| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just got the Gods & Magic book (now that it is sanctioned for PFS), and was very happy to see Sivanah in there (Sivanah is one of my favorite PF1 deities!!)
However, it seems like she has a ridiculous restriction — one that makes playing a worshiper of her impossible in a combat-heavy RPG such as Pathfinder:
Anathema: use illusions and shadows to harm another creature
So, you want to worship a neutral deity of illusion? You MUST use illusion for GOOD (e.g. the edict of "show the beauty in illusions") and CANNOT "harm" ANY creature with these powers.
So I suppose you cannot use illusion spells in combat (no color spray, no illusory images attacking, etc). Further, "Harm" is a subjective term and might be interpreted in many different ways by many GMs. For example, Pretending to be someone else to trick them out of money is "harming" another creature.
Finally, this anathema specifies creatures. That means even if you're using illusions to fight evil outsiders or undead, you are breaking her anathema.
Unplayable for a cleric or other class who needs to follow edicts and anathema. This is a combat-centric game, and this deity now prohibits the use of her own followers' abilities.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since when does the divine list have offensive illusion magic?
She could forbid using laser weapons for a similar practical impact.
Since when does the divine list have offensive illusion magic?
She could forbid using laser weapons for a similar practical impact.
Silence is one that comes to mind (used offensively it can be said to "harm"). But really, that doesn't matter because it's easy to get spells off other lists. Future-proofing is also a concern, as they will surely add spells to the divine list as books get published.
Further (more subjectively), it's just straight-up bad design. It seems like a very repressive anathema for a neutral deity focused on illusion and delirium.
I suppose silence might count as preventing harm, since you are probably using it to stop verbal components, right? Is that still a rule?
Of course, once you start going down the 'defense doesn't count' rabbit hole, I am forced to ask which illusions do "harm".
I am sure there are a couple with damage, but going with that argument doesn't quite seem sincere since you put up silence so the rogue could slit that guard's throat without attracting attention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose silence might count as preventing harm, since you are probably using it to stop verbal components, right? Is that still a rule?
Of course, once you start going down the 'defense doesn't count' rabbit hole, I am forced to ask which illusions do "harm".
I am sure there are a couple with damage, but going with that argument doesn't quite seem sincere since you put up silence so the rogue could slit that guard's throat without attracting attention.
It's just an example. I don't want to go back and forth in this thread discussing whether a specific spell "harms" or not — at the end of the day, vague wording like that is all about context and GM call.
I'm more concerned with the overly restrictive anathema in general. It seems counter to what the deity is all about. People who make PCs that worship illusion-/trickery-/delirium-based deities tend to want to use those kinds of spells in combat. However, this anathema is a hard "no" to many options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sivanah seems to be very much in favor of using illusions as a defensive measure, rather than an offensive one. The inclusion of shadow siphon as a cleric spell really cements this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sivanah seems to be very much in favor of using illusions as a defensive measure, rather than an offensive one. The inclusion of shadow siphon as a cleric spell really cements this.
Yeah. They really altered her and you have to play a PC who uses illusions in a very specific and restrictive way. I think it would make more sense if the deity was NG, delirium and trickery were removed from her domains (especially delirium), and her font was only heal. I mean… clearly Paizo wants you to play any worshipers of this deity as good-aligned types who believe in pacifism when it comes to illusions.
And that way she could be all about the beauty of illusions, and not hurting anyone with an illusion, even in self-defense (I’d also be ok with these changes if self-defense was allowed).
Sivanah seems to be very much in favor of using illusions as a defensive measure, rather than an offensive one. The inclusion of shadow siphon as a cleric spell really cements this.Yeah. They really altered her and you have to play a PC who uses illusions in a very specific and restrictive way. I think it would make more sense if the deity was NG, delirium and trickery were removed from her domains (especially delirium), and her font was only heal. I mean… clearly Paizo wants you to play any worshipers of this deity as good-aligned types who believe in pacifism when it comes to illusions.
