| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You’re the one who painted everyone who picked Sivanah of just doing it for her domains.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.
Not in the least.
Pointing out that the anathema contradicts optional deity features, as well as theme, is not the same thing as painting everyone with a broad brush.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You’re the one who painted everyone who picked Sivanah of just doing it for her domains.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.Not in the least.
Pointing out that the anathema contradicts optional deity features, as well as theme, is not the same thing as painting everyone with a broad brush.
You’re the one who painted everyone who picked Sivanah of just doing it for her domains.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.Not in the least.
Pointing out that the anathema contradicts optional deity features, as well as theme, is not the same thing as painting everyone with a broad brush.
I see; you were replying to FlashRebel. It's not very charitable of you to take that statement quite so literally as an absolute, I don't think they meant it quite like that.
It's important to keep in mind that many players do choose to worship a deity for their domain spells; more specifically, it's not uncommon for illusionists to choose a deity such as Sivanah.
It's great your own PC just so happens to not have an issue with the anathema, but that certainly isn't true for everyone (and possibly, it's not true for a larger number of players than you think).
I mean you are the one who originally stated it as "impossible to play" which follows that the paradox must occur, otherwise it is in fact very possible to play avoiding 1 choice out of dozens (not even 1 in 10, because that 1 in 10 is just for spending feats on domains and not on everything else you could spend a feat on.) Therefore if the paradox must occur, the character choice must revolve around domains and advancing them.
You have convinced me it's possible to play some kinds of clerics here.
But the design issue of a ridiculously harsh and repressive anathema is still there, as well as direct contradictions between domain abilities and anathema — as well as the overall theme issues with the deity.
There should be no conflict between those things. Not even one of them.
|
|
Ah, first off, my sincere apologies for mixing up you and Flashrebel.
The rest of my point remains unchanged, that wording was quite literal.
Not gonna get into an argument of "people pick Deities more for than domains than for them" or viceversa.
As has been laid out by others, it's not as severe as it's been made out to be, certainly not as bad as the comparison of Pharasma in P1 granting spells that created Undead through the Death.
Depending on the Anathema and circumstances you won't instantly fall or drop dead for breaking them. There's degrees.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
certainly not as bad as the comparison of Pharasma in P1 granting spells that created Undead through the Death.
Both grant domains that give spells you couldn't use unless you break the Dogma of the god... Seems about as analogous as you can get. A cleric of Pharasma could always take bonus spells from their other domain so the bonus spells didn't have to be an issue their either: that situation is pretty much the same as now. For Pharasma, you didn't have to take those domains or if you did, take those spells as bonus spells hence it's as optional as Sivanah granting a domain you don't have to take and a spell in that domain you never have to cast...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not analogous since "don't hurt stuff with Illusions" for Sivanah, something never really brought up, is not the same severity as "don't create Undead" for Pharasma, who is very well noted to hate Undead.
Aka Clerics of Sivanah aren't going to hunt you down and murder you and your friends just cause you cast Shadow Blast that one time.
I guess it all depends on what you consider "harming".That's the entire problem with vague anathemas. "Own a slave", "steal", "lie" and "create undead" are clear anathemas that use unambiguous terms and don't have wiggle room to argue. "Harm" is subjet to interpretations and endless arguments. Except dealing damage clearly falls into harming, no question, and it's ridiculous for a deity that forbids using illusions to harm to also grant a domain spell (i.e a very specific spell that doesn't come from a spell list shared by multiple classes) of the illusion type that can only be used to deal damage.
Yeah, I think that rabbit hole i avoided earlier would have been a more pleasant avenue of discussion at this point....
So we come back to the argument: is casting a heightened silence to facilitate a murder considered doing "harm" with the illusion? It doesn't attack directly, but it does serve as an essential tool for doing that harm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the design issue of a ridiculously harsh and repressive anathema
I agree with you to an extent, her giving a damaging illusion spell from a domain and then forbidding you from using it is weird in the same way as Pharasma granting undeath creation stuff back in PF1 was (not as egregiously so but still not great).
But it's not ridiculously harsh or repressive and I feel like at this point it should be abundantly clear that this hyperbolic approach to discussing the issue has done more damage than benefit to your point.
|
|
I guess it all depends on what you consider "harming".That's the entire problem with vague anathemas. "Own a slave", "steal", "lie" and "create undead" are clear anathemas that use unambiguous terms and don't have wiggle room to argue. "Harm" is subjet to interpretations and endless arguments. Except dealing damage clearly falls into harming, no question, and it's ridiculous for a deity that forbids using illusions to harm to also grant a domain spell (i.e a very specific spell that doesn't come from a spell list shared by multiple classes) of the illusion type that can only be used to deal damage.Yeah, I think that rabbit hole i avoided earlier would have been a more pleasant avenue of discussion at this point....
