A separatist selects one domain from her deity's domain list, and a second domain that is not on her deity's domain list.
Highlighting mine.
Rules as written supports that even a Separatist Pharasmin Cleric could not take the Undeath domain. Roleplay reasons and dogma aside, pure rules as written disallows it.
[/rules lawyer hat]
While you have a valid point, if you were to stick with that you'd then also have to allow someone to play a dhampir paladin instead, using LoH to heal himself. Yes, you heard right. LoH is perfectly usable to heal dhampirs.
Why?
Because if you go by RAW and ignore all context, lay on hands is not positive energy.
You have to include the 'well, they obviously meant..' factor that it 'should have been worded differently' to tell me that a Lay on Hands can't heal a Dhampir.
I chose a SUBdomain under the same rationale. 'Obviously' they meant "domain or subdomain" but for whatever reason they wrote "domain" in its place.
Quote:
With that, I will now bow out of the conversation, as I don’t feel it will continue to add to the discussion.
Sorry to part on a sour note. While we agree that a GM can cherry pick words in rules to insist that there is an 'issue' and bring canon or fluff into his rationale, we just disagree on what conditions he should.
You're right that I've unfairly boiled down your concerns. So please accept my apology for that.
I think I understand what you and Bob are saying about pushing the envelope. My rejection of that however is that not only is how a GM would rule when the rules are pushed completely subjective to that particular GM, it is completely subjective to that GM when he decides that there even IS a 'rules bending' to be adjudicated.
this thread is a case in point. I don't think I'm the only one that thinks the dhampir+cleric of pharasma+undead domain doesn't even push the envelope, let alone argue about which side of legality it is on. I can see that potentially there's a rules discussion to be had as to whether Seperatists may pick a SubDomain as opposed to a Domain, but near as I've seen it's all been about 'Pharasma wouldn't grant Undead subdomain... her canon is being trampled and if I were the GM it'd be up to me to defend it, the table, and the other players from that player's misuse!' rather than the rule on the archetype itself.
So please 'come on down off the high horse' and leave the 'don't play questionable stuff and you won't have to worry about it' argument in the trash bin where it belongs. Unless I know who my GM is every time, I'll never know what he's going to think is questionable.
I'd be curious as well as to what other seperatists are doing. Apparently making one that is :
a radical cleric, unsatisfied with the orthodoxy of her deity's teachings, forges her own path of defiant divine expression. Though most members of her faith would call her a separatist or heretic, she continues to receive spells from her deity.
...is toeing some grey line and must accept the probability that some Gm somewhere will go "Whoa! Come on now, respect the canon and fluff! I say you're bending that way too far!"
Does the Fire domain toe a grey line due to having nothing to do with Pharasma?
or because it's the opposite of one of her portfolios?
or is that one that no GM in all of PFS would call 'grey line' and is a safe choice for a pharasmin seperatist?
Everyone seems to think the rules are clear and support their case. I disagree with both sides, and believe there is enough reasonable ambiguity that there will be some table variation on this subject
I wouldn't be so hard headed about this if I actually could see the merit of opposing argument.
This is what I understand the counter argument to be:
CRB wrote:
Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).
GM rule Zero wrote for this case:
While Pharasmin code of conduct for clerics is succinctly described as 'do not create or destroy unded, excepting to destroy them', it is really more than just those two acts. You know what we mean.. don't be too 'undead-y'. And yes, having the undead domain counts as 'grossly violating the code of not creating or controlling undead'.
I don't see a single thing more to the argument than that. It simply boils down to a GM not only deciding he doesn't 'like' the concept, that he'd prefer to arrogantly insist his understanding of pharasmin canon is superior to the player's. Furthermore that he'd prefer to ruin that player's game rather than make it fun for him.
Well let's chalk up the issue of 'perfectly legal' to different interpretations of RAW. There's no list anywhere that says what domains a deity will not grant, maybe the archetype needs that added. Whatever.
