|
You are wrong.
Veneration is quick and fleeting, without any long term focus. Worship is a lifestyle.
This is limiting veneration to something that neither I nor my character believe. YOU want my character's veneration to be quick and fleeting. That is not how it is legally defined.
I believe your statements include implication, intention and are definitely written.
|
It was an idea I was putting forth. If people don't like it, that's fine.
Please take all of my statements into context together.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.This is literally an oxymoron.
I feel you are struggling with our usage of "mechanical" benifit. Jim may have a mechanical bonus to profession farmer from taking skill focus, it's writen down right on the sheet. Now say your in a farmers market and the GM has to have you roll perception to find the best batch of potatoes. The GM says Jim you have previously mentioned that your farm grows potatoes right? You have a +2 circumstance bonus for RP "fluff" reasons. This is a non-mechanical and perfectly legal bonus a GM can give based on both RP and context.
|
|
I feel that people are so hung up on the notion that I could possibly care what your character is about that they're missing a genuine fix to a genuine problem.
Hypothetical: someone wants to worship Cthulhu. Currently, they can't. So people instead choose the option left: veneration. But what they really want to do, is worship Cthulhu.
So let's make that an option.
If you still want to Venerate, that's fine, too.
This is what it sounds like people want. Right? From the very beginning. Why not streamline our current setup to allow it?
|
|
No. I have not seen any support for the worship of Cthulhu. I don't even know where you are getting that from.
But honestly, everything after "I feel that people are so hung up on the notion that I could possibly care what your character is about..." came off as "everyone else's problem with me and the things I have said must be a problem with them, not me."
|
|
I feel you are struggling with our usage of "mechanical" benifit. Jim may have a mechanical bonus to profession farmer from taking skill focus, it's writen down right on the sheet. Now say your in a farmers market and the GM has to have you roll perception to find the best batch of potatoes. The GM says Jim you have previously mentioned that your farm grows potatoes right? You have a +2 circumstance bonus for RP "fluff" reasons. This is a non-mechanical and perfectly legal bonus a GM can give based on both RP and context.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.This is literally an oxymoron.
I agree. Those are night and day to my understanding of Pathfinder.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
I feel that people are so hung up on the notion that I could possibly care what your character is about that they're missing a genuine fix to a genuine problem.
Hypothetical: someone wants to worship Cthulhu. Currently, they can't. So people instead choose the option left: veneration. But what they really want to do, is worship Cthulhu.
So let's make that an option.
If you still want to Venerate, that's fine, too.
This is what it sounds like people want. Right? From the very beginning. Why not streamline our current setup to allow it?
Is that really a fix though? Clerics of Cthulhu are insane. If insane characters is not something the Campaign is comfortable with, the solution is to allow characters to venerate Cthulhu, but not allow worship. Then we are back to where we are now.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Characters can worship Cthulhu in every way except for name. So why not call it "worship"?
Characters can worship Cthulhu in every way except for receiving divine power from the Great Old One. Why would you call that "worship"?
Campaign Leadership can only be concerned with the mechanical benefits of full on worship.
The powers of clerics, inquisitors, and warpriests are a mechanical benefit of full worship. How do you distinguish rules options (such as domain portfolios and favored weapons) related to certain deities? What does that line in the AR look like?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Campaign Leadership can only be concerned with the mechanical benefits of full on worship.
I disagree. Campaign leadership can be concerned about implications of allowing players to espouse philosophies or promote following gods in ways that they think would be disruptive to an organized play campaign. They can decide that certain Golarion-specific deities may not be appearing in the PFS version of Golarion for this reason. This is why I am asking for them to clarify whether a god not being a legal choice per Additional Resources is intended to apply to what is currently defined as Worship only, or whether it also applies to what is currently defined as Venerate as well.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is that really a fix though? Clerics of Cthulhu are insane. If insane characters is not something the Campaign is comfortable with, the solution is to allow characters to venerate Cthulhu, but not allow worship. Then we are back to where we are now.I feel that people are so hung up on the notion that I could possibly care what your character is about that they're missing a genuine fix to a genuine problem.
