|
Here's an interesting question for which we didn't have a good answer at our last table of PFS--suppose you are performing an act that is not an alignment violation for your character but is clearly in violation of a deity's principles. For instance, a Pharasmin priestess who creates undead, a Shelynite who destroys all artwork she comes across and breaks up happy relationships, a celibate Calistrian who always turns the other cheek, a craven teetotaler Caydenite, a slobbish LN priestess of Iomedae dual-wielding a wand of infernal healing and an unholy battleaxe while summoning devils, etc. Discounting the Separatist archetype, of course.
What if the character is from a PrC or archetype that requires them to be a worshiper of said deity or that directly grants power from that deity (there are a few of these out there). There seems to be precedent for some pretty out-there clerics still receiving spells in Golarion, but on the other hand, perhaps those are meant to be Separatists?
I guess there's possible RP reasons for any of these as concepts, but suppose there was none given--such as a Pharasmin casting animate dead despite the goddess's hard stance on undead with no explanation other than "it's optimal for us to have some additional meatshields" or an Iomedaen with wands of infernal healing despite Iomedae's feelings on evil outsiders recommending them for all out of combat healing because "it's almost twice as cost efficient per hit point--who cares about the devil part?".
There's a solid process out there as far as evil acts go, but what about acts that aren't alignment-breaking but go against the nature of a deity when the deity is hardcoded into the character's mechanics? I'm guessing the response is to just mention the inconsistency "Pharasma despises the creation of undead" and then not do anything at all if the warning is ignored.
|
|
As Andrew mentioned, if you spit in the face of the tenets of your deity and the faith, An Atonement is required.
Thanks for the quick response! I'm pleased to hear that is an available option. Side clarification--I'm guessing this also applies to characters who have a religion trait, deity-specific item, or other minor feature dependent on the deity (unless they are willing to lose that feature in lieu of paying the atonement cost, of course).
|
The harder question, and one not helped much by divine punishment (i.e. atonement) is how do you get a player like that to take the RP aspects of his class more seriously? Will a player like you mentioned, Rogue Eidolon, ever learn to see his deity's tenets and philosophy as any anything more than a restriction?
|
|
The harder question, and one not helped much by divine punishment (i.e. atonement) is how do you get a player like that to take the RP aspects of his class more seriously? Will a player like you mentioned, Rogue Eidolon, ever learn to see his deity's tenets and philosophy as any anything more than a restriction?
It's a fair point, to be sure. On the other hand, restrictions breed creativity. Even if it's forced by threat of divine punishment, if you have a player who always plays all their characters the same way, say they always get Infernal Healing as their first wand normally and then have to eschew it to avoid angering Iomedae or Sarenrae, then they'll at least start to get the feeling that this character is different because this is the one who can't do that. And some day that may be possible to parlay into deeper immersion. Or at least that's the hope, I suppose. Ideally we could just make the deities sound so cool that everyone would want to make characters that don't want to let theirs down.
|
The most important part here is
Try education first.
I had a Rovagug cleric who wasn't aware he couldn't channel positive and had no clue at all what Rovagug stands for. His choice was solely based on the favoured weapon - Greataxe.
Luckily - having lots of books - I was able to find him a less well known Dwarven God with the right favoured weapon - but also which fitted his play style.
A lot of new players only look at
Favoured weapon
Portfolio
Alignment
To them Pharasma might look like the ideal necromancy deity.
Not everyone had easy access to Golarion books. So lets educate them.
As GM - given time - I often ask for knowledge checks not in the scenario. I then sprinkle in Golarion lore that I have read in the companion or campaign books.
It is less ideal compared to reading the books. But I hope they remember some information I give them and slowly gather some Golarion lore at the table.
|
|
Jiggy
"GM preference" sounds quite negative. It sounds like GMs try to force their own interpretation on players. I think reality is far removed from that.
But there is a certain bit of lore that we should make players aware off if their actions sway far from what Paizo describes in the campaign setting, the extra books as well as the tales. Otherwise it wouldn't matter that Golarion even exists.
