Can Good Champions wear Demon Masks and other similar items without it being Anathema?

As the title. (Yes, it's long, and might be in the wrong forum, oops.)

While it is true that Demon Masks do not possess an Evil trait or anything of that nature, I, as a Champion player, am having a hard time justifying wearing this for the Intimidation bonuses without getting the unaccepting eye from my Patron deity or other NPCs, and I'd much rather not have to buy something that's ~400 gold more with a dead effect to justify the item bonus (Gorget of Primal Roar).

I mean, Heaven forbid we don't have any Good-themed Intimidation items in the game, can't ever make the good guys look scary! What's a Paladin to do about this conundrum?

What diety are you worshiping and what kind of champion?

"I am the night"

Seriously though. While some of the prim and proper types might complain about it being in poor taste, there are few deities that would have problems with you using a useful tool.

Usually, it takes very specific anathema hang ups to make it a problem. Such as Saloc and his hate of emotion manipulation magic like the mask's fear spell.

Well, a Demon Mask is... just a mask. It does not make you a follower of a demon nor does it make you do bad things. It helps you intimidate better people. I would say that as per RAW, nothing prevents you from using it and it would not be Anathema to have and use one. What you use it for is what would make this Anathema. Using a Demon Mask to intimidate Evil doers is perfectly fine like if you are infiltrating a satanic cult and try to scare away the worshipers, than it would be perfectly fine. Using it to intimidate villagers into giving your their livestock, then it's a definite nono.

Once again, this would also depend on your Deity. If your Deity prevents you from doing intimidating things of some sort, this might be an issue.

'Demon Mask' is just a name. You could easily have on styled differently, perhaps as a roaring dragon or howling wolf, if you so desired. The only Champions who shouldn't use one are those of Desna, whose anathema prohibit intentionally scaring people.

A Desna Champion might wear something like it just for the cool factor or to disguise themselves, even if it gave no bonuses to intimidate.

Liberator anathema also includes "you can’t force someone to act in a particular way or threaten them if they don’t." This doesn't prevent them from demoralizing, but it does prevent them from using things like coercion so intimidation isn't as useful to them.

Question does that mean they can threaten people, and then ask the person to do something?

Ex of bad: Person doesn't do what you want. Threaten if they dont do it.

Ex of my question: Threaten the person. Ask them to help you out.

For example: You are fighting two people, you kill one. Then use that to intimidate the other. Then after the person is scared, ask them to cooperate.

For a home game, I would work with your GM. As stated above, its just a name. If the story determines that it must depict a demon, I would agree a champion would probably choose not to wear it despite it technically not being an evil item. If its not story related, maybe the GM would allow it to be more like a totem mask, it has a scary visage to represent the item bonus, but not specifically tied to demons.

For org play, you'll have to ask the table GM as adjudicating anathema is left up to them. Sometimes you can describe it as something less demonic so you can wear it without any narrative issues, but if the GM says the item would be considered anathema, you'll just have to suck it up and play without it (or bail on the game).

Question does that mean they can threaten people, and then ask the person to do something?

Ex of bad: Person doesn't do what you want. Threaten if they dont do it.

Ex of my question: Threaten the person. Ask them to help you out.

For example: You are fighting two people, you kill one. Then use that to intimidate the other. Then after the person is scared, ask them to cooperate.

No, that still violates Anathema. No weaseling. You can absolutely offer people the ability to surrender, but no trying to force it with extra intimidating stuff. That's still trying to force them to act a particular way.

All Good Champions have some very specific behavioral strictures when examined. Just as Paladins can rarely lie (but can feint in combat), Liberators can rarely Intimidate outside a fight (but can Demoralize in combat).

Deadmanwatching, feinting and intimidating could easily be done in or out of combat. And that is what I was getting at.

At what point does it break the anathema?

Is when you intimidate? Or is it when you tell them what to do? Does it break if it was an allied who intimidated after you asked for something? Or is it when you intimidate and then an ally asks for something?

The same logic applies to other things like wearing a scary mask. Is it anathema to just wear the mask? Or does it depend on what you use the mask for? Does trying to hide your face using the mask break anathema even if you are not trying to intimidate? Does it break anathema if a rumor/legend causes the mask to become a source of fear?

Deadmanwatching, feinting and intimidating could easily be done in or out of combat. And that is what I was getting at.

At what point does it break the anathema?

Is when you intimidate? Or is it when you tell them what to do? Does it break if it was an allied who intimidated after you asked for something? Or is it when you intimidate and then an ally asks for something?

