| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with paladins, has always been that it's an either/or proposition. All or nothing. That's where most of the contentious arguments come in. A paladin falls, or he doesn't. And based on what criteria? a vague definition of what LG alignment means, with an occasional detour to a specific god's tenets and their paladin code - to the extent it's been specifically defined.
Now, clerics have this new feature called "anathema", things that are abhorrent to a given deity. And naysayers are already claiming that there will be horrible conflicts over what causes a cleric to "fall" or not.
They're not necessarily wrong.
But what if... what if "falling" were not a binary choice? Fall or not fall - that leads to a world of trouble. What if there were a graded system in place for the gradual and growing disapproval of a god, with specific mechanisms in place to show the concrete mechanical effects of losing a portion of your gods approval, but not all at once?
Obviously, the slippery slope of sliding out of your deity's favor will be subject to DM appreciation. Things like adjudicating whether the cleric actually struck first, or if the bad guys literally threw themselves on the cleric's sword (glaive, starknife, etc) when he prepared an attack contingent on their attack, and whether that constituted striking "first" (I would say no, but others might differ). But if it's a gradual process of incremental disfavor, there will be far less contentious rulesmongering involved.
Perhaps the cleric could slowly lose a few spellpoints, or spell slots. Of perhaps he could have an increasing chance of spell failure. Whatever the actual mechanism involved, if it's an incremental process, a cleric who has "sinned" against her god's precepts could always make efforts to return to the straight and narrow. To return to the fold and to uphold the values that his congregation holds dear.
This, at any rate, is what I propose. Incremental "falling", rather than a yes/no binary proposition. It would make dealing with problms of anathema far easier to deal with. And far less catastrophic for the PC involved.
And paladins could share in the bounty, even if they are held to a higher standard.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that incremental falling is a much better idea than the binary fall/no fall binary.
Now, clerics have this new feature called "anathema", things that are abhorrent to a given deity. And naysayers are already claiming that there will be horrible conflicts over what causes a cleric to "fall" or not.
I thought the naysayers had just last alignment thread been asking for clearer definitions of what was fallworthy. Isn't that literally what this is? Much more specific actions being called out? I really don't see a ton of likelihood for disagreeing that much on how to interpret them unless someone is being willfully stubborn about it...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just build Phylactery of Faithfulness into any class that has a code. That alone will solve 99% of "Surprise! You Fall!" gotchas. Violating an oath that's a huge part of their life should never be a surprise to any character (at least one where the player is trying to avoid falling. If a player wants to play a Paladin that goes off the deep end and falls and it's appropriate for the campaign, let em.).
Certain games may make codes a balance point for more powerful classes (Force users in Star Wars can't go around choking people or attacking NPCs that annoy them or they go crazy.), but Pathfinder is not and we shouldn't pretend Paladinhood is a super powerful class balanced around needing to abide by a code.
Seconded. Let's go with this, actually.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or alternatively, add wording like Force Users get in Star Wars games that basically allows a GM to warn folks before putting any sort of penalties into place.
No Phylactery, though.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
I already houserule the phylactery effect for my players that use classes with codes. The CHARACTER, in context, WOULD have a very deep understanding of their code and its limits, far in excess of the player. Just as I don't expect the player of a character to display the same Knowledge, Intelligence and Charisma as their character, merely to at least attempt to role play it, I don't expect a player to know their code backwards and forwards.
So, whenever a player is taking actions that skirt their vows, I specify that they feel squirrely about it. When they propose more direct violations, I tell them outright my interpretation of their code and ask what their reasoning is. If I don't agree, I say why and ask if they want to continue.
It should never be a gotcha. It should never be a trap. So yes, count me in on baking the phylactery effect into every class with anathema or a code. The character would know better than the player.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, clerics have this new feature called "anathema", things that are abhorrent to a given deity. And naysayers are already claiming that there will be horrible conflicts over what causes a cleric to "fall" or not.I thought the naysayers had just last alignment thread been asking for clearer definitions of what was fallworthy. Isn't that literally what this is? Much more specific actions being called out? I really don't see a ton of likelihood for disagreeing that much on how to interpret them unless someone is being willfully stubborn about it...
