Ectar's page

This makes me feel too old and out of touch for contemporary Pathfinder, and that makes me sad.

Individuality and identity just aren't a big focus in my life at this point, but is typically the focal point of many of these characters' stories.

They're well written and seem to resonate really strongly with the other folks in the comments. I just can't see almost anything of myself in them.

Balkoth wrote:

The bad news: the DM isn't thrilled with the idea of Greater Oil of Weightlessness or a Dawnsilver Bastard Sword due to physics.

The good news: I didn't escape, despite trying repeatedly. The rogue who got swallowed round 2 never managed to escape. The cleric who got swallowed round 3 never managed to escape. The druid got the Worm to crit fail on a Cone of Cold and that was able to finish it off so everyone lived.

They're okay with wizards throwing magical fireballs but the magical oil that makes your weapon light bulk is a problem?

And a Dawnsilver bastard sword is literally allowed by the rules, and would be light bulk, and weirdly usable when swallowed whole.

I get it. Bulk is supposed to count both as weight and general wieldability. Making a bastard sword lighter doesn't make it easier to swing it around in a tightly confined space. I'm thinking of that scene in Kill Bill Volume 2 where they're trying to use katanas inside a motor home. Didn't work so well.

To be clear, I'm not saying I'd disallow the aforementioned options.
But I get it.

Edit: I hate "wizards throwing fireballs" and "magic literally exists" being the comebacks for trying to apply any realism to Pathfinder.
Sure, we take it for granted that magic exists in the world, but it's not like we throw out all semblance of physics or Mechanics because of it. Especially in situations where magic isn't being employed.
Would an aluminum bastard sword be easier to use inside of an living sleeping bag of a monster than a steel one? As not a swordsman, I'd guess 'not really'.

Perhaps a companion themed martial akin to the Hunter from PF1, focusing on teamwork with their companion, with more companion customization and options built in would be an idea to work with. Like a more martial take to what summoner is.

This is my #2 most desired class, and has been for some time. Hunter was my favorite 1E martial because of the interplay with the teamwork feats and companion. Super cool.

My wife played a Ranger with a bird and got really sad just how meaningless her AC-feat choices felt around level 10. It just couldn't meaningfully contribute to combat most of the time.

So there's a good little bit of teasing regarding untethering Geb from Mechitar, but then nothing comes of it?
As far as I've been able to tell, besides getting an additional 80XP (already a laughable reward in an AP that calls out leveling up milestones), the whole untethering thing never gets mentioned again?
It's supremely disappointing.

Does runelord auto learn all spells from both curriculum and sin?

If so that already gives them more spells known than a normal wizard at the cost of not being able to cast non curriculum/sin spells against their anathema.

No. You acquire Curriculum and Sin spells as Spells Known in the same manner as a non-Runelord wizard.

Ectar wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

But if were talking about spells they never used finite resources to gain in the first place its not a penalty. Its more or less a class direction kind of like Occult casters have a different list to draw from than divine casters or primal casters.You wouldn't say those casters are penalized because one has this list of spells and the other has that list to choose from.

No reason to consider spells per day gains for the class as a tradeoff for the second of those situations. Its just a class buff from the normal wizard with a more focused direction that the player can choose from a number of runelord options.

Of course an Occult caster isn't inherently penalized compared than an Arcane one. Now, if that Occult caster lost access to ~10% of their available spell list, THEN If considered them penalized.

The occult list has some percentage less spells than the arcane and is just fine.

As long as there are sufficient spells to make the character that fits the theme that kind of runelord represents I wouldn't say its a veritcal penalty.
I would categorize it as a horizontal limitation though, and that can be meaningful even if I wouldnt consider a horizontal limitation like this equivalent to a vertical drop in resources. It is a limit on choice. I just wouldn't call it a reduction to the limited resources of the class.

I agree that the limit posed is primarily a horizontal one. But by not being able to access all of the good spells, your cap in potential effectiveness is inherently lowered.

