Ajit Shyama, Shadow Caller's page

44 posts. Alias of Amakawa Yuuto.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
With Golarion elves being natives of the First World the races could not be any more separate from each other in origin.

In the Golgarion setting, Elves are from another planet (and some still have partial access to an portal network called Elf Gates that can lead to other worlds), not from the First World. Gnomes are the ones from the First World here.

From what I've read, it seems to me that they're going for a far less rigid "good" and "evil" approach. Maybe double-check with the GM whether it's ok for the good divine characters to work with an evil guy (which the GM can allow, because "the GM says so" beats "the rules say so"), but all-in-all, this seems more like "alignment-caricatures" then like actuall alignment conflict. He seems more like the token evil team mate that does morally questionable stuff when no one's looking, but tags along with the heroes and helps saving the day anyway.

DM_Blake wrote:
So if a vampire or demon, etc., casts Possession, THEY "use the effects" of Greater Possession and THEIR body disappears while they possess a creature. But if you, a normal PC with a normal body try to possess a vampire or a demon, etc., your body remains behind as always.

Side note: Vampires are corporeal undead, the special "like Greater Posession" effect is for incorporeal undead. If a ghost uses posession, he completely ends up in the target's body, leaving nothing behind. A vampire leaves a body behind as usual.

Otherwise, yeah. It just means that for incorporeal undead, non-native outsiders, and any other possible creature for which body and soul are the same thing, regular posession works like greater posession.

The actual problem, I think, is that "what is or isn't immersion-breaking" is completely, utterly, entirely subjective.
*And* situational.

If my Linguistics 10 summoner (he likes talking to people and thinks "tongues" isn't personal enough) puts another dot into linguistics and now knows yet *another* language, I'd doubt anyone would bat an eye even if it did happen suddenly.
If the orc barbarian from Belkzem puts his first dot into linguistics and suddenly speaks Ancient Azlanti over night, that's... less intuitive.
If the Fighter gets another combat talent, that's hardly surprising.
If the buffing bard that hasn't seen an enemy any closer than 15 feet for who-knows-how-long suddenly takes Imp. Unarmed Strike, that's a bit weird.

And let's not forget: If your int-mod rises because you raised your intelligence during levelup, you get retroactive skill points. Exactly as many as you'd need to go from "untrained" to "as good as you could be at your level" in one skill, in fact. So, at level 8, you could suddenly gain 8 ranks in [obscure skill of your choice], even if you never used that skill (or even saw that skill used by someone else) before.
(Use *that* on linguistics to go from "barely able to speek common" to "omniglot linguist" - probably inefficient, but could be fun if you find a way to hook a plot into it)

A while ago, someone made a topic that there should be training time (for everything, including feats and spells) between level-ups. Most people seemed to disagree, but for that poster, any kind of "instant powerup" broke immersion. But most of us? We hand-wave that stuff.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saldiven wrote:
Additionally, nowhere in the chart goes any of the stuff most players want to know appear, specifically the strong Will and weak Reflex saves.

SG 17 also states "This result reveals all aberration traits." - and Abberrations in general only have good will saves.

And charts like these were actually pretty common in D&D 3.5 bestiaries. So common in fact that I'd consider them more RAI - at least for 3.5, from which Pathfinder's knowledge rules were pretty much directly copied over - than any other "one piece of information"-interpretation.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
It literally says the Tarrasque "rises from death". You can't "rise from death" if you aren't dead.

That still doesn't deal with point two: How do you keep it undead? If some pesky adventurer comes along and kills it, it's just dead again.

Actually, that might be a neat trap (and by neat, I mean horrifying) - the players fight a zombie Tarrasque. When they manage to slay it - to bad, it comes back, actually stronger than before. That'll teach those pesky adventurers to just kill anything without thinking about the consequences!

Lemmy wrote:
Per RAW, raising it as undead shpuld work.

Already suggested, and has multiple "gray areas":

* Death Effects *might* kill the Tarrasque for three rounds, depending on how you read the "comes back three rounds later"-clause. If you read that as "it isn't *really* dead", then no, you can't raise it. If you read that as "it's dead for a little while", then yes, you could raise it before it returns.
* You now have an undead Tarrasque. What do you do with it? If you keep it around, well, then you have an undead Tarrasque that lacks regeneration, so sooner or later, someone's gonna kill it. If you kill it, it's a dead Tarrasque again, so it'll come back three rounds later.