So we come back to the argument: is casting a heightened silence to facilitate a murder considered doing "harm" with the illusion? It doesn't attack directly, but it does serve as an essential tool for doing that harm.
We can use common sense or we can leap into a hyperbolic rabbit hole that keeps falling down and down (You used an illusion to keep your allies from being hit so they could keep fighting and win, so you harmed your enemies).
But the design issue of a ridiculously harsh and repressive anathemaBut it's not ridiculously harsh or repressive and I feel like at this point it should be abundantly clear that this hyperbolic approach to discussing the issue has done more damage than benefit to your point.
It's all creatures and all illusions to "harm" (highly subjective). That's quite extremist. Blanket anathemas like this, where there are no exceptions made in any case, are the literal definition of extremism.
It makes especially little sense here for a "Neutral" deity whose all about illusions.
I mentioned above, but an exception to the anathema, such as "except in self-defense" would make more sense (mechanically, and thematically).
We can use common sense or we can leap into a hyperbolic rabbit hole that keeps falling down and down (You used an illusion to keep your allies from being hit so they could keep fighting and win, so you harmed your enemies).
...well, many adventurers are a dangerous murder hobo that will kill anything for a coin. I've known characters that a god wouldn't want their clerics seen with...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We can use common sense or we can leap into a hyperbolic rabbit hole that keeps falling down and down (You used an illusion to keep your allies from being hit so they could keep fighting and win, so you harmed your enemies).I guess it all depends on what you consider "harming".That's the entire problem with vague anathemas. "Own a slave", "steal", "lie" and "create undead" are clear anathemas that use unambiguous terms and don't have wiggle room to argue. "Harm" is subjet to interpretations and endless arguments. Except dealing damage clearly falls into harming, no question, and it's ridiculous for a deity that forbids using illusions to harm to also grant a domain spell (i.e a very specific spell that doesn't come from a spell list shared by multiple classes) of the illusion type that can only be used to deal damage.Yeah, I think that rabbit hole i avoided earlier would have been a more pleasant avenue of discussion at this point....
So we come back to the argument: is casting a heightened silence to facilitate a murder considered doing "harm" with the illusion? It doesn't attack directly, but it does serve as an essential tool for doing that harm.
In years of reading lots of fiction and even the tenets of real religions I find the the gods often don't care about common sense when they feel they have been wronged or the like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fact we can say that anathemas are the new evil spells turn you evil. How many are needed to get you there? Do different ones carry different weight or all they all the same number of points?
It's all creatures and all illusions to "harm" (highly subjective). That's quite extremist.
It's one spell on your spell list and one domain spell you'd need to take a feat to pick up anyways.
It's annoying, but it's neither extreme, unmanageable, nor crippling.
Honestly, "don't cast a couple specific spells in a specific way" is probably one of the easiest and least intrusive anathema in the game.
It makes especially little sense here for a "Neutral" deity whose all about illusions.
Why? Being neutral and not liking killing aren't mutually exclusive.
I mean you could even have an evil character who doesn't approve of needless violence if you wanted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's all creatures and all illusions to "harm" (highly subjective). That's quite extremist.It's one spell on your spell list and one domain spell you'd need to take a feat to pick up anyways.
It's annoying, but it's neither extreme, unmanageable, nor crippling.
Honestly, "don't cast a couple specific spells in a specific way" is probably one of the easiest and least intrusive anathema in the game.
It makes especially little sense here for a "Neutral" deity whose all about illusions.Why? Being neutral and not liking killing aren't mutually exclusive.
I mean you could even have an evil character who doesn't approve of needless violence if you wanted.
In a way Phrasma could be viewed simialry back in PF1. Don't raise the dead, you can prep other spells for your domain or use them for counterspelling. But they felt it was enough of an issue to change that.
Heck speaking of Pharasma how many undead am I allowed to create before losing my powers?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's all creatures and all illusions to "harm" (highly subjective). That's quite extremist.It's one spell on your spell list and one domain spell you'd need to take a feat to pick up anyways.
It's annoying, but it's neither extreme, unmanageable, nor crippling.