As a very simple example, if Fireball is the best possible spell for you to be able to cast in a given situation, not being able to prepare it gives you a limit on how effective you could be in that situation when compared to a character who does have access to Fireball.

But if were talking about spells they never used finite resources to gain in the first place its not a penalty. Its more or less a class direction kind of like Occult casters have a different list to draw from than divine casters or primal casters.You wouldn't say those casters are penalized because one has this list of spells and the other has that list to choose from.

No reason to consider spells per day gains for the class as a tradeoff for the second of those situations. Its just a class buff from the normal wizard with a more focused direction that the player can choose from a number of runelord options.

Of course an Occult caster isn't inherently penalized compared than an Arcane one. Now, if that Occult caster lost access to ~10% of their available spell list, THEN If considered them penalized.

In order for it to be an actual obstacle or inconvenience there'd have to be a pronounced weakness inherent to the scenario of "I couldn't choose that" that isn't just as present in the scenario of "I didn't choose that even though I could". And since there's no difference between "this character doesn't know electric arc or fireball" and "it would violate this character's anathema to cast electric arc or fireball" there is no actual inherent value in that anathema.

Regular Wizard: Don't worry, party members. I didn't prepare Water Breathing [or other niche spell here] today, but we can rest up for the night and I'll prepare it tomorrow.

Runelord of Lust: I guess we're walking back to the nearest major city to go shopping.

Loss of flexibility is a meaningful limiter, but I wouldn't say it is ever equivalent to a vertical gain.

Is the opposite also true?

How many spell slots would you be willing to give up to acquire access to every spell of all 4 traditions?
If the answer is anything other than "I wouldn't ever give up any number of spell slots for access to that additional flexibility", then I think at some point there is an equivalency.

"Heavy anathema" is not actually a reason to alter the balance of things unless those anathema are actually difficult to avoid. In the case of runelord where the player can select their sin and then plan accordingly there are hardly even any downsides to the character and no chance of "oops, I wasn't supposed to do that, now I have to atone" coming up. So it's basically just "can I have a bonus to Athletics if I promise to never train myself in Thievery?" level of hoping to be better at what want to do in exchange for giving up a thing you weren't going to do anyways.

Imo, it's more akin to a rogue promising to never train in Thievery for a bonus to Stealth.

Every Anethema has some very desirable spells, so there's a real opportunity cost in not being able to select them.

Envy and Sloth- no Electric Arc. No Fireball.

Gluttony- no Fear and severely curtailed usage of defensive and utility spells. Arguably, very limited wall usage.

Greed- No Invisibility or Fear.

Lust- no Polymorph effects. No water breathing, enlarge, or darkvision.

Pride- no conjuring anything, so most walls and creature summons are out. No Polymorph.

Wrath- again no physical walls or summons, but also no defensive buffs.

Virtually every Anethema will affect your spell selection in some way. Even if all you wanted to do was cast fireballs all day, not being able to either fly or turn something invisible is hurtful to the character's flexibility, ie: ostensibly the thing the wizard is supposed to be good at.

Errenor wrote:

If you are a GM and it's really-really exploiting, you can put a stop to this one way or the other.

I would honestly like to GM one day, but I'm just not sure I have the inclination for it you know? I have ideas, but I don't really know how to put them together properly enough for a campaign.. But, I can dream!

It sounds to me like you should GM a one-shot or a short (3-5 sessions?) mini-adventure.

You can explore and express your ideas without necessarily having to create a whole cohesive world around them.

They're still putting out interesting new stuff, but it doesn't feel like balance is something they're as focused on as they used to be.

Real shame that, given balance was touted as a major selling point of the edition.

Well, I guess if there was ever any doubt it was a mistake, this errata cements it as truth and intentional.

Rogues now are truly the only class in the game with "Evasion" effects on all of its Saving Throws AND it's the only class in the game to get Evasion when it becomes Expert.

