Separatist cleric (from UM) and PFS


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Does anyone want to take bets as to how popular the Separatist cleric archetype (from Ultimate Magic) will be in PFS play? Being able to cherry-pick a domain seems like it might be pretty tempting for some folks.

The Exchange 5/5

hogarth wrote:
Does anyone want to take bets as to how popular the Separatist cleric archetype (from Ultimate Magic) will be in PFS play? Being able to cherry-pick a domain seems like it might be pretty tempting for some folks.

I just started looking into Cleric archetypes... and ran across the Separatist. I will admit I have not seen any yet. and when I did a search of threads on them this is almost all I found.

So what gives? is no one running separatists? I was looking at it just to be a radical cleric - for the RP options. The ability to mix and match domains looks fun too. The idea of giving Cayden Trickery is just funny! then he could be a Trickster god!

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My cleric is a Pharasmin Seperatist with the Undeath Domain :)

Oh, and naturally a Dhampir to boot.

Dark Archive 3/5 **

Qadiran Clerics of Sarenrae with the Destruction domain for smiting the impure, anyone?

5/5 5/55/55/5

I would imagine that if you're trying to munchkin your way to domains you'd just pick a god that gave you BOTH domains and adjust your role playing accordingly wouldn't you?

Paizo Employee 5/5 Canadian Maplecakes

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:

My cleric is a Pharasmin Seperatist with the Undeath Domain :)

Oh, and naturally a Dhampir to boot.

Please... PLEASE tell me this is sarcasm.

The Exchange 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I would imagine that if you're trying to munchkin your way to domains you'd just pick a god that gave you BOTH domains and adjust your role playing accordingly wouldn't you?

I was kind of looking for a prankster god - one that needs to leave town in a hurry when his practical jokes backfire. so he'd need Trickery and Travel. or Trickery and something. but all the Trickery goods seem to be evil (or nearly) then I ran across Nivi Rhombodazzle, so maybe Nivi... the Gnome that traveled to the underworld and started the deep gnomes. Maybe I'll do a Oracle of Nivi, or a separatist cleric gnome practical joker....

The Exchange 5/5

bdk86 wrote:
Qadiran Clerics of Sarenrae with the Destruction domain for smiting the impure, anyone?

does this mean you are running one? or just suggesting it?

5/5 5/55/55/5

nosig wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I would imagine that if you're trying to munchkin your way to domains you'd just pick a god that gave you BOTH domains and adjust your role playing accordingly wouldn't you?
I was kind of looking for a prankster god - one that needs to leave town in a hurry when his practical jokes backfire. so he'd need Trickery and Travel. or Trickery and something. but all the Trickery goods seem to be evil (or nearly) then I ran across Nivi Rhombodazzle, so maybe Nivi... the Gnome that traveled to the underworld and started the deep gnomes. Maybe I'll do a Oracle of Nivi, or a separatist cleric gnome practical joker....

The lantern king is a first world "deity" has a connection to gnomes, and I'm pretty sure he has the trickery domain.

The Exchange 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
nosig wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I would imagine that if you're trying to munchkin your way to domains you'd just pick a god that gave you BOTH domains and adjust your role playing accordingly wouldn't you?
I was kind of looking for a prankster god - one that needs to leave town in a hurry when his practical jokes backfire. so he'd need Trickery and Travel. or Trickery and something. but all the Trickery goods seem to be evil (or nearly) then I ran across Nivi Rhombodazzle, so maybe Nivi... the Gnome that traveled to the underworld and started the deep gnomes. Maybe I'll do a Oracle of Nivi, or a separatist cleric gnome practical joker....

The lantern king is a first world "deity" has a connection to gnomes, and I'm pretty sure he has the trickery domain.

where's he from?

5/5 5/55/55/5

nosig wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
nosig wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I would imagine that if you're trying to munchkin your way to domains you'd just pick a god that gave you BOTH domains and adjust your role playing accordingly wouldn't you?
I was kind of looking for a prankster god - one that needs to leave town in a hurry when his practical jokes backfire. so he'd need Trickery and Travel. or Trickery and something. but all the Trickery goods seem to be evil (or nearly) then I ran across Nivi Rhombodazzle, so maybe Nivi... the Gnome that traveled to the underworld and started the deep gnomes. Maybe I'll do a Oracle of Nivi, or a separatist cleric gnome practical joker....

