| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quotes liberal rulings that not all gms will abide by, in order to justify the argument.
Here's a larger question for you: do you honestly think that this deity of illusions is more or less thematically interesting with a blanket embargo on all illusions that "harm" all creatures? (This is addition to her other strict anathema of never divulging secrets.)
To my mind, it's not: it's too broad-reaching because it includes all illusions that subjectively "harm" all creatures without exception. It conflicts with the deity's theme (delirium is a form of harm; it's a bad thing), and leaves the player vulnerable to GM fiat at worst — or depends on a lenient one at best. (Or just ignoring the anathema when a player breaks it often, which has been suggested in this thread — if this is the best solution to your anathema, it's also not well-designed).
To my mind, any deity that places such far-reaching bans on the way you use their own theme is badly designed. (see Sarenrae for a good example of a strict-but-nuanced anathema: "deny a repentant creature an opportunity for redemption"). I don't see why the writer couldn't have put in a clause like that, such as "except in self-defense" or something more nuanced.
And you're right: I don't like the theme. When I build illusionists I want to use the spells in weird and creative ways… and I don't think that's an uncommon desire. You'd think the major deity of illusions would be the prime choice for such characters.
Unfortunately, Sivanah seems to have transitioned from 1E to 2E as a very unimaginative and repressive deity. Odd choice for a deity of trickery and mental dysfunction.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quotes liberal rulings that not all gms will abide by, in order to justify the argument.Here's a larger question for you: do you honestly think that this deity of illusions is more or less thematically interesting with a blanket embargo on all illusions that "harm" all creatures? (This is addition to her other strict anathema of never divulging secrets.)
To my mind, it's not: it's too broad-reaching because it includes all illusions that subjectively "harm" all creatures without exception. It conflicts with the deity's theme (delirium is a form of harm; it's a bad thing), and leaves the player vulnerable to GM fiat at worst — or depends on a lenient one at best. (Or just ignoring the anathema when a player breaks it often, which has been suggested in this thread — if this is the best solution to your anathema, it's also not well-designed).
To my mind, any deity that places such far-reaching bans on the way you use their own theme is badly designed. I don't see why the writer couldn't have put in an "except in self-defense" clause or something more nuanced than straight-up intolerance for a common way to use a school of spells.
And you're right: I don't like the theme. When I build illusionists I want to use the spells in weird and creative ways. Unfortunately, Sivanah seems to have transitioned from 1E to 2E as a very unimaginative and repressive deity. Odd choice for a deity of trickery and mental dysfunction.
It's subjective but here is where I disagree with you the most. Dealing direct harm seems to me the least weird or creative way to use an illusion.
You would think that theme would point more towards actual trickery, deception, altering perception, insanity etc. Dealing direct harm with an illusion seems more of what an Arcane or Occult Illusionist may pursue.
Fair enough; I agree with that really (blasting isn't always creative… but then again, using illusions defensively really isn't either, and probably a far more common application. Harming with illusions outside battlefield control is hard to optimize for and less common.)
Overall, I believe that almost any rule without exception (ALL illusions that "harm" ALL creatures) is the epitome of unimaginativeness.
Strict absolutes / bans are not usually fun for players, and should be left to more zealot-themed deities; it does not fit Sivanah's theme at all.
Guys, there a DEMON LORD who has as anathema using force against people who don’t pose a threat to you. It’s not crazy for Sivanah to prefer that if you have to slug it out you do it without making her preferred subtle tool scary to others.
And the delirium power isn’t harmful if you put it on unoccupied terrain.
Guys, there a DEMON LORD who has as anathema using force against people who don’t pose a threat to you. It’s not crazy for Sivanah to prefer that if you have to slug it out you do it without making her preferred subtle tool scary to others.
At least the DEMON LORD lets you use your domain powers to stand up to those who pose a threat to you. More flexible than Sivanah!
And why would your specific interpretation of what's "harm" be any "scarier" (your word) than illusory terrain, nightmare/delirium, etc? I could do a lot more scary things with figments than gloom bolts.
And the delirium power isn’t harmful if you put it on unoccupied terrain.
Again… that's not as written. That's your interpretation of the subjective term "harmful" applied to one very specific use of a spell that does HP damage. Your interpretation also dictated how it should be used (not dropped onto a creature).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "the GM and the player have a shared understanding that good faith attempts are not going to trigger the anathema" is important and probably necessary.