Lets talk more in general about seperatists rather than necessarily my build specifically.
What's the purpose of the Seperatist archetype? Maybe I'm assuming too much to think you're encouraged to make clerics that their own mainstream church would point at and yell "Heretic!" Did the writers intend for us to make characters that have their own wildly skewed versions of that deities dogma/religion/portfolios?
Are you 'supposed' to pick domains that are just catty-wompous to the deity's usual portfolio?
What if we were talking about a Pharasmin cleric with the Fire domain. Pharasma's response to that, if we were to imagine it, is probably nothing more than a shrug. "you want WHAT spells? ooook..."
So, out of nowhere, this seperatist cleric has the Fire domain. To you the GM, it basically makes no sense. The best the player can come up with for a story is 'my character likes fire. oh and he worships Pharasma." Maybe he actually came up with his own completely invented take on 'new' Pharasmin dogma that has no basis in published canon- and that's his point. He's a seperatist!"
Is that what one is 'supposed' to do with the archetype, instead of building a cleric that gets a little closer to what the mainstream church would call heresy? Is that preferable than the undead domain? Is that preferable to 'toeing a grey area'?
if the player is simply enjoying himself, playing someting he believes to be canonically appropriate, what good are you really doing banning it?
Hmmm, not really good support for your argument. Just because the player is having fun and thinks he is right does not mean it should be allowed. Organized Play is a much different environment that home games where this concept would be more applicable.
Well, I guess we'll agree on most things and disagree on only a few but imo fundamental things...
Would you squish a bug as you cross a sidewalk just because you can? Whether you have the right to do it or not is not the issue.. would you do it simply to satisfy your own desire to see it destroyed?
I don't think that's how we want people to act in general, least of all in organizations we care about.
If the bug (distasteful PC) isn't harming you any (is legal) why the hell don't you hold your nose and step over it instead of going out of your way to step ON it?
Perhaps the issue here is that you don't feel this is truly a rules issue at all and therefore the GM holds no power to adjudicate over it. At the same time, your opposition seems to think it is a rules issue.
Personally, I dislike "arguments" where one of the positions seems to be based on "it doesn't say I can't so I can." These types of discussion can get very ridiculous. I'm sure most remember that there is nothing in the rules that prevents a horse from climbing a rope. *sigh*
This situation is more of a:
Me: Rules say I can, so I clearly can. Even the list saying what I'm prohibited from doing fails to mention it... so not only do the rules say I can, they don't say I can't!
Andrew: Nuh uh.
Bob: You gotta admit, this is a fringe case and in fringe cases like these..
If Andrew were to be saying "your character only thinks he is getting his spells from Pharasma, when in reality you are getting them from some other hidden diety, who is decievingy you for some unknown reason." I would be fine with that.
I would be too. I've suggested exactly that.
I'd consider it poor form to voice the opinion as a 'clarification' to my character, but even that is preferable to 'not at my table'.
the only way to avoid the 'fringe' cases is to know the mind of your GM
I disagree. In 99% of the cases, it is relatively easy to locate unclarity in the rules. What is not known is how the GM will adjudicate.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of character builds that are more interesting that the "big dumb fighter" that also do not depend on edge case applications of game rules. The vast majority of our community does not encounter these issues. IMO, this is due as much to the character build as to the GM's allowance of it.
Are we talking purely hypothetically or are we still talking about the combination of race/archetype/domain in this thread?
Because the only 'fringe' here is whether possessing the undead domain is heretical and no-spells-for-you worthy of a Pharasma cleric. And there's no rule supporting that it would be.. only GM opinion on how one understands 'may not create or control undead'.
Perhaps the issue here is that you don't feel this is truly a rules issue at all and therefore the GM holds no power to adjudicate over it. At the same time, your opposition seems to think it is a rules issue.