The same logic applies to other things like wearing a scary mask. Is it anathema to just wear the mask? Or does it depend on what you use the mask for? Does trying to hide your face using the mask break anathema even if you are not trying to intimidate? Does it break anathema if a rumor/legend causes the mask to become a source of fear?

Coerce and Demoralize are two separate applications of the skill Intimidation.

Yes I know. Mechanically they are different.

But roleplay wise they are hard to distinguish in the situation like the one I mentioned.

Yes I know. Mechanically they are different.

But roleplay wise they are hard to distinguish in the situation like the one I mentioned.

Demoralize can be done for no purpose but imposing penalties, with no intention of changing the enemy's behavior. Coerce cannot. It is only when used in such a way that Demoralize is Liberator safe.

That's...really straightforward, actually.

Liberator of Cayden Cailean could go "boo! haha!" in a duel to throw his opponent off his groove.

Liberator of Cayden Cailean could not afterwards put his boot on the fallen opponent and threaten to finish the job if he doesn't do what he wants.

Desna specifically says that causing fear is anathema, so Demoralize would be a no-go for Clerics, Redeemer Champions, or Liberator Champions.

If you were using Intimidate to Coerce, it would likely be a GM discretionary issue. I can see it argued either way, depending on how closly you feel bullying equates to causing despair.

However, those are specific to Desna. There could be an argument for or against a Liberator Champion using Intimidate. The part where it says "you can't force someone to act in a particular way" is a bit ambiguous. You could argue that any kind of social attempt, whether it be Coerce (Intimidate) or using Diplomacy (Make an Impression followed by Request) to "force" someone to act as you want them to could be anathema unless it was an action they were inclined to do anyway, but then what was the point of the social attempt?

So, I would say discuss the issue with your GM, make your argument, and see how they feel about it.

You could argue that any kind of social attempt, whether it be Coerce (Intimidate) or using Diplomacy (Make an Impression followed by Request) to "force" someone to act as you want them to could be anathema unless it was an action they were inclined to do anyway, but then what was the point of the social attempt?

This is not correct. Requests explicitly always leave the target the ability to refuse, as the Request entry states when it says some requests are impossible. And it's not the 'force' entry that really prohibits Coerce, either, but the 'threaten them if they don't' bit. Coerce is definitionally threatening someone if they don't do as you say. That's the whole point of the action. It even uses the word 'threat'.

So, I would say discuss the issue with your GM, make your argument, and see how they feel about it.

You should always talk with your GM about morality and what violates your Code if playing a Champion, but there's really not a version of Coerce that doesn't violate the Liberator Tenets.

I never mentioned doing anything to the other person besides using intimdate for Demoralize.

That is the important part. You can Intimidate trying to Demoralize. And then follow it up with just asking someone for something, without using Coersion.

Ex: "Boo! Btw who sent you anyway?" You are not coersing them to answer.

Btw, "Make an impression and follow with a request" is not coersing or forcing anyone. The skill is not a charm effect that forces them to accept anything. My suggested use of Demoralize is very much on the same vein, except making your self look scarier instead of friendlier.

Yeah, but in your example demoralizing doesn't confer any benefits. You're just shouting "Boo!" at someone if you follow up with. "So, what's up?" The mechanical benefits to demoralize are there, but they aren't being used. Unless you are using them for... Coercion? I'm not sure what you're saying any more.

I have been saying the same thing from the start people have just misunderstood it.

Also yes the mechanical benefit of Demoralize (aka fear) is there. But not the coersion.

I was using it in support of using a Devil Mask does not mean you break the Champion restrictions. Even for Liberator. Def does not work in the case of Desna.

I never mentioned doing anything to the other person besides using intimdate for Demoralize.

That is the important part. You can Intimidate trying to Demoralize. And then follow it up with just asking someone for something, without using Coersion.

Ex: "Boo! Btw who sent you anyway?" You are not coersing them to answer.

Btw, "Make an impression and follow with a request" is not coersing or forcing anyone. The skill is not a charm effect that forces them to accept anything. My suggested use of Demoralize is very much on the same vein, except making your self look scarier instead of friendlier.

does that "boo" implies something nasty if they refuse the next part?

if so, that's coercion.

if not, then that "boo" is 100% irrelevant and shouldnt positively affect how they answer.

So, outside of roleplaing the actual threat/intimidation, as a GM, you should totally ignore the fact that someone has rolled Demoralise when you consider how the NPC will answer the question. Even more, it should probably be a negative modifier for the PC to do a request after a hostile action like demoralise.