The problem is the gameworld effects. It's pretty clear that every two-bit criminal, spy or overall treacherous blaggard should use the temple of Shelyn as a revolving door of safety. A place to go where they have to take you- they must respond to attempts to negotiate without violence and are required to accept surrender. Without regard of whether or not you've taken advantage of them or outright betrayed them previously... or if you've done absurdly monstrous things previously- the combination creates a perfect scenario where a pickpocket or someone carrying a child's severed head has to be at least temporarily accommodated as long as they say 'I give up'.
So, yeah, it's more clear, but it's also more absurd. Human nature being what it is, and Evil being what it is in Golarion, the idea that this wouldn't be exploited regularly is rather silly. Agents of the Whispering Tyrant should be creating tension between the temples of Shelyn and Iomedea just by surrendering to the Shelynites
whenever they get noticed.
As a bonus, it's a wacky 'But Thou Must' hammer to apply to player agency, with threats of unspecified consequences if the PLAYER (not the character) doesn't do as the writers/GM wish.
Gods forbid you run into divine characters with opposing anathema. 'Kill all [undead, demons, etc]' plows hard into always 'accept surrender and don't strike first.'
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is the gameworld effects. It's pretty clear that every two-bit criminal, spy or overall treacherous blaggard should use the temple of Shelyn as a revolving door of safety. A place to go where they have to take you- they must respond to attempts to negotiate without violence and are required to accept surrender. Without regard of whether or not you've taken advantage of them or outright betrayed them previously... or if you've done absurdly monstrous things previously- the combination creates a perfect scenario where a pickpocket or someone carrying a child's severed head has to be at least temporarily accommodated as long as they say 'I give up'.
Uh...nothing prevents them from locking you up or turning you over to the proper authorities. Like, at all.
This 'world problem' just doesn't mostly exist or make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just build Phylactery of Faithfulness into any class that has a code. That alone will solve 99% of "Surprise! You Fall!" gotchas. Violating an oath that's a huge part of their life should never be a surprise to any character (at least one where the player is trying to avoid falling. If a player wants to play a Paladin that goes off the deep end and falls and it's appropriate for the campaign, let em.).
Certain games may make codes a balance point for more powerful classes (Force users in Star Wars can't go around choking people or attacking NPCs that annoy them or they go crazy.), but Pathfinder is not and we shouldn't pretend Paladinhood is a super powerful class balanced around needing to abide by a code.
Depends on whether you view "super powerful" as damage dealer vs ability to affect the world around them, because they're absolutely the best at that martialwise.
They might not be out of line as a damage dealer, but they provide a series of constant group buffs, can cure permanent status conditions with a touch, have several immunities baked into the class, and can sidestep the cost of raising the dead with a feat. People found religions around people who can do that sort of thing, and to the setting and world its a far more wondrous and powerful thing than a higher DPR.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I've said before in the Eminent domains thread repeatedly:
I think everyone is assuming way too much about the way Anathemas work and the degree of guidance given in using them. We've had like two sentences about them and a one line listing for one deity. I'd be shocked if there weren't some fairly concrete guidelines on how and when they apply, and probably equally shocked if one violation stripped a Cleric of their powers (unless completely egregious).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is the gameworld effects. It's pretty clear that every two-bit criminal, spy or overall treacherous blaggard should use the temple of Shelyn as a revolving door of safety. A place to go where they have to take you- they must respond to attempts to negotiate without violence and are required to accept surrender. Without regard of whether or not you've taken advantage of them or outright betrayed them previously... or if you've done absurdly monstrous things previously- the combination creates a perfect scenario where a pickpocket or someone carrying a child's severed head has to be at least temporarily accommodated as long as they say 'I give up'.
So, yeah, it's more clear, but it's also more absurd. Human nature being what it is, and Evil being what it is in Golarion, the idea that this wouldn't be exploited regularly is rather silly. Agents of the Whispering Tyrant should be creating tension between the temples of Shelyn and Iomedea just by surrendering to the Shelynites
whenever they get noticed.As a bonus, it's a wacky 'But Thou Must' hammer to apply to player agency, with threats of unspecified consequences if the PLAYER (not the character) doesn't do as the writers/GM wish.