Well, seeing as how the PFSOP rules AND Pharasma's dogma are spelled out in black and white, they're simply wrong ;)
Oh, not to poke and prod. Here's another trip around the bush.
Maybe it IS against Pharasma to dabble with negative energy 'too much', above and beyond actually creating or controlling undead. I'd argue it isn't, but no need to rehash 3 pages worth of back and forth.
So, my point in that case is why would you ever do it anyway? What undesriable thing is being prevented by as a GM imposing your view that is counter to the players over him at his expense?
What's being hurt by a Dhampir cleric seperatist who has undead domain playing a pathfinder scenario? How many times does it even actually matter what classes are run or domains are used or deities are worshipped?
If the player is being disruptive or negatively impacting the experience of the other players, sure, the GM is expected to do something. But if the player is simply enjoying himself, playing someting he believes to be canonically appropriate, what good are you really doing banning it?
WE need to respect both sides. As I have always said, if you choose to build a character that is clearly living in the "gray realm" of rules interpretations or religious dogma, you have to expect occasions where the GM will not rule as you want. If you always want your character to function as intended, avoid these "fringe" cases.
The problem is Bob, that the only way to avoid the 'fringe' cases is to know the mind of your GM. It approaches possibility for local play, but is extremely unlikely if there's a big enough population of players. And completely impossible for big cons.
Well, not unless you only play the stock characters.
Dumb fighter brute.
Skanky elf rogue chick.
Bleeding-heart healer cleric.
Sound like anyone you know? Well, mebbe calling Merisiel a 'skank' was uncalled for...
Someone is playing X combined with Y, while being perfectly legal under PFS rules, I find to be a questionable combination.
And then on to the rest of my statement.
My statement revolves around a character being fully compliant with PFSOP rules. That I don't like some certain aspect(s) is the issue. Not that the character is illegal.
I never said or meant to imply that spending alot of money means the GM needs to cut you slack.
Oh I totally realize we seem to be thinking similar ways.. I meant to reply to Bob :D
'bob' wrote:
If someone pays alot of money to play at a con, he doesn't get treated better than someone who didn't.
To sum it up:
Ideally, that's a fine party line to cite. But that player cares more if he's mistreated than one who isn't into the con for hundreds of dollars.
And my point is that such a potential worst case kind of impact should be the baseline for every potential 'not at my table' ruling, even in local PFS games.
If no rules are being violated, what good is being served by a PFS judge saying 'no, I know things you don't know, I'm better educated, I'm more experienced, I'm more privy to VCs and M&M, etc'.
Let's put it another way by spinning it around.
Let's say *I* am that GM and someone comes to me with something that while being perfectly legal, seems to just not have a reasonable justification. Maybe a Paladin who worships Asmodeus (not intending to start a new flame war with anyone who might play one ;)
Perhaps he has some story I deem an 'excuse' that revolves around Cheliax and Hellknights, mebbe throwing in some Mendev Crusade, etc etc.
Andrew says I have the right to say "Not at my table, you're not."
I say I have an obligation to find the best way for everyone at the table to have fun. Not impose my view of Golarion on that player. The more invested in the game (particularly when LITERALLY invested monetarialy) the less inclined the player will be to 'reason' with me. I'm pleased we've kept it civil as we have in this thread for as long as it has.. but I think we all know that so often it devolves into Ross or someone else deleting posts and locking threads.
And that's about purely hypothetical issues that don't have a right here, right now impact.
If that player has spent hundreds, maybe more dollars to play a frikking RPG game, how are they going to take your decree from the ivory tower? Let me be clear, I'm speaking hypothetically and do not mean to imply threats, but if it were me being such a douche I'd honestly fear a violent reaction. Even if people keep their tempers in check, what the hell was the point? Did you have fun ruining that player's game? Probably not, or else you wouldn't be GMing for long as complaints mount. Did that player have any fun? Sure as hell, no.
Which is such a stupid approach when there are ways to resolve it where everyone still gets to enjoy the game.