My wife did have such an issue in her very first PFS game. Playing a dwarven fighter she interpreted her mission in a way that she had to collect something personal from another dwarf.
Her problem - she was at the table with 6 other GMs (1 GMing, 5 playing) well versed in Golarion lore - and she decided to cut off part of his beard as this wouldn't hurt the dwarf - who had just been rescued.
To make it worse - this was approx. 2 weeks after the Dwarved of Golarion had come out - with 2 pages about the significance of the dwarven beard - and that cutting it against the will of a dwarf could be regarding as a very significant crime in dwarven society.
All my wife did wrong was applying human logic. Cutting off some hair doesn't cause pain.
But a) as a dwarf her character should know (even if the player didn't) and b) her stealth doing it failed miserably which exposed her to the GM (his dwarf reacted outraged) and the characters (who didn't back up her action).
To the contary - the Paladin in the group raised the issue and demanded each single hair be given back to the dwarf who had been tortured enough. He was backed up by 4 the characters of the other 4 players as well as by the GM.
Later on the group, mainly helped by the Paladin - helped to find an alternative way to fulfil the mission.
I think my wife now respects dwarven beards a lot more.
|
I think this is a great discussion. For example, I was playing with a cleric of Pharasm and he decided to control undead and use the undead to fight the other undead, but then after the fight he wanted to continue using it through out the session. Our GM was unsettled about that. He said he could do that but it made no sense, and that others GMs would require an atonement.
Also, we had a Cleric of Abadar attack a trade caravan that had done nothing wrong to steal gold. He didn't blink an eye...Yeah he needed an atonement.
A lot of new players only look atFavored weapon
Portfolio
Alignment
I think you're right on the money Thodd. I don't see the gods' portfolio as a restriction but a way to live out your character.
|
|
That was probably a made-up example, meant to use hyperbole to emphasize that we're talking about egregious violations rather than "mild deviations from the GM's preferences" that some GMs would love to play "Gotcha!" with.
Jiggy's on the money. I wanted to make it clear that we were talking about gross violations here to sort of cut the latter right out of the picture from the start--Thod, I think Jiggy was bringing up the "mild deviations from GM preferences" bit to indicate that I wasn't talking about it.
|
|
I would classify several of those examples as actually alignment violations (raiding a caravan, creating undead), not philosophical disagreements with your deity.
The infernal healing issue is tricky. I really wish it wasn't so much more cost effective than every other method of healing, or that it had an actual alignment effect rather than just "a feeling". I think it's just going to encourage players (and eventually GMs) to loosen up or just ignore the alignment rules.
|
|
The infernal healing issue is tricky. I really wish it wasn't so much more cost effective than every other method of healing, or that it had an actual alignment effect rather than just "a feeling". I think it's just going to encourage players (and eventually GMs) to loosen up or just ignore the alignment rules.
Well, it is an [evil] spell, but ignoring the alignment ramifications for the purposes of this thread, clearly at the very least a cleric of Iomedae (she has zero tolerance for evil outsiders, period) and Sarenrae (you're eschewing the Dawnflower's own healing, one of her main aspects, for the touch of the devil, despite "From the remorseless evil of the undead and fiends to the cruelties born in the hearts of mortals, Sarenrae's doctrines preach swift justice delivered by the scimitar's edge.") would be going against their deity for buying and using infernal healing instead of other healing methods when they have the choice (I'm talking buying a wand of infernal healing here, not allowing the party diabolist to use his on you once in a life-or-death circumstance). Many other good deities would not be happy, but those two stood out as being the most sure things.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, it is an [evil] spell, but ignoring the alignment ramifications for the purposes of this thread...
Side note: In PFS, it has no alignment ramifications at all (as long as you're not using it for evil purposes, like keeping a torture victim conscious or something). There's a statement from Mike Brock linked in the Messageboard Clarification Compilation sticky in this forum. Using spells with the [evil] descriptor for non-evil purposes does not count as an evil action.