Gods forbid you run into divine characters with opposing anathema. 'Kill all [undead, demons, etc]' plows hard into always 'accept surrender and don't strike first.'
I don't think so, personally... but okay, I'll assume sincerity and conclude that my "nobody could misinterpret this accidentally" has been disproven.
I don't think doing that would be so effective a tactic, really... guy surrenders, gets turned over to the city guard or whatever, ???, profit? I'm a bit skeptical. Also I don't see how it's about what the player does rather than what the character does.
Or alternatively, add wording like Force Users get in Star Wars games that basically allows a GM to warn folks before putting any sort of penalties into place.No Phylactery, though.
Isn't the GM already allowed to do this?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I loathe the absolutist gamer. Things like anathema just fuel them. Id prefer if instead of always/never statements they would say what the deity favors. Like, "Shelyn looks favorably on those that use diplomacy before resorting to hostility." Then, instead of stripping powers when characters dont follow the tenets, they get a boon for fulfilling them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I loathe the absolutist gamer. Things like anathema just fuel them. Id prefer if instead of always/never statements they would say what the deity favors. Like, "Shelyn looks favorably on those that use diplomacy before resorting to hostility." Then, instead of stripping powers when characters dont follow the tenets, they get a boon for fulfilling them.
The thing is, its carrot and stick, not carrot and icecream cone. The not doing anathema is the cost of admission to the "granted a bunch of power by this being" club.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I loathe the absolutist gamer. Things like anathema just fuel them. Id prefer if instead of always/never statements they would say what the deity favors. Like, "Shelyn looks favorably on those that use diplomacy before resorting to hostility." Then, instead of stripping powers when characters dont follow the tenets, they get a boon for fulfilling them.
Yap, working as Deific Obedience is a better way, rather than making characters fall for actions that paizo is leaving "vague enough" to make trouble at any given table.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Here, piggy-wiggy!"
"Canibalism is a sin! If you eat me you'll be damned to hell forever!"
"Damned to hell? Nonsense, boy! What do you think confession's for?"
The Phylactery Effect is a fine addition, certainly. But what you gain with incremental "falling" is the ability to discriminate between minor breaches of faith and major blasphemies. And to allow the offending cleric to repent - on his own - and seek redemption from within the game. This could be an excellent hook for roleplay opportunities, to deepen the involvement of the cleric player and even the whole group, as they take position relative to the fallen cleric's belief system.
I could certainly see some gods being so inflexible that the slightest step off the straight and narrow would result in eternal damnation. But I can also easily imagine other gods weighing the cleric's soul on a heavenly balance, or even being devoted to the principle of forgiveness and thus ready to forgive a few minor peccadillos if true contrition is shown.
Of course, I hope that such a mechanism is already on the cards. IMHO, it's the logical corollary of the new concept of anathema. So far we have had no clue one way or the other.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That removes all the teeth from it. Deific Obedience is no big deal. Setting you do when you pray. Getting full powers from.a God should be much more imvolved than that.I loathe the absolutist gamer. Things like anathema just fuel them. Id prefer if instead of always/never statements they would say what the deity favors. Like, "Shelyn looks favorably on those that use diplomacy before resorting to hostility." Then, instead of stripping powers when characters dont follow the tenets, they get a boon for fulfilling them.Yap, working as Deific Obedience is a better way, rather than making characters fall for actions that paizo is leaving "vague enough" to make trouble at any given table.
I'm glad you understand the intention. We don't want more paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anything in the playtest indicated what the effect of breaking an anathema is? If it's "-2 to all rolls until you spend a day in praying for forgiveness" I doubt the Church of Shelyn will be held hostage by every petty murderer on Golarion.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has anything in the playtest indicated what the effect of breaking an anathema is? If it's "-2 to all rolls until you spend a day in praying for forgiveness" I doubt the Church of Shelyn will be held hostage by every petty murderer on Golarion.