Hypothetical: someone wants to worship Cthulhu. Currently, they can't. So people instead choose the option left: veneration. But what they really want to do, is worship Cthulhu.
So let's make that an option.
If you still want to Venerate, that's fine, too.
This is what it sounds like people want. Right? From the very beginning. Why not streamline our current setup to allow it?
Characters can worship Cthulhu in every way except for name. So why not call it "worship"?
Campaign Leadership can only be concerned with the mechanical benefits of full on worship.
If they cared about characters acting insane, or however they want to roleplay, then they'd be completely banned.
But we know from Andrew Christian that that isn't the case.
Why not just call it "worship"? Clarity. The difference between venerate and worship should be clear to people that read the guide, the difference being non-mechanical (RP) and mechanical (spells, feats, etc.). I get you don't like the use of the term venerate for worship for no mechanical benefit. But there needs to be distinct terminology to differentiate worship for mechanical benefits vs. veneration for no mechanical benefits.
For PFS, following the strictures of a deity and partaking in all of their rituals for no mechanical benefit is the same as somebody saying a quick prayer to Gozreh before boarding a ship for RP purposes. Does it make sense? Does it really matter if it makes sense? I don't think it does, since it gives us a way to show that the player is doing it for no mechanical benefits. I think the hit to verisimilitude that the usage of venerate creates for some is well worth the clarity it imparts for everyone else.
As far as whether gods not able to be worshipped should be able to be venerated, well, John said that the team is looking into. I think it is alright to venerate a deity that can't legally be worshipped, but we'll just have to see what Leadership has to say about it.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that people are so hung up on the notion that I could possibly care what your character is about that they're missing a genuine fix to a genuine problem.
That you think that there is a problem to be fixed at all is the problem: either the geekiest thesaurus hate on for the word venerate or you hate what the characters are doing.
There is no problem here. Yes, sometimes a player option throws you a curve ball. I like curve balls. Creative solutions and whacky combinations are what keep the game interesting for the DM and keep it from being the mode lock video game simulator PFS critics say that it is.
I've had a white tengu wind up in a town of white rook. (the town mascot just walked in. This must be a good sign!)
I've had scenarios with kobolds go in entirely different directions because half the party were either Nagaji or doing some other reptile theme
The cult of the dawnflower saranite keeps fighting.. the cult of the dawnflower. (Please.. be our leader! why are you killing us! we're not worthy!)
You would be shocked at the number of encounters in this game that can be bypassed with a pig.
Encounters with villanous druids can go entirely different directions when the party has a druid.
I've had a fight and probably TPK averted when someone used profession bartender to throw a tea party
Certain scenarios can get very fun when the "odd" race involved is on both sides of the party (Gripi. Kitsune. tengu)
Weird stuff happens when you mix random pathfinders with the scenarios. This is not a problem this is a joy of gaming.
|
|
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.
For this situation the player should clarify with the GM that the character venerates ______ at the beginning so that in character they can say worship without causing confusion
|
|
OR, the player can say that their character worships ________, and their character can say that they worship ________.
No need for two different terms or clarification.
Then, on top of that, or in place of that, if they wanted, they could also venerate ________, ________, and ________.
And it would be understood what that meant, too.
Easy peasy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OR, the player can say that their character worships ________, and their character can say that they worship ________.
No need for two different terms or clarification.
Then, on top of that, or in place of that, if they wanted, they could also venerate ________, ________, and ________.
And it would be understood what that meant, too.
Easy peasy.
While I can only speak for myself, as a GM I would find it fairly onerous to have to continually ask people if they worship Desna or if they "worship" Desna.