Honestly, "don't cast a couple specific spells in a specific way" is probably one of the easiest and least intrusive anathema in the game.
It makes especially little sense here for a "Neutral" deity whose all about illusions.Why? Being neutral and not liking killing aren't mutually exclusive.
I mean you could even have an evil character who doesn't approve of needless violence if you wanted.
It's not just one spell on your list. It's all the arcane and occult spells that cause "harm" if you choose to archetype or use certain items, and any future cleric "harmful" illusion spells that Paizo comes out within future splat books.
You're implying this is about murder hoboing or something, but Pathfinder is a combat-centric game. Like it or not, that's Pathfinder and if you want to play something with less combat focus you'll be playing some other game. So yeah… combat utility is an important consideration here and this anathema can have an impact on certain builds.
Philosophically, this anathema is classic extremism; it includes all creatures and all illusions. No exceptions.
And once again: from a design perspective, a deity's character options should never run at cross purposes with their anathema. Even if it's just one domain, that still should not happen.
Yes, fighting is an important part of the game but it not the only part. Social and exploration are important too and it perfectly fine to have a character that is more focused on those. But I don't think it cripples your ability to deal damage it just you can't do it with illusion. Plus doing damage is not the only thing you can do during a fight. Using support spells is actually how I prefer to play and is one reason the cleric is my favorite class. If the anathema was you can't do any harmful spells then I would see your point but only forbidding an atk spell from one spell school is not that big of a hurtle. You could get more access to illusion atk spells but that a player's choice and if you want to use illusion offensively there are plenty of other options then being a cleric of Sivanah.
Yes, fighting is an important part of the game but it not the only part. Social and exploration are important too and it perfectly fine to have a character that is more focused on those. But I don't think it cripples your ability to deal damage it just you can't do it with illusion. Plus doing damage is not the only thing you can do during a fight. Using support spells is actually how I prefer to play and is one reason the cleric is my favorite class. If the anathema was you can't do any harmful spells then I would see your point but only forbidding an atk spell from one spell school is not that big of a hurtle. You could get more access to illusion atk spells but that a player's choice and if you want to use illusion offensively there are plenty of other options then being a cleric of Sivanah.
But that still comes back to what constitutes harm from the GMs point. Sure we can argue using an illusion to cause someone to get hurt/be hurt counts. But would using illusion to swindle someone be harm, what about using it to hide the party from a dragon while knowing there are other creatures it might hurt during its rampage?
I think harm is doing an action that directly hurts as it does damage someone else. Does not matter what your party member or others do because of your action as anathema are meant to restrict your actions not others.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that the 4th level Delirium focus spell breaks the anathema. It sets up a hazard, which you can put on unoccupied squares, and that people are entirely free not to walk into and take damage.
If Sarenrae had anathema against causing harm with fire I don't think casting a Wall of Fire spell would violate it just because some idiot walked into it of their own free will.
I do think you can't force anyone into the hazard or drop it on someone, however.
Interesting I admit I was a little bit blind on the spell as I'm a broke college student and I'm waiting for the info to be put one achieve Nethys. That is something to think about.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that the 4th level Delirium focus spell breaks the anathema. It sets up a hazard, which you can put on unoccupied squares, and that people are entirely free not to walk into and take damage.
I didn't blow them up. The bomb did that. All I did was push a button.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that the 4th level Delirium focus spell breaks the anathema. It sets up a hazard, which you can put on unoccupied squares, and that people are entirely free not to walk into and take damage.
If Sarenrae had anathema against causing harm with fire I don't think casting a Wall of Fire spell would violate it just because some idiot walked into it of their own free will.
I do think you can't force anyone into the hazard or drop it on someone, however.
OK cool. So the anathema dictates HOW you should and should not use a spell. Sounds fun!?
(I don't agree either; if the illusion is harming a creature it is "being used to harm a creature.")
I disagree that the 4th level Delirium focus spell breaks the anathema. It sets up a hazard, which you can put on unoccupied squares, and that people are entirely free not to walk into and take damage.
If Sarenrae had anathema against causing harm with fire I don't think casting a Wall of Fire spell would violate it just because some idiot walked into it of their own free will.
I do think you can't force anyone into the hazard or drop it on someone, however.
OK cool. So the anathema dictates HOW you should and should not use a spell. Sounds fun!?
(I don't agree either; if the illusion is harming a creature it is "being used to harm a creature.")
I'm not using it harm them, they're choosing to be harmed. I can't be held responsible for their choices.