No. There have been no indications whatsoever. People are making huge assumptions and running with them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has anything in the playtest indicated what the effect of breaking an anathema is? If it's "-2 to all rolls until you spend a day in praying for forgiveness" I doubt the Church of Shelyn will be held hostage by every petty murderer on Golarion.No. There have been no indications whatsoever. People are making huge assumptions and running with them.
Isn't that what the entire playtest section meant to do? Tease the bare minimum info and watch as people try to make sense of it. There wouldn't be a need for a thread attached to the blogs if we weren't meant to "run with it". ;)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe, just maybe, Anathema and falling can be flavorful rules that pertain to specific settings, but don't have an immediate impact on the classes as a whole. A sidebar that explains how Anathema should work in game, with maybe a small section on making these behaviors non-disruptive, would work well.
The big thing is, some people want a game without all this moral politicking, and some do. There's nothing wrong with having options for each of these styles of play, so long as they aren't needlessly restricting each other.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe, just maybe, Anathema and falling can be flavorful rules that pertain to specific settings, but don't have an immediate impact on the classes as a whole. A sidebar that explains how Anathema should work in game, with maybe a small section on making these behaviors non-disruptive, would work well.
When I started this thread, I was reacting to folks who were slamming the very existence of the concept of anathema, saying it would be used by DMs to dick with players. "You did what? You fall! All class powers lost!"
I posited a graduated, reasonable system to sidestep the "falling" issue, because I think the anathema concept is great. Breaking the strictures of your religion *should* have concrete consequences, but I expect our pals at Paizo will have planned ahead to do something more subtle than a binary fall/don't fall scenario.
We have as of yet had not the slightest inkling whether or not this is the case.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that part of the problem with falling has been that the GM and the player were on different pages with regard to what was allowed.
As a GM if someone were about to get in trouble with the deity as paladin or cleric I'd let the player know his deity would not approve.
Then the player can choose to fall, or stay in line with his deity. That removes "gotcha" situations.
So my recommendation is that Paizo tell GM's that the player should know at the very least that what they're about to do is against the deity's desires. He might not have to say "you will most definitely fail", but they should know when they're committing grave(high chance of falling) or minor transgressions with regard to that deity. To prevent people from gaming the system, accumulating enough minor grievances should also cause people to fall, and the GM should not have to say "this is the final straw", but like with other transgressions the player would know he is about to commit a transgression.
That is how I would do it anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that part of the problem with falling has been that the GM and the player were on different pages with regard to what was allowed.
100% agree.
As a GM if someone were about to get in trouble with the deity as paladin or cleric I'd let the player know his deity would not approve.
For me, 1/2 my issues have been with the disagreement after such a ruling with players not agreeing with the reasoning. Now Anathema seems much better worded, so there should be less issues: black and white do's and don't make for less disagreements than 'no evil'...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anathemas are going to be nowhere near as problematic for clerics as alignment rules are for paladins.
Paladins have to be lawful good, and generally have a narrow range actions they are forbidden from.
Clerics span the entire alignment and area of interest. Not every deity is going to suit every player and game. If you hate or think a deities anathemas are problematic...than just pick one of the 19 other gods. And you know within a year or two we're probably going to get anathemas for a ton of the more minor gods such as the Eldest or Empyreal Lords. It's going to be super easy to find a god out there that fits your play style.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a deity who grants you, my loyal worshipper, magical powers as reward for your devotion to my teachings. These powers mark you as an authority figure, a teacher and guide to other worshippers.
Now, I tell you 2-5 things NOT to do.
When you do them, you're asking for a tap on the wrist? Just for even suggesting that I should strip my power from you.
I'm a God, this is not a democracy.
But maybe, just maybe, the God is able to make meaningful distinctions as to how how severe the transgression actually was, recognize extenuating circumstances, and rremember that mortals are fallible and sometimes a warning and reminder is more effective. Just like not every crime has the death penalty, and even a murderer can get a lesser sentence under the right circumstances, maybe Abadar doesn't have to come down *as* hard on a guy who jaywalked in a rush to deliver important documents, even if disobeying municipal laws was one of his Anathemas.