The Problem with a Sphere of Annihilation is: It's a Minor Artifact.

Hence, it's also a Plot Device. You're using one Plot Device against another.

I mean, sure - the SoA has the "Only the direct intervention of a deity can restore an annihilated character."-clause...
....but, rules-laywering: The Tarrasque is a monster, not a character. Teach it some class levels before you try this.
...and more seriously: Yes, this should technically kill it... baring direct divine intervention. So, one plot device can be killed by another plot device. In that case, you might as well use any other plot device, because the Tarrasque eats any plot device that the GM doesn't call out as being Tarrasque-indible.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. Slow Suffocation and Starvation can't kill the Tarrasque.
Even if the non-lethal damage carries over into lethal damage (a rule I can only find for slow suffocation, not starvation) - the Tarrasque is still immune to death by damage (its regeneration doesn't heal (non-lethal) damage caused by either starvation or slow suffocation, but since those don't disable its regeneration, it still can't *die*), so it would just be locked in an unconcious state.
Until some crazy fanatic finds a way to restore said hitpoints - like, slipping a Ring of Sustenance on the Tarrasque's claw, casting Dream Feast on it, maybe just shove tons of cows or virgin sacrifices or virgin cowboy sacrifices down its unconcious throat. Or in the case of slow suffocation, simply bringing it somewhere it can breath and waiting a bit longer than usual (it's still *alive*, it just needs to recover HP regularily, even if regeneration won't work).

Why did I specifically mention *slow* suffocation? Slow suffocation is "in a sealed room, running out of air". Slow suffocation causes non-lethal, then lethal damage. "Regular" suffocation (strangulation, drowning...) doesn't do damage, you just fail a few saving throws and then you die. And, in the case of the Tarrasque, then you come back, because nothing in regeneration states that you can't be brought back from *death* caused by suffocation - it just doesn't recover the HP, but then, again, HP damage can't kill the Tarrasque.

So, yeah - starving and/or suffocating it are great ways to keep it locked up, but it can still be brought back - it's just unconcious, not dead. The important part is that it actually needs someone to bring it back - to bad that Golgarion is full enough of crazy people who'd try.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something important to keep in mind: Regeneration states that "[Creatures] cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures with regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are below 0)."

If you read the "If the tarrasque fails a save against an effect that would kill it instantly, it rises from death 3 rounds later with 1 hit point if no further damage is inflicted upon its remains." as "a death effect *does* kill it for three rounds", then you can save-or-die the Tarrasque and then may be able to turn it undead. But simply doing tons of damage will never kill it.

Also, once you've re-killed the undead Tarrasque, it's simply "dead" again, and might rise from *that* death three rounds later...

Milo v3 wrote:
You use inevitable technology to make them, and since inevitables are made of peoples souls it would have ancestors of a sort.

If you're using the technology used to create Inevitables, then you're creating an Inevitable. Maybe an Android-inspired Inevitable, but it's an Inevitable. And while I can see the "the people whose soul you're made from are your ancestors" as a... viable stretch, and Android do have souls that pass on, and thus it's perfectly possible to make an Inevitable from the souls of Androids... that would be an Inevitable with (metaphysical and/or metaphorical) Android ancestry.

Not an Android with Inevitable ancestry (which would be an never-born being having an infertile ancestor..).

And all this "Inevitable ancestor" makes me itch to make an "evading my ancestors" joke, but I really can't think of any.

And I'd suggest calling the "Dwarf Creature" "Small Creature" instead. Less likely to cause confusion =P (Young doesn't exactly work - it suggests lack of age, not *only* lack of size)

JiCi wrote:


Even then, an android with Inevitable ancestry [...]

How... how... how would a creature that isn't born, has no ancestors, is an entirely artificial creation... would such a creature have *any* kind of ancestry?

I could see an "android prototype" that's more clockwork-y, or a "half-inevitable" android that's a fusion of high tech and magical clockwork, but "ancestry" really is the wrong term here.