The lantern king is a first world "deity" has a connection to gnomes, and I'm pretty sure he has the trickery domain.

where's he from?

Inner sea world guide page 234

Charm, chaos, madness, trickery. He's a Trickster being from the first world, which is sort of like being the smart guy at MIT.

The Exchange 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
nosig wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
nosig wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I would imagine that if you're trying to munchkin your way to domains you'd just pick a god that gave you BOTH domains and adjust your role playing accordingly wouldn't you?
I was kind of looking for a prankster god - one that needs to leave town in a hurry when his practical jokes backfire. so he'd need Trickery and Travel. or Trickery and something. but all the Trickery goods seem to be evil (or nearly) then I ran across Nivi Rhombodazzle, so maybe Nivi... the Gnome that traveled to the underworld and started the deep gnomes. Maybe I'll do a Oracle of Nivi, or a separatist cleric gnome practical joker....

The lantern king is a first world "deity" has a connection to gnomes, and I'm pretty sure he has the trickery domain.

where's he from?

Inner sea world guide page 234

Charm, chaos, madness, trickery. He's a Trickster being from the first world, which is sort of like being the smart guy at MIT.

I'll check him out...

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thursty wrote:
Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:

My cleric is a Pharasmin Seperatist with the Undeath Domain :)

Oh, and naturally a Dhampir to boot.

Please... PLEASE tell me this is sarcasm.

What's so unreasonable about it? It's not Animate Dead can't be swapped for Speak With Dead for Pharasmin clerics with the Death domain (of which Undeath is a Subdomain), which I already have anyway from my other Domain, so it's not like I'm optimizing a munchkin here.

Is it that there can't possibly be a story?

Parents: Ew. Wow. Leave this freak of a baby of ours on the steps of the church. Those Pharasmins will know what to do with him, if anyone will.

Clerics: Grow! Learn! Revere Pharasma in all her aspects!

Me: So, what's with this undeath thing that she hates so much? Why am I half that?

Clerics: Don't go there. It leads to the Dark Side.

Me: I am intrigued by this 'dark side' and wish to know more.

Clerics: Get out.

Me: Hey pathfinders, need a healer?

I mean, it's not like I'm playing a halfling cavalier that has absolutely NO possible roleplay justification ;)

5/5 5/55/55/5

Quote:

What's so unreasonable about it? It's not Animate Dead can't be swapped for Speak With Dead for Pharasmin clerics with the Death domain (of which Undeath is a Subdomain), which I already have anyway from my other Domain, so it's not like I'm optimizing a munchkin here.

Is it that there can't possibly be a story?

Well, some DM's might think that an undead that was devoted to pharasma would be required to run out into the sunlight with one of those fold up sun bathing mirrors at their first opportunity. As an undead you're pretty much walking blasphemy to your own god and if you haven't set yourself on fire you're not following her precepts, so there go your spells.

Scarab Sages 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:

What's so unreasonable about it? It's not Animate Dead can't be swapped for Speak With Dead for Pharasmin clerics with the Death domain (of which Undeath is a Subdomain), which I already have anyway from my other Domain, so it's not like I'm optimizing a munchkin here.

Is it that there can't possibly be a story?

Well, some DM's might think that an undead that was devoted to pharasma would be required to run out into the sunlight with one of those fold up sun bathing mirrors at their first opportunity. As an undead you're pretty much walking blasphemy to your own god and if you haven't set yourself on fire you're not following her precepts, so there go your spells.

Dhampirs may be overly-simplified (or dismissed) as 'half-vampire'.. but they're in no way dead or undead. Completely living creature...

Dark Archive 3/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:

What's so unreasonable about it? It's not Animate Dead can't be swapped for Speak With Dead for Pharasmin clerics with the Death domain (of which Undeath is a Subdomain), which I already have anyway from my other Domain, so it's not like I'm optimizing a munchkin here.

Is it that there can't possibly be a story?

Well, some DM's might think that an undead that was devoted to pharasma would be required to run out into the sunlight with one of those fold up sun bathing mirrors at their first opportunity. As an undead you're pretty much walking blasphemy to your own god and if you haven't set yourself on fire you're not following her precepts, so there go your spells.

I think you're missing the part where he's a Separatist archetype Cleric, which by its very nature represents a cleric with a radical/extreme/unorthodox approach to a deity's dogma. He's done nothing wrong in terms of rules and from a role-play perspective it makes complete sense.