This one has been fully confirmed to be intentional:

Yeah. I don't know if we've ever had an activity with a variable number of actions that was, itself, a subordinate action in other feat-given activities.

Would love clarification regarding if you can use the 2-action range version of Deploy Mine when Deploy is a subordinate action in something like Mobile Deployment or Double Deployment.

Mine mechanic might have the largest gap between peak performance and average performance.
I think in most AP style fights where the PCs are the ones walking towards the bad guys, Mines are kinda bad.

In the infrequent scenario where the bad guys are walking towards the PCs and the PCs have time and awareness to set up, Mines are bonkers strong.

I don't think a gap that large is good for a class. Having your subclass be poor for 90% of fights and busted in the other 10 is going to feel bad for most players.

At present, I don't understand why this Technomancer couldn't have been in the core rulebook.

To make for a more compelling player-focused book to sell in the fiscal quarter following the release of the new edition.

Imagine the Mechanic and Technomancer released in the Player Core. I bet a substantive portion of the community loses interest in Name TBA Technology Book.

Some people want more than a narrative descriptive of something.

Looking at the Technomancer focus spells, if you skip the first, purely descriptive, bit and read only the mechanics, they could absolutely just be wizard focus spells.
"Make your next spell do a different damage type"
"Your next elemental spell gives you a temporary resistance"
"Your next spell that would affect you affects your minion instead". At least this one has the decency to throw in a requirement if a technological minion.

The issue presented, as I understand it, is that if you remove all the flavor text and trappings, there is very little that the technomancer has to contribute in the realm of technology that isn't genetically available to anyone with skills or spells.
And that's a right shame.

Okay, you've accepted that Narratively there isn't a problem. How about mechanically. Does it break some power scaling for the adjacent square to be above your character? or the thirty foot one to be in the air?

Again, you make an assumption, but there is no reason that assumption MUST be true. and again, I am going to admit, your assumption is not unreasonable. and again, if I were a player at a table you were GMing, I wouldn't have pushed this past your first no.

I'm not misrepresenting your arguments. I'm pointing out that you keep insisting that your assumption MUST be true. I'm asking you to defend that with a mechanical or narrative reason.

also, how does allowing me to place a mine ten feet in the air make the game NOT starfinder?

I think it probably does not break power scaling. I think it's a perfectly reasonable house rule.

I do believe my assumption that if the rules don't say you can do something, you can only do it if the GM says you can. I cannot fathom attempting to play either of the 'Finder games where that is not the baseline assumption.

Nothing in the rules say an android can't shoot lasers from their eyes. It's not unthinkable that they could, though. It's the understanding that the lack of positive confirmation that an android can shoot lasers from their eyes that informs is that they cannot, in fact, shoot lasers from their eyes.
The understanding that the rules being silent on a topic does have some meaning is the basis for my argument.

"It's plausible that such a thing could exist in the game world" and "It doesn't break game balance" are not perspectives trying to persuade that that's the way things are; they're perspectives trying to persuade the way things could or should be. And that's great. Mines being so ineffective vs flying things to the point of incurring house rules in the playtest is valuable feedback.

The spell would not work RAW, since you would still be on Doomed 4.

but as a gm i would advice about that let them change they mind on casting that spell in that case.

Breath of life are not ment as a catch all save spell, since death effects and "leaves no remains" still pierces it, so not that out of this world if doomed 4 also do that.

thera are other spells you can use that work after death instead, like Shock to the System.

Would that work in this case?

So if it has doomed 4 when it died, wouldn't it still have it again?

So in Starfinder, if I say we need to get on a ship, you assume I mean a boat to go across water? Or do you assume a FLYING space ship?

I'm not hearing a mechanic or narrative reason for them not to be able to be deployed in mid air. I'm hearing you say "You're pretending wrong, you have to pretend the way I pretend."

I get it, at your table, with you as GM, that wouldn't be okay, mines would be deployed on the ground only. and your table, that's fair and reasonable.

