|
*I'd originally posted this in the PFS2e Rules forum, but my particular question on this is more applicable to how to manage this in Organized Play rather than home games (where of course every GM can do what they like at their table). Even then I got quite a few differences of opinion.*
So I've had this come up in multiple sessions now as people are catching on that the Mortal Healing feat is incredibly powerful for a Skill Feat (turns all regular Successes on Treat Wounds into Crits).
The drawback in theory is that you must be a follower of the Laws of Mortality, which for all intents and purposes acts like a deity with Edicts, Anathema, Alignment requirements... the works. As I understand from the GM Basics guide for organized play that if a player "actively and personally commits an anathemic act in Society play" there are consequences, but it's not entirely clear what those would be. There's one very specific anathema that to me seems like a balancing factor - you must not solicit or receive divine or religious aid. My interpretation is that functionally you can never choose to be a willing target for divine spells, so a divine Heal or Lay on Hands that specifies a "willing target" will not work on you.
However, I have had players skirt this because they really like the feat but don't like the consequences, and in practice there are no specified consequences to violating the anathema. It's awkward because as the GM I'm careful about taking away player agency and telling them they cannot do something, so if they just proceed anyway fully knowing they're breaking the anathema and not caring, I'm not sure how best to proceed.
I mean, if a player brought a Druid that was clearly wearing metal armor and an steel shield and tried to claim their character truly believed rocks were living things so it was okay, I'd not let that pass.
From everything I've read for Organized Play it just seems to be taken as a given that players will choose to not commit anathema. Like the example given is that a Champion of Sarenae could not lie to a guard. That seems pretty clear cut. But there's nothing on whether that means you'd prevent them if they went ahead and tried to lie anyways, or what would happen afterwards if they did so. Do you take away their focus pool for the rest of the session? Do you make note of this on the Chronicle sheet like you would for Infamy?
Mostly I'm finding the Laws of Mortality one to be the most awkward to work with, and a lot of players I've found don't actually even realize what the requirement for Mortal Healing means or that there even is an Anathema associated with it beyond "look disapprovingly at divine healers".
So what's the best way to handle it? Disallow the character from counting as a "Willing target" for divine spells? Allow them to choose to break the Anathema and then disable Mortal Healing for the rest of the session (although this winds up not meaning much since often the need for such healing almost always would come during the final encounter where the feat no longer is a factor)?
Just curious if this has come up for anybody else and how they've handled it, or whether there's been some prior official guidance on the topic and how it should be handled. Thanks!
|
Interesting.
If you limit it to solicited or willingly received divine spells, it seems less difficult to adjudicate than simply "receiving" divine aid. Heal targets 1 living target except the 3-action burst hits all living (even your enemies) so they're not willing. Bless is tricky, since you don't have a choice to accept or refuse, but you could, in theory, try to stay out of its radius, but that could put you and your team's life in jeopardy so I'm not sure how hard I'd press that situation.
Hasn't come up for me, but I would warn them and if proceeding anyhow, have the character lose access to the benefits for the remainder of the scenario.
I see these as role-playing elements that are basically impossible to put into strict rules for society play and very much depend on GM whims. "Receive divine or religious aid" is extremely unspecific, and of course there is nothing in there limiting this to "willingly". Or even "knowingly", though that logically gets to who actually polices a violation of these "Laws" - a god could be displeased by a follower's action, even if the follower wasn't aware. For a follower of the Laws of Mortality as a philosopy, it would probably have to be construed as some psychological effect. So ignorance might really be bliss in this case.
As an aside, that just came to mind when writing the last paragraph, I can now totally see a cleric of Calistria pulling a "reverse Razmir" and tricking some poor Rahadoumi into believing it's all just primal healing :).
Taken to an extreme does "not being killed due to the zombie being destroyed by the cleric's divine magic" count? How do you make sure your own sword wasn't forged by someone who received Torag's guidance in the process? Would you like to benefit from Sarenrae's sunlight today, or just keep your eyes closed? After all, what is not affected by the Gods in this setting? It gets extremely silly very fast, and impossible to regulate.
So it's something that will always lead to table variance. As a GM using your best judgement is the best (and of course ultimately not super helpful) advice. Personally, I think (this exact situation hasn't come up) I'd be rather strict if I get the impression a player is just trying to milk the mechanical benefits and skirt the more rp-based drawbacks, while a player that roleplays a true believer in the Laws well can expect a lot more leniency. Obviously, someone who personally favors a more min-max playstyle would likely disagree strongly...