Dark Archive 3/5 **

nosig wrote:
bdk86 wrote:
Qadiran Clerics of Sarenrae with the Destruction domain for smiting the impure, anyone?
does this mean you are running one? or just suggesting it?

Just suggesting it. I know there are very different flavors of Sarenrae depending on what part of Golarion a PC hails from, and Qadira's take is rather militant. The idea of a Separatist cleric going to extremes is interesting to me as a natural extension of this particular piece of regional flavor.

5/5 5/55/55/5

bdk86 wrote:
I think you're missing the part where he's a Separatist archetype Cleric, which by its very nature represents a cleric with a radical/extreme/unorthodox approach to a deity's dogma. He's done nothing wrong in terms of rules and from a role-play perspective it makes complete sense.

I understand that. The problem is that you can hit a point where you run away from your church so far that you run away from your god.

A saranae cleric with the destruction domain is unorthodox but not blasphemous. Saranae DOES have a point where she goes from redeem to destroy, so it wouldn't surprise me if she still answered the prayers of a cleric that was more focused on that aspect of her doctrine than most, and helped to steer him towards some of the more unredeemable foes.

Pharasma, to the best of my knowledge, does not have an exception for undead or things that have been polluted by them. Answering prayers from a half vampire that hasn't staked themselves seems less like unorthodoxy and more like blasphemy to me.

Clerics need to stay in their deities good graces the same way paladins need to stay lawful good. A dhampire vampire could (but doesn't HAVE to be) seen as a walking affront to the god they're supposed to be worshiping.

Shadow Lodge 1/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
bdk86 wrote:
I think you're missing the part where he's a Separatist archetype Cleric, which by its very nature represents a cleric with a radical/extreme/unorthodox approach to a deity's dogma. He's done nothing wrong in terms of rules and from a role-play perspective it makes complete sense.
I understand that. The problem is that you can hit a point where you away from your church so far that you run away from your god.

That assumes an important question about the god and the church. I think IRL there have times when the church (or temple or whatever) have not done a good job serving the god. What happens when if the seperatist cleric is on the right path, or perhaps a right path in understanding the diety.

It's not unheard of for near heretics in life to be revered as saints in death.
A cleric of Sarenrae with destruction domain makes sense. A Dhamphir Cleric of Pharasma, might in the opinion of the orthodox church be a monstrosity. However, Pharasma herself might back back her himself as he seeks understanding of his condition with the understanding that what he learns will help with overall fight against the undead in years to come, in spite of the disapproval of her offical, rather stuffy and narrow minded church.

The Exchange 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
bdk86 wrote:
I think you're missing the part where he's a Separatist archetype Cleric, which by its very nature represents a cleric with a radical/extreme/unorthodox approach to a deity's dogma. He's done nothing wrong in terms of rules and from a role-play perspective it makes complete sense.

I understand that. The problem is that you can hit a point where you run away from your church so far that you run away from your god.

A saranae cleric with the destruction domain is unorthodox but not blasphemous. Saranae DOES have a point where she goes from redeem to destroy, so it wouldn't surprise me if she still answered the prayers of a cleric that was more focused on that aspect of her doctrine than most, and helped to steer him towards some of the more unredeemable foes.

Pharasma, to the best of my knowledge, does not have an exception for undead or things that have been polluted by them. Answering prayers from a half vampire that hasn't staked themselves seems less like unorthodoxy and more like blasphemy to me.

Clerics need to stay in their deities good graces the same way paladins need to stay lawful good. A dhampire vampire could (but doesn't HAVE to be) seen as a walking affront to the god they're supposed to be worshiping.

Sorry wolf, I think I'm going to have to disagree with you about the interpretation of Pharasma. I'm not real clear on Dhampire, but I beleave the following is true. They are born. In time, they die and thier souls travel to the Boneyard to be judged by Pharasma. They are not trying to "cheat death" anymore than the rest of us.

Most Undead are not born - they are created or spawned from living creatures in a process that "cheats death" - this is why Pharasma is anti-undead. She's against creatures living forever.

so.. to me at least, a Dhampire cleric of Pharasma would be fine. making it a Separatist archetype Cleric would be almost perfict.

Besides - it's legal in PFSOP, and this isn't a home game.

Dark Archive 2/5

Dhampir

As for the Dhampir, they are not undead, so I don't see a reason why one would be barred by Pharasma from worshiping her,

However..

