Separatist cleric (from UM) and PFS


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge 5/5

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:


To say that the Undeath Domain is completely verboten based on your interpretation of Pharasma's edicts/taboos/dogma is perfectly acceptable... for an in-character portrayal of an NPC. For a referee, it's simply personal bias and unbecoming of someone in the position of trusted authority.

It isn’t personal bias. I have no bias towards Pharasma, or the separatist archetype.

There is a difference (a huge one I might add) between enforcing personal bias (your halfling cavalier hatred—not saying you enforce it) and doing your best to make sure your tables adhere to the themes and canon of Golarion specific lore as you understand it.

I’m also not arbitrarily saying, “Because I said so.” You may not like the reasons I have given, but that doesn’t equate to “because I said so.” It equates to you not liking my reasons.

And doing my best to make sure my tables adhere to the themes and canon of Golarian specific lore as I understand it, is certainly not unbecoming of an “authority” figure. That’s what GM’s and Venture-Officers are supposed to do.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:

You like analogies? Here's one.

During the Cold War the CIA and KGB taught their spies about each others' languages/societies/etc. Why? To make them into Commies/Capitalist Pigs? Of course not. So that they could better understand and operate against them.

Asmodeus might grant the Demon subdomain for similar reasons. Not to subvert his own clerics into the arms of his enemy. Come on, now.

It's just one idea for why Pharasma might grant the Undead domain.

Saying Pharasma would never ever under any circumstances grant Undead domain is the same thing as saying spies should never be taught the ways and languages of their enemies. It's pretty frikkin nonsensical ;)

That is also not a good analogy. Pharasma is fundamentally and extremely fanatical about the “no undead” thing.

The analogy you are looking for would be along a real world religious deal. I will retrain myself for giving an analogy having to do with Terrorists and Islam, as that is too near to current day issues, and we don’t need to have that argument on these boards. But take a look at that issue if you wish. A good analogy would be to look at the Catholic Church during the times of Expansion, Crusades, Inquisition and Reformation. The Church did learn things about other indigenous religions (like Wiccan, Druidism, Santeria, Voodoo, Norse Mythology, etc.) and they incorporated those religions into Christianity. For example, when going into North Germanic and Southern Scandinavian areas where Thor was openly worshiped, they basically indicated that Thor was really St. Olaf, and St. Olaf worshiped Jesus. But this wasn’t learning rituals and spells of Norse Mythology (insert Undead Domain), but rather learning about Norse Mythology (Knowledge (religion)).

Pharasma temples can probably teach master classes on Knowledge (religion), and going to the Undead Domain doesn’t help you learn about undead anymore than those Knowledge (religion) classes would.

Spies didn’t become capitalists or communists to learn about the USA or Russia, respectively. Just like during the Inquisition, all you had to do was question the church, and you were tortured till death as a witch. Martin Luther was excommunicated and sentenced to death at one point, because he didn’t want to follow Catholic dogma. Martin Luther didn’t suddenly start doing Druidic Rituals or Voodoo incantations when he left the Catholic Church to form his own church. The belief systems and rituals (Domains) were largely the same. It was merely the administration and rhetoric that Martin Luther didn’t like. In American History, anyone who might have been too closely seen a communist was put on trial in the 50’s by the Senate during the Red Scare. In some cases, all you had to be was Italian or be accused of being a communist, and you were incarcerated.

Look at the fanatical and fundamental followers of religion in general for your analogy. If you can find an example where that fantatic organization would have been ok with a separatist branch that trained in things directly in opposition to what they were fanatical about, then you have a good analogy.

Until then, your Knowledge skills are enough.

1/5

I really think this discussion would be much more constructive if we refrained from trying to use real world religions as examples when we are talking about game rules in a fictional setting that deal with a god granting spells.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Getting back on topic, how is using the abilities of the undead domain automatically violating Pharasma's dogma?

We have a clear line. No creating undead. No controlling undead to do anything other than destroying other undead.

If the domain is not used for anything under the above, what is the problem?

To use another, in game, analogy, let's say in order to hide from a priest of Urgathoa, someone in the party casts an illusion to make them all look undead.

Is this promoting undeath? Does the cleric of Pharasma in the party have to refuse to be part of the illusion? Will they loose their spells immediately if they accept the disguise?

The ability, again, is suppose to create characters that might be pretty close to being called heretics, without breaking the inviolate line of sins against the god's dogma.

There seems to be two options here. One is that someone goes through and says what, even with the archetype in question, is and isn't acceptable, or the archetype isn't allowed in PFS. Otherwise, why worry about what someone else does with their character?

It just seems like a lot of people invest a lot of their own personal stake in what is fun for them on if everyone else at the table is having their kind of fun, which seems to be rather intrusive for the other people.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

KnightErrantJR wrote:


It just seems like a lot of people invest a lot of their own personal stake in what is fun for them on if everyone else at the table is having their kind of fun, which seems to be rather intrusive for the other people.

It isn't about whether I think it would be fun or not, or whether I think it cheesy or not. I have absolutely zero personal stake or bias in this argument.

But just like with anything else, when you choose to ride the thin line, you are going to get some people crying foul. Using the Undead Domain with the Separatist Archetype for Pharasma is very much stepping over that line in my opinion. RAW, its riding the thin line, and any GM would be within their rights to indicate this was stepping across the line.