This bit with Pharasma is no different. The rules don't explicitly cover it, and yet, common sense tells me that Pharasma would not grant spells to someone who is one step away from being Undead themselves.
Let's say I go to Gen-Con this year for the express purpose of attending some big PFS event. I buy my plane tickets (a lil far for a weekend trip from where I live), buy my con tickets, purchase my game slot, arrange for time off from work, etc etc etc.
So game comes and you're my GM. I brought my Cleric. You go "no spells for you!" in your best soup-nazi voice.
You don't see where you're causing an IMMENSE problem? One that really, I say you don't even have the right to cause?
Are you honestly saying it's MY fault for showing up with a character that isn't hyper-stereotypical, to prevent any chance that any GM I meet might find cause to ban some/all of it?
That's the main reason I didn't make my Dhampir Oracle of Bones follow her, I figured EVERYONE would be doing a "Blade" style character, and who better for that than Pharasma?????
I figured 'everyone' was going to make Tieflings from that boon, and poorly-predicted that I'd be one of the few to go with Dhampir instead :D
Other party members not being able to heal my Dhampir was the first concern about picking a class, so I figured I'd keep the healing in my own court so I wouldn't end up at negatives and sit out the remainders of adventures.. and the rest is more or less spelled out through the history of this thread :D
Ok, haven't commented too strongly against Undead Bloodline yet, because I was unfamiliar with its powers.
But are you kidding me?! Seriously?!!
By 20th level you essentially start to rot and undead consider you one of them.
Another of the bloodline abilities let you make skeletal arms burst from the ground.
One of your spells is Animate Dead.
You gain these powers because your blood has been tainted by something Undead somewhere in your ancestry (or you were raised by ghouls in a graveyard, or what have you).
And you think Pharasma would be ok with any of that?
Seriously?!! That's even more questionable than the Dhampir!
20th level 'undead think I'm one of them': Well, you're not a multiclassed anything, cleric of pharasma included, if you have the capstone ability.
Animate dead: Hell, Pharasma already grants it. Death domain is perfectly legal in every sense of the way you look at it, and you're not REQUIRED to swap it out for Speak with Dead as described in the blog post. Again, not arguing that if you used it you shouldn't suffer.. but just knowing it? C'mon. Pharasmin Death clerics have been knowing it all along.
As for grasping with straws about the Oracle thing.. not so much that.. as honestly wondering how to get through to someone who I'd imagine is rational and even-headed enough to have the VL title. Surely you know you can't just overrule PFSOP because you don't like something. Even if you say you disagree with me, I know inside you don't, you just don't want to admit you're wrong on this ;)
Seriously. If you just can't abide by the idea of someone using too much negative energy/necromancy stuff and still being Pharasmin, just think to yourself they're NOT. They're pitiful pawns deluded by some nefarious power into doing their bidding, all the while beleiving they serve Pharasma. You'll have more fun, and your player will have more fun.
That's a pretty profound statement and very dangerous depending on the extent it is taken. Paladins must be LG, but they are not required to worship a deity nor are they required to be within one step of their deities alignment. While there are specific rules governing the dogma related to paladins devoted to many of the gods, there is lack of printed evidence that paladins are denied to deities not specifically listed. So would you allow a paladin of Irori? What about Cayden Cailean?
Hypothetically?
I'm not sure whether what you say about Paladins is correct (haven't researched them) but I'll assume it is. If I'm GMing a PFS slot and I get a Paladin of Irori or Cayden about the last thing I'd do is say 'I don't care what you paid/had to go thru to get a slot at this table, get your cheesy character that PFSOP rules don't ban out of here!"
