Separatist cleric (from UM) and PFS


Pathfinder Society

101 to 150 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
Let's say I go to Gen-Con

I'm sorry, but this is not germane to the discussion. How far someone travels, or how much they spend on the game or to attend a convention does not give them some extra clout or allow them to violate rules or over-rule their GM. The GM's decision regarding this issue or any other is not dependent on your method of attendance. I doubt you would say that someone who lives in Indianapolis and just had to walk down the street to attend the convention is somehow less impacted by a poor GM decision.

NOTE--I am not saying that either position regarding the topic at hand is wrong, just that your post is not applicable.

The Exchange 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
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.

or declair that he is a worshipper of Cayden. got to be C/G or C/N or N/G to be a worshipper of Cayden. Ah, looks like that leaves out Monks too. No Monk worshippers of Cayden (sorry Drunken Master).

so why did you bring up Paladin?

(edit:) opps! look like I did the paladin drag in! sorry!

The Exchange 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
Let's say I go to Gen-Con

I'm sorry, but this is not germane to the discussion. How far someone travels, or how much they spend on the game or to attend a convention does not give them some extra clout or allow them to violate rules or over-rule their GM. The GM's decision regarding this issue or any other is not dependent on your method of attendance. I doubt you would say that someone who lives in Indianapolis and just had to walk down the street to attend the convention is somehow less impacted by a poor GM decision.

NOTE--I am not saying that either position regarding the topic at hand is wrong, just that your post is not applicable.

bold is mine. What rule? I've asked earlier. What rules says that an Undead Bloodline Sorcerer can not take a level in Cleric of Pharasma? or rather that Pharasma would not grant said PC spells?

1/5

Yeah, that's the crux of the whole bit here. No one is saying that if someone directly violates Pharasma's tenants(i.e. creating or controlling undead in a manner not used to destroy other undead) that they would loose their abilities. The discussion has been, how is a power or effect having the name "undead" in it automatically antithetical to following Pharasma.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

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.

First off, I normally agree with your general position, asking my players not to do something just because they think they can.

But in this specific point, there is precedent. I'm going to assume the Pathfinder Novels are considered canon (no reason why they shouldn't, considering they even come with their own Chronicle Sheets for PFS) for this, and label it a spoiler just to be on the safe side.

From Death's Heretic:
Pharasma grants spells to Salim. He despises the Goddess for multiple reasons, yet she has made him immortal and when he needs her granted abilities to do her work, he can access them.

It can therefore be argued that the Gods, all-powerful and wise beings that they are, are not above making exceptions on a case-by-case scenario when the end result meets their purpose.

If she has, in canon, done it once, why not a second time?

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If no rules are being violated, what good is being served by a PFS judge saying 'no, I know things you don't know, I'm better educated, I'm more experienced, I'm more privy to VCs and M&M, etc'.

Let's put it another way by spinning it around.

Let's say *I* am that GM and someone comes to me with something that while being perfectly legal, seems to just not have a reasonable justification. Maybe a Paladin who worships Asmodeus (not intending to start a new flame war with anyone who might play one ;)

Perhaps he has some story I deem an 'excuse' that revolves around Cheliax and Hellknights, mebbe throwing in some Mendev Crusade, etc etc.

Andrew says I have the right to say "Not at my table, you're not."

I say I have an obligation to find the best way for everyone at the table to have fun. Not impose my view of Golarion on that player. The more invested in the game (particularly when LITERALLY invested monetarialy) the less inclined the player will be to 'reason' with me. I'm pleased we've kept it civil as we have in this thread for as long as it has.. but I think we all know that so often it devolves into Ross or someone else deleting posts and locking threads.

And that's about purely hypothetical issues that don't have a right here, right now impact.

If that player has spent hundreds, maybe more dollars to play a frikking RPG game, how are they going to take your decree from the ivory tower? Let me be clear, I'm speaking hypothetically and do not mean to imply threats, but if it were me being such a douche I'd honestly fear a violent reaction. Even if people keep their tempers in check, what the hell was the point? Did you have fun ruining that player's game? Probably not, or else you wouldn't be GMing for long as complaints mount. Did that player have any fun? Sure as hell, no.

Which is such a stupid approach when there are ways to resolve it where everyone still gets to enjoy the game.

The Exchange 5/5

Zahariel wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

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.

First off, I normally agree with your general position, asking my players not to do something just because they think they can.

But in this specific point, there is precedent. I'm going to assume the Pathfinder Novels are considered canon (no reason why they shouldn't, considering they even come with their own Chronicle Sheets for PFS) for this, and label it a spoiler just to be on the safe side.

