct quotes, man!
Regarding the meat and potatoes of your suggestion on how to further limit veneration; no, I can't say I agree with that either. I agree with BNW's assessment that "You do not like how some other people play their characters and want that stopped." It really does feel like "You're telling someone "your character sucks so much you can't play it" and you're doing it over some pretty arbitrary grounds."
If you aren't disagreeing with what the rule is, and you aren't advocating for change, then why the attitude towards people who choose this perfectly legal option for the character? I do not agree with your limited interpretation of how you would like veneration to be defined (but is not how it is defined at all). I do not agree with your prejudgement of players motives that you have not played with. I do not agree with the line of thinking that people who wish to persue these legal options must have bad motives and are only doing it in "bad faith". I do not agree that the rule needs to be changed.
The only thing that I think I can agree with you here on is that further clarification of the existing rule couldn't hurt. But, I can see how you treated that already in this thread so I'm not convinced that would have the positive effect that you think it will. But if further reinforcing the existing rules is what you want... who am I to argue?
|
|
Actually, I have this visual in my head right now of a DM doing the following:
DM: "AH! You cannot legally roleplay your character as doing that. Your character just moved from 'venerating' to 'worshipping'! I won't have that kind of behavior at my table! Go find another and be happy I am not reporting you to Campaign Leadership for this outrage!"
I am just having trouble coming up with what a player would have to have their character do in order to cross that line...
|
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.
From a out of game rules perceptive yes, but the characters don't know they are governed by game rules. They could be doing the exact same thing as "worshipppers" and just not get mechanical benefits. In-universe they'd use the word worship to describe what they are doing. OOC, the player would use the term venerate if they are asked to be specific about their character.
This is at the heart of the problem.
As Lune has pointed out elsewhere, "worship" and "venerate" are synonyms. They are defined as different game terms in the Guide, but as Saint Caleth, Lune and I am sure others have said, a character knows no difference between "worship" and "venerate".
This leads to the following situation at the game table:
PC1: "I worship Cthulhu, the Tentacled Whisperer of Impossible Secrets!"
GM: sorry no, Cthulhu is not legal for play as per Additional Resources.
PC1 (ooc): oh, don't worry about that, my character only venerates Cthulhu and that's fine, the Guide says so.
GM: but you said "worship"?
Hence, confusion. When is worship not worship? When it's veneration it seems.
Confusion is something we try to avoid in the organised play campaign. It leads to table variation and an inconsistent experience.
This particular confusion would be easily prevented by an edit clarifying whether "legal/not legal for play" includes "veneration" as has already been suggested/requested.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not according to this Season's Guide.
no, according to what you read into the seasons guide.
Those are not the same thing.
Non mechanical options effect the game all the time. There's no mechanics for being covered in sewer gunk but you can bet thats going to be a pretty harsh penalty on social interaction. You can be from a country without any mechanics but every once in a while there's a bonus for being from that country. there are npcs that act differently towards outdoorsey or cityfolk NPCs. There's no source or mechanical effects of gender but every once in a while NPCs act differently according to that, and even different monster abilities sometimes work according to sexual orientation.
Mechanics is "stuff there is a hard number on" fluff is "stuff the DM is going to have to decide how to work with". How a bunch of cuthulu cultists react to someone with a cthulu holy symbol is the latter.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not according to this Season's Guide.no, according to what you read into the seasons guide.
Those are not the same thing.
Non mechanical options effect the game all the time. There's no mechanics for being covered in sewer gunk but you can bet thats going to be a pretty harsh penalty on social interaction. You can be from a country without any mechanics but every once in a while there's a bonus for being from that country. there are npcs that act differently towards outdoorsey or cityfolk NPCs. There's no source or mechanical effects of gender but every once in a while NPCs act differently according to that, and even different monster abilities sometimes work according to sexual orientation.
Mechanics is "stuff there is a hard number on" fluff is "stuff the DM is going to have to decide how to work with". How a bunch of cuthulu cultists react to someone with a cthulu holy symbol is the latter.
Again. Very much on the same page with this.
If a player is being disruptive, for any reason, then it's a player problem, not what deity they choose to venerate.
Let's not create campaign policy around dictating what fluff choices are legal or not, for fear of potential disruption. Deal with the player.
|
|
Let's not create campaign policy around dictating what fluff choices are legal or not,
Nobody here is advocating that.
If you believe I am, reread what I posted, and not the words that others are trying to put in my mouth.