MolochSlayer9000's page

Full disclosure, I didn't read the entire thread, so apologies if anyone else brought this up but...

Champion Tenets wrote:

You follow a code of conduct, beginning with tenets shared by all champions of an alignment (such as good), and continuing with tenets of your cause. Deities often add additional strictures (for instance, Torag’s champions can’t show mercy to enemies of their people, making it almost impossible for them to follow the redeemer cause). Only rules for good champions appear in this book. Tenets are listed in order of importance, starting with the most important. If a situation places two tenets in conflict, you aren’t in a no-win situation; instead, follow the more important tenet. For instance, as a paladin, if an evil king asked you if you’re hiding refugees so he could execute them, you could lie to him, since the tenet against lying is less important than preventing harm to innocents. Trying to subvert your code by creating a situation that forces a higher tenet to override a lower tenet (for example, promising not to respect authorities and then, to keep your word, disrespecting authorities) is a violation of the champion code.

I understand that the OP is referencing Edicts and Anathema specifically and not the baseline Tenets of the class, but I think the logic still holds, even for Saranrae.

She may not like it a whole lot, but reality is reality. Not every decision made by a character is going to be black or white. There is a whole lot of gray out there. If Saranrae de-Championed every character who uttered an untruth immediately after they spoke it, then there would be a pretty large cottage industry of Spellcasters who specialize in Atonement. Because if there weren't, there would be no Champions of Saranrae left.

I didn't notice until reading closer, but it mentions "Paladin" in reference to the Champion Cause, but not necessarily all Champions.

These would come after the Tenets of Good, including possible Saranrae anathemas.

King: "Did you free the prisoners?"
Champion: "I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the information requested but, hypothetically, if such data were to exist, the subject matter would be secret, and could not be disclosed."
King: "What?"
Champion: "It's called the Glomar response and it's a new favorite among the champions of Sarenrae. It allows us to avoid leaking bits of information correlated with secrets which may or may not actually exist. By using it both when we don't have something to hide and when we do have something to hide, you can't tell the difference, and we're not lying."

King: "Did you free the prisoners?"
Champion: "I did, and if you go after them, that'd make you evil and I will put you down. This is no mere threat. It is the truth."

The Paladin of a deity that does not have an anathema against lying could lie to prevent harm to innocents.

The Paladin of a deity that as such anathema (like Sarenrae does) cannot lie, even to prevent harm to innocents.

More precisely, they can lie, but then they fall.

Thanks!

Does the left-to-right order of Tenets matter, or are they considered equally important if they're on the same bullet point?
e.g. would the order of "perform acts anathema to your deity or willingly commit an evil act" mean murder is preferable lying and that lying is preferable to creating undead?

Am I correct in interpreting "willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or the casting of an evil spell." as not an exhaustive list of evil acts?

Champion’s Code
"You follow a code of conduct, beginning with tenets shared by all champions of an alignment (such as good), and continuing with tenets of your cause...Tenets are listed in order of importance, starting with the most important. If a situation places two tenets in conflict, you aren’t in a no-win situation; instead, follow the more important tenet."

"The Tenets of Good:
All champions of good alignment follow these tenets.
• You must never perform acts anathema to your deity (Sarenrae Anathema: create undead, lie, deny a repentant creature an opportunity for redemption, fail to strike down evil) or willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or the casting of an evil spell.
• You must never knowingly harm an innocent, or allow immediate harm to one through inaction when you know you could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn’t force you to take action against possible harm to innocents at an indefinite time in the future, or to sacrifice your life to protect them."

It seems like allowing immediate harm through inaction is preferable to lying...

But this part seems to imply not?:

"For instance, as a paladin, if an evil king asked you if you’re hiding refugees so he could execute them, you could lie to him, since the tenet against lying is less important than preventing harm to innocents."