And that way she could be all about the beauty of illusions, and not hurting anyone with an illusion, even in self-defense (I’d also be ok with these changes if self-defense was allowed).
I mean, that kind of goes for most deity anathemas. Like, one of Shelyn's is "refuse to accept surrender". Does this mean that you should accept surrender from undeniably evil creatures, like devils? I think anathemas are all meant to have a little wiggle room.
I suppose silence might count as preventing harm, since you are probably using it to stop verbal components, right? Is that still a rule?
Of course, once you start going down the 'defense doesn't count' rabbit hole, I am forced to ask which illusions do "harm".
I am sure there are a couple with damage, but going with that argument doesn't quite seem sincere since you put up silence so the rogue could slit that guard's throat without attracting attention.
Silence isn't even an offensive spell anymore, it only targets a willing creature.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to go back and forth in this thread discussing whether a specific spell "harms" or not
Isn't that kind of the crux of the issue?
The premise of this thread is that it is 'impossible' to play a Cleric of this deity because of how restrictive this anathema is.
The only way to actually judge the validity of that claim is to look at what spells a Cleric is likely to cast and see how many of them are actually effected.
For the baseline Divine list, there's one spell that's an illusion or shadow that harms creatures: Shadow Blast.
You're right, you can pick up more spells through feats and such, which will expand the list of restricted spells, but again you're only restricted from using them to harm creatures, not from using them altogether... and again, it's one singular spell in the whole Divine list.
Were you even planning on casting Shadow Blast in the first place?
You're right, it's pretty lame that a Delirium Domain Cleric of Sivanah can't actually use their advanced domain spell, but again, that's one of the only restrictions you're likely to face in the first place.
This is not unplayable. This is a minor inconvenience, maybe not even that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the baseline Divine list, there's one spell that's an illusion or shadow that harms creatures: Shadow Blast.
There are only 4 illusions too, and one of them is the message cantrip. The rest are 'defensive'- one literally faking the target's death and making thee real one invisible.
This is pretty much an academic question, for the most part. I suppose if you are an illusion worshipper, and lack such spells, you could easily justify a dedication to grab them though. I would be tempted to do the same thing with the cleric of a fire god to grab good blasts.
I think giving a god a domain it can't actually use is... off. Domains seem like concepts central to the deity's existence, and you are told 'no, no, no, no!'.
Silence isn't even an offensive spell anymore, it only targets a willing creature.
The heightened version still has the area effect, and appears to auto apply itself to anyone in the area around your first target.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't even call it a minor inconvenience as you actually have to go out of your way (spend character resources) to be limited by it.
It's a fair point about the delirium domain, though. Its advanced spell is an illusion that's only used for damage and it seems weird for her to grant that to followers and then forbid them from using it.
Yeah you can just not take the advanced domain spell but it's still weird that it's something she offers her followers.
It is playable outside of the avatar's illusory assault... and even then I think you are misinterpreting anathema.
"If you perform enough acts that are anathema to your deity, or if your alignment changes to one not allowed by your deity, you lose the magical abilities that come from your connection to your deity. The class features that you lose are determined by the GM, but they likely include your divine font and all divine spellcasting."
So it isn't like you lose everything immediately, it is more of a "your god and your beliefs don't align with those actions"
It is quite easy to only use illusions in neutral or beneficial ways. Might not be where you fall with illusion usage but that just means she isn't the god for you. And for illusions that are specifically offensive, you just don't use them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. So the original statement of "impossible" is not accurate. It's possible within certain guidelines, just like playing a cleric of any deity.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're right, it's pretty lame that a Delirium Domain Cleric of Sivanah can't actually use their advanced domain spell, but again, that's one of the only restrictions you're likely to face in the first place.
Exactly! It's straight-up bad design. And don't forget the avatar:
illusory assault (range 120 feet), Damage 6d6+3 mental
Sivanah gives you an avatar that does illusory assaults but considers it anathema to harm anyone with illusions. Sivanah gives you the ability to damage creatures with illusory terrain but considers it anathema to hurt creatures with illusion.