** spoiler omitted **

more Death's Heretic:
and remember that Pharasma was also granting spells to the BBE, who had stolen a soul from her judgement and many other things. In fact, both sides of this one were getting their spells from the same diety
Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

nosig wrote:
What rule?

You are focusing on the wrong part of my text. My point is that distance traveled and money spent is relevant to the discussion. I was not making a judgement nor taking a position on the OP's topic.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

My own take on it would be that dhampirs, being born from a mortal parent, are living creatures. They have an affinity for undeath, but that does not make them undead themselves.

If a player came to my table, and wanted to be a dhampir Pharasmin cleric with the Undeath domain, I would allow it on a caveat. He uses it to understand and .destroy. the undead. He does not get undead-creating spells, but since the domain does more than that, hey, have fun, kid! I hope your roleplaying skills make it fun for everyone.

The Exchange 5/5

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:

If no rules are being violated, what good is being served by a PFS judge saying 'no, I know things you don't know, I'm better educated, I'm more experienced, I'm more privy to VCs and M&M, etc'.

Let's put it another way by spinning it around.

Let's say *I* am that GM and someone comes to me with something that while being perfectly legal, seems to just not have a reasonable justification. Maybe a Paladin who worships Asmodeus (not intending to start a new flame war with anyone who might play one ;)

Perhaps he has some story I deem an 'excuse' that revolves around Cheliax and Hellknights, mebbe throwing in some Mendev Crusade, etc etc.

Andrew says I have the right to say "Not at my table, you're not."

I say I have an obligation to find the best way for everyone at the table to have fun. Not impose my view of Golarion on that player. The more invested in the game (particularly when LITERALLY invested monetarialy) the less inclined the player will be to 'reason' with me. I'm pleased we've kept it civil as we have in this thread for as long as it has.. but I think we all know that so often it devolves into Ross or someone else deleting posts and locking threads.

And that's about purely hypothetical issues that don't have a right here, right now impact.

If that player has spent hundreds, maybe more dollars to play a frikking RPG game, how are they going to take your decree from the ivory tower? Let me be clear, I'm speaking hypothetically and do not mean to imply threats, but if it were me being such a douche I'd honestly fear a violent reaction. Even if people keep their tempers in check, what the hell was the point? Did you have fun ruining that player's game? Probably not, or else you wouldn't be GMing for long as complaints mount. Did that player have any fun? Sure as hell, no.

Which is such a g!&~#&ned stupid approach when there are ways to resolve it where everyone still gets to enjoy the game.

hay, mellow dude. I'm on your side remember. I looked at it. I can't find a rule against it. not sure what's got them upset about it, and I don't figure Pharasma will mind so much.

Your born. You die. No one cheats the Lady.

The Exchange 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
nosig wrote:
What rule?
You are focusing on the wrong part of my text. My point is that distance traveled and money spent is relevant to the discussion. I was not making a judgement nor taking a position on the OP's topic.

sorry Bob. From your message it looks like you were coming down on the poster, not on his arguement. Which was very unfocused.

The problem here is that there is no rule that disallows this. Except there are posters (with "authority") that appear to be saying "not at my table". That's my hot button in this.

(edit: actually - I don't think there is a problem here.)

Scarab Sages 5/5

nosig wrote:


hay, mellow dude. I'm on your side...

Oh I totally realize we seem to be thinking similar ways.. I meant to reply to Bob :D

'bob' wrote:


If someone pays alot of money to play at a con, he doesn't get treated better than someone who didn't.

To sum it up:

Ideally, that's a fine party line to cite. But that player cares more if he's mistreated than one who isn't into the con for hundreds of dollars.

And my point is that such a potential worst case kind of impact should be the baseline for every potential 'not at my table' ruling, even in local PFS games.

See, we're both egalitarian!

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:


Let's put it another way by spinning it around.

Let's say *I* am that GM and someone comes to me with something that while being perfectly legal, seems to just not have a reasonable justification. Maybe a Paladin who worships Asmodeus (not intending to start a new flame war with anyone who might play one ;)

If that player has spent hundreds, maybe more dollars to play a frikking RPG game, how are they going to take your decree from the ivory tower? Let me be clear, I'm speaking hypothetically and do not mean to imply threats, but if it were me being such a douche I'd honestly fear a violent reaction. Even if people keep their tempers in check, what the hell was the point? Did you have fun ruining that player's game? Probably not, or else you wouldn't be GMing for long as complaints mount. Did that player have any fun? Sure as hell, no.