Specifically in this case, Abadar is an allowable Paladin god and Irori has the same alignment. I wouldn't even think its an issue. A Paladin of Cayden Cailean is likewise HIGHLY unlikely to be a character of a player looking to find a way to legally 'bully' people in PFSOP. That'd be my first thought. My second would be to ask him how he reconciles his Paladin code with Cayden's edicts. If he goes "uh, I never thought of it beyond the Lolz" I'd attempt to convince him to pick an 'appropriate' deity. I'd be surprised to hear that however, and would probably have instead used a great segue into the character introductions as everyone hears about this atypical character when the player explains himself.
Yes, most undead didn't have a choice about how they got that way. It was a mistake to even bring up the matter of how willingly one is what one is.
The functional matter we just don't see eye to eye on is that Dhampirs are living creatures. No more dead than humans or elves. In fact, they're exactly as close to dead as elves, since they both suffer the -2 con racial penalty.
The are living creatures that happen to have a wierd biology, chemistry, aura, whathaveyou, that means positive energy hurts them and negative energy heals them. Which basically resembles the undead, but in no other way share traits with the undead.
So. Should an Oracle of Bones with the resist life mystery be destroyed by Pharasma? A player may RAW insist his spells and powers are coming FROM Pharasma too, per the APG. Or should he destroy himself?
Edit: The comparison of Pharasma granting spells to 'negative-naughty' oracles to clerics gave me an epiphany!
If you insist to the player that his Oracle is 'misinformed' and is NOT getting his powers from Pharasma who in your view can't stand his negative energy-nearly undead affinity.. and rather instead from some other source the Oracle is misidentifying...
Why couldn't you do that for the player of a Cleric? "Oh, you're a *cough* DHAMPIR cleric of PHARASMA with the UNDEAD domain? Ya sure, you tell yourself whatever you want, demon-thrall. Fine, go cast your demon-granted spells..."
And if you can take that approach, clearly it'd be better not to provoke a dogma/canon argument with the player and just have fun imagining it to yourself ;)
If someone was using personal bias to dictate what was, or was not, allowed, or causing players of halfling cavaliers to feel shamed because you think it cheesy, then yeah, that's not kosher.
The irony is profound :(
There is no irony here. There is no personal bias on my part at all.
None other than, of course, the belief that 'May not Create nor Control Undead' somehow is expanded to mean 'May not take any abilities that include the terms undeath or undead'.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Could you expound on why you seem to think that should be banned at all? I mean the pharasmin dhampire isn't just a matter of personal preference, its a matter of being worried about violating the precepts of a deity. The DM does have to check the players alignments and adherence to their deities ethos, and the DM does effectively "run" pharasma insofar as she interacts with the world.
My belief that halfling cavaliers are cheesy and stupid is just a way to compare to other people's belief that my character might be cheesy and stupid. I may never convince you otherwise, but if you're a GM at a PFS table you have an obligation to accomodate anyway. Just like I'm obligated to put aside my biases and let people play what they wanna play. Odds are, we'll all have fun. Play the 'I know Pathfinder Canon better than you' game, and I guarantee noone has fun.
... One of Pharasma's 10 commandments is "kill the undead". .. Actually i think she used three commandments on it, just to be sure. A dhampir that isn't running at the nearest sharp pointy object isn't fulfilling that commandment.
I'm curious why you'd think this. Really.
A dhampir is not undead. Furthermore, for whatever resemblences a dhampir has to the undead, he didn't become one by dabbling with forbidden magics. He was literally born that way and has no control over whether or not he's a dhampir any more than an elf does being an elf.
If someone was using personal bias to dictate what was, or was not, allowed, or causing players of halfling cavaliers to feel shamed because you think it cheesy, then yeah, that's not kosher.
The irony is profound :(
Certainly we agree that I shouldn't badger or ban a halfling cavalier. No matter how I may think that violates my belief of how mounted combat 'should be done'.
My point that apparently you keep missing is that in this case the in-character dogma has the rare benefit of being literally spelled out in black and white to us, the players. Pharasmin dogma disallows 'creating and controlling' undead. Saying that Pharasma goes further and disallows 'giving someone negative energy affinity, or essentially the same thing is equally heretical', is purely personal bias. And banning or prevening spells to such a seperatist cleric IS acting on that bias. Again, Pharasma's dominant church on mortal golarion would certainly share the view, but that shouldn't be the impartial GM's view. Because, you know, the church != Pharasma herself.