As for mechanical consequences, it's very situational. You can always rule something doesn't work, "you had expected your Treat Wounds to heal more than that, but somehow it didn't!". Sure, a focus pool might mysteriously not refill. Or you could give enemies large circumstance bonuses to saving throws that more or less guarantee a crit success. If you felt this was an ongoing issue, you could always record it in the notes section of the chronicle sheet, "Character repeatedly and blatantly disregarded the tenets of the Laws of Mortality, feat "Mortal healing" was considered inactive" or something. However, I don't really expect future GMs to check those notes anyway, so I don't see it as having any consequences.
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
From the blog/guide, I think this is the key part:
When considering anathema, note that a character must actively and personally commit an anathemic act in Society play to incur consequences with their deity, and is not liable for the actions of their party members.
In practice, this would mean for example that you can not Request that the party's cleric heals you, and you wouldn't be a willing target for their heal spell at 1 or 2 actions. For effects that aren't clearly defined as divine (such as potions) I'd err on the side of leniency and assume that those being used aren't divine in origin. A 3 action Burst Heal targets everyone so you aren't a willing target and there's no penalty for you, but if the party cleric asked everyone to stay close to receive healing and you didn't use a *Reasonable* opportunity to move out of the radius, that's a violation. (What's reasonable depends on the context. Fighting an enemy in a deadly situation? Probably can't/shouldn't force the PC to move and possibly take an attack of opportunity).
Being unconscious and on the ground, you can't refuse the healing so no harm done if you do get healed back up.For Bless, the question depends on the answer of "Who is your ally", and I personally think it requires concent from both characters. If either the caster or the target don't agree, then you aren't an ally for the purpose of the bless, so I'd allow the laws of mortality follower to simply ignore the bless bonus.
As to the consequences - I believe that if you actively and personally commit an act to break your edicts or anathema, you lose the benefits of the feat until you get an atonement, just like a cleric or a druid does.
However, it's important to keep in mind these two bits:
It is generally assumed that all characters can participate in Pathfinder Society adventures without running afoul of their deity’s edicts and anathema—attempting to perform the primary objective of an official Pathfinder Society mission by itself will not cause a character to fall out of favor with their deity.
And
a character does not need to perform their deity’s edicts to the exclusion of other activities, or if doing so would prevent the smooth progression of play at the table.
As a side note for the mortal healing, a cleric casting an AoE heal would probably be punishment enough in and of itself, as it shuts down the mortal healing for those targets for 24 hours.
Atonement is also a bit weird, and will probably get clarified for society play. I couldn't find any rules regarding:
Does the "1 day casting time" take up 1 day of downtime?
Does the "Before the atonement is complete, the creature must perform a special quest or other task chosen by your deity, as befits its misdeeds. If completed during downtime, this task should take no less than 1 month" require spending downtime days, which would be super harsh since it means a character could lose their powers for several days?
Who makes the roll for the ritual, and if it is the NPC casting atone, what's their bonus on the check?
Maybe there is an answer for those, but I couldn't find one.
|
Sort of related question. Sorry for the minor thread hijack, but I asked this elsewhere and didn't get a complete answer. Godless Healing does not have any of these restrictions, right? There's no home region Rhahadoum required, or need to follow the Laws of Mortality? It's less clear to me, because Rhahadoum is mentioned in the table description for it, but it doesn't have any prerequisites. I have a character who is meant to have the attitude that the gods never did anything for him, so who needs them. But he's not a Laws of Mortality character, or a jerk about accepting casting from an ally or anything like that. He's just used to looking out for himself.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Godless Healing
Prerequisites Battle Medicine, can’t have a patron deity
Mortal Healing
Prerequisites Godless Healing, you follow the Laws of Mortality
"When you roll a success to Treat Wounds for a creature that hasn’t regained Hit Points from divine magic in the past 24 hours, you get a critical success on your check instead"
Laws of Mortality
Anathema worship or swear an oath by a deity or religion, solicit or receive divine or religious aid, take a side in conflicts between religions
Anathema
"Champions and clerics must avoid their deity’s anathema or risk losing their divine powers, and even lay worshippers usually feel guilty for performing such acts, as they will be weighed against them in the afterlife."