I'm saying unless the rules are clarified, why limit ourselves to that perspective?

That's a fair counterpoint. However, "ship", within the context of the world we're agreeing to play in, carries a different meaning than the one we would use on Earth. The definition of which is widely supported by a common pop culture understanding.

I continue to agree with you that narratively there's nothing wrong with floating out flying Mines. But the narrative doesn't define how objects in the game-world behave. The rules do.

Please stop misrepresenting my arguments.

Why limit ourselves to that perspective?
Because any other perspective and you're not playing the same game, anymore.

Huh, sorry Xenocrat. despite being a military brat, I never knew much about weapons and explosives. That was actually cool to know.

RAW they don't have to fall. Will it be clarified by the dev team, maybe, but I think there's plenty of room to argue that you can throw a mine to hover in the air both narratively and mechanically. I get that you don't like that, and it goes against your assumptions of the system, but you've yet to make a good mechanical or narrative argument as to why they can't. just "That's not realistic" in this space/fantasy setting.

I never said anything about realism; every point mentioned was regarding the difference between the system being permissive and not dismissive. Ie: Broadly speaking, you can't do anything in the game unless the game says you can. Opposed to something more akin to your argument of it not being specifically denied by game.

Magic isn't realistic. Combat rounds aren't realistic. Extradimensional planes aren't realistic.
But all of those things are taken as givens at face value by the player base because the books tell us specifically that that's the way things are in the world we're agreeing to play in, together. I have no problem with the reality of the game differing from the reality I live in.

The problem I have is when attempts are made to justify something as being one way due soley to the absence of something saying it isn't that way.
When something isn't specifically defined, the most useful way to determine its characteristics are to look at it from a base level and understand it in the context of the game.

What is a mine? It's an object. One which is deployed to a location to be later detonated.
Can it fly or hover? Without specifics saying it can, how do other objects behave?
Well, there are flying vehicles.
Are there also non-flying vehicles? Yes.
So without context, a vehicle, which is not specified to be a flying vehicle, should be considered not to be a flying vehicle? I guess so.
So then a mine, whose flying capabilites are not specified, should be considered a non-flying mine?

I was "virtually nobody" regarding the thralls question, and given that they specify in that playtest that one of the three things they are made of is "Spirit" I maintain there is no reason they can't.

Further, this is a world where flying vehicles are normal. Why wouldn't you be able to make the mines fly? Give me a mechanical and narrative reason why the mines cannot be placed in air. They did not say "On the ground in a square adjacent to you" they just said a square adjacent to you.

Also, They did explain the effects of gravity in that very section of this very playtest. Because unlike Pathfinder, Gravity is NOT a given.

Flying vehicles have a flight speed listed in their stat block. That's precisely my point. Things don't fly unless something specifically says it does.

It doesn't make sense to assert that a character or item can do something merely because the rules don't say they can't.

Yeah, gravity is defined. And outside of zero gravity, unattended objects fall.

I agree that the inventor has wacky backyard science covered.
But also, I agree that Engineer feels like a better name for the class to me.

This iteration of the class doesn't give me the same grease monkey vibe the 1e mechanic did. It feels cleaner and more precise. And I think that's 100% in the writing and presentation.
It's not presented as the class doing everything they can to hold the primary buffer panel in place, even though 6 months ago you said it was only going to hold for another week.

It's presented as the class making deliberate modifications to existing, perfectly functional equipment to better serve your needs in the moment.

And to be clear, all of that is fine. I'd just prefer the name of the class change to better align with the presentation.

But then, the art feels very 1e mechanic or inventor. So I dunno

So, I just re-read the "Deploy Mine" action, and had a thought about the way it was phrased. It said you deploy a mine to an adjacent square (or for two actions a square within 30ft) It didn't say "on the ground". I think they default can fly. because remember, especially in this new meta that should be more willing to have flight and 3d combat you have 26 adjacent squares, not eight.