If someone was using personal bias to dictate what was, or was not, allowed, or causing players of halfling cavaliers to feel shamed because you think it cheesy, then yeah, that's not kosher.

But you can't sit here and tell me that Kiss of Death is an ability that Pharasma would grant to her priests.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

KnightErrantJR wrote:

I really think this discussion would be much more constructive if we refrained from trying to use real world religions as examples when we are talking about game rules in a fictional setting that deal with a god granting spells.

I didn't bring up real world analogies. I was merely trying to direct those who were bringing up real world analogies where to find a good analogy for what they were trying to say, and then indicating that even there, that analogy probably didn't exist.

The point is, a fanatic isn't likely to sway their viewpoint because game mechanics wise an archetype exists. Pharasma is a fanatic. Why would she grant an ability that is just one more step toward undeath?

And the only thing that the Undead Domain gives that the Death Domain doesn't, is the Death's Kiss ability and a couple evil spells.

The only reason I can think of, that someone would choose to create this character concept, is because they think its cool to flaunt RAW vs. canon in GM's and Developer's faces. Otherwise, you could create a separatist Pharasman cleric without having to go straight towards what she is Fanatical against.

1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure I can. It doesn't create undead. It doesn't control undead. I see no problem with it. She wouldn't grant it to her normal clergy, no. The problem being, the archetype, again, which is legal, is to create borderline heretical clerics.

There is zero point in the archetype being legal if possible applications of it can be ruled as invalid based on a GM judgement call.

1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:


The only reason I can think of, that someone would choose to create this character concept, is because they think its cool to flaunt RAW vs. canon in GM's and Developer's faces. Otherwise, you could create a separatist Pharasman cleric without having to go straight towards what she is Fanatical against.

Except the person in question has explained why he wanted to do this, and provided background information. If, after reading his reasoning, you would still conclude what you have, you must assume that he is being duplicitous in his stated intentions. Why?

Beyond that, why is this legal choice subject to such debate? Again, I'm not arguing that if someone created undead, or attempted such, Pharasma wouldn't yank her spells from the cleric. There are mechanics for that laid out under cleric and the atonement spell.

Would you make a dwarf proficient with a scimitar explain why, despite his cultural bias towards axes and hammers, he's taking a scimitar as his weapon of choice?

Maybe it bothers some people that a dwarf would use a scimitar, and it intrudes on their fun at the table. Do you want to take up table time with the dwarf justifying his weapon choice, because if not, clearly he's doing something to take advantage of the rules somewhere down the line, because its not normal in Golarion canon for a dwarf to run around with a scimitar.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

Maybe so, but there is a question on whether Pharasma would even grant spells to a Dhampir.

I'd vote no.

That's about as logical as saying Urgathoa will only grant spells to female undead PC's or that only Half-Orcs (monsters) can have Lamashtu as a patron deity.

4/5 ****

I don't have any issue with the Dhampir cleric of Pharasma. I do have a tangential rules question though.

Normally: "A cleric who chooses a subdomain must have access to both the domain and its subdomain from her deity (see Table: Deities of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting)."

A quick reading of separatist seems to me like it gives your cleric access to domain not on your list. As far as I can tell this doesn't include access to any subdomains at all.

Am I reading this right, or have I made a mistake somewhere?

1/5

Pirate Rob wrote:

I don't have any issue with the Dhampir cleric of Pharasma. I do have a tangential rules question though.

Normally: "A cleric who chooses a subdomain must have access to both the domain and its subdomain from her deity (see Table: Deities of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting)."

A quick reading of separatist seems to me like it gives your cleric access to domain not on your list. As far as I can tell this doesn't include access to any subdomains at all.

Am I reading this right, or have I made a mistake somewhere?

I would be inclined to include subdomains, since the entire point of the archetype is to allow access to something that isn't on your deity's normal list.

That having been said, if it is specifically intended to not include subdomains, that is something that should also be spelled out, and not left for individual GMs to have to interpret.

The Exchange 5/5

Can a Sorcerer with the Undead bloodline become a Cleric of Pharasma?

Can a Dhampir become a Cleric of Pharasma? (I'd need to look more at the Boon that allowed it, but I was under the impression that Dhampir are NOT undead, any more than Undead Bloodline Sorcerers are.)

Can a separatist cleric of Pharasma take the Undeath SubDomain?

At my table I would say yes. wow... I guess that means I'm saying "Yes, at my table this is allowed". YMMV

and if he/she created undead I would note it on his AR as a condition gained and would require some type of "Fix".

The Exchange 5/5

This line of reasoning puts me into worry for my wifes Aasimar Cleric of Cayden. She RPs her as pregnant - something that several judges on the board have objected to. Is she likely to sit at a table and have a Judge rule that Cayden does not grant her spells - in order to prevent the pregnant lady from adventuring?

I would be concerned at what point the Judge who dis-allows it would inform the player running the PC of the his ruling. When is the Player told "not at my table". I hit this all the time with the way Perception works (different at many judges tables), and with the Take 10 rule, (so many different ways it is hard to keep up with them).

I guess I can take a Dwarven cleric of a Gnome god (Nivi). But am I going to hit a problem with taking Travel as a domain (separatist cleric)?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

nosig wrote:

This line of reasoning puts me into worry for my wifes Aasimar Cleric of Cayden. She RPs her as pregnant - something that several judges on the board have objected to. Is she likely to sit at a table and have a Judge rule that Cayden does not grant her spells - in order to prevent the pregnant lady from adventuring?