The only thing that prevents Mortal Healing from working is "regained Hit Points from divine magic in the past 24 hours".
|
wouldn't losing the prerequisite also stop it from working? Unless anathema don't have any in game effect that would seem to be the point of them.The only thing that prevents Mortal Healing from working is "regained Hit Points from divine magic in the past 24 hours".
I would think it would stop it until 24 hours have passed. But what is being stopped? The increase from Success to Critical Success.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting.
If you limit it to solicited or willingly received divine spells, it seems less difficult to adjudicate than simply "receiving" divine aid. Heal targets 1 living target except the 3-action burst hits all living (even your enemies) so they're not willing. Bless is tricky, since you don't have a choice to accept or refuse, but you could, in theory, try to stay out of its radius, but that could put you and your team's life in jeopardy so I'm not sure how hard I'd press that situation.
Hasn't come up for me, but I would warn them and if proceeding anyhow, have the character lose access to the benefits for the remainder of the scenario.
Well, not so sure about the 3 action burst Heal.
<<snipped out the non-relative stuff>>
Targets 1 willing living creature
You channel positive energy to heal the living... If the target is a willing living creature, you restore 1d8 Hit Points....The number of actions you spend when Casting this Spell determines its targets, range, area, and other parameters.
Three Actions (material, somatic, verbal) You disperse positive energy in a 30-foot emanation. This targets all living and undead creatures in the burst.
So breaking it down, Target is defined as "willing living creature". To be a Target for a 3 action burst, you are only a Target if you are living and if you are willing.
So I think if a character was unwilling to receive the healing, they would not.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
Huh, would you look at that. I always assumed Godless healing required Rahadoumi origins to qualify, since it's under Rahadoum in the book, but it's not uncommon and it doesn't have a prerequisite region.
(Not that it matters, my druid would be from Rahadoum anyway)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing that prevents Mortal Healing from working is "regained Hit Points from divine magic in the past 24 hours".wouldn't losing the prerequisite also stop it from working?
That's not under discussion here. Obviously if you start worshipping Asmodeus, you no longer fulfill the prerequisites of either feat and would lose access to them, just as with any other feat that you no longer meet the prerequisites for.
Unless anathema don't have any in game effect that would seem to be the point of them.
I provided a link and a quote of what Anathema means in Pathfinder 2.
If you are a lay worshipper, there is no drawback to going against your anathema.
If you are a Cleric or Champion, you risk losing access to your "divine powers".
I'm not going to debate the specifics of anyone's roleplay regarding their adherence to any anathema, but regarding this specific instance of Mortal Healing working, there should be no debate.
|
|
Interesting.
If you limit it to solicited or willingly received divine spells, it seems less difficult to adjudicate than simply "receiving" divine aid. Heal targets 1 living target except the 3-action burst hits all living (even your enemies) so they're not willing. Bless is tricky, since you don't have a choice to accept or refuse, but you could, in theory, try to stay out of its radius, but that could put you and your team's life in jeopardy so I'm not sure how hard I'd press that situation.
Hasn't come up for me, but I would warn them and if proceeding anyhow, have the character lose access to the benefits for the remainder of the scenario.
Well, not so sure about the 3 action burst Heal.
<<snipped out the non-relative stuff>>
Targets 1 willing living creature
You channel positive energy to heal the living... If the target is a willing living creature, you restore 1d8 Hit Points....The number of actions you spend when Casting this Spell determines its targets, range, area, and other parameters.
Three Actions (material, somatic, verbal) You disperse positive energy in a 30-foot emanation. This targets all living and undead creatures in the burst.
So breaking it down, Target is defined as "willing living creature". To be a Target for a 3 action burst, you are only a Target if you are living and if you are willing.
So I think if a character was unwilling to receive the healing, they would not.
3-action Heal changes the targets:
This targets all living and undead creatures in the burst.
Emphasis mine.
It boils down to what your GM thinks fulfilling the requirement "you follow the Laws of Mortality" actually means in practical terms.
Some will see this condition fulfilled merely because the player put "Laws of Mortality" in the deity field of their character sheet, irrespective of the character's actual behavior. Others will require the character to more-or-less stricly adhere to the Laws in-game, anathema and all. There really is no right or wrong way of doing it. Whenever there is an attempt to balance or limit a mechanically strong desirable feat by more role-playing focused prerequisites, you'll always get the old disagreement between "roleplayers" and "optimizers".