Quote:
But you can't sit here and tell me that Kiss of Death is an ability that Pharasma would grant to her priests.
Yep, I can and I will over and over until the thread goes to Pharasma's boneyard. It neither creates nor controls undead. No dogma violation. End of story. Wanna argue the grey line that so narrowly seperates its use from actually creating Undead? No point, this isn't an in-character thread.
If you can swallow the idea a Dhampir cleric of Pharasma in the first place, who already is healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy, there's no issue with that cleric 'inflicting' the same condition on baddies. Or at least there shouldn't be.
Quote:
As far as Pharasma goes, I'd find it very hard to justify anything with the term undead in it as Pharasma being willing to grant spells. That includes Dhampir, Undead Bloodline (and any of the wild thereof), or the Undead subdomain. Those things give mechanical benefits. They are not just fluff. So indicating that you could take those and still have spells granted by Pharasma, in my mind, is abusing the way organized play is set up (for those with the opinion that GM's shouldn't be allowed to rule on this), to put together a character concept that flies in the face of what Pharasma is all about.
I think you've slain your own arugment. A multiclass Cleric of Pharasma/Sorcerer of Undeath bloodline can't have cleric spells at your table? You you say you can enforce that in PFS with a straight face? :(
Let's set the argument of the particulars of dogma aside.
Not to be insulting.. making an honest point. What gives you (or anyone) the right to tell me (or anyone) what is and is not proper 'canon' for Pharasma? How do you know I don't understand the materials better than you? Honestly? If we can't agree, but the rules are clear on what's legal, what gives you the right to say your argument trumps the rules?
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 ;)
... 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.
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?
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.
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. :)
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...
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 ;)
Healing one's self isn't really an issue for any healer, dhampir or not. What needs to be respected is how hard it is for someone ELSE to heal your Dhampir should you be unable to do so (at negative HPs and bleeding..)
And yeah, evil deities make for no option to channel positive energy. :(
I got around that by being a cleric of Pharasma (neutral goddess) and still getting access to Undeath via the Forbidden Rites ability of the Seperatist archetype.
A Pharasmin cleric with the Undeath Domain? it makes for interesting character introductions at the table :D
The importance of having a few potions of inflict wounds can't be overstated. You can't count on someone else in the party being able to UMD a scroll or wand of inflict to get you back on your feet in the event you're knocked out.. but as a primary caster, presumably 'hanging in the back' this shouldn't be a crippling consideration even at low levels.
I notice the undead domain, I also like that.. useful to keep baddies from leeching heals on channel and also offensively to subject them to undead-nuking. Or protecting a party-mate from negative energy life-harms, which stacks with selective channel.. see below!
With the +3 cha bonus, I'd recommend Selective Channel for the 1st level feat. I'm not familiar with Zura, but if that deity is neutral your (presumably) neutral dhampir is well positioned to make use of Versatile Channel as well. (channel both negative AND postive energy.. not only can your Dhampir heal himself, it gives interesting options with the undead melee touch power)
Interesting. I see where we're not seeing eye to eye. Y'all are saying that the nature of the 'reversies' is that it reverses WHEN you're effected, not how you're effected.
if evil cleric targets undead for a heal, the living 'reversie' catches a free heal along with the undead despite being not targetted.
I didn't read it that way, but it seems that it is a valid way to look at it.
I was looking at it in the nature of:
"If 'reversied' target is affected by a channel (ie, is living and living was target) the effect of the energy is reversed (harm becomes heal, heal becomes harm)"
Well when channeling negative energy, w/o other rules coming in to play choosing to target living means the same thing as choosing to harm living. And choosing to target undead means the same thing as choosing to heal them.