At any rate, there are enough people that disagree with you on this point that it seems likely that there will remain two different terms for whether or not PC's gain mechanical benefits for religous affiliations. So, I see little reason to keep going back and forth on this.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you read the definitions, it is already understood what they mean.
Easier and peasier.
Only one bit of clarification is required.
I think restricting Venerate too strictly will then disallow very flavorful, interesting and non-disruptive options that fit very well into Golarion-specific and lore--Shoanti ancestor worship, philosophies from Faiths and Philosophies, etc.
The collective vocal majority spent approximately 2 years discussing worship. From Paladins being able to worship Pharasma or Cayden Calien or Asmodeus or not having a Deity at all in the early days to whether a fighter can declare he worships someone or not to whether you can declare worship if you don't have a divine need to without the correct alignment.
I'm pretty sure Josh Frost made some pretty restrictive declarations on the message boards, and Mark Moreland made a few declarations as well. Then Mike Brock eventually published the rule that was seen in the Guide about what worship meant. And we only had message board posts about the term venerate and worship.
But for about 2 years or so, it became collectively known by posters on these boards, what the difference between Venerate and Worship meant. New people confused by the worship rules and what was, and was not possible, were given the definitions (including I think yourself a few times).
Those definitions were collected from these very boards, and then codified in the glossary.
Precedent has publicly been set for what Venerate means, over about 2 years time, so why change it now?
That's actually quite convincing.
Well said Tallow. :-)
So, any "Fluff" option is legit in PFS as long as it doesn't "Crunch?"
My Nyarlathotep-venerating Feral Hunter can shapechange into a tentacle-headed wolf? I can have a Vigilante character who's a secret member of the Aspis Consortium (Aspis Alex and his alter-ego Pathfinder Pete)? I could be a Halfling who thinks he's a Goblin? I could be prominent member of House Thrune (as long as I don't try to cash in on my influence).
Actually, these all sound like fun Vigilante concepts...
...but it seems like I'd get some pushback from trying these.
|
|
So, any "Fluff" option is legit in PFS as long as it doesn't "Crunch?"
My Nyarlathotep-venerating Feral Hunter can shapechange into a tentacle-headed wolf? I can have a Vigilante character who's a secret member of the Aspis Consortium (Aspis Alex and his alter-ego Pathfinder Pete)? I could be a Halfling who thinks he's a Goblin? I could be prominent member of House Thrune (as long as I don't try to cash in on my influence).
Actually, these all sound like fun Vigilante concepts...
...but it seems like I'd get some pushback from trying these.
I would stipulate, that you are playing in a Paizo published campaign, in a Paizo published campaign world. It would be highly disrespectful of the campaign world if you bring in something that is not Golarion. Like Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms deities. And disrespectful of the other players who are hoping to play in Golarion.
I would say that the only two things that Fluff cannot be are:
Non-Golarion specific or flavored things.
Reskinning. See the reskinning rules in the FAQ for what that means.
So no Tentacle headed wolf. I don't recall if Nyarlathotep is Golarion-Specific or not. If so, then yes, if not, then no.
|
|
I could be a Halfling who thinks he's a Goblin?I've actually sat with someone playing just such a character. It may have been a gnome, though; regardless, the character thought he was a goblin.
As long as everyone (NPC's included) realize that the character is deluded.
I have no problem with fun roleplaying situations like that. I'll even play it up with the player if the circumstances warrant it.
But you can't actually be reskinned as a goblin.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Story Time!
I was playing a scenario with my "Orc" character. He's a half-orc but is obsessed with being a full Orc. He introduces himself as a "big, strong Orc." He charges into combat yelling "Cower before the wrath of the Orcs!" The whole 9 yards.
Well, towards the end of a scenario a baddie cast unnatural lust on him.
GM: "Make me a Will save or spend the next round running towards her to kiss her."
Me: "With a +4 bonus since I wouldn't normally have lustful feelings towards her?"
GM: "Is your character attracted to females?"
Me: "Yes..."
GM: "Then no bonus."