Like Desnans aren't allowed to cause fear, but if you suddenly emerge from someone's closet bearing flowers and chocolates there's a chance you might scare the hell out of someone, even if your goal was closer to "happy surprise" than "abject terror."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
it does not fit Sivanah's theme at all.
I feel like that's more up to the people who created her.
Ultimately, I don't think someone who wants to use illusions to harm would worship Sivanah, it's as simple as that. They would probably worship Mahathallah or Grandmother Spider.
Googled harm: physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted. I look at several sites in the search and they all say similar things. I think with this definition that harm is anything that would cause damage. Under Sivanah anathema you can't cause damage with the illusion spell. Illusion could cause circumstance that they could get hurt but that can be considered unintended consequence or something like that.
A jump scare is not "fear" in most cases, and the few cases it is its usually because it's someone you actually fear not because it's a present.
Also the problem still remains that Sivanah's anathema is too strict for a neutral god of illusions and delirium. If she were lawful or lacked delirium the anathema would make make more sense, but it currently just doesnt.
Also people keep saying direct harm doesn't work and indirect harms does. But that's not what the Anathema says, its "Use Ilusions and Shadows to harm a creature". Notice how there are no qualifiers of "harm", meaning a reasonable interpretation can be made that: Any damage or ill effect using illusions/shadows, direct or indirect, would break the anathema.
The most lenient interpretation I can see is: Any ability that's both shadow and illusion, that deals direct harm, would break the anathema. The important part being that the second case allows for shadow spells that are not illusions and for illusion spells that are not shadows to still cause harm.
Which means the anathema does need a review to properly state its intent: Is it you cant use any ilusions and/or shadows to do any type of harm? Or, you cant use any shadow illusion to deal direct harm?
It clear that it means you can't use either to damage a person. Like I stated about a common definition of harm is to cause physical injury with intent. That easily translates into actions that cause damage and leave out those that don't directly cause it.
As for delerium a state that caused mental confusion and emotional disruption. To me that more speaks to causing people to be confused or manipulating emotions. Which doesn't cause damage in the hp sense and those doesn't contradict the anathema.
I’m glad none of you are criminal or tort lawyers or there would be a lot of innocent people in jail or serious debt for “causing” “harm.” Fortunately we have smarter people running that system and serving as the goddess of illusion. But woe to her would be servants who are deceiving none but themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m glad none of you are criminal lawyers or there would be a lot of innocent people in jail for “causing” “harm.” Fortunately we have smarter people running that system and serving as the goddess of illusion. But woe to her would be servants who are deceiving none but themselves.
I mean one of the bugaboos regarding the criminal justice system is that we don't really have access to intent. But in a roleplaying game, since the disconnect exists between the character and the player, and there are literal gods who you can't fool adjudicating this, we kind of do have access to intent.
So when adjudicating anathema, intent matters a lot. There's a big difference between a cleric of Gozreh calling down a lightning strike that accidentally causes a forest fire, calling down a lightning strike to deliberately cause a forest fire since the forest needs to burn periodically for renewal (maybe Golarion has Jack Pines), and calling down a lightning strike to burn down the forest because the people you're after are hiding out there and this is the most expedient way to get them out.
The first two aren't anathema, the third is.
My bad should have looked more closely. But I still think it fair to say that if the spell causes damage then it harm. That was my main point. You can cast an illusion spell that has other effects and not break the anathema.
Quotes liberal rulings that not all gms will abide by, in order to justify the argument.Here's a larger question for you: do you honestly think that this deity of illusions is more or less thematically interesting with a blanket embargo on all illusions that "harm" all creatures? (This is addition to her other strict anathema of never divulging secrets.)
To my mind, it's not: it's too broad-reaching because it includes all illusions that subjectively "harm" all creatures without exception. It conflicts with the deity's theme (delirium is a form of harm; it's a bad thing), and leaves the player vulnerable to GM fiat at worst — or depends on a lenient one at best. (Or just ignoring the anathema when a player breaks it often, which has been suggested in this thread — if this is the best solution to your anathema, it's also not well-designed).
To my mind, any deity that places such far-reaching bans on the way you use their own theme is badly designed. (see Sarenrae for a good example of a strict-but-nuanced anathema: "deny a repentant creature an opportunity for redemption"). I don't see why the writer couldn't have put in a clause like that, such as "except in self-defense" or something more nuanced.