I personally find it unconvincing that the Mines can fly by default; gravity works by default and rare is the occasion where the rules text has to specify the effects of normal gravity.

I'd be on board for Mines that hover baseline and can be moved into the air at 3rd level. But the book has to specify that functionality somewhere IMO.

Ectar wrote:

12 feels like an absurdly high level for Healing Mines. An Alchemist gets healing bombs at 4.

Healing Mines are AOE, do fireball damage equivalent healing (which is a little higher on average albeit more variable than the single target elixir of life numbers, but also scales more smoothly), and can't miss. Much better.

It also takes your entire turn and reaction if you wish to use it vs something you aren't adjacent to or to exclude up to 2 enemies. And you can't do both.

Ectar wrote:

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

Wise_fuer wrote:

Wasn't this playtest going to have the testing rules for spaceships? Will we have another playtest until the official version or will we only see it in Player Core?

I don't think any Paizo announcement said that the spaceship playtests would be included.

More bad news: spaceship rules aren't even going to be in player core. Basic rules will be coming in the GM Core, and the tactical rules are TBA. I'm not even sure they've confirmed a spaceship playtest at all.

That's equal parts irksome and concerning.

Ship combat is such a huge part of the draw for me, and a mainstay of the genre.

The Free RPG day adventure that comes out June 21st, before the SF2e Player Core is even out. Sounds like it takes place entirely on a starship, with combat in the ship, but also having to deal with an enemy ship nearby, maybe a chase. This might be a preview of the starship encounter rules from the MG core, but not sure. Either way, it shows starships are still part of the game even if full rules are out. Also, the RPG day adventure features the new SF2e iconic ship.

One of the reasons given for the entire year-long Drift Crisis event was to justify changes to the Drift to allow piracy to function better, so I'd expect more shipboarding-type combats in SF2e, which is something else that can be done without full starship rules.

That's not exactly a defense that inspires confidence.

@umopapisdnupsidedown

I like SF1 starship combat. After the numbers rework, at least.
I agree with the sentiment. I want the system to be good and functional and robust.
I just also think not having it finished for the player core is a bad sign. Just like how I felt cutting down the number of classes in the player core was a bad sign.
It might release in September and be wonderful and all of my nay-saying will have been for naught. Truly, I hope that's the case. 3 months isn't so long to wait.
But still, I worry.

Wise_fuer wrote:

Wasn't this playtest going to have the testing rules for spaceships? Will we have another playtest until the official version or will we only see it in Player Core?

I don't think any Paizo announcement said that the spaceship playtests would be included.

More bad news: spaceship rules aren't even going to be in player core. Basic rules will be coming in the GM Core, and the tactical rules are TBA. I'm not even sure they've confirmed a spaceship playtest at all.

That's equal parts irksome and concerning.

Another thing I forgot to mention earlier:
Mines are deployed into a square but their aoe is a burst, not an emanation.
I think it'd be totally fine to Deploy a mine to a grid intersection instead of a square. I don't see a feat or ability that relies on the mine being in a square. Even the Proximity Alert Mine feat only cares about the burst area.

Also, with Instant Deployment / Mobile Deployment / Double Deployment / etc. : these allow you to Deploy Mine while doing other things or as a free action. Can you use the 2-action (ranged) version of Deploy Mine with them?

I was going to originally bring this up, and suggest some kind of rider into those special actions to allow using an extra action to ranged deploy, but the existence of Reposition Exocortex makes that a little moot.

I read very briefly through Mechanic, focusing on Mines because it sounded novel.

First off, in my experience, Starfinder was a much more three dimensional game than Pathfinder, which implicitly limits how useful area control and delayed area damage effects are.
It doesn't seem like Mines can be deployed in the air which is pretty limiting. Maybe a level-dependent mod or a feat would be useful to add that functionality? Gravitic Mines would make sense to have hovering Mines as a mod or a rider
Related, Mines can only be ranged deployed to an occupied square? Why? At third level you gain the ability to move them anyway. Just feels strangely limited.