I would be concerned at what point the Judge who dis-allows it would inform the player running the PC of the his ruling. When is the Player told "not at my table". I hit this all the time with the way Perception works (different at many judges tables), and with the Take 10 rule, (so many different ways it is hard to keep up with them).

I guess I can take a Dwarven cleric of a Gnome god (Nivi). But am I going to hit a problem with taking Travel as a domain (separatist cleric)?

It is always sticky when you consider roleplaying Fluff choices and GM's choosing to "not allow" it at their table. Your wife's character doesn't get any mechanical benefit of being pregnant. It's just fluff. It also is not reskinning. So a GM saying "not at their table" would probably be allowing personal bias into the equation. Which is a no-no in organized play.

I personally don't know any other deities that are quite as fanatical about one particular thing as Pharasma is. Of course I don't know the canon or theme for all the deities, so I can't say if that's true or not. I'd wager that most of the domains or subdomains that you couldn't take for any of the other deities would largely be covered by the archetype itself, in that you can't take an alignment domain that doesn't fit the deity or the cleric.

As far as Pharasma goes, I'd find it very hard to justify anything with the term undead in it as Pharasma being willing to grant spells. That includes Dhampir, Undead Bloodline (and any of the wild thereof), or the Undead subdomain. Those things give mechanical benefits. They are not just fluff. So indicating that you could take those and still have spells granted by Pharasma, in my mind, is abusing the way organized play is set up (for those with the opinion that GM's shouldn't be allowed to rule on this), to put together a character concept that flies in the face of what Pharasma is all about.

The Exchange 4/5

This thread seems to been derailed way beyond the realm of PFS and into the larger world of Golarion itself. Seems like a move to a different forums would be beneficial, as I think this falls more under the purview of James Jacobs than M&M, despite having potential PFS ramifications.

1/5

Joseph Caubo wrote:
This thread seems to been derailed way beyond the realm of PFS and into the larger world of Golarion itself. Seems like a move to a different forums would be beneficial, as I think this falls more under the purview of James Jacobs than M&M, despite having potential PFS ramifications.

I respectfully disagree. This has to do with the rules as applied to PFS, not the setting. No one needs roleplaying tips. This is about how a GM will react to a character brought to his table using a rule that is applied to that character.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Beckett wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Maybe so, but there is a question on whether Pharasma would even grant spells to a Dhampir.

I'd vote no.

That's about as logical as saying Urgathoa will only grant spells to female undead PC's or that only Half-Orcs (monsters) can have Lamashtu as a patron deity.

No, its not remotely the same thing. One of Pharasma's 10 commandments is "kill the undead". .. Actually i think she used three commandments on it, just to be sure. A dhampir that isn't running at the nearest sharp pointy object isn't fulfilling that commandment.

I DO see the counter argument. But i don't think equating the line of reasoning above with your completely random prohibitions is fair.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:


If someone was using personal bias to dictate what was, or was not, allowed, or causing players of halfling cavaliers to feel shamed because you think it cheesy, then yeah, that's not kosher.

The irony is profound :(

Certainly we agree that I shouldn't badger or ban a halfling cavalier. No matter how I may think that violates my belief of how mounted combat 'should be done'.

My point that apparently you keep missing is that in this case the in-character dogma has the rare benefit of being literally spelled out in black and white to us, the players. Pharasmin dogma disallows 'creating and controlling' undead. Saying that Pharasma goes further and disallows 'giving someone negative energy affinity, or essentially the same thing is equally heretical', is purely personal bias. And banning or prevening spells to such a seperatist cleric IS acting on that bias. Again, Pharasma's dominant church on mortal golarion would certainly share the view, but that shouldn't be the impartial GM's view. Because, you know, the church != Pharasma herself.

Quote:
But you can't sit here and tell me that Kiss of Death is an ability that Pharasma would grant to her priests.

Yep, I can and I will over and over until the thread goes to Pharasma's boneyard. It neither creates nor controls undead. No dogma violation. End of story. Wanna argue the grey line that so narrowly seperates its use from actually creating Undead? No point, this isn't an in-character thread.

If you can swallow the idea a Dhampir cleric of Pharasma in the first place, who already is healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy, there's no issue with that cleric 'inflicting' the same condition on baddies. Or at least there shouldn't be.

Quote:
As far as Pharasma goes, I'd find it very hard to justify anything with the term undead in it as Pharasma being willing to grant spells. That includes Dhampir, Undead Bloodline (and any of the wild thereof), or the Undead subdomain. Those things give mechanical benefits. They are not just fluff. So indicating that you could take those and still have spells granted by Pharasma, in my mind, is abusing the way organized play is set up (for those with the opinion that GM's shouldn't be allowed to rule on this), to put together a character concept that flies in the face of what Pharasma is all about.

I think you've slain your own arugment. A multiclass Cleric of Pharasma/Sorcerer of Undeath bloodline can't have cleric spells at your table? You you say you can enforce that in PFS with a straight face? :(

Let's set the argument of the particulars of dogma aside.

Not to be insulting.. making an honest point. What gives you (or anyone) the right to tell me (or anyone) what is and is not proper 'canon' for Pharasma? How do you know I don't understand the materials better than you? Honestly? If we can't agree, but the rules are clear on what's legal, what gives you the right to say your argument trumps the rules?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


If someone was using personal bias to dictate what was, or was not, allowed, or causing players of halfling cavaliers to feel shamed because you think it cheesy, then yeah, that's not kosher.

