RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Calistria anathema - if you don’t become too consumed by a need for revenge, how can you also not let a slight go unanswered?
Cayden Cailean anathema - shouldn’t it be be mean or standoffish ever? Or is that okay when you’re sober, but not when you’re drunk?
Norgorber anathema - I get not allowing your secret identity to get out, but why would sharing someone else’s secret freely be off limits? Sounds like something the reaper of reputation would do often.
rovagug edict - destroy all things is a bit much. That means true rovagugites would have no equipment following their edicts, not would their allies (for the short amount of time before they had no allies). They’d also never be able to get treasure, since they’d instead destroy it. This should be re-worded. Anathema also is similarly wrong - not creating anything new precludes alchemist rovagugites, and also prevents plans to destroy which require creating weapons or powerful magic to do so.
Sarenrae anathema - fail to strike down evil doesn’t allow for redeeming evil, which is a major part of sarenrae’s faith.
Urgathoa anathema - never destroying undead means they can’t really fight undead that attack them either because they’re controlled by others or if the undead are free willed and oppose the cleric or worshipper.
I think the Norgorber one and Urgathoa ones are correct. For ol' Norg the key word is "freely"... which is to say that you can sell other people's secrets, but you cannot give them away without somehow personally benefiting.
For Urgathoa I think "other people are better at controlling undead than you are" or "you are not good enough at controlling undead" should be a major problem. If you can't control the undead, or come to an agreement with the undead, you should go home.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rovagug priests are only allowed to keep items that will help them achieve further destruction, though they must remove all beauty from them first. It's how they manage to have "temples" and things like that.
They really had to simplify a lot of things to make the anathema short and easy, and they end up generalizing stuff too much. Maybe going into more itnricate detail on each Anathema would be worth it, since they only need to be written once evr.
The Sarenrae one, for example, could be better understood as "If you know there is evil, you can't stand by and let it continue, you must do something about it." But they wanted to be fancy. Currently it would only make sense for like "Destroy all unredeemable evil on sight", which applies to EVIL subtype outsiders mostly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gorum anathema- prevent conflict through negotiation. That's a pretty huge problem for adventuring parties, at least if they're not murder-hobos.
It also contrasts oddly with the likes of Desna or Irori, whose anathema are likely to never come up for PCs.
---
Calistria anathema - if you don’t become too consumed by a need for revenge, how can you also not let a slight go unanswered?
I think the key is 'too consumed.' If someone insults you, spike their drink with an emetic or embarass them. But don't go carving bloody smiles into all their kinfolk, or harass them for a year.
This was pretty well done in 'Queen of Thorns,' which handled a Calistrian priestess fairly well. She whenever felt insulted, her revenge was reasonable (especially compared to what the target feared at the end)
rovagug works just fine. yes you can have equipment. the equipment and yourself are the things that get destroyed last. creating anything "new" means invention in my opinion.
Sarenrae works just fine also. if you believe someone is evil strike it down, if you believe it can be redeem try to redeem it. the whole point is that you shouldn't just ignore evil or leave it to it's own devices.
Calistria is pretty straight forward not getting consumed by revenge is perfectly compatible with no slights unanswered. Michael Jordan did not let a single slight against him on basketball court go, and he's quite famous for that, but his need to answer every slight never consumed him. it is not about number but degree. moby dick is the classic vengeance consume you story. Ahab would be the poster child of what not to do and Michael Jordan of what to do.
Urgathoa anathema im not seeing the problem here, you are a servant of the goddess of undead, if you want to fight undead, this isn't the god to be in service to.
Cayden Cailean being a happy drunk. what you do on your sober time, isnt as relevant to your god.
I've been using inner sea god as a reference more than the playtest book, since theres a lot more detail. Rovagug clerics, for example, in ISG are totes allowed to own things that aid in bringing further ruin, but are, on the whole, forbidden from creating. I know that's a bit in the lands of house rules, but the playtest book also says for DMs to use their best judgement
Calistria anathema - if you don’t become too consumed by a need for revenge, how can you also not let a slight go unanswered?
You hit back and then forget about them. If they continue the feud you keep hitting them until they stop. But once you've evened the scales you move on. A wasp stings you for messing with its hive, it doesn't follow you around for the rest of its life until you kill it.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I completely get the more nuanced Golarion Lore which explains a lot of these in more detail. My point was that taken alone at face value, for a player (or worse, a GM) not familiar with the reams of material out there which goes into more detail, these short anathemas don't work very well in multiple cases. They should be expanded to avoid these types of discussions at the game table, and spell out how they really should be.