Also, I'm wondering if the reason there's no law-based native outsider is that the rigid perfection of unbound law makes purely lawful outsiders (Axiomites, mostly) always breed true. That's going to be my headcanon until we get an "official" lawful-based native outsider.

Casual Viking wrote:
But there's the Accomplished Sneak Attacker feat, that increases sneak attack by +1d6 per feat.

Pretty sure it also requires you to already have sneak attack in the first place.

Variant Multiclass? It halves your regular feats, but allows you access to some other classes abilities.

I remember reading a 3.5 argument about FoM in which some people argued that it allowed you to ignore armor penalties and I think even the dexterity maximum, because you could move without any restraints...

Reading it as "You ignore everything that hinders your movement in any way" can get ridiculous quickly.

How about "Stay here, play dead"?
Then people are just going to wonder about the pile of corpses, not about the group of zombies standing around... On the other hand, animals might try to chew on them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
Except... Gorumites don't have sacred prostitutes? My understanding is that you must be a worshiper of Calistria to take that trait?

In fact, the official name is "Calistrian Prostitute". The "Sacret Prostitute" rename is just because scrubbs all the Golgarion-specific names and refferences from its content.

Insane KillMaster wrote:
* Half-Catfolk.
Anime Catgirls. I kind of see mixed reactions to that. (I'm all for it, though.)
Insane KillMaster wrote:
* Half-Halfling (Quarterling?).
More likely a Three-Quarterling...
Insane KillMaster wrote:
* "Dwarf"/"Dwarf Creature" simple template.
Dwarf-Halfling! Children with beards!
Insane KillMaster wrote:
* Half-Axiomite (no Smite-Chaos please).

Yeah, it's the one that's still missing, given that we already have decendants from the various good, evil and chaotic outsiders.

Oh, and half-psychopomp or someother true neutral outsiders...

doc the grey wrote:
That feels like all the right kinds of tragic for one of the last remnants of the Azlant.

One of the many, many "last remnants".

Dark Folk were Azlanti that fled into the Darklands. Mongrelman were Azlanti that fled into the Darklands. Morlocks were *also* Azlanti that fled into the Darklands. Gillman were Azlanti that fled underwater. Fetchlings/Kayal were people who fled from an unnamed kingdom to the Plane of Shadow to avoid Earthfall, placing their origins in the same time period. And Cheliax (and who knows how many others) claims the Azlant legacy.

Also, don't the Dark Folk still live in the *Darklands*? That means there are still colours down there. Mostly earth-brown and stuff, but ocasionally you get shiny gems. Dark Dancers are even mentioned to "have more color and decoration to their appearances." - so it's not complete absense of colour.
The Kayal/Fetchlings are those on the Plane of Shadow, are mentioned to only have access to dyes and stuff through trade with the Material Plane, and they only have Lowlight- and Darkvision...
(While they can also gain See in Darkness through a three-feat chain, said chain also gives them light sensitivity/blindness, and the first two feats are rendered completely obsolete by the Deepsight feat, which hands you the bonus of the first two Fetchling feats without their drawbacks, making that feat chain one of the worst instances of "feats that are entirely pointless and objectively bad"...)

Celestial Healing is also a lot less Wand-able, since it's only 1 round per 2 levels. But then, it also doesn't have a limitation like "can't heal wounds inflicted by silver or good".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The "outsider" type description actually answers this one.
"Unlike most living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don't work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life. An outsider with the native subtype can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be."

So, an Archon (like any non-native outsider) is, physically, its own soul.

The "innocent" part is only mentioned in the name of the feat, nowhere in its mechanics. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other feats that can also be used in a way unfitting for their name.

Really, all it takes is a guy who kills for personal gain, but goes out of his way to *not* harm innocents - a darker version of Robin Hood that robs and murders rich tyrants and keeps the money.

He wouldn't be good, definitely not. But depending on his other actions, he might not be evil.

"Snowlilly wrote:
I've been seeing Psychics all taking the Abomination discipline: immune to fear while Dark Half is active. Cannot shut down with intimidate.

And Oracles with the Deaf curse cast all their spells as silent spells, without an increase in spell level or casting time.

Sure, Deaf Oracles are deaf but they get bonuses around that, while Abominations have worse spells than other disciplines.

(Also, Mesmerists can remove Shaken on themselves as a swift action multiple times per day, but it's a limited resource and eats up their swift action.)