Me: "Is she an Orc?"
GM: "You know what, that's fair. You've been making a kinda big deal about the Orc thing all game. +4 on the roll."
Feel free to work that story into the argument about veneration.
The flip side of that point is that if the GM said "Eh, I don't think that's right, getting a bonus just because of something you didn't even have specifically written down" I would have gone along with it. Other times when I try a (role-playing and/or non-mechanics based) idea I've had GMs tell me "I get what you're doing, it's reasonable, there's nothing stopping you from doing it, and it's cool; but it's going to completely break the scenario if I let that happen. Not in a 'you win' way, I just don't see any way to move the plot forward if I interpret it that way." That's understandable.
The GM can arbitrate those times when your normally non-mechanics-based characteristics actually have an impact on the game.
|
|
So, any "Fluff" option is legit in PFS as long as it doesn't "Crunch?"
My Nyarlathotep-venerating Feral Hunter can shapechange into a tentacle-headed wolf? I can have a Vigilante character who's a secret member of the Aspis Consortium (Aspis Alex and his alter-ego Pathfinder Pete)? I could be a Halfling who thinks he's a Goblin? I could be prominent member of House Thrune (as long as I don't try to cash in on my influence).
Actually, these all sound like fun Vigilante concepts...
...but it seems like I'd get some pushback from trying these.
Also no feather-horses. Even if they aren't actually animals and are celestial magical beasts which aren't identifiable with Knowledge: Nature but instead Knowledge: Arcana. They still have to look physically indistinguishable from a horse. Figure THAT s!!% out! ;)
Kalindlara: I so wanna play a Primal Companion Hunter (thats what you were thinking of I think). I want a 2 headed T-Rex! ...3 headed, maybe? ...with wings? OOoo!! Just checked. They have no longer went the way of feather-horse! They are legal. Hmmm...
|
|
I have a quick question related to this topic. It may have been addressed/answered already and, if so, I apologize for asking.
Is it possible for a character to worship a PFS-legal deity, even if said character gains no mechanical, in-game benefit(s) from said worship? Or would that character be said to simply venerate that deity? The answer ("Yes"?) seems obvious to me, but I can also see the argument one might make that without some clear mechanical, in-game benefit, such worship is nothing more than veneration.
And I want to make sure before I build a character that isn't required to worship a deity with the intent to eventually level into one of the new PrCs from Paths of the Righteous that is required to worship a deity.
On the other hand, I suppose it would be possible for that character to be a complete atheist (or venerate some other deity) before reaching all of the other requirements for that PrC, then choosing to worship the required deity at the moment it meets all of the other requirements, yes?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any character can worship a deity as follows:
Characters can worship any deity listed in the table of gods in the Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Campaign Setting: The Inner Sea World Guide, Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Gods and Magic, or any other source listed in the Additional Resources document.
Characters with any number of levels in any of these classes must select a deity.
- Clerics, inquisitors, paladins, and warpriests.
- Cavaliers and samurai who belong to the order of the star.
- Any character who chooses a feat or trait tied to a religion or deity.
- Any character who chooses a class archetype or prestige class that specifies a deity in its prerequisites.
This list is not exhaustive, and the Additional Resources document is updated with new classes, archetypes, and so on that require the worship of a deity as new Pathfinder RPG sources become available. As a general guideline, if a character receives any mechanical benefit connected to a deity, that character must worship the
appropriate deity.Characters who do not receive powers from a divine source may worship a deity, be agnostic, or worship no deities at all.
Regardless of class, each character must have an alignment within one step of her deity’s alignment. For characters who can channel energy, their deity’s alignment determines whether they can channel positive or negative energy—those who worship good deities channel positive energy, while those who worship evil deities channel negative energy. If a character worships a neutral deity, the character’s player chooses which energy type her character channels. Once chosen, the type remains the same for the rest of the character’s time in the campaign.