I think the big point here, is that Undead are a No-no in the church of Pharasma. If he thinks creating/ using undead are ok.. then he is a Heretic, not a Separatist, as those beliefs go DIRECTLY against the dogma of her church.

Under Pharasma's entry in Faiths of Balance, Its states under Taboos:

while necromancy has many useful spells that allow you to care for the living and the dead, you may not create undead, nor control them, unless you are doing it to destroy them.

So yes, while it may not be "against the rules" from a RAW standpoint, it goes against the Flavor of her Church, and I would imagine she would stop answering prayers of someone who creates/ controls undead.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I seem to recall that The Godsmouth Heresy module had some proof that, over the years, Pharasma's focus had shifted and that she once was a more traditional goddess of Death. I could be wrong. I have not read or run the module and it has been nearly a year since I played.

Note, I didn't spoiler this because it has no bearing on actual game play, but instead is simply interesting fluff buried in a module.

Dark Archive 2/5

Will Johnson wrote:

I seem to recall that The Godsmouth Heresy module had some proof that, over the years, Pharasma's focus had shifted and that she once was a more traditional goddess of Death. I could be wrong. I have not read or run the module and it has been nearly a year since I played.

Note, I didn't spoiler this because it has no bearing on actual game play, but instead is simply interesting fluff buried in a module.

GodsMouth Heresy:

I mentions at the beginning that there was an Ancient Temple to Pharasma dating back to Thassilonian, that had info about a heretical sect who thought they found a loophole in the create of undead through ALCHEMICAL means vs. Magical.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

As a general response to the original topic, we had a paladin worshipper of Sarenrae who considered picking up a level as a seperatist cleric of Sarenrae in order to pick up the travel domain.

The player is 13. I told him that he is welcome to do so, but that I would want a 500 word essay and/or a 12 line poem that, in his character's own words, explained his new dogma and why traditional worship doesn't work for him. His character has an int and wisdom of 7.

I felt safe in doing this because I knew the player was a great sport. Needless to say, he wrote the essay, the poem, and read them to our group of 24 in character. It was awesome.

Ultimately though, he changed his mind and multi-classed to oracle of metal. He realized that it accomplished nearly the same thing and played to his strengths.

While separatist is a legal archetype, I strongly encourage any player of one to formulate their separatist dogma. They should have a very clear idea of why they disagree with orthodox worship.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

I dont have a problem with dhampir cleric seeking out pharasma to worship. I do have problem with said cleric than throwing out the tenets and studing and using undeath. Same with if cleric of Asmodius chose to take the demon domain or desnaian taking destruction(rovagog). There should be some obvious opposition domains, but there isnt What to do as a GM in PFS, when such things happen?

5/5 5/55/55/5

Josh Shrader wrote:
Will Johnson wrote:

I seem to recall that The Godsmouth Heresy module had some proof that, over the years, Pharasma's focus had shifted and that she once was a more traditional goddess of Death. I could be wrong. I have not read or run the module and it has been nearly a year since I played.

Note, I didn't spoiler this because it has no bearing on actual game play, but instead is simply interesting fluff buried in a module.

** spoiler omitted **

Re the godsmouth heresy.

That's what they thought.

Pharasma was NOT amused. She does not like rules lawyers apparently...

5/5 5/55/55/5

Quote:
Besides - it's legal in PFSOP, and this isn't a home game

Wouldn't you need a boon to do it since its not a core race?

Dark Archive 2/5

I'm sure he has one of the boons, lets give people the benefit of the doubt

Liberty's Edge 5/5

bdk86 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:

What's so unreasonable about it? It's not Animate Dead can't be swapped for Speak With Dead for Pharasmin clerics with the Death domain (of which Undeath is a Subdomain), which I already have anyway from my other Domain, so it's not like I'm optimizing a munchkin here.

Is it that there can't possibly be a story?

Well, some DM's might think that an undead that was devoted to pharasma would be required to run out into the sunlight with one of those fold up sun bathing mirrors at their first opportunity. As an undead you're pretty much walking blasphemy to your own god and if you haven't set yourself on fire you're not following her precepts, so there go your spells.

I think you're missing the part where he's a Separatist archetype Cleric, which by its very nature represents a cleric with a radical/extreme/unorthodox approach to a deity's dogma. He's done nothing wrong in terms of rules and from a role-play perspective it makes complete sense.

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

I'd vote no.