But there's enough 'reversies' out there that its not really the case. (Dhampir Racial, Death Domain 8th level ability, Oracle of Bones Resist Life ability, etc)
Channel never says you have to choose whether to heal or harm, it very specifically only says you choose to target undead or living.
If what y'all are saying is true, a Dhampir (or etc) would never be affected by channeled energy, which is clearly not the intention?
Negative Energy Example: A hostile evil cleric channels negative energy and targets living creatures, 'pointlessly' choosing to harm living, since that's his only choice anyway. The Dhampir (or etc) is not harmed by the negative channel, since they have the reversi going on.
Negative Energy Example 2: A hostile evil cleric channels negative energy and targets undead, 'pointlessly' choosing to heal undead since that's his only choice anyway. Since the Dhampir (or etc) are not undead, they're not affected regardless since they're not even targetted.
Positive Energy Example3: A friendly, other cleric channels positive energy and targets living creatures, choosing to heal them since again he cannot choose to harm them. Dhampirs and other 'reversies' are unaffected, since they can only be harmed by positive energy and the cleric didn't choose 'harm'.
Positive Energy Example4: A friendly, other cleric channels positive energy and targets undead, choosing to harm them since thats his only choice. Dhampir (and etc) are not even targetted, so cannot be affected.
All these examples must be how it does NOT work...
Channeling can only heal OR harm, while channeling to harm everything you won't be healing
I'm not sure that I follow. Channeling only targets living OR undead. If one channels negative energy, and targets living.. then everyone living will take damage, except those who have negative energy affinity (the dhampir himself, who will instead be healed) and those under the effect of the Death's Kiss Undeath domain ability (same deal)
Aside from not being able to target undead and living at the same time, what's the restriction against healing and harming in the same channel?
I'm looking at the possibilities of a Dhampir Cleric using negative energy to simultaneously heal his party and nuke the opposition.
Some relevant rules:
Negative Energy Affinity:
Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature alive, but reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, negative energy heals it.
Undead Cleric SubDomain:
Undead Subdomain
Associated Domain: Death.
Replacement Power: The following granted power replaces the bleeding touch power of the Death domain.
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.
Seperatist Archetype:
Separatist (Archetype)
A radical cleric, unsatisfied with the orthodoxy of her deity's teachings, forges her own path of defiant divine expression. Though most members of her faith would call her a separatist or heretic, she continues to receive spells from her deity. Charismatic separatists may develop a large following of like-minded believers and eventually found a splinter church of their deity—and they are just as likely to be the cause of a holy civil war as the branches of the religion fight to determine which is the true faith.
A cleric who does not serve a deity cannot take the separatist archetype. A separatist has the following class features.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Separatists do not gain proficiency in their deity's favored weapon (though they are not prohibited from using it or learning its use).
Forbidden Rites: A separatist selects one domain from her deity's domain list, and a second domain that is not on her deity's domain list. This second domain cannot be an alignment domain that doesn't match the cleric's or her deity's alignment. For example, a lawful good separatist cleric of a neutral good deity cannot choose the Chaos or Evil domain with this ability, but can select the Lawful domain even though her deity isn't lawful.
Granted powers from the cleric's second domain function as if the cleric's level, Wisdom, and Charisma were 2 lower than normal (minimum level 1) in terms of effect, DC, and uses per day. This also means the separatist doesn't gain the domain's higher-level ability until 2 levels later than normal. If the second domain grants additional class skills, the separatist gains these as normal. In all other respects, this ability works like and replaces the standard cleric's domain ability.
So, with a decent charisma bonus and the Selective Channel feat, you can prevent harm coming to your party during your Negative Energy spammage. You can also use the Undead SubDomain touch to even let one (or more, at higher levels) partymates be HEALED by the nuke spam.
Is it too one-dimensional to be of viable use? Even with this setup, is a negative energy cleric just not a decent healer?
