Do you need Greater Possession to possess a demon? I'm asking for the spell found in the occult stuff. My DM said you do but my interpretation is i can still possess it but it acts like greater as in my body vanishes instead of going lifeless.
Heres the spell in question
Possession
So what seems to be the confusion is the last part of the spell text.
"Creatures whose souls are their bodies, such as incorporeal undead and non-native outsiders, use the effects of greater possession instead." I read that as i said above that my body vanishes instead of going limp. While others read it as you need greater possession to affect them. Would like more input on this and maybe explain your interpretation on it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, you don't need Greater Possession to possess a demon. You can do it with the basic Possession spell, and it leaves your body behind exactly like the spell says.
This line:
Creatures whose souls are their bodies, such as incorporeal undead and non-native outsiders, use the effects of greater possession instead.
Applies to the caster, not to the victim. Casters use effects, victims suffer effects.
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.
That´s yet another way to read this, but one that makes a lot of sense to me.
Question is, what happens when you posses an incorporal undead or non-native outsider? Just works as normal? Can you even do that, because their body is their soul?
That´s yet another way to read this, but one that makes a lot of sense to me.
Question is, what happens when you posses an incorporal undead or non-native outsider? Just works as normal? Can you even do that, because their body is their soul?
I am not aware of any rules that prevent it. I would not allow possession of a creature with no body (e.g. a ghost) because the spell says you enter its body, so I guess it must have a body to be a valid target, but other undead and outsiders with bodies can be possessed, as far as I know.
Incorporeal (Ex) [/i]An incorporeal creature has no physical body[/i]. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source (except for channel energy). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature. Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.
I'm with DM Blake, no body to get into. The above and that it takes the time to point out incorporeal and non native outsider's bodies are their souls means even if you cast the spell, when you do you imprison their soul (and thus the body) inside you. Which means what you were going to occupy is now gone when the spell is successful.
Basically they are valid targets for the spell, but it will fizzle if you cast it on them.
If that was how it was supposed to be why didn't they make it clear like add the target must have a physical body or something like that. Also though it says body, I think they meant it in the general term. I still read it as you can possess incopreal and non native outsiders.
If that was how it was supposed to be why didn't they make it clear like add the target must have a physical body or something like that. Also though it says body, I think they meant it in the general term. I still read it as you can possess incopreal and non native outsiders.
I suppose you could possess incorporeal creatures. That is pretty fuzzy.
But I have no doubts about applying the Greater effect when an incorporeal undead or outsider CASTS the basic version of this spell. That makes 100% sense; reading it the opposite way (if you possess a demon, YOUR body disappears) makes 0% sense.
I agree, they could have worded it more clearly.
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.
I agree that makes a lot more sense that way. But that's not the issue i need help with. Its whether you can possess a demon with this spell or not.
I think we can safely say the last part of the spell only means a incorporeal undead or non-native outsider can use it like the greater version.
Now I just need to know if it works on demons from a human (or any other similar PC race) caster? Cause the spell itself doesn't say you can't but it also doesn't say you can, which it really should.
. Its whether you can possess a demon with this spell or not.
You can. There is Nothing that suggests you cannot possess demons with the spell as described in the rules.
Cause the spell itself doesn't say you can't but it also doesn't say you can
It also doesn't say you can possess pigs, elves, orcs, blink dogs, humans, fish, etc.... Because it doesn't need to. If it's a creature, it's valid.
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.
Yes. I originally posted that as ghost, not vampire, then I thought "ghosts don't cast spells" so I edited it (stupidly) to vampire, forgetting the incorporeal requirement.
An incorporeal spellcasting undead (or one with a possession SLA) would take over a victim's body and would not leave its own body behind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. Its whether you can possess a demon with this spell or not.You can. There is Nothing that suggests you cannot possess demons with the spell as described in the rules.
Cause the spell itself doesn't say you can't but it also doesn't say you canIt also doesn't say you can possess pigs, elves, orcs, blink dogs, humans, fish, etc.... Because it doesn't need to. If it's a creature, it's valid.
This is correct. The only objection I would have is that the spell specifically says you possess the body, so I would argue that a creature without a body (e.g. a ghost) could not be possessed. Which has nothing to do with demons, who are eligible targets, but it does suggest that "if it's a creature, it's valid" may not be true for incorporeal creatures.
Another GM might say that an incorporeal creature still has an incorporeal body that could be possessed. Maybe. But that is literally the opposite of what "incorporeal" means ("having no physical body").
("having no physical body").
That still has a body, just no physical one. Thus it is applicable.
("having no physical body").That still has a body, just no physical one. Thus it is applicable.
Hmmmm, as I predicted...
So from what I'm understanding here is the spell works on any creature unless it's immune somehow or protected against such things.
If the caster is incopreal or a non-native outsider it works as the greater verson but not the other way around.
Is this right?
So from what I'm understanding here is the spell works on any creature unless it's immune somehow or protected against such things.
If the caster is incopreal or a non-native outsider it works as the greater verson but not the other way around.
Is this right?
Yes.
Hmmmm, as I predicted...
Yes... someone argued that because it has an incoporeal body it counts, like you said. -.-
Doesn't change the fact that when it comes to the rules that is what happens. The spell does not say the body has to be corporeal, thus you can possess bodies with it without whether it is corporeal or not entering into the equation. This is in the rules forum. A GM may have their own personal houserules, but I don't really see it as relevant.
Expect table variance. Since the word "incorporeal" literally means "has no body", and even Pathfinder agrees:
An incorporeal creature has no physical body.
The Possession spell itself says it's soul is its body.
Combine those two Pathfinder rules and you get the fact that incorporeal undead are ONLY a soul, no body.
So how does this happen:
If you are successful, your life force occupies the host body.
Which it doesn't have. So you occupy its soul instead?
But then:
The host's soul is imprisoned with you
So it has no body, only a soul, and the soul is imprisoned... In what, exactly, is it imprisoned?
Is its soul imprisoned in its soul?
I don't think the Pathfinder rules are prepared to handle that kind of paradox.
Me, I prefer to avoid the paradox and say: If it has no physical body, you cannot possess its body that it doesn't have. Period. Since the entire spell says, over and over and over, that you possess its "body" and the rules say that incorporeal creatures don't have bodies, it seems pretty cut and dry.
SNIP
If they didn't have bodies you couldn't stab them with magical swords, it's just ephemeral rather than physical in nature. They have no "Physical" body = they have no body.
Also, this is a game where there are native outsiders (souls with a soul), and there are undead like callers in the darkness who are incorporeal undead (souls) that imprison souls within their souls. So it's not exactly paradoxical. And even if some many think it is paradoxical, this is a game where you can have incorporeal undead who channel positive energy through their non-physical bodies to let them go ethereal or shoot fire @_@
I mean, they shouldn't even properly be called incorporeal since you can still interact with them through the right means so they evidently have a physical body since it is blocked by force-effects... they just made out of stuff that is intangible to most creatures and objects. But that isn't rules.