And you're right: I don't like the theme. When I build illusionists I want to use the spells in weird and creative ways… and I don't think that's an uncommon desire. You'd think the major deity of illusions would be the prime choice for such characters.
Unfortunately, Sivanah seems to have transitioned from 1E to 2E as a very unimaginative and repressive deity. Odd choice for a deity of trickery and mental dysfunction.
I didn't quote any liberal ruling. If an illusion doesn't harm something it isn't a liberal ruling it is a RAW ruling.
But aside from that yes, you are slowly moving towards being direct. I 100% have no issue with your stating you don't like her design, I don't agree with your reasons but I can understand and respect them.
I disagree that your concept of creativity is the only one, I certainly fall on the "restrictions breed true creativity" side of things, whether those restrictions are personally applied or a result of the game world. But for what you want from a god of illusions it isn't working out.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quotes liberal rulings that not all gms will abide by, in order to justify the argument.Here's a larger question for you: do you honestly think that this deity of illusions is more or less thematically interesting with a blanket embargo on all illusions that "harm" all creatures? (This is addition to her other strict anathema of never divulging secrets.)
To my mind, it's not: it's too broad-reaching because it includes all illusions that subjectively "harm" all creatures without exception. It conflicts with the deity's theme (delirium is a form of harm; it's a bad thing), and leaves the player vulnerable to GM fiat at worst — or depends on a lenient one at best. (Or just ignoring the anathema when a player breaks it often, which has been suggested in this thread — if this is the best solution to your anathema, it's also not well-designed).
To my mind, any deity that places such far-reaching bans on the way you use their own theme is badly designed. (see Sarenrae for a good example of a strict-but-nuanced anathema: "deny a repentant creature an opportunity for redemption"). I don't see why the writer couldn't have put in a clause like that, such as "except in self-defense" or something more nuanced.
And you're right: I don't like the theme. When I build illusionists I want to use the spells in weird and creative ways… and I don't think that's an uncommon desire. You'd think the major deity of illusions would be the prime choice for such characters.
Unfortunately, Sivanah seems to have transitioned from 1E to 2E as a very unimaginative and repressive deity. Odd choice for a deity of trickery and mental dysfunction.
I evaluate nuances by how they work out in practice.
Consider the gnome herbalist storm druid Stormdancer in my Ironfang Invasion campaign. The Storm order says she should not pollute the air and the druid rules says she should not use metal armor. At 2nd level she took a cleric dedication for the Green Faith. That faith's anathema forbids damage to natural settings, killing animals for reasons other than self-defense or sustenance, and abuse of natural resources.
The party is in the part of Trail of the Hunted where they are hiding villagers in the forest from a hobgoblin army. Stormdancer lit a fire for them, since she has Produce Flame, but as part of hiding she made Survival rolls to make it a smokeless fire. The party has been hunting animals for food for themselves and their charges, which fits the anathema. They are careful to make the most of any natural resources they encounter, since they need those resources. Stormdancer has been following the tenets of her order and faith well.
I talked to Stormdancer's player, and he said he did not have the anathemas in mind. He was simply playing Stormdancer in character.
However, once another party member was attacked by a centipede swarm, which has the Animal trait. Stormdancer threw fire at the swarm. The swarm is one of the few animals they fought that could not be used as food, though they did attempt to extract poision from it afterwards and failed. Does defending a friend count as self-defense? It was close enough for me.
Suppose in some other adventure, the party wanted to enter a building guarded by an alert dog. The dog would not attack unless they provoked it by trying to enter the building; thus, I would not count killing the dog at this point as self-defense. They would have to bypass the dog without killing it. On the other hand, if they tried sneaking past the dog, failed, and it attacked them, then technically killing the dog would be self-defense. I would count that as s fringe case that Stormdancer should avoid in the future, such as by learning to sneak better.
Or imagine that the party wants animal hide make new armor (I permit gathering their own raw materials for crafting). Killing the animal for its hide does not technically count as killing it for subsistence. Cooking the meat of the animal afterwards would make it subsistence, but that feels like a loophole. We have a fringe case again.
Fortunately, I don't have to treat everything as black and white. I can decide that some actions are shades of gray. A lot of dark gray might add up to violating the anathema, but light gray can be handwaved away if the character acts in the spirit of her order and religion.
