OK, I'm just trying to make sure I have clear understanding of system...
First, I thought Anathema was general term but they use Tenets instead, I guess this is because they aren't all strictly Anathema, but dependent on ranking priority?
It says "Deities often add additional strictures (for instance, Torag’s champions can’t show mercy"
Personally, I find this very vague... If it's meant to specifically refer to Deity Anathema, then why not say so?
Which leads to other question, it only mentions Torag's "no mercy", but Torag's Anathema includes other stuff like "no lies".
Are ALL the Deity Anathema included in this Tenet, or what? Could be alot clearer wording IMHO.
That actually relates to the next issue, which is ranking priority of Tenets.
One of examples of Paladin Cause Tenets is "no lies", which is supposedly lower ranked than the Tenets of Good.
Except the Tenet Good includes following Deity Anathema, which in case of Torag also includes "no lies".
With equal co-priority for "never perform acts anathema to your deity or willingly commit an evil act" on same line/Tenet,
would that then mean Torag Paladins ARE in a "no-win" situation when those two Tenets are in conflict, despite general text otherwise?
...Or if a Deity Anathema repeats a general Tenet, would it NOT change priority ranking of that, but keep same priority as general Tenet?
I view the second tenet of good as the big wiggle for what a Champion can do. A normal Paladin could justify lying if it prevented an innocent from being harmed since the second tenet of good is more important than the Paladin tenets.
However a Torag champion would be in a different position. Since lying is an anathema to Torag it instead falls under the first tenet of good. So for a Paladin of Torag lying to protect the innocent is wrong.
At least that is my take on the priorities. Unless there is some god which allows good champions and has an evil anathema I don't really see any conflicts within the first tenet of good.
OK, I realized it's not actually as much of a conflict as I thought, because whatever Deity Anathema has priority over all the second tenet Champion stuff like "don't harm innocents" "protect innocents" "respect authority/redeem evil/respect free will" (which is their big wiggle, like you say). So basically when those come in conflict, you just act more like follower of Deity than Champion... The only potential fundamental conflict is actively commiting Evil act like murder, torture which is very narrow.
Torag Champion is probably even more able to side with orphans than Abadar Champion if a "law abiding court" was intent on murdering them, since either lying to or actively opposing the court's will is Anathema for Abadar, while Torag just demands not lying to them (but you could then physically oppose them anyways). I guess fundmental "no-win" conflict could exist for Abadaran Paladin if law abiding court ordered them to commit evil act like torture, but that's really marginal and they probably could just consider court illegitimate if that happened.
I do wonder if "Deities often add additional strictures" is meant to include following Edicts as well as Anathema?
Or if not, is there any repurcussion for not following Deity Edicts?
It still seems weird as hell to use Torag as example and then give lie vs protect innocent example that Torag would actually approach completely differently. And if Deity Anathema can effectively increase priority of Tenets (like lying or respecting authority) it seems worth mentioning explicitly, since is it then still also a lowest priority Tenet? Maybe doesn't need change to rules text, but maybe FAQ-worthy eventually.
I wish to res this topic for a second, if possible, as I too have a question in regards to a Deities Edicts.
All Deities have Edicts, some of them looser than others. But, then there are those that feel as if they may very well upset your Deity if not followed.
Using Torag as an example, one must "respect the forge". So, what would happen if you were to disrespect the forge? Another example, Shizuru (who is the Deity who sparked this thought in me) expects her followers to "practice with a weapon" daily. I doubt she would be too upset if something prevented you from doing that; but would probably be miffed after a week or so.
But, it begs the question of where exactly the Edict would fall in the Champion's Code, if at all. At some point, a Shizuran Champion would probably have to practice, or risk the ire of her deity. And, should a Champion of Torag somehow disrespect a forge, he would likely punish them in some way.
Personally, I am currently operating under the assumption that the Edicts fall in after those of your Tenets or Cause. To me, not being able to practice with a weapon seems unlikely to be more important than saving an innocent from harm, or even respecting the law. So, if you were too busy protecting the meek or in a region which outlawed the use of weapons, I doubt the Empress would be too upset that you didn't practice your weapons form.
It could use some errata to make it more clear if and when the Edicts would be applied.
I wish to res this topic for a second, if possible, as I too have a question in regards to a Deities Edicts.