The idea that a Liberator can't ever Coerce someone is a bit reductive. There's a reason that the Tenants of Good come before the specific code of the Liberator.

Captain America from the MCU is probably the best example of a Liberator Champion I can imagine and even he threw a guy off of a roof to get him to reveal intel Cap needed.

Now maybe that's a bit too extreme of a situation, but how about "Hey, this business Mogul who has a monopoly on the housing in the city is extorting his tenants for money because they have nowhere else to go, forcing children to go hungry and fathers to turn to petty crime to feed them."

Would it be Anathema to go to this landlord and tell him to lower his exorbitant rates or else? Especially if you've already exhausted other options and found out that the Landlord is protected because he slips the mayor a cut of his profits and there's really no way to stop him other than just threatening to rain down the Holy Vengeance of Cayden Cailean upon him?

Now, if a jackass spends 10 gold at the magical Jukebox in the pub and has control of the next 100 songs and insists on an endless loop of "Call me Maybe"...then yeah it would absolutely be Anathema to threaten to punch the guy's lights out if he doesn't switch it over to Van Halen.

Somewhere in-between those two points is where a Liberator is going to start falling. Where exactly that is will always be a discussion to have with your DMs. I tend to err on the side of "If an act is done to uphold a more prime tenant and there was no other reasonable way you could have accomplished the task that didn't break your rules, then you might get a sense of wrongness pushing against your divine power, to remind you not to let yourself become complacent, but you aren't going to fall for that."

The idea that a Liberator can't ever Coerce someone is a bit reductive. There's a reason that the Tenants of Good come before the specific code of the Liberator.

Well yes, you can do them specifically when the higher tenets allow it. You can coerce exactly as often as a Paladin can lie, and no more often than that.

Which was what I said to start with.

The idea that a Liberator can't ever Coerce someone is a bit reductive. There's a reason that the Tenants of Good come before the specific code of the Liberator.

Captain America from the MCU is probably the best example of a Liberator Champion I can imagine and even he threw a guy off of a roof to get him to reveal intel Cap needed.

Now maybe that's a bit too extreme of a situation, but how about "Hey, this business Mogul who has a monopoly on the housing in the city is extorting his tenants for money because they have nowhere else to go, forcing children to go hungry and fathers to turn to petty crime to feed them."

Would it be Anathema to go to this landlord and tell him to lower his exorbitant rates or else? Especially if you've already exhausted other options and found out that the Landlord is protected because he slips the mayor a cut of his profits and there's really no way to stop him other than just threatening to rain down the Holy Vengeance of Cayden Cailean upon him?

Now, if a jackass spends 10 gold at the magical Jukebox in the pub and has control of the next 100 songs and insists on an endless loop of "Call me Maybe"...then yeah it would absolutely be Anathema to threaten to punch the guy's lights out if he doesn't switch it over to Van Halen.

Somewhere in-between those two points is where a Liberator is going to start falling. Where exactly that is will always be a discussion to have with your DMs. I tend to err on the side of "If an act is done to uphold a more prime tenant and there was no other reasonable way you could have accomplished the task that didn't break your rules, then you might get a sense of wrongness pushing against your divine power, to remind you not to let yourself become complacent, but you aren't going to fall for that."

There's a difference if the coercion is the only way to avoid breaking a higher tenet.

As you said, Tenets go by priority, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore lower tier tenets just because a higher tier tenet doesn't impose that restriction.

So, if the only way to stop the BBEG is to coerce him not to, then sure. But if there's an alternative way that doesnt violate your tenets you MUST go for that.

The same way a Paladin will lie and cheat like a pro if that's the only way to stop someone murdering an innocent.

Vali Nepjarson wrote:

The idea that a Liberator can't ever Coerce someone is a bit reductive. There's a reason that the Tenants of Good come before the specific code of the Liberator.

Well yes, you can do them specifically when the higher tenets allow it. You can coerce exactly as often as a Paladin can lie, and no more often than that.

Which was what I said to start with.

Actually I believe the first thing you said on the subject was

No weaseling. You can absolutely offer people the ability to surrender, but no trying to force it with extra intimidating stuff.

And I disagree with this.

You're cornered by two assassin's in the night. You overpower one and pierce his heart, righteous light erupting from his wound as he crumples to the floor.

You point your rapier at the second assassin's chest and calmly speak "I don't think you want to die tonight, friend. So run away to your employer and tell him to send someone competent next time...or stay and end up like your companion, I care not which."

...I would absolutely as a DM have my player role an Intimidation check and I would absolutely not have that stand against him as a Liberator.