The irony is profound :(

There is no irony here. There is no personal bias on my part at all.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


... One of Pharasma's 10 commandments is "kill the undead". .. Actually i think she used three commandments on it, just to be sure. A dhampir that isn't running at the nearest sharp pointy object isn't fulfilling that commandment.

I'm curious why you'd think this. Really.

A dhampir is not undead. Furthermore, for whatever resemblences a dhampir has to the undead, he didn't become one by dabbling with forbidden magics. He was literally born that way and has no control over whether or not he's a dhampir any more than an elf does being an elf.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
Certainly we agree that I shouldn't badger or ban a halfling cavalier. No matter how I may think that violates my belief of how mounted combat 'should be done'.

Could you expound on why you seem to think that should be banned at all? I mean the pharasmin dhampire isn't just a matter of personal preference, its a matter of being worried about violating the precepts of a deity. The DM does have to check the players alignments and adherence to their deities ethos, and the DM does effectively "run" pharasma insofar as she interacts with the world.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


If someone was using personal bias to dictate what was, or was not, allowed, or causing players of halfling cavaliers to feel shamed because you think it cheesy, then yeah, that's not kosher.

The irony is profound :(

There is no irony here. There is no personal bias on my part at all.

None other than, of course, the belief that 'May not Create nor Control Undead' somehow is expanded to mean 'May not take any abilities that include the terms undeath or undead'.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Could you expound on why you seem to think that should be banned at all? I mean the pharasmin dhampire isn't just a matter of personal preference, its a matter of being worried about violating the precepts of a deity. The DM does have to check the players alignments and adherence to their deities ethos, and the DM does effectively "run" pharasma insofar as she interacts with the world.

My belief that halfling cavaliers are cheesy and stupid is just a way to compare to other people's belief that my character might be cheesy and stupid. I may never convince you otherwise, but if you're a GM at a PFS table you have an obligation to accomodate anyway. Just like I'm obligated to put aside my biases and let people play what they wanna play. Odds are, we'll all have fun. Play the 'I know Pathfinder Canon better than you' game, and I guarantee noone has fun.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:


My point that apparently you keep missing is

I'm not missing your point. I just don't agree with it.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


If someone was using personal bias to dictate what was, or was not, allowed, or causing players of halfling cavaliers to feel shamed because you think it cheesy, then yeah, that's not kosher.

The irony is profound :(

There is no irony here. There is no personal bias on my part at all.
None other than, of course, the belief that 'May not Create nor Control Undead' somehow is expanded to mean 'May not take any abilities that include the terms undeath or undead'.

"Kiss of Death" certainly walks a very thin line (in my opinion it crosses it) of what the term "create" means. So its temporary. It still mimics the effects of being undead. That's really not following the precepts of Pharasma. Its like sitting next to your sister with your finger barely not touching her and saying, "I'm not touching you." And yet, you are still irritating your sister, probably moreso that if you actually were touching her. I don't think Pharasma would see the difference, no matter what argument or logic you wanted to use.

Additionally, while a Dhampir is born, and doesn't have a choice as to what he is, neither does a vampire spawn, or a shadow spawned into undead by being eaten by a shadow... And yet, they are still the progeny of undead and are sentenced to death by Pharasma.

Spoiler:
There is a scenario out there where you gotta have a magical effect essentially turn you into undead, sorta, so you can masquerade around in Geb. I don't think Pharasmin cleric would accept such a thing without having to seek atonement afterwards.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


... One of Pharasma's 10 commandments is "kill the undead". .. Actually i think she used three commandments on it, just to be sure. A dhampir that isn't running at the nearest sharp pointy object isn't fulfilling that commandment.
I'm curious why you'd think this. Really.

Cursed from birth, dhampirs result from the rare and unnatural union of vampires and humans. Although not driven to consume blood for survival as their undead progenitors are, dhampirs nonetheless know a lifelong desire for blood that nothing else can truly sate. Those who survive their early years face a life of fear and mistrust, their unnatural beauty and incredible reflexes marking them as scions of the night just as surely as their sensitivity to light. Although polluted by undeath, dhampirs do grow old and die, aging at a rate similar to elves.

I think it might legitimately be that i can't get half vampire out of my head when I think about it. The polluted by undeath part probably isn't helping, nor is the fact that they're functionally undead for determining channeling effects...

It could also be the goatee.

Quote:


A dhampir is not undead. Furthermore, for whatever resemblences a dhampir has to the undead, he didn't become one by dabbling with forbidden magics. He was literally born that way and has no control over whether or not he's a dhampir any more than an elf does being an elf.

Zombies didn't choose to be raised, Ghasts/ghouls didn't choose to be infected, ghosts didn't always choose to come back, and vampires didn't choose to be bitten. Pharasma doesn't care HOW you got that way she just wants it over.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Yes, most undead didn't have a choice about how they got that way. It was a mistake to even bring up the matter of how willingly one is what one is.

The functional matter we just don't see eye to eye on is that Dhampirs are living creatures. No more dead than humans or elves. In fact, they're exactly as close to dead as elves, since they both suffer the -2 con racial penalty.