Ranged Combat is the meta for friends and foes alike, so it's good that we can deploy a mine at a distance.

Do regular Starfinder humans recognize a mine as it's being deployed? How difficult is it to know that a deployed object is a mine? How big is a mine? They don't take up bulk while stored in the Rig, but what if someone else tries to pick one up?

12 feels like an absurdly high level for Healing Mines. An Alchemist gets healing bombs at 4.

How does Double Deployment even work? 1 action deploy twice is cool and the last line seems like you should be able to ranged deploye them, otherwise they could never be 30ft apart.

Terraforming Mines requires Gravitic Mines, but its effect "Big Bang" is exactly the same as Gravitic Mines's "Big Bang"

Multitasker's description text specifically mentions only mines, but its effect applies to all subclasses. Probably should be a broader description.

This is all critical because I think it's neat and I want to see it as clean, functional, and effective as possible.

Hell, it's about time.

Possibly a Diabolic Dragon.
Red in color, "evil" such as we have these days, immune to fire, similar level (just give it the weak template and level is gtg).

To anyone thinking you'd only roll Stealth once, at what point would you apply the effect of Incredible Initiative?
Presumably, not for every Stealth roll which might result in encounter mode.
Do you apply it retroactively when initiative is called for? That could result in a situation wherein you fail to beat the adversary's passive perception which causes initiative, bumping your Stealth up by 2, and now beating their passive perception.

If our sneak-er was never a position to be noticed before Initiative was called, I can get behind one check. Likely because they are not approaching closer than the non-sneaking characters.

But if the sneaking character is in a position to be noticed by NPCs, such that being noticed would cause initiative to be rolled they need to be making Sneak checks.

That is, if you're not going straight in to rounds immediately. That's probably the most straightforward way. As soon as you're closer enough to be spotted by foes, go into initiative and do sneaking in rounds. But most people don't seem to like that until you're rather closer, because it takes a long time irl and the more times you have to roll, the better odds are you fail.

I'd probably allow either, tbh.

For those of you with actual play experience using Quiet Allies, how much do you feel it impacted your games, or the fictional narrative thereof?

I'm familiar with the feat's underlying math and how its benefits are not immediately apparent at first glance.

What I'm looking for is anecdotal evidence of its efficacy. Was it fun? Impactful? Seemingly useless? Did it require GM or player buy in to work as you desired?

I have had situations where one player would ruin it for everyone because they couldn't wrap their head around the odds of success well enough to prevent them from Sneaking on their own.

Please share your experiences.

It's bonkers how good of a feat it can be.

Sorry for the necro, but I didn't see the point of creating a new thread when this one already exists.

I wonder how you, as a GM, would react to a player asking to use an Exploration Activity similar to Defend but with feats similar to Raise a Shield, among others:
- Twin Parry
- Extravagant Parry
- Hydraulic Deflection
- Ceremony of Protection
- Flowing Palm Deflection
- Defend Summoner

Yeah, I'd allow all of these as exploration activities. Unless there was insufficient humidity to permit Hydraulic Deflection, but that'd be a real odd case.

Count me in the "It's just flavor text" crowd.

This seems plausible, but it begs the question:

I don't feel the current disagreement is in keeping with the purpose of this thread.
Take it to the rules forums.

Can you simply ask the GM after a session why you failed to Aid so many times?
Or perhaps, what you could have done better to aid more successfully?

I think it's important to discover what the GM has changed before attempting to convince them to change again.

Book 3 provides access to the ring of stone shifting which allows one person to travel through stone for 100 miles up to three times per day. If the PCs travel to the south east portion of the Swardlands right below the mountain range, that puts them within 100 miles of Absalom so one person can go there for a shopping trip and be back before the end of the day. I love the ingenuity of my players! That was probably the best used option in that book.