That's not trying to force anyone to do anything. That's just reminding them what the consequences if their actions might be and also showing that you're not to be trifled with.

Now, taking the last surviving member of a Goblin raiding party, holding a knife to his throat and forcing him to show you to where his tribe's camp is, THAT would be Anathema.

Actually I believe the first thing you said on the subject was

Deadmanwalking wrote:

No weaseling. You can absolutely offer people the ability to surrender, but no trying to force it with extra intimidating stuff.

And I disagree with this.

The thing about Paladins and lying (and a statement that doing such things was something they could do 'rarely' rather than 'never') was literally a couple sentences after that, but okay let's discuss the issue at hand.

You're cornered by two assassin's in the night. You overpower one and pierce his heart, righteous light erupting from his wound as he crumples to the floor.

You point your rapier at the second assassin's chest and calmly speak "I don't think you want to die tonight, friend. So run away to your employer and tell him to send someone competent next time...or stay and end up like your companion, I care not which."

...I would absolutely as a DM have my player role an Intimidation check and I would absolutely not have that stand against him as a Liberator.

That's actually not Liberator safe, Paladin safe, or indeed even Redeemer safe. That's directly risking the lives of innocent people by letting an assassin go. A Champion should be protecting people from assassins one way or another, not letting them free to wander about.

Now, assuming some enemy other than a professional assassin who will be an ongoing risk to innocent lives, that's still not Liberator safe as you are threatening someone to get them to do something. Which is directly against their tenets barring very specific circumstances. 'It might be dangerous for me, personally.' is not one of those circumstances, and the only mitigating factor that seems to apply.

To a Liberator's way of thinking, personal autonomy is all important. Attempting to violate that in the least way is just about the worst thing you could do, and this absolutely does that. People cannot freely choose anything when under threat like that.

That's not trying to force anyone to do anything. That's just reminding them what the consequences if their actions might be and also showing that you're not to be trifled with.

Both of those things are threats, though. They are attempting to intimidate someone into a course of action with the threat of violence. Which is totally a reasonable thing to do under some circumstances, and not an Evil action at all in and of itself...but Liberators aren't just restricted from Evil actions, but also from attempting to control people's behavior in this way.

They, like all Champions of Good are held to a much higher standard than just 'being a good person', and for them that means respecting people's choices and autonomy to a degree that is irrational and potentially very inconvenient...but then, a Paladin can fall for jaywalking, so they're hardly alone in their Code being potentially troublesome.

Now, taking the last surviving member of a Goblin raiding party, holding a knife to his throat and forcing him to show you to where his tribe's camp is, THAT would be Anathema.

That would probably be anathema for a Paladin, too. And indeed, possibly an Evil act, depending on context, and thus possibly unacceptable for any Good Champion even to save innocent lives. Liberators are held to a much higher standard in regard to coercing behavior, though, just as Paladins are held to a much higher one regarding things like lying.

I think part of this is balancing "can" with "would", as in sure a Good Champion can wear a Demon Mask without breaking anathema, but would they?
It's like a priest wearing a Black Sabbath shirt. Technically okay, it's no sin to enjoy most of their music, right? But is that the image he wants to put out in the world (noting that he believes in demons and evil as a palpable essence which influences the world)?

Note that for such fervent folk that idealistic reasoning outweighs practical reasoning and Champions shouldn't be in the "I'm within the lines, whew!" mindset, but rather the "how much better can I be?" mindset.

It is unfortunate that the item has a demonic theme, but that is its theme and Champions should avoid playing to that (unless some conflicting tenets are at play). Hopefully one's GM would allow for variant items, like how similar imagery takes on more of a guardian role in some real-world cultures.
"How dare you wear a demon mask?!"
"Excuse me, it's a Tian guardian spirit, thank you very much. See how it's blue, not red." (Not that a charismatic Champion should talk so.)
*Champion proceeds to attack note on mask clarifying what it is*

It's like a priest wearing a Black Sabbath shirt. Technically okay, it's no sin to enjoy most of their music, right? But is that the image he wants to put out in the world (noting that he believes in demons and evil as a palpable essence which influences the world)?

Admittedly, the Black Sabbath shirt only grants a +1 to diplomacy to other Black Sabbath fans. And that is a circumstance bonus rather than an item bonus.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Vali Nepjarson wrote:

The idea that a Liberator can't ever Coerce someone is a bit reductive. There's a reason that the Tenants of Good come before the specific code of the Liberator.

Well yes, you can do them specifically when the higher tenets allow it. You can coerce exactly as often as a Paladin can lie, and no more often than that.