Some additional observations relevant to Mortal Healing:
- it doesn't neccessarily prevent you from receiving a heal spell, as that spell is also on the primal spell list.
(- it doesn't work with Assurance, as that automatically foregos the roll that is required for Mortal Healing.) retrospective edit: this is apparently controversial, see the thread on the rules discussion forum
- it does work with both Natural Medicine and the Chirurgeon Alchemist's ability to use Crafting for a Medicine check.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It boils down to what your GM thinks fulfilling the requirement "you follow the Laws of Mortality" actually means in practical terms.
Presumably the purpose of asking in this forum is to get an answer that should be generally applied in PFS, rather than varying from GM to GM.
|
|
it doesn't work with Assurance, as that automatically foregos the roll that is required for Mortal Healing.
This is also an incorrect statement, but if you wish to argue for it, I will direct you to the recent thread discussing it over in the Rules Forum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it doesn't work with Assurance, as that automatically foregos the roll that is required for Mortal Healing.This is also an incorrect statement, but if you wish to argue for it, I will direct you to the recent thread discussing it over in the Rules Forum.
I've edited my previous post so as to avoid having the same argument in two different threads. The fact that you hold a different opinion does not however make it an incorrect statement per se...
Presumably the purpose of asking in this forum is to get an answer that should be generally applied in PFS, rather than varying from GM to GM.It boils down to what your GM thinks fulfilling the requirement "you follow the Laws of Mortality" actually means in practical terms.
Unless you're looking to prevent discussion by non-officials, what's the purpose of this statement? Because they are the only ones who could give a ruling on what should be generally applied in PFS. The rest of us can merely give an opinion and maybe report their experiences. Mine is that there are going to be table differences.
And I'm opposed to attempts to turn Mortal Healing into another must-have uber-feat like Battle Medicine.
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is just speculation, but I've often felt that OrgPlay Leadership prefers to make few 'this is how this feat will be interpreted across all tables' decisions. They will make an OrgPlay ruling from time to time with a particularly controversial feat or item, but in general they prefer not to do so.
This gives GMs some leeway to make the best ruling for their table that they can. I think it can be helpful to GMs to see a thread like this, even if a unanimous consensus won't come out of it. And let's face it, how often do we all agree on anything? Where rules interpretations are concerned, we all have lots of opinions. Still, having read through this, I can form my own opinions as a GM as to how I would want to rule it.
Whenever there is an attempt to balance or limit a mechanically strong desirable feat by more role-playing focused prerequisites, you'll always get the old disagreement between "roleplayers" and "optimizers".
I wish that you wouldn't make that division. Many of the players that I enjoy GMing for fall into both categories. They aren't either / or, but rather two overlapping factors.
Now... In my opinion, Mortal Healing is strongly restricted by its anathema. If I am aware that a player is using it, I would note that it does not heal people who have received divine healing in the last 24 hours. I'm also going to make sure the player understands the anathema and what it means for their character. But here's the key thing. I'm not going to do it as a rules cop or as a 'gotcha' moment. I'm going to do it more like this:
"Oh that's such an interesting feat! I've thought about taking it, but I need to have the right character to really work with that anathema. Giving up the ability to solicit or receive divine or religious aid? That's badass, but good for you for playing on hard mode!"
I am now considering the idea of building a Rahadoumi doctor alchemist around that feat: someone who loves healing and medicine, but who is concerned for the souls of those poor people still chained to their gods. One who might gently ask clerics and champions if they've thought through the perils of tying themselves so closely to a capricious deity. Being an atheist in a world with the Starstone requires a certain chutzpah and stubbornness that I find an appealing character seed.
The bit about not taking sides in a religious conflict is giving me a bit of a pause, though. How often have Pathfinder or Starfinder Society scenarios involved helping out religious figures, institutions or gods? Whew.
Hmm
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you're looking to prevent discussion by non-officials, what's the purpose of this statement? Because they are the only ones who could give a ruling on what should be generally applied in PFS. The rest of us can merely give an opinion and maybe report their experiences. Mine is that there are going to be table differences.Presumably the purpose of asking in this forum is to get an answer that should be generally applied in PFS, rather than varying from GM to GM.It boils down to what your GM thinks fulfilling the requirement "you follow the Laws of Mortality" actually means in practical terms.
Discussions have an impact.
Whether it's civil rights or rules text, discussions inform and change minds.