Well, since this is for PFS play and there is nothing in the Core Rules that says no, at least not until the Advanced Race Guide comes out, then this is not something Mike and Mark are likely to rule on til then. So as long as the character is mechanically legal and is not breaking specific Pharasmin laws like creating/controlling undead, then a GM should not be allowed to deny the player.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

nosig wrote:
Besides - it's legal in PFSOP, and this isn't a home game.

Not to be too nitpicky here, but on matters that are ambiguous at best, things like this can still vary by table based on the GM's understanding of the deity in question.

I for one, would not allow a Dhampir to worship Pharasma and actually get spells. And if somehow someone convinced me this should be allowed, I would certainly not allow them to use the undeath domain.

It isn't a matter of home game or not. Its a matter of whether the GM feels the player has gone too far on something that has no clear RAW.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Well, since this is for PFS play and there is nothing in the Core Rules that says no, at least not until the Advanced Race Guide comes out, then this is not something Mike and Mark are likely to rule on til then. So as long as the character is mechanically legal and is not breaking specific Pharasmin laws like creating/controlling undead, then a GM should not be allowed to deny the player.

But if there isn't a RAW that specifically says this is ok, in corner cases like this where a GM interprets Pharasma in that way, they certainly can deny it at their table.

And before people start making examples of ludicrous interpretations, this one is pretty easy interpretation to understand.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Well, since this is for PFS play and there is nothing in the Core Rules that says no, at least not until the Advanced Race Guide comes out, then this is not something Mike and Mark are likely to rule on til then. So as long as the character is mechanically legal and is not breaking specific Pharasmin laws like creating/controlling undead, then a GM should not be allowed to deny the player.

This.

The undead domain does give Animate Dead as a domain spell, but then again so does the vanilla death domain. And Pharasma grants the death domain.

There's a blog where Paizo says that since Pharasma is 'not your typical' Death goddess.. and Animate Dead is such a no no in her worship, one may trade out Animate Dead domain spells for Speak With Dead. (Only for Clerics of Pharasma) It's even PFS legal.

So, leaving aside the question of whether one MUST trade out Animate Dead or not, since I do, what's so bad about the Undead Domain? Really?
It doesn't CREATE OR CONTROL undead. Well, only if misued...

Game Mechanics-wise, I wanted it for the touch attack. "Lol, now you have the negative energy reversi just like me! I can channel heals to my party and you can't piggyback! And it doesn't even need to be selectively channeled!"

Roleplayingwise? There's bigger stretches that are every bit as legal under the Seperatist Archetype. Heck, picking Undead is barely even using the archetype.. its a subdomain of a domain Pharasma already does grant. But for example the Fire Domain? For Pharasma? Really? Oooook... makes no sense whatsoever but sure, be a Pharasmin cleric who can cast burning hands...

Sure. To some degree there's a 'you can't be serious' reaction to be expected at the combination of 'dhampir cleric of pharasma with undead domain'. And in light of that, I feel that I had an obligation to ensure I had a solid rationale behind it. *shrug* honestly, I think I came up with a logical explanation.

And yeah, the Godsmouth Heresy was such a fun time that this character was thought up in its aftermath. :)

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Well, since this is for PFS play and there is nothing in the Core Rules that says no, at least not until the Advanced Race Guide comes out, then this is not something Mike and Mark are likely to rule on til then. So as long as the character is mechanically legal and is not breaking specific Pharasmin laws like creating/controlling undead, then a GM should not be allowed to deny the player.

This.

The undead domain does give Animate Dead as a domain spell, but then again so does the vanilla death domain. And Pharasma grants the death domain.

There's a blog where Paizo says that since Pharasma is 'not your typical' Death goddess.. and Animate Dead is such a no no in her worship, one may trade out Animate Dead domain spells for Speak With Dead. (Only for Clerics of Pharasma) It's even PFS legal.

So, leaving aside the question of whether one MUST trade out Animate Dead or not, since I do, what's so bad about the Undead Domain? Really?
It doesn't CREATE OR CONTROL undead. Well, only if misued...

Game Mechanics-wise, I wanted it for the touch attack. "Lol, now you have the negative energy reversi just like me! I can channel heals to my party and you can't piggyback! And it doesn't even need to be selectively channeled!"

Roleplayingwise? There's bigger stretches that are every bit as legal under the Seperatist Archetype. Heck, picking Undead is barely even using the archetype.. its a subdomain of a domain Pharasma already does grant. But for example the Fire Domain? For Pharasma? Really? Oooook... makes no sense whatsoever but sure, be a Pharasmin cleric who can cast burning hands...

