JudiciousGM's page

JudiciousGM wrote:

I think it would help (and Paizo has an opportunity here) to separate species and culture (which are currently conflated as "Ancestry"). There is no reason that the dwarves of the Five King's Mountains would have the same cultural values as dwarves in Osirion or a country in Tian Xia simply by virtue of both being dwarves—unless they shared some fairly recent common history, and I don't think they do in current lore.

That is what Heritage already is, and they certainly could have anathema/edict as well there if they want. Just like champion and champion type adds tenets to an priority list. They could even go so far as add them to backgrounds too, a soldier never leaves anyone behind, a farmer never wastes daylite, etc.

This is a great point, two great points actually! I, personally, would prefer to see edicts and anathemas attached to specific cultural backgrounds like Heritages or Backgrounds rather than biological ancestry, which suggests either a globally shared species-culture (which could conceivably come from a species-specific deity/pantheon) or a biological basis for culture, which is thin, thin ice.

Twiggies wrote:

Do people also read the alignment page raw as how their character must act?

People absolutely do, yes. That is one of the reasons alignment is disdained for a lot of people, they see it as a restrictive straight jacket.

Speaking for myself here, I wasn't a fan of the way it erased moral nuance, so I'm happy to see it go. Conceptualizing people as inherently good or evil, lawful or chaotic just didn't work for me. Planar beings, sure. But free-willed mortals?

I have no problem tying labels of personal values in characters to the Edicts and Anathemas system. Unity in Rules (to paraphrase Aristotle’s Poetics) makes them faster to understand.

I would absolutely agree if we were talking about rules, but it sounds like we are talking about descriptive text, so I still favor something with a little more nuance. It's not a hill I'll die on though.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it and the term "Ancestry" is supposed to do exactly that. I dunno. But when helping players make characters, I always introduce those elements as cultural rather than ancestral.

I think it would help (and Paizo has an opportunity here) to separate species and culture (which are currently conflated as "Ancestry"). There is no reason that the dwarves of the Five King's Mountains would have the same cultural values as dwarves in Osirion or a country in Tian Xia simply by virtue of both being dwarves—unless they shared some fairly recent common history, and I don't think they do in current lore.

Jacob Jett wrote:

Hmmm, I suppose I'll be "that person" and ask if Dwarves really need an edict like, "hunt the enemies of your people", which seems very much like encoded racism to me...

YMMV

The words "enemies" and "your people" are very broad on purpose here. These enemies could range from a dangerous, rival adventuring party to monsters from the Darklands to the agents of a sovereign state.

You may be on safer ground by reframing it in more morally positive terms. For example, "pursue justice for your people" or "pursue justice for the wrongs done to your people" instead of "hunt the enemies of your people", which I will agree, sounds a bit genocidal.

> Edicts and Anathemas are stepping up in PF2R to take some of the place of Alignment. It’s my understanding that most characters will have Edicts and Anathema from several places; Ancestry, Class, Deity, hand-written…

True, and I agree it makes sense for alignment. And using the same verbiage makes sense, but unless there are mechanical effects (and they are the same whether you are breaking from ancestral tradition or violating the commands of your deity), you don't need a mechanically defined term, so I think it makes sense to differentiate. Obviously just my opinion here.

Can I suggest that ancestral beliefs be called something different than "edicts" and "anathemas" to differentiate it from religion? Perhaps "traditions" (or even "folkways") and "taboos" instead?

Edict and anathema suggest explicit commands, "Thou shalt..." or "Thou shalt not..." Cultural values are almost always implicit, an internalized sense of should and shouldn't that generates feelings about actions.