The are living creatures that happen to have a wierd biology, chemistry, aura, whathaveyou, that means positive energy hurts them and negative energy heals them. Which basically resembles the undead, but in no other way share traits with the undead.

So. Should an Oracle of Bones with the resist life mystery be destroyed by Pharasma? A player may RAW insist his spells and powers are coming FROM Pharasma too, per the APG. Or should he destroy himself?

Edit: The comparison of Pharasma granting spells to 'negative-naughty' oracles to clerics gave me an epiphany!

If you insist to the player that his Oracle is 'misinformed' and is NOT getting his powers from Pharasma who in your view can't stand his negative energy-nearly undead affinity.. and rather instead from some other source the Oracle is misidentifying...

Why couldn't you do that for the player of a Cleric? "Oh, you're a *cough* DHAMPIR cleric of PHARASMA with the UNDEAD domain? Ya sure, you tell yourself whatever you want, demon-thrall. Fine, go cast your demon-granted spells..."

And if you can take that approach, clearly it'd be better not to provoke a dogma/canon argument with the player and just have fun imagining it to yourself ;)

The Exchange 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

all the listed undead above are spawned, none are born.

dhampir are born.

Pharasma is a god of birth... right?

Ok, call me names if you want, but I still think this is legal. And would rule that way at my table. Just like I would say you can play an Elf with the (Dwarf trait) Tunnelfighter, IF you have the Trait Adopted. Just like I would rule that you can T10 on faction missions, or on Knowledge Rolls (outside of combat), or on Climb. This is legal as I read the rules, and I am still waiting to see someone point at a rule that says dhampir can't be Clerics of Pharasma.

Would you take the spells away from a Pharasma cleric for casting Raised Dead? It's a spell that "cheats death". Would you have a problem with a Judge who felt that way, who did remove the spell casting from a PC Pharasma Cleric for casting Rais Dead?

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
if you're a GM at a PFS table you have an obligation to accomodate anyway. Just like I'm obligated to put aside my biases and let people play what they wanna play.

That's a pretty profound statement and very dangerous depending on the extent it is taken. Paladins must be LG, but they are not required to worship a deity nor are they required to be within one step of their deities alignment. While there are specific rules governing the dogma related to paladins devoted to many of the gods, there is lack of printed evidence that paladins are denied to deities not specifically listed. So would you allow a paladin of Irori? What about Cayden Cailean?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:


So. Should an Oracle of Bones with the resist life mystery be destroyed by Pharasma? A player may RAW insist his spells and powers are coming FROM Pharasma too, per the APG. Or should he destroy himself?

Now you are grasping at straws.

First of all, Oracles typically revere the small "pantheon" of deities that represent their Mystery. Although (and my Oracle of Battle, Bbauzh, is one who reveres a single deity in that pantheon, Cayden) you can choose to worship just one.

However, if you do so, one of two things is true... you stick to the tenets of that specific deity (no taking the create undead spell, even though that's an option for Oracles of Bones if you choose to revere only Pharasma) or you understand that the create undead spell comes from a different source than Pharasma. It is interesting that many of the mysteries have diametrically opposed deities (Bones has Pharasma and Urgathoa). Therefore, you can take the Resist Life revelation, only if you understand that its Urgathoa granting the power, and not Pharasma. And if you choose your reverence within your mystery to fall only on one of the deities of your Mystery's mini-pantheon, then you probably should self-limit yourself to what that Deity would allow.

And, believe it or not, it is the GM's position to help adjudicate these types of things. Whether you like their ruling or not.

As long as you don't skirt that real thin line so closely, tip-toeing the other side at frequent intervals, then you won't have anything to worry about with most reasonable GM's. But even reasonable or very lenient GM's, in my opinion, would have a valid quibble with anyone professing to worship Pharasma, choosing a power that even mimics the traits of an undead. And that includes a Dhampir that professes to get their spells from Pharasma.

The Exchange 5/5

Dhampir can't be Arcane Archers. Got a rule for that.

Undead Bloodline Sorcerer/Cleric of Pharasma Mystic Theurge... looks good to me. What am I missing?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, haven't commented too strongly against Undead Bloodline yet, because I was unfamiliar with its powers.

But are you kidding me?! Seriously?!!

By 20th level you essentially start to rot and undead consider you one of them.

Another of the bloodline abilities let you make skeletal arms burst from the ground.

One of your spells is Animate Dead.

You gain these powers because your blood has been tainted by something Undead somewhere in your ancestry (or you were raised by ghouls in a graveyard, or what have you).

And you think Pharasma would be ok with any of that?

Seriously?!! That's even more questionable than the Dhampir!

Scarab Sages 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:


That's a pretty profound statement and very dangerous depending on the extent it is taken. Paladins must be LG, but they are not required to worship a deity nor are they required to be within one step of their deities alignment. While there are specific rules governing the dogma related to paladins devoted to many of the gods, there is lack of printed evidence that paladins are denied to deities not specifically listed. So would you allow a paladin of Irori? What about Cayden Cailean?

Hypothetically?

I'm not sure whether what you say about Paladins is correct (haven't researched them) but I'll assume it is. If I'm GMing a PFS slot and I get a Paladin of Irori or Cayden about the last thing I'd do is say 'I don't care what you paid/had to go thru to get a slot at this table, get your cheesy character that PFSOP rules don't ban out of here!"