As I said above, it would be better if you could use illusions in self-defense or against evil creatures — really, anything more than an extremely anathema that places severe restrictions on all illusions against all creatures at all times. It's needlessly repressive for a combat-centric RPG and thematically counterintuitive considering her domains and abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're right, it's pretty lame that a Delirium Domain Cleric of Sivanah can't actually use their advanced domain spell, but again, that's one of the only restrictions you're likely to face in the first place.Exactly! It's bad straight-up design. And don't forget the avatar:
illusory assault (range 120 feet), Damage 6d6+3 mentalSivanah gives you an avatar that does illusory assaults, but considers it anathema to harm anyone with illusions. Again: this is a combat heavy RPG. Why make a deity of illusions and then put extreme restrictions on it, including the deity's own granted abilities?
As I said above, it would be better if you could use illusions in self-defense or against evil creatures — really, anything more than an extreme embargo on all creatures at all times. It's extremely repressive, and mechanically counterintuitive considering her domains and abilities.
Except it isn't bad design, it is just design you don't like. The domain spell in question isn't something you are forced to take, there are four domains of to choose from if you do choose the feat, and nobody forces you to take the feat and grab that focus spell from the delirium domain.
The delirum domain wasn't designed for Sivanah alone, it is one option that was added because overall it is thematically appropriate.
The illusiory attacks from the avatar while a bit weird, aren't unusable either. Your core issue is that there is a god of illusions that doesn't like illusions being used to harm others, that is an issue you have with the lore... not playability as it is 100% possible to play an effective character without harming another with illusions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This reminds me of the crying people were doing about how Gorum doesn't grant power to CG characters, despite it 100% making sense in lore. And not mattering if you didn't follow lore.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're right, it's pretty lame that a Delirium Domain Cleric of Sivanah can't actually use their advanced domain spell, but again, that's one of the only restrictions you're likely to face in the first place.Exactly! It's bad straight-up design. And don't forget the avatar:
illusory assault (range 120 feet), Damage 6d6+3 mentalSivanah gives you an avatar that does illusory assaults, but considers it anathema to harm anyone with illusions. Again: this is a combat heavy RPG. Why make a deity of illusions and then put extreme restrictions on it, including the deity's own granted abilities?
As I said above, it would be better if you could use illusions in self-defense or against evil creatures — really, anything more than an extreme embargo on all creatures at all times. It's extremely repressive, and mechanically counterintuitive considering her domains and abilities.
Except it isn't bad design, it is just design you don't like. The domain spell in question isn't something you are forced to take, there are four domains of to choose from if you do choose the feat, and nobody forces you to take the feat and grab that focus spell from the delirium domain.
The delirum domain wasn't designed for Sivanah alone, it is one option that was added because overall it is thematically appropriate.
The illusiory attacks from the avatar while a bit weird, aren't unusable either. Your core issue is that there is a god of illusions that doesn't like illusions being used to harm others, that is an issue you have with the lore... not playability as it is 100% possible to play an effective character without harming another with illusions.
Good design wouldn't have any of those options in her portfolio. It's really not that complicated. And telling people "no one forced you to make that choice" or "just don't use that class option" is not a constructive response to design criticism. I mentioned above that it would make more sense if they altered the design and portfolio of the deity to be good-aligned and remove all the delirium/madness stuff.
I'm also not a fan of broad-brush anathemas that try to dictate how players should use a theme (e.g. illusions), or place extreme restrictions on their thematic combat options in a combat-centric game like Pathfinder. But that's not just for this one deity.
If you wanted to focus on the illusion themed character a wizard would be better because they are better suited to take advantage of it. The major theme of a cleric is that they are a dedicated follower of a deity. They are a mortal representative of them and it makes sense they would not be allowed to do things their god does not like without consequences.
As a player I would find it interesting in its "nosense".
"My God has given me a power I cannot use. Wow. Is he tempting me?"
or "This is my last resource. I will fall from my God's grace, but I'll save the world!"