Which is such a stupid approach when there are ways to resolve it where everyone still gets to enjoy the game.

You might want to choose a different example as paladins of asmodeus have been deemed illegal. So if that person showed up at my table after spending 100;s of dollars I would still say "I'm sorry but you cant play him as he is". Someone should have pointed this out to you sooner.

I dont think that because you spend lots of money on a game that it means you get to play by your rules.

Scarab Sages 5/5

jjaamm wrote:
.. Paladins can't worship Asmodeus...

Fine. Touche.

I'll change my example.

Someone is playing X combined with Y, while being perfectly legal under PFS rules, I find to be a questionable combination.

And then on to the rest of my statement.

My statement revolves around a character being fully compliant with PFSOP rules. That I don't like some certain aspect(s) is the issue. Not that the character is illegal.

I never said or meant to imply that spending alot of money means the GM needs to cut you slack.

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

nosig wrote:
so why did you bring up Paladin?

It is an analogous situation to the OP's post. There is a lot of RAI on the subject and at least some of it is either contradictory, unclear, or even absent completely. In these cases, it is left up to the GM to adjudicate how the player-characters interact with the multiverse. If a paladin cannot cherry-pick the parts of dogma they like, then why would a Dhampir Pharasmin Cleric get to? Interpretation of dogma is a difficult thing to do. People, countries, whole continents have been warring over dogmatic interpretations for millenia.

Per the RAW, clerics and inquisitors are the only ones who must be within one step of their deity. That requirement is not expected of any other class. Yet the expectation exists for paladins. Is that not RAI or perhaps a GM adjudication?

What is lacking here is a general application of lack of written text does not equate to legal. Pharamin dogma does indicate specifically what IS illegal in the eyes of the deity, but those are "man's" interpretations. So it is reasonable to think that the deity could extent that to more gray areas such as what the OP suggests...or not. In either case, IMO, it is still in the arena of GM discretion.

WE need to respect both sides. As I have always said, if you choose to build a character that is clearly living in the "gray realm" of rules interpretations or religious dogma, you have to expect occasions where the GM will not rule as you want. If you always want your character to function as intended, avoid these "fringe" cases.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:


WE need to respect both sides. As I have always said, if you choose to build a character that is clearly living in the "gray realm" of rules interpretations or religious dogma, you have to expect occasions where the GM will not rule as you want. If you always want your character to function as intended, avoid these "fringe" cases.

The problem is Bob, that the only way to avoid the 'fringe' cases is to know the mind of your GM. It approaches possibility for local play, but is extremely unlikely if there's a big enough population of players. And completely impossible for big cons.

Well, not unless you only play the stock characters.

Dumb fighter brute.

Skanky elf rogue chick.

Bleeding-heart healer cleric.

Sound like anyone you know? Well, mebbe calling Merisiel a 'skank' was uncalled for...

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

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
fully compliant with PFSOP rules

Perhaps the issue here is that you don't feel this is truly a rules issue at all and therefore the GM holds no power to adjudicate over it. At the same time, your opposition seems to think it is a rules issue.

Personally, I dislike "arguments" where one of the positions seems to be based on "it doesn't say I can't so I can." These types of discussion can get very ridiculous. I'm sure most remember that there is nothing in the rules that prevents a horse from climbing a rope. *sigh*

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Im all for allowing if within the rules, even if i dont like. Im the gm that not only let, but helped build Mr Chuckles, A hammer weilding animal companion. I have a player that rides a snake eidolon with climb. climbs everything cause the rules dont specify he cant. gIVE me a rule and I'll use it, but with PFS we are but human. I DONT know all the rules and will make calls on how i think it is. will adjust if got time to prove different. Sometimes i dont have that time though. You are proposing a character that sounds like it would be illegal. So will be questioned.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
fully compliant with PFSOP rules
Perhaps the issue here is that you don't feel this is truly a rules issue at all and therefore the GM holds no power to adjudicate over it. At the same time, your opposition seems to think it is a rules issue.

Well, seeing as how the PFSOP rules AND Pharasma's dogma are spelled out in black and white, they're simply wrong ;)

Oh, not to poke and prod. Here's another trip around the bush.

Maybe it IS against Pharasma to dabble with negative energy 'too much', above and beyond actually creating or controlling undead. I'd argue it isn't, but no need to rehash 3 pages worth of back and forth.

So, my point in that case is why would you ever do it anyway? What undesriable thing is being prevented by as a GM imposing your view that is counter to the players over him at his expense?