Specifically in this case, Abadar is an allowable Paladin god and Irori has the same alignment. I wouldn't even think its an issue. A Paladin of Cayden Cailean is likewise HIGHLY unlikely to be a character of a player looking to find a way to legally 'bully' people in PFSOP. That'd be my first thought. My second would be to ask him how he reconciles his Paladin code with Cayden's edicts. If he goes "uh, I never thought of it beyond the Lolz" I'd attempt to convince him to pick an 'appropriate' deity. I'd be surprised to hear that however, and would probably have instead used a great segue into the character introductions as everyone hears about this atypical character when the player explains himself.

The Exchange 5/5

side note on the term GM or DM:

I guess it's just me, but I call guy at the table a Judge. The GM's work for Piazo.

Normally we strive to NOT have Table variations. I play some rules differently in my home game than I do in PFSOP. Some really bug me. But, as a Judge at a PFSOP table I am doing the players a disservice by playing what I think are RAI. I am just playing my opinion. When this is pointed out to me, I try not to let it happen again, I try to play by the rules.

What you are suggesting here FEELS like the judge who told me that I could not use the spell Beguiling Gift to hand a Druid a Steel shield and have him loose his powers for the day. The line he used was "not at my table" and he went on at length. When I posted it here on the board, I got flamed for suggesting it. I think I was called "a cheating druid hateing bigot". (they did get thier way thou. I never cast the spell again, and swapped it out as soon as my Bard could).

The Exchange 5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

Ok, haven't commented too strongly against Undead Bloodline yet, because I was unfamiliar with its powers.

But are you kidding me?! Seriously?!!

By 20th level you essentially start to rot and undead consider you one of them.

Another of the bloodline abilities let you make skeletal arms burst from the ground.

One of your spells is Animate Dead.

You gain these powers because your blood has been tainted by something Undead somewhere in your ancestry (or you were raised by ghouls in a graveyard, or what have you).

And you think Pharasma would be ok with any of that?

Seriously?!! That's even more questionable than the Dhampir!

Ok, so we have established that at your table Undead bloodline Sorcerers can't also be clerics of Pharasma.

Can Demon bloodline Sorcerers be Clerics of Asmodaus?

Scarab Sages 5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

Ok, haven't commented too strongly against Undead Bloodline yet, because I was unfamiliar with its powers.

But are you kidding me?! Seriously?!!

By 20th level you essentially start to rot and undead consider you one of them.

Another of the bloodline abilities let you make skeletal arms burst from the ground.

One of your spells is Animate Dead.

You gain these powers because your blood has been tainted by something Undead somewhere in your ancestry (or you were raised by ghouls in a graveyard, or what have you).

And you think Pharasma would be ok with any of that?

Seriously?!! That's even more questionable than the Dhampir!

20th level 'undead think I'm one of them': Well, you're not a multiclassed anything, cleric of pharasma included, if you have the capstone ability.

Animate dead: Hell, Pharasma already grants it. Death domain is perfectly legal in every sense of the way you look at it, and you're not REQUIRED to swap it out for Speak with Dead as described in the blog post. Again, not arguing that if you used it you shouldn't suffer.. but just knowing it? C'mon. Pharasmin Death clerics have been knowing it all along.

As for grasping with straws about the Oracle thing.. not so much that.. as honestly wondering how to get through to someone who I'd imagine is rational and even-headed enough to have the VL title. Surely you know you can't just overrule PFSOP because you don't like something. Even if you say you disagree with me, I know inside you don't, you just don't want to admit you're wrong on this ;)

Seriously. If you just can't abide by the idea of someone using too much negative energy/necromancy stuff and still being Pharasmin, just think to yourself they're NOT. They're pitiful pawns deluded by some nefarious power into doing their bidding, all the while beleiving they serve Pharasma. You'll have more fun, and your player will have more fun.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

nosig wrote:

I guess it's just me, but I call guy at the table a Judge. The GM's work for Piazo.

GM is a correct term. You could call them table GM's if you really want to get specific. But they still have to adjudicate things not covered by the rules. Rules don't cover everything. As such a GM has to adjudicate things as best they can with the way they understand the situation.

Scarab Sages 5/5 *** Venture-Captain, Oregon—Portland

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems that a Dhampir who worships Pharasma is almost a gimmee as far as back-story goes, and I am having a hard time with those saying that Dhampir can't be clerics of Pharasma. That's the main reason I didn't make my Dhampir Oracle of Bones follow her, I figured EVERYONE would be doing a "Blade" style character, and who better for that than Pharasma?????

"My mother was raped by an undead, leaving me on the doorstep of the Temple to Pharasma to be raised by the clerics. My only reason for living now is to hunt down and slay those undead who defiled my mother and others like her..."

I'm sorry, but I just can't see a cleric telling a prospective member of the fold with a back story like that, "I'm sorry, but Pharasma hates you too much to allow you to live, let alone be a cleric..."

Just for the record, my character follows Norgrober ;)

The Exchange 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
if you're a GM at a PFS table you have an obligation to accomodate anyway. Just like I'm obligated to put aside my biases and let people play what they wanna play.
That's a pretty profound statement and very dangerous depending on the extent it is taken. Paladins must be LG, but they are not required to worship a deity nor are they required to be within one step of their deities alignment. While there are specific rules governing the dogma related to paladins devoted to many of the gods, there is lack of printed evidence that paladins are denied to deities not specifically listed. So would you allow a paladin of Irori? What about Cayden Cailean?