That said, I understand both. You are not forced to it, but you still have a weird option. But I wouldn't complain that way about it :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you wanted to focus on the illusion themed character a wizard would be better because they are better suited to take advantage of it.
Yup — and this is exactly the kind of design paradigm I hope PF2 gets away from as more books come out.
In PF1, for example, I loved my Sivanah cleric of madness, and my veiled illusionist oracle (a Sivanah-themed character who DEFINITELY uses illusions to hurt people).
That's the kind of interesting stuff I want in PF2. However, some of these ridiculously overly-restrictive anathemas will probably make it difficult for that to happen.
I also want fewer trap options in this game; for example, a deity who grants you abilities that also transgress her anathema.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the Lost Star chapter of the Doomsday Dawn playtest of PF2, my wife wanted to play a goblin paladin of Alseta (before the class was renamed Champion). As the goddess of transitions and doorway, Alseta was overseeing the transition of goblins to a civilized people. Since Alseta was not introduced in the playtest, I invented tentative tenets and anathema for Alseta. Most were about hospitality; nevertheless, she objected to trespassing and breaking down doors, which would be hard on most adventurers raiding dungeons. The paladin was careful to gain permission from the escaped goblin Talga before entering the ossiary to rescue the other enslaved goblins.
Not all gods have to favor combat and looting.
As for Sivanah's anathema to never use illusions and shadows to harm another creature, we have to focus on the difference between hinder and harm. A gnome illusionist who disguises the path to his helpless village is hindering his enemies but not harming them. Likewise, a Silence spell is merely a hinderance. On the other hand, an illusion that made a pit trap resemble the floor so that enemies would fall into the skiped pit would count as a harmful illusion. If the pit had pillows on the bottom instead of spikes, then the illusion would be hinderance rather than harm.
Play the followers of Sivanah as tricksters to want to exhaust and redirect their opponents and destroy their will to fight. They want to avoid the fight rather than win the fight. This does not favor dungeon delving. It does fis the style of my players, who would gather information in advance of a mission so that they avoided fights with minions in order to save their resources to use against the big bosses.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you really want to split hairs, the Avatar is using an illusory assault, but that isn't using "an illusion". Also I would rule that if the Deity give you this very specific form, you can use it without worrying about the anathema.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you really want to split hairs, the Avatar is using an illusory assault, but that isn't using "an illusion".
I don't think it's a split hair at all, it's quite straightforward. Despite the name, it's a mental attack, not an illusion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing worth considering is that for a Cleric "violating your anathema" is not an instant loss of powers, the CRB says "If you perform enough acts that are anathema to your deity" and "enough" is probably not "one" (unless it's really bad).
Plus the Atone ritual is pretty manageable for a high level cleric with maximum religion proficiency. It does cost money.
So I'd be inclined to run this via "a Cleric of Sivanah is not supposed to hurt people with illusions, if you do so for a good reason it's okay, but if you make a habit of it then you need to ask for forgiveness."
Like the Avatar spell is not something you just use casually anyway.
Like the Avatar spell is not something you just use casually anyway.
Agreed. Since it's a 10th level spell, it's probably fair to say you are one of the (if not THE) most powerful mortal servant of that god in existence. The higher ups get to bend the rules a bit, they've earned it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing worth considering is that for a Cleric "violating your anathema" is not an instant loss of powers, the CRB says "If you perform enough acts that are anathema to your deity" and "enough" is probably not "one" (unless it's really bad).
Plus the Atone ritual is pretty manageable for a high level cleric with maximum religion proficiency. It does cost money.
So I'd be inclined to run this via "a Cleric of Sivanah is not supposed to hurt people with illusions, if you do so for a good reason it's okay, but if you make a habit of it then you need to ask for forgiveness."
Like the Avatar spell is not something you just use casually anyway.
I get that. But why have anathema in the first place if we're just going to ignore its restrictions? It's supposed to be a hook for roleplay, not something we ignore because it contradicts the domain and avatar powers (yeah sorry. "Illusory assault" is clearly an illusion and it does mental damage just like most (if not all) other illusions in the game).