Seriously, dude, recalibrate your hackles. This was clearly not a post about how anathemas are a bad idea. This was a post very much in favor of imposing restrictions, merely suggesting that expanding it from a binary would help address the concerns of those who for various reasons do not like such a system of restrictions. You are just looking for enemies at this point.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So tell me if you heard this one before: a Paladin trips on a rock and when he gets up the GM tells the player the Paladin no longer has use of any class powers at all. When the player asks why the GM replies "Your Paladin fell".
As has been said, without even knowing almost anything about Anathemas, folks are making a lot of assumptions - the main one being that the GM will use it as a way to ruthlessly control players who dare to be Clerics just the same as with Paladins.
If one is against said classes then simply eliminate them. It's cruel to let players choose them then go out of ones way to utterly depower them for facetious reasons.
Even if there's something in the books specifically prohibiting this sort of behavior on the part of the GM there are still going to be some folks who will do anything to mess with their Players even though this is supposed to be a fairly cooperative story-telling game.
I admittedly don't really see the cases in which the suggested system would be an improvement as likely to be very common.
Reducing arguments? Anyone who saw the complaints about cleric spells per day in the blog discussion, are you seriously hoping people will argue that much less over "just losing a few spell points/whatever"?
Preventing unreasonable/differently opinionated GMs from wrecking your character? No, a GM who doesn't like clerics/paladins/divine casters/you, or how you're playing such a character, will still ruin your ability to do so successfully... it'll be a little more gradual, but it also could just mean smaller things they can feel justified in penalizing you for, I expect. I guess it's extra warning time to get your PC's affairs in order and find a new table?
Helping with games with reasonable GMs you can see eye to eye with? It might add some more room for mechanical competence for players who want to fall for narrative purposes, or something, but generally seems unnecessary.
Just like with the paladin, the best solution is, if a DM thinks the PC is violating some tenant, then drop a challenging monster on the PC (angels seem particularly good for this), and, if the PC wins, then obviously the god was not that displeased, and if the PC loses, reveal it was a dream sequence with a warning that next time it will be real.
lel whut?
EDIT
... I'm afraid I don't find your reasoning self-evident. I'm going to need you to explain it to me.
Respectfully, Asmodeus's Advocate
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a deity who grants you, my loyal worshipper, magical powers as reward for your devotion to my teachings. These powers mark you as an authority figure, a teacher and guide to other worshippers.
Now, I tell you 2-5 things NOT to do.
When you do them, you're asking for a tap on the wrist? Just for even suggesting that I should strip my power from you.
I'm a God, this is not a democracy.
Literally every fall from grace story that isn't directly related to D&D is a gradual process. Nobody loses their divine blessings on a "Gotcha" moment because s~&& like that is the domain of Asmodeus.
It also makes for a boring as s#*% story. Can you imagine if Arthas had lost his powers the moment he talked back to Uther. God.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a deity who grants you, my loyal worshipper, magical powers as reward for your devotion to my teachings. These powers mark you as an authority figure, a teacher and guide to other worshippers.
Now, I tell you 2-5 things NOT to do.
When you do them, you're asking for a tap on the wrist? Just for even suggesting that I should strip my power from you.
I'm a God, this is not a democracy.
Literally every fall from grace story that isn't directly related to D&D is a gradual process. Nobody loses their divine blessings on a "Gotcha" moment because s$!@ like that is the domain of Asmodeus.
It also makes for a boring as s$@& story. Can you imagine if Arthas had lost his powers the moment he talked back to Uther. God.
"It is such a quiet thing, to fall. But how much more terrible to realize it."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Preventing unreasonable/differently opinionated GMs from wrecking your character? No, a GM who doesn't like clerics/paladins/divine casters/you, or how you're playing such a character, will still ruin your ability to do so successfully... it'll be a little more gradual, but it also could just mean smaller things they can feel justified in penalizing you for, I expect. I guess it's extra warning time to get your PC's affairs in order and find a new table?