Which was what I said to start with.

Actually I believe the first thing you said on the subject was

Deadmanwalking wrote:

No weaseling. You can absolutely offer people the ability to surrender, but no trying to force it with extra intimidating stuff.

And I disagree with this.

You're cornered by two assassin's in the night. You overpower one and pierce his heart, righteous light erupting from his wound as he crumples to the floor.

You point your rapier at the second assassin's chest and calmly speak "I don't think you want to die tonight, friend. So run away to your employer and tell him to send someone competent next time...or stay and end up like your companion, I care not which."

...I would absolutely as a DM have my player role an Intimidation check and I would absolutely not have that stand against him as a Liberator.

That's not trying to force anyone to do anything. That's just reminding them what the consequences if their actions might be and also showing that you're not to be trifled with.

Now, taking the last surviving member of a Goblin raiding party, holding a knife to his throat and forcing him to show you to where his tribe's camp is, THAT would be Anathema.

See but the Liberator could just as easily have said, "I don't think you want to die tonight, friend. I would appreciate it if you'd tell your employer to either send someone more competent next time or don't bother. If you attack me or anyone else I will stop you. The decision is yours."

As a GM, I might even call for a Demoralize check from the Liberator, or Diplomacy. The point being that the the Liberator, though being imposing, is presenting the assassin with their options and pre informing the assassin how they will respond. Wording definitely matters. But, to be fair, they did choose to be a Liberator Champion.

"But I don't want to be limited by codes of conduct."

"Then don't play a Champion."

"But I like the Champion's feats and abilities."

"Then also be limited by a code of conduct. Can't have one without the other."

That is what I have been getting at.

The context of everything matters. Wearing a Demonic Mask is not in itself something that would trouble a Champion. Its how that mask gets use thats the problem.

Also yes a reminder of what you will do depending on how an opponent asks is not coersion. Otherwise trying to redeem or free someone would be almost impossible without leaving a river of blood behind you. And is that really better than scaring someone a little to move, paying of a few guards to not report you, or even telling people to surrender or face the same fate?

Like is it serious "good" for a Champion to kill someone that could be saved because its anathema to try to convince the person?

That is what I have been getting at.

The context of everything matters. Wearing a Demonic Mask is not in itself something that would trouble a Champion. Its how that mask gets use thats the problem.

Also yes a reminder of what you will do depending on how an opponent asks is not coersion. Otherwise trying to redeem or free someone would be almost impossible without leaving a river of blood behind you. And is that really better than scaring someone a little to move, paying of a few guards to not report you, or even telling people to surrender or face the same fate?

Like is it serious "good" for a Champion to kill someone that could be saved because its anathema to try to convince the person?

Champions have no qualms to kill someone to further their cause.

Champions aren't simply "good guys", they are zealots of their cause.

So yes, killing an "evil slaver" is much better in the eyes of a Liberator than bribing him to let his slave go. Even if that "slaver" is the lowest peon in the organisation.

Champions aren't "good guys"

That depends on their alignment.

And despite how common a meme it is for good-aligned characters to do evil things and get away with it because they do them to evil-aligned characters, there's meant to be a difference between good and evil that doesn't boil down to them being the equivalent to which football team you support.

Differences such as "good guys" valuing sentient life and choosing reform or imprisonment, even for their worst enemies, over death if at all possible.

shroudb wrote:

Champions aren't "good guys"

That depends on their alignment.

And despite how common a meme it is for good-aligned characters to do evil things and get away with it because they do them to evil-aligned characters, there's meant to be a difference between good and evil that doesn't boil down to them being the equivalent to which football team you support.

Differences such as "good guys" valuing sentient life and choosing reform or imprisonment, even for their worst enemies, over death if at all possible.

i edited that part to include the word "simply". From one point of view they do good things because they adhere to generaly good tenets.

But as an exacmple, a Redeemer would indeed value redeeming the evil slaver. A liberator would probably prefer killing the slaver so as not to run the chance to do repeat his mistakes. Letting him go is a much more grave risk of letting "evil free" when he could prevent that by simply killing him.

Being good aligned is not a free pass to kill evil things.

At least not unless you follow a handful of deities whose whole idea is to destroy evil in all its forms.

Being good aligned is not a free pass to kill evil things.

At least not unless you follow a handful of deities whose whole idea is to destroy evil in all its forms.

Never said that. I gave a specific example.

Liberator vs Slaver.

The "good thing" to do for a Liberator is slaying the slaver. Acting on his faith and Tenets, he would never stoop so low as to "engage in or countenance slavery" and he would always "demand and fight for others’ freedom".

