Talk:Anarchy (3.5e Cleric Domain)

Ratings

	Tarkisflux dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	The fluff doesn't work for me, and the spell selection is a bit off key.

Comments

Hokay... the fluff here doesn't really work for me. You obviously mean destructive anarchists, but isn't that already handled better by the actual destruction domain? The spells here don't even support it. And if you break away from that minor grouping, into the larger grouping of leaderless anarchists, isn't this pretty much an overlap with chaos? This seems like a weird mix of two other things, and not a very good fit for anything as a result. Merge with Chaos maybe, and solve the domain power problem there? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 06:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm on the fence on this, and it's pretty much MS's call anyway, but just a logistical thing I want to point out. Merging this with Chaos and such (which also has boatloads of overlap with the Chance domain that makes me want to see some spells get changed) would require another domain for Pazuzu. Any ideas? - TG Cid (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Merging with chaos would probably reduce said overlap, since you'd have a choice of spells to keep at any given level. And I have no idea on a new domain, though I will ponder one. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 07:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Would changing it to Discord or Riot work?Fluffykittens (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Those still essentially seem to be extensions of Chaos to me, in which case there seems little reason to remove Anarchy from its current sport. Pazuzu's other themes are seduction/temptation (covered by Malcanthet already in the ranks of demons) and betrayal (which we don't have a domain for). Greed might work if I am feeling lazy and not looking to make another domain, but if the theme is good I can roll with a new one. - TG Cid (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This may be an odd suggestion, but what about Travel? If we could make it sound perhaps a little more insidious, it would fit Pazuzu pretty aptly with things like haste and provide access to the teleportation spells that clerics would probably love to have. - TG Cid (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because a CE demon has it doesn't mean it has to be insidious. Travel would probably be fine if this gets merged. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 19:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really big on the Travel fluff, but it can probably be similar for Freedom/Liberation, which could look like this:

1. expeditious retreat
2. freedom of movement
3. fly
4. dimension door
5. plane shift
6. teleport
7. greater teleport
8. teleportation circle
9. freedom

Shuffle the levels a bit if need be and tack on something like Abrupt Jaunt as a domain power, and you have a domain. Not one high on direct debilitating effects, granted, but very useful VH-level spells. - TG Cid (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Chaos, discord, and anarchy do not all mean the same thing. Discord describes a state of confusion specifically, whereas chaos only implies it. Isn't one of Pazuzu's tactics spreading confusion among his enemies? Travel would seem to fall under Pazuzu's domain, but nothing here implies travel.Fluffykittens (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Those three are close enough that if Anarchy is being questioned as too close to Chaos, the same point has to be brought up for the rest of them. And if plane shift, teleport, and fly don't suggest travel, I don't know what does. That said, the suggested domain was Freedom/Liberation, which is in part what I think this Anarchy domain meant to me. - TG Cid (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

With a couple of exceptions, that doesn't really say "freedom" or "liberation" to me Cid. That looks like a mostly solid "travel" with gate replaced with freedom. If the default travel fluff doesn't work for you, then redo it - "The domain for people who don't like being stuck in the same place for long" or whatever. It's not as if there isn't room for improvement in the default domain, despite it being one of the better ones.

I think riot would fail as a domain. It's already covered in other places or other joined sets of domains. Discord might work as a domain because it's a sufficiently distinct thing and not easily broken up into other pieces. It doesn't even imply chaos to me. If confusion / sudden hatred / whatever was well enough represented in the spell selection it would be fine as a domain, though maybe not a good one for Pazuzu.

Maybe I should try to restate my concern here. The fluff is not anarchy fluff, but destruction fluff and that already has a domain. Anarchy is just the absence of strong coercive government and laws. It could just as easily be peaceful co-op coexistence anarchy as it could be the discord and violence filled anarchy of a state collapse. And since that is just a "no hard laws" thing, it seems better represented by the chaos domain in conjunction with something else. The concept of anarchy is just "lawlessness" for good or ill, and that's really close to "chaos" as the absence or opposite of "law". That's pretty different from discord, which is "actively not getting along". - Tarkisflux ^Talk 21:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I may have gotten a little confused there, cid. What I meant to say was that the MS anarchy domain, as it is, does a good job of expressing discord, but not anarchy. I also meant to say that liberation would seem to fall under Pazuzu's domain, but nothing in your liberation domain implies that.Fluffykittens (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, hey, we had a discussion about this that was never resolved. We should do that sometime maybe. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 07:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I also agree, the spells are all over the place here. Fluff fail? And why is Spell Turning, a fairly useful spell, dropped to 5th? Who made this?

Ominous Stare Sinister. Damn yooooouuuuuuu! -- Eiji-kun (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey There 130.245.201.185

While I completely agree with you (the domain's title to fluff is terribad) you should probably attempt to contact the author before making any major changes like a title change. Which you didn't actually achieve since it would involve moving the article. Your changes are likely to be reverted, but I wanted to give youa heads up as to why. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Rolled it back before it gets lost in the recent changes. Going to post a note for MS. --Ganteka Future (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not overly attached to this one. If someone wants to do something with it, they're welcome to it, as long as I'm credited as the original author. - MisterSinister (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)