What's being hurt by a Dhampir cleric seperatist who has undead domain playing a pathfinder scenario? How many times does it even actually matter what classes are run or domains are used or deities are worshipped?

If the player is being disruptive or negatively impacting the experience of the other players, sure, the GM is expected to do something. But if the player is simply enjoying himself, playing someting he believes to be canonically appropriate, what good are you really doing banning it?

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

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
the only way to avoid the 'fringe' cases is to know the mind of your GM

I disagree. In 99% of the cases, it is relatively easy to locate unclarity in the rules. What is not known is how the GM will adjudicate.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of character builds that are more interesting that the "big dumb fighter" that also do not depend on edge case applications of game rules. The vast majority of our community does not encounter these issues. IMO, this is due as much to the character build as to the GM's allowance of it.

The Exchange 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
nosig wrote:
so why did you bring up Paladin?

It is an analogous situation to the OP's post. There is a lot of RAI on the subject and at least some of it is either contradictory, unclear, or even absent completely. In these cases, it is left up to the GM to adjudicate how the player-characters interact with the multiverse. If a paladin cannot cherry-pick the parts of dogma they like, then why would a Dhampir Pharasmin Cleric get to? Interpretation of dogma is a difficult thing to do. People, countries, whole continents have been warring over dogmatic interpretations for millenia.

Per the RAW, clerics and inquisitors are the only ones who must be within one step of their deity. That requirement is not expected of any other class. Yet the expectation exists for paladins. Is that not RAI or perhaps a GM adjudication?

What is lacking here is a general application of lack of written text does not equate to legal. Pharamin dogma does indicate specifically what IS illegal in the eyes of the deity, but those are "man's" interpretations. So it is reasonable to think that the deity could extent that to more gray areas such as what the OP suggests...or not. In either case, IMO, it is still in the arena of GM discretion.

WE need to respect both sides. As I have always said, if you choose to build a character that is clearly living in the "gray realm" of rules interpretations or religious dogma, you have to expect occasions where the GM will not rule as you want. If you always want your character to function as intended, avoid these "fringe" cases.

I do not feel this is a fringe case.

from Separatist (Archetype) (the first two lines in fact)
"A radical cleric, unsatisfied with the orthodoxy of her
deity’s teachings, forges her own path of defiant divine
expression. Though most members of her faith would call
her a separatist or heretic, she continues to receive spells
from her deity."

Andrew appears to be stating that he objects to the posters character concept because it goes against his view of the orthodoxy of Pharasmas teachings. Which seems to me to be the point of the archetype.

If Andrew were to be saying "your character only thinks he is getting his spells from Pharasma, when in reality you are getting them from some other hidden diety, who is decievingy you for some unknown reason." I would be fine with that.

Instead he appears to be saying "not at my table". and is unable or unwilling to point to a rule against it. That's what has been keeping me up late tonight.

His arguement is that this is against the orthodox teachings of Pharasma (in a word heretical) .... and he will not allow it at his table. No rule except DM fiat.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
the only way to avoid the 'fringe' cases is to know the mind of your GM

I disagree. In 99% of the cases, it is relatively easy to locate unclarity in the rules. What is not known is how the GM will adjudicate.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of character builds that are more interesting that the "big dumb fighter" that also do not depend on edge case applications of game rules. The vast majority of our community does not encounter these issues. IMO, this is due as much to the character build as to the GM's allowance of it.

Are we talking purely hypothetically or are we still talking about the combination of race/archetype/domain in this thread?

Because the only 'fringe' here is whether possessing the undead domain is heretical and no-spells-for-you worthy of a Pharasma cleric. And there's no rule supporting that it would be.. only GM opinion on how one understands 'may not create or control undead'.

Scarab Sages 5/5

nosig wrote:


If Andrew were to be saying "your character only thinks he is getting his spells from Pharasma, when in reality you are getting them from some other hidden diety, who is decievingy you for some unknown reason." I would be fine with that.

I would be too. I've suggested exactly that.

I'd consider it poor form to voice the opinion as a 'clarification' to my character, but even that is preferable to 'not at my table'.

The Exchange 5/5

realize please that also barred here was the Undead Bloodline Sorcerer/Cleric of Pharasma. No divine spells for him either.

"Sorry, you have Undead blood in your background, so you don't get spells from Pharasma. Oh, and you should kill yourself... I mean end your existance."

ah, well, Mystic Theurge is a poor Prestige Class anyway...

Scarab Sages 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
fully compliant with PFSOP rules

Perhaps the issue here is that you don't feel this is truly a rules issue at all and therefore the GM holds no power to adjudicate over it. At the same time, your opposition seems to think it is a rules issue.