And often times the person you're trying to inform isn't the only one listening.
|
I am now considering the idea of building a Rahadoumi doctor alchemist around that feat: someone who loves healing and medicine, but who is concerned for the souls of those poor people still chained to their gods. One who might gently ask clerics and champions if they've thought through the perils of tying themselves so closely to a capricious deity. Being an atheist in a world with the Starstone requires a certain chutzpah and stubbornness that I find an appealing character seed.
A certain Hellknight from the Order of the Pyre (who has almost died twice for his convictions and refusal of divine-based healing, who also can't follow the Laws of Mortality because they conflict with the Measure and Chain) would welcome such a strong-willed person if they chose to join the society.
|
|
3-action Heal changes the targets:
This targets all living and undead creatures in the burst.Emphasis mine.
Yes, but I do believe it does not changes the definition of a "target" as defined above.
So I do believe a character or NPC can choose not to be a willing recipient of the spell.
Since this point is rules related more so than Society related, I am going to create a thread in the rules section to see what the community as a whole says. And maybe even get some clarity from the developers.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All them undead just decided to not be willing targets...
The undead don't need to be willing.
1 willing living creature or 1 undead
I think there are Two valid ways to rule the interaction:
1. You can choose not to be a willing (living) target even for the 3 action AoE, and thus you can choose not to accept the healing and adhere to your anathema.
2. 3 action no longer requires willing targets because it targets everyone. However, you are NOT actively and personally performing the anathema if someone else casts an AoE heal (unless you are getting yourself included in it on purpose >.>) so you're fine and anathema isn't broken.
I would go with the first one, but I could see a lenient GM going with the second ruling. In either case, neither should lead to any trouble for your character, and whichever ruling the GM uses, it shouldn't cause you any trouble to adapt to the table.
After thought: Only way I could see problems arise would be if GM went with the second ruling (Automatically affects everyone, willing or not) AND ignored the part of anathema rules that say you need to be actively and personally doing it for it to count, in which case you could lose your feat by being included in a heal, no matter the reason - But this would lead to a weird rules argument about PvP. An effect that disables some of your powers? Yeah, that's PvP, which means you can't be included in the effect unless you give permission, which means that the party cleric can't heal the rest of the party if you don't move, which means you can prevent healing of others by sticking to the cleric, and then we're going down the hill fast from there.
In any event: Sure, there's probably table variation on what counts as actively and personally breaking the anathema, but as long as you aren't trying to game the system and accept that you can no longer willingly receive divine spells, it shouldn't matter what version of the ruling the GM uses.
|
|
All them undead just decided to not be willing targets...The undead don't need to be willing.
I was being tongue in cheek.
Gary took the rules specific discussion to the Rules forum.
You summary of a GM's options is spot on, however. The third option would be unfortunate and incorrect, although functionally it would likely have to be a different area of effect buff to matter because once a target has received divine healing, you can't use your feat on them anyhow.
The question of unconscious and dying characters being willing or being able to be unwilling arises. I can already think of a lot of oddball cases, but let's stick to things like stabilize, heal, and other spells that can save your bacon (all cast off the divine list, of course). I, as the GM, would be completely fine with a player saying, "My character would not accept that spell." It's something that acts against the player's own interests (even if the ensuing RP between saved person and the savior might be interesting--or awful--better for a home game).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So to just say it here, "Targets" is defined in the CRB and it addresses the whole willing question. See my post here in the rules forum for that ongoing debate.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey all, I really appreciate the responses. Thinking about it, this really seems to me like it falls closest to how Barbarian anathema works - another anathema that doesn't involve a deity or magical power that would require actual Atonement. With Barbarians, they simply lose their instinct ability until they spend 1 day of downtime re-centering themselves. This seems pretty easy to work with as it wouldn't be overly punishing and feels like it would be rather fitting from a RP perspective - I imagine a day spent rationalizing and mentally focusing back on your disdain for divinity. I would be upfront and clear to the player about this - it's not a gotcha but a choice. I wouldn't consider a player being stabilized or 3-action Healed to be in violation of this, just specifically if they making a conscious choice to be Willing to receive Divine aid.