It doesn't even out in the "Equal under all circumstances" kind of way, but that way sucks. It does even out in the "Each has their uses", and that's much better.

Yeah, he was probably right - it was most likely calm emotions, and that isn't harmless.
What I meant was that even if an emotion effect were to fit your emotional component - to quote the rules: "Even if the effect's emotion matches the necessary emotion to cast the psychic spell, the spellcaster is not in control of her own desires and animal impulses, which is a necessary part of providing an emotion component."
You may need your rage to cast spells, but it needs to be *your* rage. You need to control and channel it. You can't do that if an outside effect forces it on you.

Kahel Stormbender wrote:
I had a GM recently rule my spiritualist couldn't cast Cure Light Wounds because the party's bard had cast a spell to calm everyone down. Since my phantom's focus was Hate, I'd previously designated the emotional component for my spells as hate. I heal people because I hate that they are injured, for example.

That doesn't actually matter here. Even if your emotional component fits the emotion an effect inflicts on you, it's still blocking your spellcasting. Only if the saving throw or the spell resistence say (harmless) does an emotion- or fear effect permit emotion components. A non-harmless hate/rage effect would still block your spellcasting, but a happyness effect with (harmless) descriptor in its saving throw or spell resistance description wouldn't.

"It is impossible to cast a spell with an emotion component while the spellcaster is under the influence of a non-harmless effect with the emotion or fear descriptors."
Effect, not spell. You could argue whether being shaken from the demoralise action counts as having the fear descriptor, but you'd probably be in the minority there.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Psychic casters can be shut down with a simple intimidate action (any non-harmless emotion effect, including "shaken", locks down Emotion components) and often have +10 on any concentration checks they have to make (due to Thought components).

Sure, there are ways around that, but there are also ways around other components. I'd say it about evens it out.

Ganzi are nice - the (purly) chaotic equivalent to asimars and tieflings. Now I'm waiting for the last part, a native outsider from a purely lawful plane.

Caligni are nice, too. Dark Folk are kind of like human Drow. This makes them a playable race. They come out a bit short compared to Kayal ("Fetchlings"), though.

Astomoi are ridiculous. Even more ridiculous then Samsaran, which means a lot. I just can't take them seriously.

Yeah, I found it looking for a specific erinyes, and then lost track of the fact that I found it through google. It didn't seem that odd, given that "Succubus in a grapple" and "Is there a devil version of the succubus?" were topics on the front page...

Sorry 'bout that.

From what I've heard, it's pretty much just there so undead, sentient constructs and others who lack a constitution score can become kineticists.

So, it's not really a PC option.

"Noncombatant" doesn't mean "harmless". I'm pretty sure it extends to anyone who isn't currently fighting you or your allies.

Killing the warlord that's besieging to your town in his sleep isn't evil, even though he's a noncombatant while he's sleeping. At worst, it might be seen as chaotic because you didn't offer him a fair chance to defend himself (though I'd argue that you could even get around that if you made it perfectly clear that you could and would sneak into his tent and kill him if he didn't abort the siege - then he had his warning, and it's his fault that he didn't heed it).
Not even if the only reason you do it is "because you were paid", since if you can sneak into his tent and kill him in his sleep, you could probably flee to another town instead of bothering with the town.

I mean, there is a Lawful Good Empyreal Lord of Executions (Damerrich), so Executions - as in, "Killing people who are currently helpless and have no way to defend themselves, much less harm you" - isn't an automatically evil concept in Pathfinder. It's situational, like most other stuff.

There are enough "grey area" killings where you can't let someone go, but where it isn't viable to keep them prisoner, and "for personal gain" can be a lot of stuff. If you're in Cheliax and murder your way through the evil corrupt bureaucracy to avoid being caught doing your otherwise non-evil, but illegal activities? It's for your personal benefit, since it allows you to continue with your illegal activities. It's also not good, but it's not "iredeamable, hell-and-damnation evil" either, even if none of those you killed recieved a fair fight and would thus be "noncombatants". You might even free some slaves on your gory path to money.

But yeah, the simpelest explanation would just be "executioner for money". In Pathfinder, executions on their own aren't evil (again, they even have their own Empyreal Lord), and if you're just doing it for the paycheck, then it's for your personal benefit.