Personally, I dislike "arguments" where one of the positions seems to be based on "it doesn't say I can't so I can." These types of discussion can get very ridiculous. I'm sure most remember that there is nothing in the rules that prevents a horse from climbing a rope. *sigh*

This situation is more of a:

Me: Rules say I can, so I clearly can. Even the list saying what I'm prohibited from doing fails to mention it... so not only do the rules say I can, they don't say I can't!

Andrew: Nuh uh.

Bob: You gotta admit, this is a fringe case and in fringe cases like these..

Me: You gotta be kidding...

The Exchange 5/5

Gideon - I'm headed to bed. Good luck, but I do not expect this to come out good for you. After all -
"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 know, like Heros) - we're in that subset of players that don't want to play the Generic characters...

Ha! you know, I need to start another PC... maybe I'll take a look at the Pre-Gens and see what is least likely to cause problems with Judges. Just run a Canned PC...

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

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
if the player is simply enjoying himself, playing someting he believes to be canonically appropriate, what good are you really doing banning it?

Hmmm, not really good support for your argument. Just because the player is having fun and thinks he is right does not mean it should be allowed. Organized Play is a much different environment that home games where this concept would be more applicable.

Please understand. I am not necessarily opposed to your position, neither am I opposing the other side either. I happen to believe that a Dhampir Pharasmin cleric is legal and playable. I also believe that Pharasma would never grant the Undeath domain. Does that mean you lose your spells. Not really, unless the only reason you have them is because of the domain itself. Of course, I find no specifically detailed game mechanic that would deny the domain, thus supporting your position. I, also, feel that it is contrary to Pharasma's ethos.

In any case, unless Paizo feels this is worthy of their time to comment, I will respect and support the GM's responsibility to adjudicate the game as they understand it and hope everyone else does the same.

2/5 ****

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:


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!"

Warning: Ghostbuster Reference Inbound.

Crossing The Streams

I play a PFS Paladin of Pharasma. I also check with the table judge before I begin, and try to brief them.

"Hi, when I made this character, Inner Sea World Guide had not been published, and with it, the list of which deities of Golarion have Paladins. Her backstory fits nicely with Pharasman worship, but I will downplay her being a worshipper of Pharasma if the break from canonicity bothers you."

She fights with a mithral headed enchanted gravediggers pick, fer the love of the Lady of Graves. She has managed to hit 4th level without KILLING anything that wasn't already a devil, demon or undead. I played her at a table with nosig, and she went out of her way to make sure that the random thug encounter resulted in everyone on both sides living through it...

The advancement plan for the character is go to Shadowdancer. I honestly have no idea if I will ever be able to justify using the Call Shadow ability. This ability creates a Shadow that behaves more like an Outsider than Undead - it's the same alignment as the Shadowdancer, can communicate with the Shadowdancer, and does not spawn additional undead from the things it kills. I plan on taking the Weapon Bond ability for Paladin level 5 just to keep under the "no more than one combat capable pet" restriction of PFS in case I find a justification works.

I am hoping I can find a cool RP justification, preferably one backed up by an appropriately timed adventure with a compatible theme about the time she hits the level where that ability becomes available.

The Exchange 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
if the player is simply enjoying himself, playing someting he believes to be canonically appropriate, what good are you really doing banning it?

Hmmm, not really good support for your argument. Just because the player is having fun and thinks he is right does not mean it should be allowed. Organized Play is a much different environment that home games where this concept would be more applicable.

Please understand. I am not necessarily opposed to your position, neither am I opposing the other side either. I happen to believe that a Dhampir Pharasmin cleric is legal and playable. I also believe that Pharasma would never grant the Undeath domain. Does that mean you lose your spells. Not really, unless the only reason you have them is because of the domain itself. Of course, I find no specifically detailed game mechanic that would deny the domain, thus supporting your position. I, also, feel that it is contrary to Pharasma's ethos.

In any case, unless Paizo feels this is worthy of their time to comment, I will respect and support the GM's responsibility to adjudicate the game as they understand it and hope everyone else does the same.

And I will continue to argue that the Judge should run it like the rules say and like everyone else does (as long as we are not at the table).

Scarab Sages 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
if the player is simply enjoying himself, playing someting he believes to be canonically appropriate, what good are you really doing banning it?
Hmmm, not really good support for your argument. Just because the player is having fun and thinks he is right does not mean it should be allowed. Organized Play is a much different environment that home games where this concept would be more applicable.