I never realized how crippling a Barbarian committing anathema to Giant Instinct would be - you'd lose your ability to wield your own weapon for the rest of the session.
|
|
Actually, scratch that about AoE Heal and Stuff while unconscious, it's clear in the rules for spell targets:
"Some spells restrict you to willing targets. A player can declare their character a willing or unwilling target at any time, regardless of turn order or their character’s condition (such as when a character is paralyzed, unconscious, or even dead)."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know table variation exists when a rule is ambiguous, but you're straight up just creating a houserule here.
Clerics and Champions have rules for their anathemas.
Barbarians and Druids have rules for their anathemas.
And lay worshippers have rules for their deity's anathemas.
The difference between all of those is that the latter category do not suffer any mechanical penalties for violating theirs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know table variation exists when a rule is ambiguous, but you're straight up just creating a houserule here.
Clerics and Champions have rules for their anathemas.
Barbarians and Druids have rules for their anathemas.
And lay worshippers have rules for their deity's anathemas.
The difference between all of those is that the latter category do not suffer any mechanical penalties for violating theirs.
Probably because they're not supposed to have mechanical options relating to their faith.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We can toss out guesses all day long that align with our thinking.
I think house rule is a little harsh to describe the idea that your patron deity is more than just the name you have scribbled on that section of the character sheet. Which is what your argument boils down to. Arson Carson has a saranite related feat, but there's no penalty for burning down every orphanage in katapesh?
You'd also hit a weird bit of rules lawyering where a cleric with a worshipers feat would get dinged for breaking their anathema but someone else wouldn't.
|
|
I think house rule is a little harsh to describe the idea that your patron deity is more than just the name you have scribbled on that section of the character sheet. Which is what your argument boils down to. Arson Carson has a saranite related feat, but there's no penalty for burning down every orphanage in katapesh?
Those are currently how the rules are written. Whether or not it makes sense or is fair are separate issues that would need specific rules changes to rectify. For most classes, your patron deity is a tool for access and a roleplaying device, not a proscription on playing a certain way.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...or people just have different opinions about what words mean when written in a feat's Prerequisites line—generally a form of binding rules text, in my experience—opinions that, in my opinion, don't deserve a smear tactic.
But, if you'd prefer it presented your way:
At its root, this debate boils down to another version of "I hate how healing anathema is handled in Pathfinder 2 and I want to restrict ignore it as much as possible".
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like anathema in Pathfinder 2. Where would you get that I think otherwise?
I believe you know very well the point Honeybee was making.
Lumping anyone who is trying to figure out how anathemas of deities or philosophies and feats that require their adherence works as wanting to "restrict healing as much as possible" is as egregious a misrepresentation as saying your conclusion means you hate anathemas and want to ignore them.
|
|
Don't take my word for it, then:
the Mortal Healing feat is incredibly powerful
already very strong and would become vastly OP
Or one of numerous debates where people single out Mortal Healing as their example.
|
|
I may as well also remind people in this thread that we're talking about healing +9 hit points.
Whether you're 3rd Level, or 20th.
|
|
Nefreet, it seems like you're arguing that, for a lay worshiper taking this feat, the prerequisite of being a follower of the Laws of Mortality is just fluff? Since anathema mechanically doesn't apply to lay worshipers?
It's as much fluff as being from The Saga Lands or the High Seas- it affects how you are likely to roleplay your character and what options you have Access to.
|
|
Nefreet, it seems like you're arguing that, for a lay worshiper taking this feat, the prerequisite of being a follower of the Laws of Mortality is just fluff? Since anathema mechanically doesn't apply to lay worshipers?
I will refer you back to my earlier post for consistency.
And also:
I'm not going to debate the specifics of anyone's roleplay regarding their adherence to any anathema
FWIW, my Goblin Rogue became a "Born Again Mortal" after helping [REDACTED] solidify their kingdom under [REDACTED]. He very much embraces the edict of "provide a peaceful and autonomous society in which the people are cared for through social infrastructure". He even started a family (2 Hirelings as "children") and toned down his previously zany Goblin antics (free rebuild to switch from CN to N). As a Rogue, he falls under the lay worshipper category. He abides by the anathema to never solicit "divine aid", although the cleric still occasionally catches him in bursts of Bless and Heal, the latter of which he finds especially annoying. He won't ever swear an oath to a deity (hasn't come up yet, but theoretically could) and hasn't taken any sides during discussions of religion.
So, contrary to what some people seem to be implying here, I'm personally not advocating that role-play be thrown out the window.
But I'm also not going to make a houserule that says it's required, when the sections I quoted clearly indicate it's not.