Sivanah is a god of mystery and trickery, though unlike other trickster gods of mythology, she also approves of solving mysteries to gain knowledge. We assume she likes having illusionists and tricksters as followers. What is the spirit of her not wanting people harmed by illusions?
My guess is that she wants people to be challenged by mystery. No revealing secrets, because that eliminates the challenge. No harming directly with illusion and shadow, as with Shadow Blast, because she wants illusions to challenge the mind and senses, not the body. Creative uses of illusion are best, because that challenges the illusionist to embrace the mystery of illusion rather than treat it as a blunt tool.
Other people might define the spirt of Sivanah differently. That does not matter so long as the GM and player agree on the spirit.
Once we have a spirit, we can define the shades of black, white, and gray. With my notion, a cleric of Sivanah Striking while invisible would be a dark gray action. The attack is not directly by illusion, but all illusion accomplished was leaving the foe flat-footed against the attack. On the other hand, a cleric of Sivanah Disarming while invisible would be a light gray action. The foe is left with a puzzle: to grab the weapon again or to react directly to the newly visible cleric?
A realistic adventures will have fringe violations of anathema that morally are light gray. The game can work with those just fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for that writeup, Mathmuse.
With a more nuanced understanding of Sivanah's anathema, I would say that a cleric would be able to cast Ephemeral Hazards if the purpose of the illusion is to dissuade rather than damage. Dropping the hazards directly on top of a creature is still a no-no, but defending the back line with a wall of illusory blades is justifiable.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is this any different from Torag? Their Anathema would functionally prevent his clerics from ever using the Creation Spell (Or Prestitigitation to "Make") even though Creation is one of their listed Domains since their A includes: intentionally create inferior works
Any item you make with either of those spells which are undeniably acts of "creation" is going to end up being shoddy, obviously fake or otherwise easily distinguished as being something OTHER than an actual quality version of the thing you're trying to make.
The answer? It's not. There are decisions you have to make in regards to what Deity you're worshiping. They're meaningful choices that you should commit to, otherwise, you'll end up breaking the divine contract you've made with your Deity if you keep failing to meet the requirements to be a full-tilt practitioner of their faith.
Is it a bit ... strange perhaps that these options still exist for the characters yet they can potentially violate your A? I suppose it could be but the fact that you're discouraged from using your powers in a specific way doesn't make it unplayable, it just means you will need to use your best judgment when dealing with acts that relate to your A. All that aside, it's 100% up to your GM to determine if you're rocking the boat too hard and I hardly think than one or two instances where you slightly bend the guidelines should count as a significant breach.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's also relevant that an anathema you can't break isn't really an anathema. For an anathema to be relevant, there has to be a meaningful choice involved. If your anathema was "thou shalt not lie" but your deity automatically placed a geas on you that prevented you from lying, then the anathema was pointless. Hard, meaningful choices are the heart of good roleplay, and if you don't want hard, meaningful choices, then you don't really want a roleplaying game, you just want a board game with extra depth.
| 1 person 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!!
A yes Rysky the sarcastic! So yes people need to be doing that but it still helps to have more than vague guidelines especially for PFS. All it takes is one guy who interprets an Anathema overly harshly or decides it's like a 1E paladin and you fall instantly and now you have to atone. Or worse since their might not be a way to tell you could be breaking anathema every session 1-2 times and have a career of it but if there isn't a way to track that for the character (in a way that can be fairly adjudicated and understood) nothing bad happens.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your illusion cleric does happen to have means with which to harm people that aren't illusions however - just use the illusions defensively, or to give yourself an advantage in making your non-illusion based attacks.
If someone tells me "I am going to give you this shield and this horse, don't use them to hurt anyone though" I think it is perfectly reasonable to use the shield to shield yourself from your opponents attacks, and ride the horse to the place where you will be fighting, and stab someone with the sword that they didn't restrict you from using once you get there.
Furthermore - you can absolutely play as a 100% pacifist in tabletop rpgs, so anathemae that require pacifism (and I think it is an extreme stretch to think that this anathema requires pacifism) don't make it "impossible" to play.
I play in a campaign where our party healer will often do nothing but throw out heals in combat - honestly they may as well be a pacifist and it wouldn't really make a difference to our party. We would still get our heals, and they aren't the best tactical thinker (and aren't the best at paying attention), so them abstaining from attacking and just focusing on support would probably actually speed up our combats considerably.