Well, I guess we'll agree on most things and disagree on only a few but imo fundamental things...

Would you squish a bug as you cross a sidewalk just because you can? Whether you have the right to do it or not is not the issue.. would you do it simply to satisfy your own desire to see it destroyed?

I don't think that's how we want people to act in general, least of all in organizations we care about.

If the bug (distasteful PC) isn't harming you any (is legal) why the hell don't you hold your nose and step over it instead of going out of your way to step ON it?

I just don't get it. Apparently I'm not going to.

The Exchange 5/5

AdAstraGames wrote:
Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:


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!"

Warning: Ghostbuster Reference Inbound.

Crossing The Streams

I play a PFS Paladin of Pharasma. I also check with the table judge before I begin, and try to brief them.

"Hi, when I made this character, Inner Sea World Guide had not been published, and with it, the list of which deities of Golarion have Paladins. Her backstory fits nicely with Pharasman worship, but I will downplay her being a worshipper of Pharasma if the break from canonicity bothers you."

She fights with a mithral headed enchanted gravediggers pick, fer the love of the Lady of Graves. She has managed to hit 4th level without KILLING anything that wasn't already a devil, demon or undead. I played her at a table with nosig, and she went out of her way to make sure that the random thug encounter resulted in everyone on both sides living through it...

The advancement plan for the character is go to Shadowdancer. I honestly have no idea if I will ever be able to justify using the Call Shadow ability. This ability creates a Shadow that behaves more like an Outsider than Undead - it's the same alignment as the Shadowdancer, can communicate with...

(shakes head) you know... some persons of authority say,

"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?"
Careful who you run this guy for (I'd love to judge for you).... Hay what did we play together?

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

AdAstraGames wrote:
Call Shadow ability

It may more resemble an outsider from your perspective, but it is still an undead. I expect that many GM's would have an issue with a professed follower of Pharasma (albeit not a cleric/inquisitor) to summon an undead servant.

The Exchange 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:
Call Shadow ability
It may more resemble an outsider from your perspective, but it is still an undead. I expect that many GM's would have an issue with a professed follower of Pharasma (albeit not a cleric/inquisitor) to summon an undead servant.

and some Judges will have a problem with a L/G follower of Pharasma... I'm still having trouble with that one (the fact that it is not allowed in PFSOP now).

Silver Crusade 2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I looked at the powers replaced by the Undead domain. It in no way shape or form allows one to create undead. It allows one to make a creature respond to energy as if it were undead. So, this could be used to force semi-undead to act as if they were undead, for the cleric to channel energy to destroy them. I would let this character run as long as they don't actually create undead. Would one say a wizard can't worship pharasma, because they could add the spell Animate Dead to their spell list? As a GM, I leave my bias at the door and let players explain their roleplay. Unless it contradicts a hard concrete rule (or it breaks the don't be a jerk rule) I let it go. And if you don't like a concept, why care if it is played elsewhere? Don't get upset at someone else having the "wrong bad fun" of an unusual character. Drizzt, a good drow? Worships nature, instead of Lolth? MADNESS! And yet, it's canon. There are canonical sources being cited that show Pharasma isn't as strict as players are positing.

TLDR: Stop bashing other play styles and get back to having fun, for the love of the game!

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

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
If the bug (distasteful PC) isn't harming you any (is legal) why the hell don't you hold your nose and step over it instead of going out of your way to step ON it?

Again, we disagree on the analogy. The "bug" (read: pharasmin cleric) is not an innocent bystander, IMO, so I do not see its application.

The only aspect of the build I would have an issue with is the Undeath domain. The fact we are talking about a Dhampir being a cleric of Pharasma is not an issue, at least for me. IMO, the tenets and dogma of Pharasma indicate that she would not grant the undeath domain. But I also believe that this is my (GM) interpretation of the Pharasmin religion and respect your rite to disagree.

The idea that a character who pledges a religion and believes that his divine power comes from that deity, but is deceived and it is coming from some alternate divinity tastes a bit cheesy to me. But, again, that is just my interpretation.

2/5 ****

nosig wrote:

"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?"

Careful who you run this guy for (I'd love to judge for you).... Hay what did we play together?
...

We played Song of the Sea Witch together at Winter War 39 a few weeks ago. Your character was trying to play matchmaker to mine. I believe the line you used to try and set my character up with a temporary NPC - as part of your job roll - was "So, have you ever danced with a Paladin of Death in the pale moonlight?" (She has the 2 ranks in Perform (Dance) to go to ShadowDancer, so she works as a dance instructor...)