And yeah, the Godsmouth Heresy was such a fun time that this character was thought up in its aftermath. :)

Godsmouth Heresy:
You note that the heretic that's the main bad guy in Godsmouth Heresy is an ex-cleric of Pharasma.

I can't see Pharasma granting the Undead domain. Period.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

I can't see Pharasma granting the Undead domain. Period.

Spoiler:
Well, granted the ex cleric was an ex cleric because he was making undead. Just so we're clear, I never said I was gonna make undead. I never even planned to control undead, for the express purpose of destroying them, which IS expressly allowed to Pharasmin clerics. In fact, the way I'd be able to make undead, I've said a couple times I plan to use a PFS legal option to swap out. Should I go ahead and make undead anyway, a PFS GM would not only be within his rights to drop the ablitiy-loss hammer, I'd agree he'd have an obligation to. But that's not what we're talking about. Undead domain does not equate to creating undead.

In PFS saying that character can't be played (or loses his class powers) makes just as much sense as my only halfway joking desire to see halfling cavaliers banned from PFS. Just because it affronts one's sensibilities doesn't give one the right to ban what's otherwise legal.

The 'moth that doth fly close to the flame' isn't a concept I invented. But that's really all it boils down to. Pharasma granting deeper understanding of death and undeath (the undead domain) to an indivdual crusader who in her divine wisdom knows only wants to destroy undead, and is willing to risk proving unworthy of his place in the boneyard under her extra-scrutinous attention to do so... you think that's utterly ridiculous?

Anyway, with regards to the original post... looks like Seperatist Clerics have the potential to be a combustible topic with some GMs. I'd definately ensure that at a minimum, you have some sort of explanation of the story behind your character ready.

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are so many things I've seen in Pathfinder Society that I, as a GM, never thought to question, because if it's legal in the rules, and that's how the player wants to run the character, then I'll run the adventure, and we're all good.

It is strange to me that at one point it seemed that Pathfinder Society was to highlight the campaign setting, but now we seem to expect people to be well versed in the One True Vision of the setting to know when something is legal by RAW, but not by the consensus roleplaying opinion.

If this is going to be such a roleplaying hassle, why is it legal? You could have a true neutral cleric of Urgathoa with the healing domain, legally, with this. Should that be banned too?

How do you know that somewhere, out there, in the great beyond, some other god isn't pulling the cleric's strings and making him think he's getting his powers from Pharasma? It's not like it's going to come up in an organized play campaign, because nothing is tailored specifically for the PCs at the table.

I'm not even arguing that this particular example should or shouldn't be allowed, I'm saying that the class feature is pretty much tailored for creating heretics. It says so right in the text.

If it boils down to assuming everyone will agree on what kind of heretical behavior is "too far," then perhaps the ability shouldn't be allowed in the first place. If it is allowed, given the nature of organized play, you should expect some strange combination of clerical abilities.

Shadow Lodge 2/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see a problem with Pharasma granting powers to a Dhampir. It does make me cringe mightily to see to see the rather cool Pharasma canon thrown under the bus for what seems to me a rather gimmicky character concept.

That said, I don't think it's the job of PFS GMs to enforce Pathfinder/ Golarion canon when it applies to a specific character.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess this is just destined to turn into a Pharasmin dogma debate thread.

How have I thrown Pharasmin canon under a bus? She grants the frikkin' death domain. Undead is a SUBdomain of a domain she grants. In Paizo's own canon. She virtually grants the undead domain even without using the archetype.

Where's this link that ties undead domain intrinsicly to the creation of undead? Why is it so impossible to study the nature of your foe so you understand them better, to be able to destroy them better?

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 guess this is just destined to turn into a Pharasmin dogma debate thread.

How have I thrown Pharasmin canon under a bus? She grants the frikkin' death domain. Undead is a SUBdomain of a domain she grants. In Paizo's own canon. She virtually grants the undead domain even without using the archetype.

Where's this link that ties undead domain intrinsicly to the creation of undead? Why is it so impossible to study the nature of your foe so you understand them better, to be able to destroy them better?

Has this been brought up yet?