Or follow Calistria, and kill people for personal revenge. Your family was killed by slavers, and now you kill slavers in return. Good people might balk at both your motive (not the liberation of slaves, just personal revenge) and the way you do things (killing them all without mercy), but it's close enough to neutral that you might end up above the "evil" line.

That being said, this is an alignment debate, so there obviously won't be any settled agreement.

KenderKin wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
What would qualify as personal gain in this case? I think there could be some corner cases to fit it into neutral.
Paid executioner?

Or assassin (the job, not the prestige class) with a conscience.

"Sure I'll murder that gang boss in his sleep, you'll just have to pay me enough for it."

Killing bad people for money is still personal gain, but as long as you don't kill innocents, you should be able to stay clear of being evil.

Ed Reppert wrote:
Ajit Shyama, Shadow Caller wrote:
and in the end, it's just that: Fluff.
I get a sense here of "fluff is unimportant. Only crunch matters." Maybe I'm misreading it. If not, well, I disagree.

I'd say Jedi-Yes, "Unimportant from a certain point of view". If someone wants to take sorcerer levels, saying "No, you can't, you don't have the power in your blood" is a jerk move (unless it was previouly established that this should be a low-magic campaign or something). Same if someone wants to become an Oracle or Witch or whatever. If someone wants to take levels in one of these "external influence/sudden reveal required" classes, they should get the opportunity.

The sudden emergence of these powers can be used as a plot hook, but it shouldn't be denied to a PC on the basis of "Sorry, you were just not born a sorcerer"/"Nope, your God doesn't want you to become a Paladin".

Fluff is the wrapping that turns the hard, cold numbers on a piece of paper into actual characters with personality, so it's definitely important. But if it's treated as ironcast, then it's to rigid to be any fun - fluff should be soft and fuzzy and able to be shaped into a comfortable form. Not used to bash people over the head with.

Shae. That you can't properly see them in detail just leaves more to the imagination. But then, I'm probably biased =P

Otherwise, Succubus and Death Ward. Lots and lots of Death Ward, it only lasts a few minutes.

(But then, it's a Succubus, so this might be one of those three-rounds encounters. Still, you might stock up for multiple encounters - maybe convince her to mix them up with her Change Shape, and let the dice decide how she looks each time? She's chaotic, she should be into random encounters...)

(Also, reminds me of the "Can they choose not to drain you?" question... according to Wrath of the Righteous: No, they can't, they have to drain.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:

That's from Hell Unleashed. The erinyes devil is Terindelle, who's working with a cleric of Alichino (The Jester Prince, Golarion's malebranche) named Zeffiro Lesiege.

Being lawful doesn't prevent devils from committing fraud, murder, rape, and other crimes in the slightest.

Ahhh, yes, thank you.

And yeah. Being Lawful just means that Devils feel obligued to hold any deals they make, and expect any deals made with them to be held in return.
If they can force you or trick you into making a deal that's grossly disadvantageous to you? Well, then that just shows that you're weak in mind and didn't deserve any better, but you may feel free to look for loopholes to abuse anyway. If you do the same to them? Then they were weak and didn't deserve any better, but they'll still look for loopholes allowing them to ruin you even as they serve you.
They're loyal to their word and their deals, never to you, and there's no reason to advertise that they're devils - the contract is all that matters. If you can't keep track of the fine print, then that's your problem, not theirs.

I *know* there's a writeup somewhere about a guy using drugs and orgies to make people sign infernal contracts in a drugged-up stupor. When he tries to make contact with the infernal duke he serves, said duke basically replies "Yeah, you're not nearly bringing in enough souls, here, have an Erinyes, she's going to whip your orgies into shape. If you do well, she'll serve you. If you do poorly, she's serve you to me on a silver plater."

I'll try tracking it down, there should only be so many named Erinyes...

Ed Reppert wrote:
Interesting. I would think that one doesn't just become a Paladin. That's the kind of job one should have to be recruited for — probably by the god concerned.

But then, according to fluff, you don't just become a Sorcerer or Bloodrager either - you just suddenly find out that you had it in you all along. Or you may suddenly be imbued by an outside force and end up as an Oracle or Witch, or make a pact that turns you into a Summoner or Medium. Lots of classes have fluff that's depending on outside influence or "deus ex machina" out of nothere revelations - and in the end, it's just that: Fluff.