With that character, I *always* ask before bringing her out - I don't ever want to be That Guy Who Ruins The Fun. I can always swap to another character if the GM objects.

"Bob Jonquet wrote:
It may more resemble an outsider from your perspective, but it is still an undead. I expect that many GM's would have an issue with a professed follower of Pharasma (albeit not a cleric/inquisitor) to summon an undead servant.

RAW, the Summon Shadow ability refers to it as an undead shade. It is, however, immune to being commanded or turned, doesn't create spawn and has the Shadowdancer's alignment. An RP justification can be made that this might even be a divinely granted ability, given how tightly bound and constrained it is...but like all RP-based justifications, I would want to clear it before the table started.

Or I may never use the ability at all in character.

Or I may only use it in DIRE circumstances and ask the GM to record that I'm spending the money for an Atonement afterwards.

Or I only ever use it for its noncombat abilities, or only ever have it attack undead.

2/5 ****

nosig wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:
Call Shadow ability
It may more resemble an outsider from your perspective, but it is still an undead. I expect that many GM's would have an issue with a professed follower of Pharasma (albeit not a cleric/inquisitor) to summon an undead servant.
and some Judges will have a problem with a L/G follower of Pharasma... I'm still having trouble with that one (the fact that it is not allowed in PFSOP now).

Only the inquisitor and cleric (those granted domain abilities) have to be within 1 step of the deity they follow by RAW.

And again, I go out of my way to make sure that I talk to the GM before the table starts with this character, and if he objects, I play something else of the same tier.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Well let's chalk up the issue of 'perfectly legal' to different interpretations of RAW. There's no list anywhere that says what domains a deity will not grant, maybe the archetype needs that added. Whatever.

Lets talk more in general about seperatists rather than necessarily my build specifically.

What's the purpose of the Seperatist archetype? Maybe I'm assuming too much to think you're encouraged to make clerics that their own mainstream church would point at and yell "Heretic!" Did the writers intend for us to make characters that have their own wildly skewed versions of that deities dogma/religion/portfolios?

Are you 'supposed' to pick domains that are just catty-wompous to the deity's usual portfolio?

What if we were talking about a Pharasmin cleric with the Fire domain. Pharasma's response to that, if we were to imagine it, is probably nothing more than a shrug. "you want WHAT spells? ooook..."

So, out of nowhere, this seperatist cleric has the Fire domain. To you the GM, it basically makes no sense. The best the player can come up with for a story is 'my character likes fire. oh and he worships Pharasma." Maybe he actually came up with his own completely invented take on 'new' Pharasmin dogma that has no basis in published canon- and that's his point. He's a seperatist!"

Is that what one is 'supposed' to do with the archetype, instead of building a cleric that gets a little closer to what the mainstream church would call heresy? Is that preferable than the undead domain? Is that preferable to 'toeing a grey area'?

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

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Would one say a wizard can't worship pharasma, because they could add the spell Animate Dead to their spell list?

Big difference. The wizard is not receiving his power from the deity he is claiming to worship. He could just be misguided and would not be the first. However, a cleric receives his power directly from the deity. The issue at hand is to what extent Pharasma will allow the simulation of undeath or it's use to perform other tasks.

Everyone seems to think the rules are clear and support their case. I disagree with both sides, and believe there is enough reasonable ambiguity that there will be some table variation on this subject

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:


Everyone seems to think the rules are clear and support their case. I disagree with both sides, and believe there is enough reasonable ambiguity that there will be some table variation on this subject

I wouldn't be so hard headed about this if I actually could see the merit of opposing argument.

This is what I understand the counter argument to be:

CRB wrote:
Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).

GM rule Zero wrote for this case:
While Pharasmin code of conduct for clerics is succinctly described as 'do not create or destroy unded, excepting to destroy them', it is really more than just those two acts. You know what we mean.. don't be too 'undead-y'. And yes, having the undead domain counts as 'grossly violating the code of not creating or controlling undead'.

I don't see a single thing more to the argument than that. It simply boils down to a GM not only deciding he doesn't 'like' the concept, that he'd prefer to arrogantly insist his understanding of pharasmin canon is superior to the player's. Furthermore that he'd prefer to ruin that player's game rather than make it fun for him.

What am I missing?

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:

I don't see a single thing more to the argument than that. It simply boils down to a GM not only deciding he doesn't 'like' the concept, that he'd prefer to arrogantly insist his understanding of pharasmin canon is superior to the player's. Furthermore that he'd prefer to ruin that player's game rather than make it fun for him.

What am I missing?