But of course, certain PCs have to follow standards other than just "not evil". Just as poisons aren't evil but paladins still can't use them, so too infernal healing isn't an alignment infraction but its regular use could still be an issue for certain PCs (such as a cleric of Iomedae). Like you said. :)
A while back I was playing my own cleric of Iomedae (a tiefling, interestingly enough - so he REALLY hates demons/devils) and the party witch saw I was injured during combat so he came up behind me and (without warning) gave me a tap from his IH wand. After the fight, I instructed him never to touch me with that filth again.
Meanwhile, my human Eldritch Knight never leaves home without his IH wand. ;)
|
|
Side note: In PFS, it has no alignment ramifications at all (as long as you're not using it for evil purposes, like keeping a torture victim conscious or something). There's a statement from Mike Brock linked in the Messageboard Clarification Compilation sticky in this forum. Using spells with the [evil] descriptor for non-evil purposes does not count as an evil action.
Yes, of course--this is particularly why I wanted to table a discussion of the ramifications in this thread, in case that discussion broke out again, since Mike has made it clear.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
From the Core rules on clerics:
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.
Of course, this is to say nothing of spell-trigger items...
|
From the Core rules on clerics:
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.Of course, this is to say nothing of spell-trigger items...
I think that if you can't cast it, for the stated reasons, that it is considered "NOT" on your spell list. Therefore you can't use the spell-trigger items.
|
|
I think that if you can't cast it, for the stated reasons, that it is considered "NOT" on your spell list. Therefore you can't use the spell-trigger items.From the Core rules on clerics:
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.Of course, this is to say nothing of spell-trigger items...
This is correct as far as I know. However, a multiclassed character might gain the spell on the spell list from a separate spellcasting class. Also, some classes that require a patron deity, like the Dawnflower Dervish bard archetype, don't have the clause on [evil] spells built in (the character prompting my query was one of those two, so it is more than hypothetical). In any case, my main thrust with the thread is in dealing with characters that are mechanically legal but betraying their religion. It's certainly true that some characters will be banned from casting certain spells by alignment (though it wouldn't stop a Shelyn cleric from casting Shatter on priceless artwork or a Caydenite from casting Neutralize Poison on alcohol, etc.)
|
|
This is correct as far as I know. However, a multiclassed character might gain the spell on the spell list from a separate spellcasting class.Casting such a spell even this way, is still going to get you in dutch with your patron.
Oh, I concur. That's why I made this thread after seeing a character with a wand of Infernal Healing from one of the aforementioned deities (we actually had three priests of that deity in the party, and the other two indicated their shock and horror at this turn of events, and then we all wondered, including the GM, what if anything would be the consequences)
|
|
Whatever the results, that sounds like a fun RP opportunity. :)
Oh it was certainly interesting. Unfortunately, we were at a highly pressed-for-time venue, so we couldn't go into more detail. We had the super-obsessive priest who knows the exact wording of the goddess's teachings but was refused to become a cleric because intellectual knowledge was not enough to "understand" (lower than 10 Wis), the bog-standard cleric priestess, and then the very unusual priest. And now it's good to know that when the other priests said "The goddess will strike you down if you keep using that infernal thing" that there's something to back that up.
|
|
Well, it is an [evil] spell, but ignoring the alignment ramifications for the purposes of this thread...Side note: In PFS, it has no alignment ramifications at all (as long as you're not using it for evil purposes, like keeping a torture victim conscious or something). There's a statement from Mike Brock linked in the Messageboard Clarification Compilation sticky in this forum. Using spells with the [evil] descriptor for non-evil purposes does not count as an evil action. ...
Actually, this was added to version 4.2 of the PFS Guide.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Actually, the 4.2 Guide lists casting spells with the Evil descriptor as a "potentially" evil action. The clarification made by Mike on the messageboards came after the 4.2 Guide was released and appears nowhere in said Guide (I just checked).
Or do I need to re-download it or something? I'd think it'd have a new version number if that were the case, though.