As long as you meet the prerequisites of your prestige class when you take the first level of that prestige class, a character does not necessarily need to meet those prerequisites prior. All kinds of fun RP could be had for why your character is an atheist, worships another deity, or whatever before being converted to the deity of choice for that prestige class.
|
|
You can switch worshiping gods in between sessions freely if thats what you're asking.
As long as that worship isn't granting your character a mechanical benefit, right?
I don't believe you're saying a cleric can freely change the deity they worship.... or can they? Perhaps my understanding of this has been incorrect for some time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can switch worshiping gods in between sessions freely if thats what you're asking.As long as that worship isn't granting your character a mechanical benefit, right?
I don't believe you're saying a cleric can freely change the deity they worship.
... or can they? Perhaps my understanding of this has been incorrect for some time.
As a character, you may choose to worship a single deity or pantheon (the “deity”). If you worship a pantheon, you do not count as worshiping every god in that pantheon; you must choose one deity from that pantheon for the purpose of gaining mechanical benefits.
Your character’s alignment must be within one step of that of the deity he or she worships. Any character with levels in a class that grants spells or other features from a specific deity must worship that deity.
A character may only worship one deity at a time; the character may change which deity she worships between sessions at no cost. If this change requires the character to change alignment, the character is required to pay for an atonement. Any element incompatible with the new deity no longer functions. These elements may be retrained at normal cost using the rules from Ultimate Campaign.
For example, a cleric of Desna with the Travel and Luck domains and the Butterfly Sting feat switches her worship to Shelyn. The cleric may still use the Luck domain because Shelyn grants that domain, but not the Travel domain or the Butterfly Sting feat, because worship of Shelyn does not grant access to those features.
posted May 2014 | back to top
Linky
If you had mechanics tied to the old deity (or lack thereof) they would stop working.
|
|
You can switch worshiping gods in between sessions freely if thats what you're asking.As long as that worship isn't granting your character a mechanical benefit, right?
I don't believe you're saying a cleric can freely change the deity they worship.
... or can they? Perhaps my understanding of this has been incorrect for some time.
My opinion, is that you better have a pretty good RP reason why you could swap alignments and deities as a cleric. This attitude, admittedly, is more appropriate in a home campaign. These types of decisions can just be handled "off screen" as it were in PFS, if you really want to.
Some switches would certainly require an atonement (e.g. swapping deities also requires an alignment swap).
|
|
You can switch worshiping gods in between sessions freely if thats what you're asking.As long as that worship isn't granting your character a mechanical benefit, right?
I don't believe you're saying a cleric can freely change the deity they worship.
... or can they? Perhaps my understanding of this has been incorrect for some time.** spoiler omitted **
LinkyIf you had mechanics tied to the old deity (or lack thereof) they would stop working.
This FAQ is correct, but out of date. Most of that language was incorporated into the guide and expanded upon. The Season 8 Guide should be the correct place to get this information now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion, is that you better have a pretty good RP reason why you could swap alignments and deities as a cleric.Challenge accepted!
Is it really a challenge for you DJ Cheezy-Churl?
|
|
OR, the player can say that their character worships ________, and their character can say that they worship ________.
WHY?
Because of the dialogue used as an example by other posters in this thread (and the other):
Player: my character worships so-and-so
GM: that deity's not legal for worship
Player: right... I mean venerate...
GM: okay
Player: ...but my character says "worship".
GM: *facepalm*
|
|
I think restricting Venerate too strictly will then disallow very flavorful, interesting and non-disruptive options that fit very well into Golarion-specific and lore...Precedent has publicly been set for what Venerate means, over about 2 years time, so why change it now?
Nobody in this thread is advocating for any of this.
I'm advocating that all deities be open to full on worship, or veneration, as currently written. No changes, restrictions or redefinitions. That is easiest and peasiest.
Players would still be restricted from gaining direct benefits (spells, powers, obediences, etc.) from those previously illegal-for-worship-deities.