I could have missed something from this entire thread, but What is allowing a cleric of Pharasma to take the Undead Sub-Domain?

Undead Sub-Domain is not one of the Sub-Domains that a cleric of Pharasma is allowed?

So what did I miss?


Dragnmoon,

Separatist Archetype for cleric allows you to choose a domain/subdomain not normally available from your deity.

Bob,

While it is way too late at night for me to be finding all the posts, but James Jacobs has posted many times that on Golarion, if a paladin worships a deity, then that deity must be LN, LG or NG. Period.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

Dragnmoon,

Separatist Archetype for cleric allows you to choose a domain/subdomain not normally available from your deity.

Actually it just says Domain, but something tell me I am getting late into this argument, so I won't get into any more.


Yeah, I as going to differentiate on that, but since it does not say that the subdomains cannot be take by the Separatist, people have argued that both ways in this thread and in others.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Worship is a monologue with a deity. My Pharasma worshiping necromancer wizard says "Pharasma I love you" and then raises undead using their own mastery of the arcane forces of the universe. Nothing there for the DM to ban hammer because everything is a choice by the player and completely under their control.

Being a cleric on the other hand is a dialog. The priest says " Pharasma I love you" and Pharasma says "You've been good, here are some spells". Its usually as automatic as a PC buying a sack of flour, but there's still an NPC under the DM's control to consider.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
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?

Look, I'm not an unreasonable goon. If it were at a large Con, I would probably seek the advice of Mike Brock in this case. If I were the convention coordinator, I would probably say you wouldn't get spells for that character.

There is a HUGE, HUGE difference between hyper-stereotypical and riding the line of out of bounds. Creative and Unique does not automatically equate to something that is questionable.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

KnightErrantJR wrote:
Yeah, that's the crux of the whole bit here. No one is saying that if someone directly violates Pharasma's tenants(i.e. creating or controlling undead in a manner not used to destroy other undead) that they would loose their abilities. The discussion has been, how is a power or effect having the name "undead" in it automatically antithetical to following Pharasma.

I wasn't basing my opinion on the word Undead being in the Domain or the Bloodline name. I actually spent a good deal of time last night reading up on the domains, the bloodline, and the mystery presented so far.

I was basing my opinion on the effects of the abilities and how I interpret Pharasma would react to such abilities.

And Gideon, yes, if you show up with what a GM determines is an illegal character, then you would be at fault for riding that thin line.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Zahariel wrote:


Death's Heretic:
stuff

Spoiler:
I haven't read that book yet, so I can't really speak intelligently about what went on in it. But based on your brief description, Salim isn't casting spells or using abilities that Pharasma despises. She is probably amused by his hatred and chooses to use him against his will because its convenient for her. Him being a professed atheist and hating Pharasma and then getting abilities from her, is not specifically breaking canon. Using an ability that promotes undeath would be, and I doubt that Paizo would let such into one of their novels.
Liberty's Edge 5/5

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:


Which is such a stupid approach when there are ways to resolve it where everyone still gets to enjoy the game.

First, I have little sympathy for players who choose to skirt that line of skirting the line, then get upset when someone takes umbrage with how far they've tip-toed across it.

You show up to a huge convention and spend tons of money to have fun, at your own risk. Even if you have hyper-stereotypical characters and never skirt the line, there is always the chance that someone will act unpleasantly and your time won't be as enjoyable as it could have been should you choose to react unfavorably to the unpleasantness.

You are also boiling down thousands of words of explanation to my opinion to, "not at my table you crappy player." And that couldn't be further from the truth.

The resolution is that you create unique and creative characters that don't push the line til nigh breaking. Or play a different character at that table. Or play a pregen. Or play at a different table.

I would do my best to be polite and congenial. I always do. But just as you say, some GM's make it hard to be, so do some players.

I would never resort to violence, and I won't allow myself to be afraid of it at a gaming convention.

What would likely happen at a big con like this, is if it became a huge issue, I'd ask you to go get a sign-off from Mike Brock with that particular character concept. If he says you can play it, then I wouldn't argue the point anymore. But until that decision is taken out of my hands, its a decision I feel strongly about.

The Exchange 5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
Zahariel wrote:


** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

Deaths Heretic:
Actually I spent most of the book trying to figure out (rules wise) what Salim is/was. He seemed to cast spells directly from the Diety, and it was his link with a God (Pharasma) that allowed him to (maybe sort of like an Oracle - but he seemed to "Channel" the diety, and this upset him greatly). The novel did give me a much greater understanding of the mindset of athiests in PF. Even one working directly for a god.
101 to 150 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.