All Deities have Edicts, some of them looser than others. But, then there are those that feel as if they may very well upset your Deity if not followed.
Using Torag as an example, one must "respect the forge". So, what would happen if you were to disrespect the forge? Another example, Shizuru (who is the Deity who sparked this thought in me) expects her followers to "practice with a weapon" daily. I doubt she would be too upset if something prevented you from doing that; but would probably be miffed after a week or so.
But, it begs the question of where exactly the Edict would fall in the Champion's Code, if at all. At some point, a Shizuran Champion would probably have to practice, or risk the ire of her deity. And, should a Champion of Torag somehow disrespect a forge, he would likely punish them in some way.
Personally, I am currently operating under the assumption that the Edicts fall in after those of your Tenets or Cause. To me, not being able to practice with a weapon seems unlikely to be more important than saving an innocent from harm, or even respecting the law. So, if you were too busy protecting the meek or in a region which outlawed the use of weapons, I doubt the Empress would be too upset that you didn't practice your weapons form.
It could use some errata to make it more clear if and when the Edicts would be applied.
I'd honestly say 'enough edits violated counts as anathema'. The issue there is that this is already a GM judgement call to start with that an errata really won't help.
Having a formula instead of a judgement call would be a downgrade, anyway, for this type of thing.
Given that the edicts are not even mentioned in the champion and cleric entries, I don't think a deity would ever take strip them of their powers for ignoring the edicts. What they might get is the same mild thwaps that the deity gives their other followers when generically displeased---for instance, Sarenrae's followers who stray tend to find themselves inexplicably sunburned (according to Inner Sea Gods).
|
I want to say this same dilemma occurred in PF1, where the Core Rulebook didn't cover a crisis of faith, but a later book did.
Because, if you didn't own Gods & Magic, would the stipulation that you lose the "spells, feats, and other class features tied to [your] now-lost faith" still apply?
It probably should, but if you're playing Society, I guess you could feign ignorance, and claim you don't own the book.
I want to say this same dilemma occurred in PF1, where the Core Rulebook didn't cover a crisis of faith, but a later book did.
Because, if you didn't own Gods & Magic, would the stipulation that you lose the "spells, feats, and other class features tied to [your] now-lost faith" still apply?
It probably should, but if you're playing Society, I guess you could feign ignorance, and claim you don't own the book.
Heh. Except that this isn't a feature you're trying to add to your character. Champions at least already have in-CRB penalties for straying too far ...
Does this help?
Not really. My question here is if a Deities Edict's are meant to play into a character of faiths class features? I.E. If a Champion of Sarenrae fails to provide aid to the sick or wounded, or to act upon any of her other Edicts, would that affect their abilities and faith at a certain point? Outside of the Boons and Curses provided by LO: Gods & Magic. It seems like they should in some instances. I feel that the Dawnflower would probably take issue with her Clerics and her Champions denying someone the chance to redeem themselves or ignoring the threats of one of Rovagug's Spawn. As a GM, I would expect my players to abide and actively participate in any of the Edicts provided by their Faith from time to time. If they failed to do this, I'd hit them with marginal punishments, before eventually moving on to curses and then stripping them of their powers (should it get to that point). I'm wondering if this was supposed to be the intention. Otherwise, the Edicts are most for roleplay, which is fine.
|
|
Does this help?Not really. My question here is if a Deities Edict's are meant to play into a character of faiths class features?
Is that not exactly what "When this happens, the character is no longer able to use the spells, feats, and other class features tied to their now-lost faith" entails?
|
Does this help?My question here is if a Deities Edict's are meant to play into a character of faiths class features?
Not preforming an edict is entirely different then preforming an action that is anathema. Anathema are pointed out as having a consequence. Edicts aren't mentioned.
Anathema actions are in the "Thou Shall Not" category.
Edict actions are in the "These are valued" category.
I'll add that key Edicts often get reinforced by an Anathema, as in there might be an Edict to "do A" and an Anathema to "fail to do A". So while most Edicts should be promoted, a few have to be promoted.
Example Sarenrae:
Edict: seek and allow redemption
Anathema: deny a repentant creature an opportunity for redemption
The first implies the second, but failing at the specific instance of the second will lose one one's divine power.