With this, characters can freely worship the single deity of their choice (or none) and/or freely venerate any number of deities, and not have to play a game of linguistics to explain it.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
OR, the player can say that their character worships ________, and their character can say that they worship ________.
WHY?
Because of the dialogue used as an example by other posters in this thread (and the other):
Player: my character worships so-and-so
GM: that deity's not legal for worship
Player: right... I mean venerate...
GM: okay
Player: ...but my character says "worship".
GM: *facepalm*
Why is that hypothetical GM facepalming? That is a perfectly reasonable exchange.
I might add:
GM: So, you aren't gaining any character options from so-and-so? Feats, traits, alternate spellcasting options?
Player: Nope, just for flavor.
GM: Have fun!
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Why is that hypothetical GM facepalming?I would imagine because of the required in- and out-of-character distinction between worship of unworshipable deities.
Do you not agree that the 2nd dialogue is easier for all parties involved?
The distinction is only important for divine classes, or characters taking advantage of mechanical options such as feats, traits, or alternate spellcasting. In which case, you still have to check alignment, confirm legality.
For most characters, the distinction doesn't matter. You don't need to check if the deity is legal unless they are using those options.
So,
Player: my character worships so-and-so and venerates this-and-that
GM: using any deity-specific options?
Player: No
Gm: cool
I agree that the 2nd dialogue is easier, but it is also how most of those conversations go already.
|
|
...so you have an issue with players who choose to venerate deities that are banned for worship due to "bad faith" and that the only benefit they could be getting is to annoy other players at the table...
...but you are totally ok with full on worship of those same deities, pantheons and philosophies?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Story Time!
I was playing a scenario with my "Orc" character. He's a half-orc but is obsessed with being a full Orc. He introduces himself as a "big, strong Orc." He charges into combat yelling "Cower before the wrath of the Orcs!" The whole 9 yards.
Well, towards the end of a scenario a baddie cast unnatural lust on him.
GM: "Make me a Will save or spend the next round running towards her to kiss her."
Me: "With a +4 bonus since I wouldn't normally have lustful feelings towards her?"
GM: "Is your character attracted to females?"
Me: "Yes..."
GM: "Then no bonus."
Me: "Is she an Orc?"
GM: "You know what, that's fair. You've been making a kinda big deal about the Orc thing all game. +4 on the roll."Feel free to work that story into the argument about veneration.
On the other hand I could see a similar story becoming problematic and possibly triggering with a few alterations.
Example: "My PC has been gung-ho about his Ulfen heritage throughout the scenario. He wouldn't normally have lusty feelings toward the Mwangi woman trying to cast that spell on him."
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Story Time!
I was playing a scenario with my "Orc" character. He's a half-orc but is obsessed with being a full Orc. He introduces himself as a "big, strong Orc." He charges into combat yelling "Cower before the wrath of the Orcs!" The whole 9 yards.
Well, towards the end of a scenario a baddie cast unnatural lust on him.
GM: "Make me a Will save or spend the next round running towards her to kiss her."
Me: "With a +4 bonus since I wouldn't normally have lustful feelings towards her?"
GM: "Is your character attracted to females?"
Me: "Yes..."
GM: "Then no bonus."
Me: "Is she an Orc?"
GM: "You know what, that's fair. You've been making a kinda big deal about the Orc thing all game. +4 on the roll."Feel free to work that story into the argument about veneration.
On the other hand I could see a similar story becoming problematic and possibly triggering with a few alterations.
Example: "My PC has been gung-ho about his Ulfen heritage throughout the scenario. He wouldn't normally have lusty feelings toward the Mwangi woman trying to cast that spell on him."
I don't think you are suggesting that we should limit players' ability to positively roleplay their ethnicity. It also doesn't make sense to limit players' ability to roleplay their devotion to a deity. It's not the option that's the problem.
If the consequences of roleplay are problematic, the GM is not obligated to allow circumstantial benefits.