Schrödinger's Dragon wrote:
I'm not sure it makes sense that you'd be able to use Heighten Spell (or a similar effect such as Like the Sun) to increase a spell's level while simultaneously using something to lower/ignore the spell level increase and have the spell still be a higher level, though. To me it seems like you would be taking "counts as a higher level spell for all purposes" and then saying that statement only applies where it's convenient for you, instead of universally like the wording suggests... However, no one in this thread seems to have suggested that you wouldn't be able to cast a 3rd level spell out of a 2nd level slot with Like the Sun/similar abilities, only questioned whether or not the ability to do so actually counts for fulfilling the spellcasting prerequisites. So it seems that my interpretation of it is unpopular at least, if not incorrect.

I can't really answer the rest of the post, but to explain this: If "Like the Sun" was just a Heightened Spell, then... well, it would just be a pricy Heitened Spell that didn't extend casting time for Spontaneus Casters. For a prepared caster, it would be literally useless compared to Heightened Spell, and for a spontaneus caster, it would be very, very situational - it can only be one level higher, and only be used with [light] spells. Heightened Spell can be used with any spell, can go up to the highest spell level you can cast, and doesn't cost you a Sunrod. The only time a Spontanous Caster would want to use this above Heightened Spell is when they *really* can't sacrifice their move action to Heighten that spell, in which case they might have bigger issues.

If they can use it to Heighten spells without raising the spell slot, then it has at least one specific use, even it it's a situational one.

Also, note that it just requires you to be able to cast any spells with the light descriptor. You could be an Cha 10 sorcerer (unlucky meeting with a Shadow Collector or something) who can only throw out the Light and Dancing Lights cantrips and still use it, even though you'd be unable to cast 1st grade spells.

But then, I've never been much of a fan of equipment tricks. They're ok for flavour... but it's not the kind of flavour I like, and I see no mechanical use in them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Officially speaking, I believe it's the worship of Gods (and anything else like spirits, I suppose), not divine magic per se that's illegal in Rahadoum. A Druid, or an Inquisitor, Oracle, or Paladin who had no deity wouldn't technically be in violation of an laws.

This is the Golgarion Setting. For divine magic, you *must* worship a God.

/Edit: Whoops, that's only spelled out for Clerics. Not sure if it applies to other divine casters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was under the impression that the Arcane Healer Archetype for Bards was added to Faiths & Philosophies as a note to Rahadoum's way to heal.
Also, there's the Chirurgeon Archetype for Alchemists.
And the White Mage Archetype for Arcanists, though those are fluffed as "touched by divine power" and thus have divine cooties.

Long story short: Arcane healing. It's not *as* common, but it exists.

Oh, and on the other end of the spectrum: the Hidden Priest Archetype for Clerics, which is a cleric, but *looks* like an arcane caster.

If this is an issue for your plot, say hello to the Corpse Puppet. It keeps the corpse of anyone who magically assumed a different form inside said false form even after their death, preventing them from ruining any conspiracy they're working for.

(Sure, it's just DC 12 to see through it, but only for "Creatures with reason to suspect deception". Happy arguing about whether there's a reason!)

Well, there's been some debate on whether your cohorts and followers gain any wealth by level *at all*, or whether their equipment has to be paid out of your pocket since they're considered part of your character.

Either way, Psionics aren't actually Paizo rules, so this question would belong in the Third Party Products forum area.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

According to the table in Champions of Purity, at least two good gods grant access to the Lust subdomain (Cayden Cailean and Kofusachi).

Also, Then there's the Neutral Good Empyreal Lord Arshea, the "Spirit of Abandon", worshipped by Courtesans, embodying Freedom, Physical beauty and Sexuality: "Arshea's most devout followers endeavor to achieve sexual release daily (either solo or with partners), praise the beauty of the partners and self, and pray to Arshea while naked." And also grants the Lust domain.

Maybe a better example...
Let's say you play a (variant) multiclass rogue/monk. Both monk and rogue gain Evasion. However, you still can't take two rogue archetypes that both trade away Evasion even though you'd get it twice, because the second set comes from another class, not the rogue class.