If I build a fence around my property I am not responsible for the broken legs of people who climb over it. Perhaps a given GM thinks Sivanah doesn't believe in intervening causation or proximate cause, but since she's not chaotic or stupid that's not the way I'd go.
I disagree that the 4th level Delirium focus spell breaks the anathema. It sets up a hazard, which you can put on unoccupied squares, and that people are entirely free not to walk into and take damage.I didn't blow them up. The bomb did that. All I did was push a button.
No, you set up some barbed wire and they walked right into it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the design issue of a ridiculously harsh and repressive anathemaI agree with you to an extent, her giving a damaging illusion spell from a domain and then forbidding you from using it is weird in the same way as Pharasma granting undeath creation stuff back in PF1 was (not as egregiously so but still not great).
But it's not ridiculously harsh or repressive and I feel like at this point it should be abundantly clear that this hyperbolic approach to discussing the issue has done more damage than benefit to your point.
I'm not sure it's even accurate to claim that clerics of Sivanah can't use ephemeral hazards. I, personally, would interpret the following as being something Sivanah wouldn't even blink at:
1) Cleric of Sivanah casts ephemeral hazards
2) Cleric of Sivanah says "Stay back creature! One more step and these deadly blades will tear you to shreds!"
3) Creature ignores the warning and steps into the blades.
The cleric used the illusion to warn the creature away, not to harm it, exactly the same way we wouldn't claim that a manufacturer "harmed someone with acid" if a person ignored clearly marked warning signs and stuck their hand in a vat of industrial hydrochloric acid. The fact that it was harmed by ignoring the warning is a consequence of its actions, not the cleric's. I think in most situations the anathema is going to come down to how you do a thing more than what the thing you're doing is.
I disagree that the 4th level Delirium focus spell breaks the anathema. It sets up a hazard, which you can put on unoccupied squares, and that people are entirely free not to walk into and take damage.I didn't blow them up. The bomb did that. All I did was push a button.
Nope, your action caused them harm. If, however, you laid out a minefield and then put up a barbed wire fence that said "Warning: Live Explosives" and someone hopped over that fence and blew themselves up, that's on them.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if the Cleric of Sivanah makes an illusion where it appears that there's a tunnel in the side of a cliff face, and someone runs right into it... does the Cleric of Sivanah fall?
In years of reading lots of fiction and even the tenets of real religions I find the the gods often don't care about common sense when they feel they have been wronged or the like.
Asura are entire class of outsider that has that idea as their core concept. Each and every one of them is the result of a bad decision by a god.
Someone rob you? Dunk them down into the ocean so hard that they cause a tsunami wiping out your own believers.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fact we can say that anathemas are the new evil spells turn you evil. How many are needed to get you there? Do different ones carry different weight or all they all the same number of points?
GM Adjudication and open conversation encouraged among them and the players?!?! No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO!!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So yeah… combat utility is an important consideration here and this anathema can have an impact on certain builds.
That's a given though and kind of just part of playing a Cleric, you're inevitably tied to some extent to the deity you choose. The roleplaying connotations of being a servant and divine messenger of a greater power is a major component of the class.
You can't really play a Pharasman Necromancer. Clerics of Desna should probably avoid casting Cause Fear and roguish tricksters aren't going to be a good fit for Abadar's clergy.
So if you want to play a character who heavily utilizes damaging illusions... IDK maybe don't worship the god who doesn't like that.
I would 100% rule any damage as Anathema to a character, so someone setting it up and having someone walking into it (regardless of the players intentions).
However if the player was not intending harm I certainly would judge less harshly as the god (I love the new curses/boons system).
And yes, an anathema that changes the way you cast spells is great, cool and 100% thematic. Anathema that can be ignored shouldn't be in the game and this is in no way more limiting than an anathema that forbids the killing of an alignment or something similar.
And again, domains were created as a modular system same as clerics. I would rather that she have delirium than simply not have the domain and it is better that the domain is more flexible to future applications (especially for GMs who make their own gods) than stuck being designed around one god.
So what have we found?
- 100% playable, not even hard
- The advanced delirium domain spell can be used, it requires finesse and your god will frown on you if you use it to harm.
- The advanced domain feat can still choose one of another 3 options
- It fits with the descriptions of the gods values when it comes to illusions and shadows.
So what have we found?
- 100% playable, not even hard
- The advanced delirium domain spell can be used, it requires finesse and your god will frown on you if you use it to harm.