And it is PFS legal

Golarion Day: Other Gods and New Subdomains wrote:

But while I'm on the topic of domains and subdomains, there's something else I want to talk about—Pharasma. Turns out that nonevil goddesses of death sort of wreak havoc on the domain system—especially if they're as stringently anti-undead as Pharasma is. Because pro-undead spells always seem to sneak onto domain spell lists when you start talking about death and souls and stuff. It's easy enough to simply not prepare domain spells that create undead, but it still feels kind of disappointing to me that Pharasmins "miss out" on some domain spell options. For those of you who want a more Pharasma-friendly version of the Death domain and the Souls subdomain... behold!

Pharasma-Friendly Death Domain 3rd-level domain spell: Replace animate dead with speak with dead. 6th-level domain spell: Replace create undead with antilife shell. 8th-level domain spell: Replace create greater undead with symbol of death.

Pharasma-Friendly Souls Subdomain 3rd-level domain spell: Replace animate dead with speak with dead.

Gods and Magic wrote:
The church despises the undead as abominations to the natural order, and all priests follow this belief without question; creating undead is forbidden, and controlling existing undead frowned upon.

Shadow Lodge 2/5

...

Just ignore that last post. Sometimes I post before I think. I have no idea how you game or what you've done with your character. It sounds kind of cheesy to me at first glance, but then I'm certain some of my characters seem cheesy to others and I've seen plenty of people make weirder ideas work. To each his own.

The Exchange 5/5

Goodness - all this from my comment asking about heretic clerics. Now I'm not sure if I can run a Nivi Rhombodazzle (yeah, I can't beleave the name either) cleric with the Travel domain, (Nivi... the Gnome that traveled to the underworld and started the deep gnomes, but doen't have Travel as a domain).

Liberty's Edge 5/5

nosig wrote:
Goodness - all this from my comment asking about heretic clerics. Now I'm not sure if I can run a Nivi Rhombodazzle (yeah, I can't beleave the name either) cleric with the Travel domain, (Nivi... the Gnome that traveled to the underworld and started the deep gnomes, but doen't have Travel as a domain).

I would say that as long as the new domain doesn't seem to fly in the face of that Deities canon (i.e. Undeath and Pharasma), then I wouldn't worry about it. Unless Nivi hates traveling and demands that all his clerics never go anywhere, ever, or be excommunicated, then it seems the Travel domain would be fine.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In PFS saying that character can't be played (or loses his class powers) makes just as much sense as my only halfway joking desire to see halfling cavaliers banned from PFS. Just because it affronts one's sensibilities doesn't give one the right to ban what's otherwise lega

Just out of curiosity, why can't a halfling be a cavalier? You can't always rely on the big people to do your fighting for you, and halflings have a tradition of outriders and riding dogs (they even have an alternate racial trait for it)

5/5 5/55/55/5

0gre wrote:

I don't see a problem with Pharasma granting powers to a Dhampir. It does make me cringe mightily to see to see the rather cool Pharasma canon thrown under the bus for what seems to me a rather gimmicky character concept.

That said, I don't think it's the job of PFS GMs to enforce Pathfinder/ Golarion canon when it applies to a specific character.

Well, it is the DM's job to run all of the NPCs, including the gods. Golarion gods don't interact all that often with mortals, but one of the things they DO do is tell their priests "No spells for you!"

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:

I guess this is just destined to turn into a Pharasmin dogma debate thread.

How have I thrown Pharasmin canon under a bus? She grants the frikkin' death domain. Undead is a SUBdomain of a domain she grants. In Paizo's own canon. She virtually grants the undead domain even without using the archetype.

Where's this link that ties undead domain intrinsicly to the creation of undead? Why is it so impossible to study the nature of your foe so you understand them better, to be able to destroy them better?

  • 1) No she does not virtually grant the undeath subdomain. That’s a fallacy. Just because it is a subdomain of the death domain, and has similar spells, does not mean she is virtually granting that domain. Unless the list of subdomains that each deity grants includes undeath for Pharasma, then it isn’t granted by her.
  • 2)
    ”PRD: Undead Domain” wrote:

    Death's Kiss (Su): You can cause a creature to take on some of the traits of the undead with a melee touch attack. Touched creatures are treated as undead for the purposes of effects that heal or cause damage based on positive and negative energy. This effect lasts for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your cleric level (minimum 1). It does not apply to the Turn Undead or Command Undead feats. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

    Replacement Domain Spells: 2nd—ghoul touch, 4th—enervation, 9th—energy drain.

    For the Death’s Kiss power alone, I’d say Pharasma wouldn’t grant this power.