That is, until the above clashed with a higher tenet.

(so he still wouldn't "murder" them since that's the evil part of killing, but open fight? Kill or be killed)

edit:
what classifies as murder and what as justified killing, is more open ended and up to GM ofcourse. As an example, if the enmy dropped their weapon and surrendered, *I* as a GM would see killing him as pure murder at that point. But *I* would also see a Liberator asking to enter bargaining with Slavers (if there was an option of simply fighting them with reasonable chance of success) as a violation of their code.

An "open fight: kill or be killed" situation is the same as murder if you're the one that started the fight.

Good-aligned characters should, based on their alignment, be trying to avoid killing where possible - that's why it says "demand and fight for others' freedom" instead of something like "kill those that hinder others' freedom"

But *I* would also see a Liberator asking to enter bargaining with Slavers (if there was an option of simply fighting them with reasonable chance of success) as a violation of their code.

Again, their code doesn't say "kill slavers" - if they can stop a slaver operation without killing people, that's a win for their cause, not a violation of their code.

An "open fight: kill or be killed" situation is the same as murder if you're the one that started the fight.

Good-aligned characters should, based on their alignment, be trying to avoid killing where possible - that's why it says "demand and fight for others' freedom" instead of something like "kill those that hinder others' freedom"

i disagree.

Attacking something evil to save something good is not murder. Killing them when they cant defend themselves is.

Good align characters should avoid murder yes, but straight up combat to further a good cause is fine in my books.

Avoid fights unless needed. If needed try your best to bring the person to justice or redeem them. If that does not work and/or they are still trying to kill you, then killing in self defense is not as much a problem.

Avoid fights unless needed. If needed try your best to bring the person to justice or redeem them. If that does not work and/or they are still trying to kill you, then killing in self defense is not as much a problem.

I dont see that anywhere in the Champion.

What i see is "You must never perform acts anathema to your deity or willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or the casting of an evil spell."

Again, attacking something isn't evil by itself. It all depends on whom and why and how you attack.

Champions have no qualms to kill someone to further their cause.

Champions aren't simply "good guys", they are zealots of their cause.

So yes, killing an "evil slaver" is much better in the eyes of a Liberator than bribing him to let his slave go. Even if that "slaver" is the lowest peon in the organisation.

Nothing in the rules says or implies this to be universally true, and it being true usually doesn't make the Liberator a zealot in most meaningful senses of the term.

A Liberator would, ideally, steal the slave away to freedom rather than giving money to a slaver, but giving money might easily be a superior option to violence in a specific instance and nothing prevents the Liberator from doing so if it's the best way to free them. Killing the slaver would usually also be acceptable, depending on the situation, but it's not exactly required.

That said...killing a slaver is probably morally superior to paying them and letting them go to continue being a slaver. From the perspective of anyone Good aligned, not just a Liberator. Slavery is one of the most awful and dehumanizing things around, and in the same way that killing a serial killer is preferable to bribing him to not murder this one specific person, killing a slaver is generally preferable to simply paying them to free a specific individual. In both cases because the slave/serial killer will go on being a threat to innocents if allowed to continue roaming around freely with their new sack of loot.

Now, in both those cases, arrest and imprisonment or other options that prevent them from enslaving or killing others may be superior to killing them, but that's not the choice you presented.

shroudb wrote:

Champions have no qualms to kill someone to further their cause.

Champions aren't simply "good guys", they are zealots of their cause.

So yes, killing an "evil slaver" is much better in the eyes of a Liberator than bribing him to let his slave go. Even if that "slaver" is the lowest peon in the organisation.

Nothing in the rules says or implies this to be universally true, and it being true usually doesn't make the Liberator a zealot in most meaningful senses of the term.

A Liberator would, ideally, steal the slave away to freedom rather than giving money to a slaver, but giving money might easily be a superior option to violence in a specific instance and nothing prevents the Liberator from doing so if it's the best way to free them. Killing the slaver would usually also be acceptable, depending on the situation, but it's not exactly required.

That said...killing a slaver is probably morally superior to paying them and letting them go to continue being a slaver. From the perspective of anyone Good aligned, not just a Liberator. Slavery is one of the most awful and dehumanizing things around, and in the same way that killing a serial killer is preferable to bribing him to not murder this one specific person, killing a slaver is generally preferable to simply paying them to free a specific individual. In both cases because the slave/serial killer will go on being a threat to innocents if allowed to continue roaming around freely with their new sack of loot.