Bob, it has already been established that in order to be a worshipper of a diety you have to be within one step of the god/goddess. Paladins can't even be worshippers of a N/N god, they would be limited to L/N or N/G or L/G. Sounds like no Paladin of CC.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

nosig wrote:


What you are suggesting here FEELS like the judge who told me that I could not use the spell Beguiling Gift to hand a Druid a Steel shield and have him loose his powers for the day. The line he used was "not at my table" and he went on at length. When I posted it here on the board, I got flamed for suggesting it. I think I was called "a cheating druid hateing bigot". (they did get thier way thou. I never cast the spell again, and swapped it out as soon as my Bard could).

It would have been better if the GM had used some reasoning behind his ruling.

I can see ruling it either way.

1) The Druid says if they use metal armor or shield, they lose their powers and spells while doing so and for 24-hours afterwards. As such, I can certainly see a GM allowing it to work the way you wanted it to work.

2) However, I can see him choosing to not allow it to work once the Druid dropped the shield. Most of these types of "lose your powers if you do something" are things you must do willingly or willfully. Being coerced by magic against your will, might not cause this type of effect.

This is something where you would probably see table variation, and rightfully so.

I would probably err on the side of the player if doing so didn't destroy the entire scenario. If doing so basically negated the entire scenario, then I might start looking at things a bit more strictly.

yeah, that might not be consistent. But part of the job of a GM is to provide a fun time for ALL of the players. Not just the one player with the "kill the scenario" spell or ability.

But this is a different argument.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

nosig wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Ok, haven't commented too strongly against Undead Bloodline yet, because I was unfamiliar with its powers.

But are you kidding me?! Seriously?!!

By 20th level you essentially start to rot and undead consider you one of them.

Another of the bloodline abilities let you make skeletal arms burst from the ground.

One of your spells is Animate Dead.

You gain these powers because your blood has been tainted by something Undead somewhere in your ancestry (or you were raised by ghouls in a graveyard, or what have you).

And you think Pharasma would be ok with any of that?

Seriously?!! That's even more questionable than the Dhampir!

Ok, so we have established that at your table Undead bloodline Sorcerers can't also be clerics of Pharasma.

Can Demon bloodline Sorcerers be Clerics of Asmodaus?

I'm not super familiar with either. I'm not going to go into a debate about something I'm not super familiar with.

Is Asmodeus super fantatical about hatred of demons?

The Exchange 5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
nosig wrote:

I guess it's just me, but I call guy at the table a Judge. The GM's work for Piazo.

GM is a correct term. You could call them table GM's if you really want to get specific. But they still have to adjudicate things not covered by the rules. Rules don't cover everything. As such a GM has to adjudicate things as best they can with the way they understand the situation.

more off topic talk:

sorry, was trying to keep that off post as it is kind of de-railing, and I did say "it's just me". I'm a little old school. the DM/GM is the ultimit athority and can't be overruled. ah... to me anyway.

The judge is the guy who will tell me at the table that "no, a 46 perception does not find the trap. I am not going to let you rules lawyer this encounter. You can't find the trap on the Orb." So I guess my Trapsmith Rogue was a poor choice to play at that table.

The Exchange 5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
nosig wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Ok, haven't commented too strongly against Undead Bloodline yet, because I was unfamiliar with its powers.

But are you kidding me?! Seriously?!!

By 20th level you essentially start to rot and undead consider you one of them.

Another of the bloodline abilities let you make skeletal arms burst from the ground.

One of your spells is Animate Dead.

You gain these powers because your blood has been tainted by something Undead somewhere in your ancestry (or you were raised by ghouls in a graveyard, or what have you).

And you think Pharasma would be ok with any of that?

Seriously?!! That's even more questionable than the Dhampir!

Ok, so we have established that at your table Undead bloodline Sorcerers can't also be clerics of Pharasma.

Can Demon bloodline Sorcerers be Clerics of Asmodaus?

I'm not super familiar with either. I'm not going to go into a debate about something I'm not super familiar with.

Is Asmodeus super fantatical about hatred of demons?

I think so. One of the reasons Cheliax worships him is 'cause he saves them from Chaos (in the form of demons). Hellknights are all about fighting Demons.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:


As for grasping with straws about the Oracle thing.. not so much that.. as honestly wondering how to get through to someone who I'd imagine is rational and even-headed enough to have the VL title. Surely you know you can't just overrule PFSOP because you don't like something. Even if you say you disagree with me, I know inside you don't, you just don't want to admit you're wrong on this ;)

That's a pretty bold statement, don't you think?

I'm not overruling PFSOP because I don't like something.

As a GM, in PFSOP, I feel I'm required to do my best to rule on things that seem out of place. If they do, then I have to make a call on it. It isn't overruling PFSOP to make a call, where the rules don't specifically cover it. The rules don't specifically cover a lot of things that as a GM I have to make calls on.

Quest for Perfection Part I:
The cavefisher was pulling someone up to its nest, and the fighter who'd already climbed up the cliff to the crack in the wall, used a grappling hook to grab the filament. So how do I adjudicate that? There aren't any rules for an opposing force vs. a creature's pull ability. There also aren't any rules for when the sorcerer grabbed the rope to help the fighter keep the cavefisher from pulling her into its nest. I had to use the available rules set to see if 1) I would allow them a chance to make this work--I did, 2) How I would use the existing rules to help me adjudicate this--I had the fighter roll to hit the filament, then use his CMB to pull against the cavefisher's CMD.