  • 3)you can’t seriously be considering that the Halfling cavalier is even a desperate analogy. It isn’t analogous at all. Personal bias based on simply preference has no bearing and is not equivocal to what actual cannon says about something else.

Scarab Sages 5/5

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

... For the Death’s Kiss power alone, I’d say Pharasma wouldn’t grant this power....

  • 3)you can’t seriously be considering that the Halfling cavalier is even a desperate analogy. It isn’t analogous at all. Personal bias based on simply preference has no bearing and is not equivocal to what actual cannon says about something else.
  • Personal bias is completely the point. I just admit that mine has no legitimate place behind a GM screen. I may assume that every player of a halfling cavalier plays one just to use a medium sized mount underground/indoors, no matter what background story or roleplaying reasons they insist they have... But it's 100% legal and I'd sincerly give someone the benefit of the doubt before saying "not at my table, munchkin!" at a home game. And I'd be completely in the wrong to ban it at a PFS table.

    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.

    Again, for what reason would Pharasma never ever grant that domain? All I'm hearing is "Because *I* say so." What's the logic? We all agree that Undead creatures are anathema to her and her faith. So what? What's that have to do with the Undead domain, besides the name? Is that all this is about, thinking Pharasma not only hates the Undead, but anything with 'Undead' in the name? A GM worthy of the responsibility should be able to look beyond that incredibly simple view.

    Sure, it's obvious that she wouldn't grant it normally. That's why it's not a regularly available Subdomain, requiring the archetype to take. But as a neutral deity, (neutral) clerics of hers can already freely channel negative energy. If you're basing your opinions on that use of negative energy is an abomination against her faith, you're just simply mistaken. So what's the big unforgivable difference with the Undead domain? I say there is none.

    Scarab Sages 5/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    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 ;)

    1/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    The . . . ahem . . . drop dead point in Pharasma's religion is creating undead, or controlling them to do anything other than destroy other undead.

    This is a matter of following the god's actual dogma to not loose spells.

    However, the character in question is not looking to create undead. Giving his companions the seeming abilities of the undead is not creating undead. None of them actually become undead.

    Would this make traditional Pharasmists feel squicky? Probably so.

    Again . . . isn't that the point of the archetype in the first place?

    Which brings me back to the original point. If you are going to expect GMs to micromanage the One True Vision when something is perfectly within the Rules as Written, then isn't it better to just disallow something in the first place.

    And if you want it allowed, know that it will be used as intended, as written in the description of the ability, to make characters that push boundaries.

    The Exchange 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 ;)

    Spies were taught languages and cultures to blend in, avoid detection, and live long enough to complete their assignment, so this isn’t the best analogy for your argument.

    I doubt Asmodeus would grant any of his followers the Chaos domain or any of its subdomains. Drawing from your spy theory, Asmodeus would only need to find a follower with the Evil domain to infiltrate a demon cult. The Evil domain is shared by all demon lords, and with the number of archetypes that remove the second domain option, wouldn’t make Asmodeus’s spy stand out. Not all demon lord worshippers have the Demon subdomain, walking around only displaying the powers of the Evil domain wouldn’t raise an eyebrow from the demon cultists all by itself.

    And if a player really wanted the Demon subdomain, they would probably just worship a demon lord. They wouldn’t make a devil worshipper and go separatist just to take the Demon subdomian. Besides in PFS you could only be a LN worshipper of a devil lord. This would block you from casting all of the chaos based Demon domain spells except for doom, rage and animate objects.

    The campaign setting fluff says that Pharasma is 100% against undead. There is a reason why she doesn’t have the Undead domain, when several gods received subdomains that they don’t have the primary/parent domain for, it doesn’t belong in her portfolio.

    Would the clergy of Pharasma kill a baby dhampir left on their doorstep? I don’t think so, but they would probably try to remove the taint of the child’s unnatural heritage. And if any of her worshippers, regardless of race, delved into the secrets of undeath for any reason would probably get the boot from the church and their divinely granted powers.

    5/5 5/55/55/5

    Kerney wrote:

    That assumes an important question about the god and the church. I think IRL there have times when the church (or temple or whatever) have not done a good job serving the god. What happens when if the seperatist cleric is on the right path, or perhaps a right path in understanding the diety. ]

    Right, but with Pathfinder deities you know you're not completely off the track as long as your god is still giving you spells.

    1 to 50 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.