Now, in both those cases, arrest and imprisonment or other options that prevent them from enslaving or killing others may be superior to killing them, but that's not the choice you presented.

that was the general gist i was going for with mentioning "much better to do" rather than elaborating too much.

As for arrsting them, as i said, if someone surrenders, killing them afterwards is indeed (in my eyes) simply Murder, and that's a nono for a Champion (or for generally any "good" character").

What I dont see is "attacking" as "evil".

Nor do i require from my Champions to always look for alternative methods of bringing justice if they can simply attack the evil perpetators (assuming reasonable chance of success without adverse results, like "if you attack us we'll murder all our slaves").

Attacking something evil to save something good is not murder.

If you go into a situation with the intent to kill someone, that's literally premeditated murder - even if the situation you intend to kill them in is "I will go start a fight with them."

Which is why I've been focused on the intentions, not just the actions, in this discussion - because there's a difference between "I didn't want them dead, but they left me no choice" and "I am going to go kill those slavers."

The moment your character is using reasoning that boils down to "they are [blank] so their life is forfeit" is the moment their alignment can't possibly be Good anymore, and probably isn't Neutral either.

shroudb wrote:

Attacking something evil to save something good is not murder.

If you go into a situation with the intent to kill someone, that's literally premeditated murder - even if the situation you intend to kill them in is "I will go start a fight with them."

Which is why I've been focused on the intentions, not just the actions, in this discussion - because there's a difference between "I didn't want them dead, but they left me no choice" and "I am going to go kill those slavers."

The moment your character is using reasoning that boils down to "they are [blank] so their life is forfeit" is the moment their alignment can't possibly be Good anymore, and probably isn't Neutral either.

modern civilian laws have no bearing in this conversation.

A soldier isn't doing premeditated murder when he goes to war.

In a fantasy setting where you are expected to fight for your life for a large portion of your career, and in a setting where good and evil are clearly defined, I simply dont see anything blanket implying that "attacking is evil".

As you said, intentions do matter. But i don't see the intention of "i'm going to attack the Evil guys to do X Good deed" as an evil, or even simply bad, intention. If anything, it's rather praiseworthy risking your neck to do Good.

shroudb wrote:

Attacking something evil to save something good is not murder.

If you go into a situation with the intent to kill someone, that's literally premeditated murder - even if the situation you intend to kill them in is "I will go start a fight with them."

Which is why I've been focused on the intentions, not just the actions, in this discussion - because there's a difference between "I didn't want them dead, but they left me no choice" and "I am going to go kill those slavers."

The moment your character is using reasoning that boils down to "they are [blank] so their life is forfeit" is the moment their alignment can't possibly be Good anymore, and probably isn't Neutral either.

I dunno, I feel that there's a difference between "they are orcs so their life is forfeit" and "they are slavers so their life is forfeit." One is a facet of one's life that they cannot change, the other is a choice that they've actively made.

modern civilian laws have no bearing in this conversation.

I didn't cite any laws, modern or otherwise.

A soldier isn't doing premeditated murder when he goes to war.

That depends on why said soldier enlisted... and also, there's still the option to take prisoners in war. A option that Good guys should be more likely to take than Evil guys on account of good and evil not just being the team you play for, but actual differences in ideals and behavior.

I simply dont see anything blanket implying that "attacking is evil".

You are conflating "attacking" and "killing" - and then usign that conflation to misstate my argument, which was that Good-aligned characters should only kill when they didn't have another option - because "I'm gonna go kill people that disagree with me" is Evil, even if the people you're out to kill are also Evil.

I dunno, I feel that there's a difference between "they are orcs so their life is forfeit" and "they are slavers so their life is forfeit." One is a facet of one's life that they cannot change, the other is a choice that they've actively made.

You are right that there is a difference, but that does not mean that the difference is one is evil and the other isn't.

Especially because the thing that is a choice you're advocating making someone's life forfeit for is a choice - they could choose differently, so long as you don't end their life instead of giving them the opportunity (and maybe some help along the way, too?)

Just to reiterate because it seems like people are getting it twisted: I'm not saying it's evil to ever kill - I'm saying it's evil for kill to be your Plan A.

that was the general gist i was going for with mentioning "much better to do" rather than elaborating too much.

You also seemed to be saying it made them zealots and less than entirely Good. I strongly disagree with that. Killing slavers rather than paying them, if those are the only two options, is preferable for almost any Good character, IMO.

As for arrsting them, as i said, if someone surrenders, killing them afterwards is indeed (in my eyes) simply Murder, and that's a nono for a Champion (or for generally any "good" character").