That kind of GM should never be played with regardless of whether the system allows that kind of behavior. I would rather have an Anathema or paladin code in place so that such a GM will show his hand and demonstrate how much I don't want to be at their table.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only issue here is when the GM and the player disagree about what would constitute an anathema. This should be settled the same way any other rules disagreement is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mortal KOMBAT!!
The only issue here is when the GM and the player disagree about what would constitute an anathema. This should be settled the same way any other rules disagreement is.
It works for me. I haven't been wrong in like 400 years.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I already houserule the phylactery effect for my players that use classes with codes. The CHARACTER, in context, WOULD have a very deep understanding of their code and its limits, far in excess of the player. Just as I don't expect the player of a character to display the same Knowledge, Intelligence and Charisma as their character, merely to at least attempt to role play it, I don't expect a player to know their code backwards and forwards.
So, whenever a player is taking actions that skirt their vows, I specify that they feel squirrely about it. When they propose more direct violations, I tell them outright my interpretation of their code and ask what their reasoning is. If I don't agree, I say why and ask if they want to continue.
It should never be a gotcha. It should never be a trap. So yes, count me in on baking the phylactery effect into every class with anathema or a code. The character would know better than the player.
You know, this solves so many issues. Including some tips on communication, or explicitly stating, "there should be communication between players and GMs" into the base game might be helpful. Cleric code this, paladin code that. The young player's rogue who goes for the big shiny thing without saying, "I check for traps" and the GM doesn't tend to assume.
Communication solves so much.
It's like we're playing a social game, or something. ... but a reminder, or "this is allowed" isn't a bad thing.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I already houserule the phylactery effect for my players that use classes with codes. The CHARACTER, in context, WOULD have a very deep understanding of their code and its limits, far in excess of the player. Just as I don't expect the player of a character to display the same Knowledge, Intelligence and Charisma as their character, merely to at least attempt to role play it, I don't expect a player to know their code backwards and forwards.
So, whenever a player is taking actions that skirt their vows, I specify that they feel squirrely about it. When they propose more direct violations, I tell them outright my interpretation of their code and ask what their reasoning is. If I don't agree, I say why and ask if they want to continue.
It should never be a gotcha. It should never be a trap. So yes, count me in on baking the phylactery effect into every class with anathema or a code. The character would know better than the player.
You know, this solves so many issues. Including some tips on communication, or explicitly stating, "there should be communication between players and GMs" into the base game might be helpful. Cleric code this, paladin code that. The young player's rogue who goes for the big shiny thing without saying, "I check for traps" and the GM doesn't tend to assume.
Communication solves so much.
You mean, GMs working with their players? GMs who make the assumption that the character knows the basics of their profession and not penalizing the player for having gaps in that knowledge?
That's crazy talk!
In all seriousness, so much this. And this is why I don't understand the "Paladin falls" threads. Because a Paladin falling shouldn't ever be a matter of the GM tricking the PC. A Paladin falling should be a matter of player choice. And if the player doesn't know the class well enough, that's when the GM should step in and gently remind them "Hey, you do realize that what you're about to do is against your code. You can still do it, of course, but it goes against what you've been training for your entire lifetime."
I love those kind of role-playing-based strictures and codes and seeing players forced to make decisions based around them. But I want to see GMs and PCs working together to make interesting stories about those decisions. Not tricking the PC. "Oh, you grabbed a weapon and you didn't know it was poisoned. You fall," but "Sir Galavrin, you find yourself in a desperate position. Your sword has been shattered by your foe. Your companions lay around you, fallen and perhaps dying. Within reach is the envenomed blade of your traveling companion, an assassin by trade. Picking it up and using it may be your best chance to strike down this Ogre who you have been tracking. But you know, deep in your heart, that using a weapon that has been poisoned is against everything Iomedae stands for. You have to make a choice. What do you do?"
That's not a trick. That's not a gotcha. That's the way the tide of the battle has turned, and has put the PC in a tough position. It's an interesting moment. But the GM have to make sure that the player understands the possible ramifications of the different choices.