And the argument that "you don't use this power often" or "you are not forced to take this class option that is offered by your diety" holds absolutely no water with me. The deity should not offer anything in their portfolio that transgresses their anathema.
Houserule-wise, I will handwave the anathema as a whole rather than have a PC always asking forgiveness.
Good design wouldn't have any of those options in her portfolio. It's really not that complicated. And telling people "no one forced you to make that choice" or "just don't use that class option" is not a constructive response to design criticism....
Again, it is ONE spell from ONE of her portfolio choices... The portfolio that was designed to be god agnostic because of the limitations of game design and print space.
You keep mentioning PF2e being combat heavy, and it is... That has nothing to do with the usage of illusions as defensive tools, preparatory tools, combat aversion tools, escape tools, diffusion tools...
Your issue, again is to do with the thematics of the god...
As for the "its not constructive to say don't use that class feature"
Sure it is, if you are playing a fighter who doesn't kill their foes... You choose a non-lethal weapon and or make non-lethal attacks. This is exactly the same, you have chosen a god and these are the thematic restrictions based on what that god represents. This isn't a matter of a dead feat, this is a matter of that feat not suiting a choice the player chose when creating the character.
If I play Zon-Kuthon cleirc, is it bad design that healing hands is a level 1 feat and I get so many healing spells in the divine domain?
Now sure Zon-Kuthon isn't giving me the feat through the domain choice, but it certain is giving me the power and spells in the first place despite using them being an anathema to their values. This isn't questioned because the cleric is designed for a wide range of worshipers, the same goes with the domains, if delirium domain gave you no options I would agree with you. But this isn't the world we live in.
Having one less option for the feat out of four isn't making anything unplayable or any great flaw in design.
Heck, expanding on this you can 100% use Ephemeral Hazards as a warding spell and not break Anathema.
You put it down somewhere to make it obvious and stop someone from following you or entering a location. Intelligent creatures aren't likely to stand in something, especially if they don't know it is an illusion. You are taking a risk with actions like this but it is 100% in line with the sort of things a trickster would do.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Illusory assault" is clearly an illusion and it does mental damage just like most (if not all) other illusions in the game).
It's not an illusion because it doesn't have the illusion trait. PF2 makes it simplicity itself to answer these questions.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not a huge fan of these threads with inflammatory titles...
Sivanah has access to ten domain spells. One of them causes friction with her anathema. There are plenty of options left to play with.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You choose Sivanah specifically to have access to her domain spellsThat isn't why I picked her at all.
That doesn't matter whatsoever, because different people want to build different kinds of characters than you personally do.
The deity should not restrict her own powers (or the overall theme of the illusion portfolio) — especially in such a repressive and extreme way.
Sivanah has access to ten domain spells. One of them causes friction with her anathema. There are plenty of options left to play with.
As I have said above twice now, they should just remove the conflicts from this deity and design her better (e.g. remove delirium and make the deity good aligned).
Nothing in her portfolio should conflict with her own anathema. That's an objectively bad design choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then I guess you have nothing to bring to a conversation about the absurdity of a domain spell being anathema to a deity that grants it to her clerics. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.You choose Sivanah specifically to have access to her domain spellsThat isn't why I picked her at all.
It isn't a problem. It is an opportunity. Moral/ethical ambiguity is interesting.
Again: You don't auto-fall by violating anathema but you SHOULD seek forgiveness.
Go out. Live a little.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sivanah has access to ten domain spells. One of them causes friction with her anathema. There are plenty of options left to play with.
I look at it the same way as the old PF1 domains for Pharasma giving out spells that allow undead creation when she despises them: they specifically fixed that because it was a nonsensical situation. [Inner Sea Gods pg. 123]
I don't see this situation any different here: why have a deity provide something nonsensical? Being able to avoid it is really beside the point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then I guess you have nothing to bring to a conversation about the absurdity of a domain spell being anathema to a deity that grants it to her clerics. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.You choose Sivanah specifically to have access to her domain spellsThat isn't why I picked her at all.It isn't a problem. It is an opportunity. Moral/ethical ambiguity is interesting.