The difference between an individual executing someone and a government doing it is the difference between Law and Chaos not Good and Evil. Killing a prisoner who you personally know has committed crimes you believe warrant death is a perfectly reasonable CG action, and should be no problem at all for a Liberator. A Paladin or Redeemer now, they might well have issues.

What I dont see is "attacking" as "evil".

Nor do i require from my Champions to always look for alternative methods of bringing justice if they can simply attack the evil perpetators (assuming reasonable chance of success without adverse results, like "if you attack us we'll murder all our slaves").

I don't really disagree with this, though I'd say attacking people with the intent to kill them is pretty much the same as killing them in other contexts where they aren't helpless. That's hardly always an Evil act, though.

shroudb wrote:

Attacking something evil to save something good is not murder.

If you go into a situation with the intent to kill someone, that's literally premeditated murder - even if the situation you intend to kill them in is "I will go start a fight with them."

Which is why I've been focused on the intentions, not just the actions, in this discussion - because there's a difference between "I didn't want them dead, but they left me no choice" and "I am going to go kill those slavers."

The moment your character is using reasoning that boils down to "they are [blank] so their life is forfeit" is the moment their alignment can't possibly be Good anymore, and probably isn't Neutral either.

It's been clarified that 'murder', at least in the case of Champions, is generally defined as 'unjustified killing' rather than 'illegal killing'. It wouldn't make a lot of sense for a paragon of CG to care about the law, after all. And I think killing slavers is pretty easily justified.

I mean, enslaving people being a death-worthy offense seems an entirely reasonable philosophical stand for a Good character to have to me. The only difference between doing so with a formal trial, and doing it yourself when you are certain of their guilt is a legal one rather than a moral one. Doing so would thus not usually be Paladin-safe, barring it being necessary to save an innocent or the like, but should usually be Liberator-safe, since they don't care about the law.

Unless you think execution is always Evil as well, in which case I must point out that Dammerich, the LG Empyreal Lord of Executions, is proof the setting disagrees with you on that point.

shroudb wrote:

that was the general gist i was going for with mentioning "much better to do" rather than elaborating too much.

You also seemed to be saying it made them zealots and less than entirely Good. I strongly disagree with that. Killing slavers rather than paying them, if those are the only two options, is preferable for almost any Good character, IMO.

Hmm, maybe my intent wasnt clear with that word, but it was the best i could think of since english isnt my native language.

For me, "zealot" wasn't implying "worse", it was to put emphasis on the intensity of pursuing one's morals, that's why i even later edited the "simply" in.

A good aligned farmer, would help someone in need, but wouldn't (necessarily) agonize if he couldn't help him. That's what i would classify as a "simply good guy". A zealous good guy would go to the same task with much more intensity and would risk more though for the same goal.

A Champion, both Good or Evil, is (in my mind and from what i can misconstruct especially from the Evil Champion passage) is much more polarised in their drive to fullfil their Tenets than a simple guy with the same alignment can be.

This is delving into "ends justify the means" or "means justify the ends" kind of moral argument. It will get nowhere very soon.

To the OP's original question, a Champion wearing a Demon themed mask is sketchy. Not by default wrong, but very sketchy. It definitely falls into the purview of ask the GM.

That said, if you are playing a Champion, I encourage you to talk to your GM about the moral lines of their game. That way you don't get surprised at some point later on.

'Demon Mask' is just a name. You could easily have on styled differently, perhaps as a roaring dragon or howling wolf, if you so desired. The only Champions who shouldn't use one are those of Desna, whose anathema prohibit intentionally scaring people.

The description of the item clearly depicts what it is.

This terrifying mask is crafted in the visage of a leering demon

Could the specifics beyond that be different? Sure. It might be of a Abrikandilu (Wrecker Demon). It could be of an Invidiak (Shadow Demon). To someone who doesn't know any better, it could be any fiend, such as a Devil, Daemon, or even Rakshasa. But objectively, it's not of a dragon or fierce animal type as you would provide. (A Dragon Mask with a 1/hour Breath Weapon or a Wolf Mask with a Trip Bite Attack would be pretty sweet items. Maybe in a future book...)

I mean sure, as I said before, it's not an actual demon face, it's not an item with the Evil trait, but I can't see a GM realistically let me use or own this item without it being Anathema or grounds for being heckled by other do-gooders. It's not much different than if I wear Hellknight plate as a non-Hellknight. It's certainly not any different mechanically than Full Plate, but it does carry a certain aura behind the intention of who the item is for, and the item does describe it as such (though in more detail than a Demon Mask, to be clear).