In book 4 they also traveled back to Escadar by boat to buy slightly lower level items, check in with their old friend Chief Constable Paldreen, and gather the resonant reflection for new PCs. Yes, finding places to buy appropriate gear for this AP has not been easy, but also not impossible.

Given the PCs are running what is functionally a small company, I consistently let them purchase nearly anything by way of sending out some low level circus employees to Absalom to purchase items on their behalf. It took a few days, but it worked well enough.

On the whole tho, it sounds like you have a reasonable enough opening set of maneuvers.
Is anyone identifying the enemies in your party?
Walls are also really strong. A Chromatic Wall or Wall of Force can be an extremely effective round 1 in some fights.
To save on higher level slots, Rank 3 Fear never really goes out of style.

Coffee counts as food?
Good news! It turns out I have been eating breakfast every morning.

Also, booze is food. Someone tell Nathan Explosion.

Follow on Twitch to be notified when we go live.

Any chance we could get like a ballpark time?

Whenever we GM, we can all decide whatever we want, but the rules definitely say no damage.

The big issue to me is, if you allow damage at all, then if you can fling someone 30ft straight up then even on a save they're going to take damage and fall prone, unless they crit save.

And I'm pretty sure that's not how the ability was intended to work.

Agreed. I wouldn't have it do anything noteworthy for a fling upwards, because it says it doesn't.

In most cases if an enemy gets flung off a cliff, they're out of the fight anyway, so the ability dealing damage or not is kind of moot.

However, because the full description of the ability says:

Quote:

A speeding wind heeds your call, picking someone up and depositing them nearby. Choose a creature within 60 feet of you. The target jumps in any direction, up to a maximum of 30 feet. If the target doesn't land on a space of solid ground within 30 feet of where it started, it falls unless it has a fly Speed but doesn't take any damage from the fall. You choose the distance and direction of the jump.

I wouldn't under any circumstance allow the ability to cause damage. That's not what it's for, it's for repositioning/movement.

Even if the victim is launched off a cliff several hundred feet high?

I stopped into the wiki for the general look, but I was hoping there was a bit more since I noticed the wiki isn't always up to date.

In any case, thanks for the information.

If you are able, I'd check the sources listed on the wiki page, if you have access:

Edit: wait, that's stuff about The Newborn, specifically. Sorry, I got nothing.

Dark Tapestry also includes the Dominion of the Black, a totally separate, evil organization of malevolent forces that occupies the space between stars.

They play a backgroundish role in

I believe they also have heavy involvement on Aucturn, which has received some very interesting updates in Starfinder canon.

General info:
Hyperlinked, because if you don't on these forums someone will feel the need to come in behind you and post it for you and say "linkified"

Finoan wrote:

Not having an AC implies that you can't attack them at all with Strike or with spells with a spell attack roll.

You already can't attack items with Strike or spells with spell attack roll. They all target creatures only.

Targets 1 creature, unattended object, or force construct

This thread has got me thinking of the Trolley Problem.

Ravingdork wrote:

You could portray the priest as being corrupt, using his stance as an excuse to garner (or maintain) favor with the wealthy elites. He's lying to himself and others though, as he would be in clear violation of his faith' tenants. Might make for a nice villain for the PCs to oppose on the social stage.

QuidEst's other suggestions also work well if you're not looking for a villain.

Wouldn't the cleric be at risk of losing their spellcasting privileges then?

I wonder how the different inner sea faiths would respond to the trolly problem of 5 lay worshipers on the tracks, but you can pull a lever to divert the trolly to a track with the church's high priest on it. What should a worshiper of said faith do?

You could pose it as a kind of "quality vs quantity" dilemma?
Save 75 of the cities wisest leaders, most beloved benefactors, most skilled artists
Or
100 unremarkable level -1 commoners.
Or maybe 100 prisoners-of-war or 100 convicted criminals.

Ya know, something like that.

I don't know that many players would be convinced to save art or music at the expense of lives, tbh.