- The advanced domain feat can still choose one of another 3 options
- It fits with the descriptions of the gods values when it comes to illusions and shadows.
So what have we found?
- 100% playable — unless you multiclass into something that uses illusions offensively or Paizo adds offensive illusion spells to the divine list in a later splatbook. Or you want to use a domain power offensively.
- The advanced delirium domain spell can be used, under specific circumstances ONLY and with a lenient GM.
- The advanced domain feats don't all work
- It does not fit at all with trickery or delirium/madness domains, nor does an excessively restrictive ban on illusions jive with the illusion theme of the neutral-aligned deity.
More like that.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a pretty big difference between "Clerics of Sivanah are unplayable" and "If you're going to play a Cleric of Sivanah, don't do the following few things."
If you want to wield divine power with no responsibility, you should be a sorcerer or an oracle. Clerics should have to think about how to use their god granted powers. That the anathema is *slightly inconvenient* is appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a pretty big difference between "Clerics of Sivanah are unplayable" and "If you're going to play a Cleric of Sivanah, don't do the following few things."
Like, use ANY illusion spell used to "harm" against ANY creature. It's more than "a few things."
There's very little acknowledgement of non-single-class builds happening in this thread, or concern for future-proofing. What if your sorcerer wants to archetype into a cleric of Sivanah because they love illusions? Now, they break anathema every time their illusory creature attacks.
It's a pointlessly extreme and build-limiting restriction on the one thing the deity is most known for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the first I’ve heard someone claim adding more options makes something unplayable.
What options have been added? The anathema removes options. It literally says "don't ever use any illusion to "harm" any creature no matter what."
I just cant get my head round the multiclass arguement or spending a feat specifically on anything you know you cant use how you want. That is entirely optional and also applies to a whole bunch of things.
Oh no I'm an animal barbarian! Its utterly impossible to play because I might choose to multiclass or pick feats that use weapons and I'm restricted on how I can use weapons. Terrible game design.
More like the animal barbarian anathema telling you you can never use natural attacks to, say, do nonlethal damage. That would be analogous to the major deity of illusions telling you you can't use illusions in certain ways.
Animal barbarians also have thematic/mechanical issues (e.g. no way to do ranged attacks while raging), but that's another story.
|
So this falls into GM discretion once more but...
"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"
It seems that the intention isn't that you can't use those skills. It's that your deity finds them distasteful and they shouldn't be your bread and butter go to abilities. From this wording a GM probably shouldn't make you atone if a situation got dicey and you directly harmed a creature trying to kill you with an illusion, especially if your cleric is otherwise devout.. Spamming that ability may be an issue though.
I think most can identify with the idea of real life situations making it difficult or impossible to live up to a divine ideal. Our PCs while epic are still mortal after all. I think the anathema actually could add a bit of depth and creativity to a cleric of Sivanah player concept.
I think the anathema actually could add a bit of depth and creativity to a cleric of Sivanah player concept.
It might. I do think that an anathema with a little more nuance would add more depth and creativity than something so extremist, but that's also subjective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what have we found?
- 100% playable — unless you multiclass into something that uses illusions offensively or Paizo adds offensive illusion spells to the divine list in a later splatbook. Or you want to use a domain power offensively.
- The advanced delirium domain spell can be used, under specific circumstances ONLY and with a lenient GM.
- The advanced domain feats don't all work
- It does not fit at all with trickery or delirium/madness domains, nor does an excessively restrictive ban on illusions jive with the illusion theme of the neutral-aligned deity.More like that.
Well no...
Multiclassing has nothing to do with it? if you are a worshiper of her you don't use harmfull illusions... Again you just don't like the thematics of the god, this has nothing to do with it being unplayable or even hard to play. Someone multiclassing to or from a sorcerer just isn't picking up those spells because they don't suit the god, or they ignore the lore of the god and anathema and that is 100% their own fault.
- No, it has nothing to do with a lenient GM. The spell can be used under specific circumstances. If you want to argue that a GM COULD quip about harm, then we are talking about a GM who could also say that creating it damages bacteria in the air and therefor causes harm. If a creature isn't damaged or put in a damaging situation then you haven't caused it harm.
- Um excuse me? why does the advanced domain feat not work... you pick it, you one of the other domains. Of which at least one is a non hostile illusion focus spell. So yeah it works.
- Again, this is just your personal thematic values. It has nothing to do with the mechanics, choose a different god, this god isn't the one you want it to be.