This bit with Pharasma is no different. The rules don't explicitly cover it, and yet, common sense tells me that Pharasma would not grant spells to someone who is one step away from being Undead themselves.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Gornil wrote:

That's the main reason I didn't make my Dhampir Oracle of Bones follow her, I figured EVERYONE would be doing a "Blade" style character, and who better for that than Pharasma?????

I figured 'everyone' was going to make Tieflings from that boon, and poorly-predicted that I'd be one of the few to go with Dhampir instead :D

Other party members not being able to heal my Dhampir was the first concern about picking a class, so I figured I'd keep the healing in my own court so I wouldn't end up at negatives and sit out the remainders of adventures.. and the rest is more or less spelled out through the history of this thread :D

Liberty's Edge 5/5

nosig wrote:


I think so. One of the reasons Cheliax worships him is 'cause he saves them from Chaos (in the form of demons). Hellknights are all about fighting Demons.

Then he probably wouldn't grant spells to someone who gains their powers through the Chaos of the Abyss.

Why must some subsets of players constantly push the boundaries of propriety? Why do you have to be something that is so off the wall, that it probably shouldn't exist?

You can create some really unique characters without going for the Pharasmin cleric that pushes the boundaries of what is considered undead by Pharasma and what is not.

Or what is considered demonic by Asmodeus and what is not.

Or a Druid that likes to burn down forests. I mean nothing says that a Druid has to like trees in the rules, and yet... really?!

Scarab Sages 5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:


This bit with Pharasma is no different. The rules don't explicitly cover it, and yet, common sense tells me that Pharasma would not grant spells to someone who is one step away from being Undead themselves.

Let's say I go to Gen-Con this year for the express purpose of attending some big PFS event. I buy my plane tickets (a lil far for a weekend trip from where I live), buy my con tickets, purchase my game slot, arrange for time off from work, etc etc etc.

So game comes and you're my GM. I brought my Cleric. You go "no spells for you!" in your best soup-nazi voice.

You don't see where you're causing an IMMENSE problem? One that really, I say you don't even have the right to cause?

Are you honestly saying it's MY fault for showing up with a character that isn't hyper-stereotypical, to prevent any chance that any GM I meet might find cause to ban some/all of it?

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Domains: A cleric's deity influences her alignment, what magic she can perform, her values, and how others see her.
To me a domaian is a dogma of beliefs. it's not just studing but his values, how he lives, ect...
I would feel the same way if a cleric of a
pacifist god took murder
anarchy god took order or vice verse
ect...

Now why I dont like or would allow clerics of pharasma in my home campaign, I dont see how i could stop it in PFS. Sometimes we must agree to just disagree.

The Exchange 5/5

the key here is not which blood line Sorcerer we need to start hunting down and killing this week. It's about Table Variation. and keeping it as low as possible. When the Judge says, "you rolled a '1' throwing that bomb, so your bomb falling into the square with you" when my Alchemist was thowing it 30' away, this is table variation. When my PC is prepared enough not to need to do shopping before the start of the adventure and the Judge says "you don't get a faction note, 'cause you didn't leave the Lodge for them to give it to you", this is Table Variation". One sure sign of table variation is anytime we (as judges) say "this is how this works at my table". When we do this we have two results. We upset a player who "knows how it works" and we teach players who don't WRONG.
So anytime you say "this is how this works at my table" stop and think. Perhaps talk to your fellow judges. Let's come to a ruling that keeps the game fun for everyone.
(edit:) and is the same for everyone - at every table in PFSOP.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

nosig wrote:
Bob, it has already been established that in order to be a worshipper of a diety you have to be within one step of the god/goddess. Paladins can't even be worshippers of a N/N god, they would be limited to L/N or N/G or L/G. Sounds like no Paladin of CC.

Except that paladins are not among the list of "divine" classes that are required to be within one step of their deity. As matter of fact, paladins are not even required to select one. Technically they are among the group who can choose a deity if they want, but that is largely a fluff choice.

The "rules" about paladins are largely RAI ones that have been bantered about ad nauseum here on the boards. The hypocrisy is that while it appears a paladin cannot be a "worshiper" of deities like Cayden, they can be non-denominational and "revere" the tenets of their choice for that or any deity they choose. So a paladin can follow Cayden as long as he doesn't declare he is a paladin of Cayden.

The Exchange 5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
nosig wrote:


...trim my stuff...
...trim some of andews reply...

Why must some subsets of players constantly push the boundaries of propriety? Why do you have to be something that is so off the wall, that it probably shouldn't exist?

...trim more of andrews reply

Pushing boundries are what characters are about! It's what players DO. Goodness, there are so many stories about characters that push the boundries (of propriety, reality, sense, you name it) characters that brake the mold.

A character who works for a goddess, but is an athiest (the goddess is Pharasma, the book is Death's Heretic). A wizard that can't cast spells (the book is Prince of Wolves). A Dwarf working with an elf. An undead tainted vampire hunter (wow... Blade anyone?).

I have a character that is fixing to level to 6th, and she had never done a point of damage to anything other than herself. She brakes the adventurers mold. She's fun.

51 to 100 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Separatist cleric (from UM) and PFS All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.