Again: You don't auto-fall by violating anathema but you SHOULD seek forgiveness.
Go out. Live a little.
We know you don't auto-fall. Covered ad-nauseam by now in this thread.
It would actually be interesting if the anathema were written in such a way to allow for moral ambiguity; instead, this anathema is all illusions that "harm" all creatures. It's a very cut-and-dry, no-exceptions-allowed, extremist anathema. This level of repressive extremism is sheer nonsense for a neutral-aligned, illusion-, delirium-, and trickery-focused deity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diety can represent every aspect of a domain. The domain wasn't design specifically for Sivanah. If you want to be a cleric that uses that domain spell there is another option. Not being able to use one atk spell is not that big of a deal. It the tiniest of inconveniences that should be discovered at character creation. It doesn't make her clerics unplayable with that domain and if it really bothers you there are other choices.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OP has no intent on good faith argument, they are clearly only interested in airing their complaints which essentially boil down to "I don't like anathemas that are restrictive." Well, guess what, that's literally the entire purpose of the "A" in the first place.
If you don't like those restrictions for your Character you shouldn't choose that deity in particular. This is a single spell that the "A" discourages you from using from a single one of the several optional domains they provide, it has nothing to do with "Bad Design" or bad writing and frankly, your assertion is childish and insulting to the authors and editors.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has devolved into
*dundundun*
DELIRIUM!!!
*gasp*
That must have been Sivanah's plan all along!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP has no intent on good faith argument, they are clearly only interested in airing their complaints which essentially boil down to "I don't like anathemas that are restrictive." Well, guess what, that's literally the entire purpose of the "A" in the first place.
If you don't like those restrictions for your Character you shouldn't choose that deity in particular. This is a single spell that the "A" discourages you from using from a single one of the several optional domains they provide, it has nothing to do with "Bad Design" or bad writing and frankly, your assertion is childish and insulting to the authors and editors.
"If you don't like the restrictions don't play it." Sure, if only the restrictions made sense…
This thread has devolved into
*dundundun*
DELIRIUM!!!
*gasp*
That must have been Sivanah's plan all along!
Chaos… madness… wasting peoples' time with pointless internet debates about imaginary deity design… truly, it must be the Sivanah I know and love.
This has been addressedLINK[
"Edicts and Anathema in Society Play
Several characters, such as clerics or champions, must abide by the edicts and anathema of their deity to receive divine powers from that deity. To allow a wide variety of characters in Society play, the rules around edicts and anathema are slightly relaxed. It is generally assumed that all characters can participate in Pathfinder Society adventures without running afoul of their deity’s edicts and anathema—attempting to perform the primary objective of an official Pathfinder Society mission by itself will not cause a character to fall out of favor with their deity. For example, Pharasma prohibits robbing tombs, but a cleric of Pharasma can accept a Society mission to retrieve an artifact from a pyramid, confident that the Society has gone through the proper channels to secure the right to retrieve the artifact.
While edicts are valorous actions praised by a deity, a character does not need to perform their deity’s edicts to the exclusion of other activities, or if doing so would prevent the smooth progression of play at the table. When considering anathema, note that a character must actively and personally commit an anathemic act in Society play to incur consequences with their deity, and is not liable for the actions of their party members. For instance, a champion of Sarenrae could not personally lie to a guard when infiltrating a city, but they do not need to force the party’s rogue to tell the truth (though they might look on disapprovingly)
Remember that edicts and anathema exist to create roleplaying opportunities at the table for your character, and should not be used by the GM to pressure PCs, or by PCs to pressure other members of the table toward specific styles of play."
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't matter whatsoever, because different people want to build different kinds of characters than you personally do.You choose Sivanah specifically to have access to her domain spellsThat isn't why I picked her at all.
You’re the one who painted everyone who picked Sivanah of just doing it for her domains.