Anathema kill prisoners or surrendering foes, prevent conflict through negotiation, win a battle through underhanded tactics or indirect magicI have some doubts towards the second and third part.
To begin with, being part of a group means to cooperate with them in order to achieve goals ( whether they are combat or trivial encounters ).
Is the second part
prevent conflict through negotiationavoidable when the rest of the party wants to go for negotiations by simply not taking part to it?
For example, the party wants to negotiate with a group of ruffians who have hostages, and the cleric/champion simply refuse to do so, but won't sabotage their attempt.
Finally, what does "indirect magic" mean?
Either a champion and a cleric ( the latter way more than the former ) make use of magic which might have some active or passive effect ( regardless it's a debuff, a buff, a heal or a damaging effect ).It reminds me of "Leroy Jenkins", for those who are familiar with wow.
I would say that if the PC has no part of the negotiation, then they're fine, or perhaps sway the negotiation into "combat" instead. A simple fighting negotiation with an "If I win then X" proposal wouldn't be anathema at all either.
I would say this falls under the idea of subtle magics than using complex magical tactics against your enemy. A clear example would be utilizing Charm Person to either make the enemy surrender or fight the enemy for you, which would be grounds for anathema, as Charm Person, the spell, expressly appears no different than making a request to the target. Furthermore, feats which conceal your spellcasting would be anathema as well. But spells like Enlarge or Haste, which have both visible and combat tendencies to them? Have at it. Anything which makes you visually better at fighting is 100% okay with Gorum.
Thankfully, spells are visually pretty obvious that they are cast, meaning the odds of having this anathema come up are pretty slim. But some spells and abilities change that, so be careful with your spell selection, and avoid feats like Conceal Spell.
The Gorumite is always going to oppose the party taking a diplomatic approach and talking instead of fighting. What happens when you're outvoted is something you need to work out with the GM. But devout Gorumites are extremely aggro.
As for indirect damage, I'm pretty sure that Gorum is in favor of buffs or any other preparations that are useful for you, personally, smashing someone's face.
The Gorum worshiper should:
- go to negotiations and work towards a resolution that involves conflict. (Always talk with your GM and fellow players out of character before you play a character like this though)
- cast and make use of buffs related to combat or that would aid in conflicts. They shouldn't circumvent or avoid conflict with magic. Buffing someone is very much direct magic. Debuffing could be seen as weak/cheap by Gorum.
Now this is just the fun of playing a character that follows a specific god. If you don't like mechanical linking I recommend asking your GM to just associate the mechanics you like to a god that is more of what you want. Or ditch the concept of a god altogether if it isn't your style.
Casting a spell on an enemy to weaken them is anything but indirect.
I imagine Gorum's anathema has more to do with what the spell is utilized for than specifically what spells you cast.
Using a blasting spell to hurt an enemy would be great, but using that same spell to, say, destroy their food stores so they'll be hungry, demoralized and might be more liable to surrender would be heavily frowned upon.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anathema applies to the relevant PC's behavior only. Going further than this to impose a behavior on the rest of the party is a player's choice and not imposed by RAW.
So, a Gorumite negotiating to avoid conflict breaks their anathema. Anything else is ok. Trying to disrupt negotiations from other party members is a player's choice though.
|
I have some doubts towards the second and third part.
Generally speaking anathema only applies to you, not the actions of others. So, your party can do the negotiate thing all they want, you just wouldn't participate. That doesn't mean you have to blindly attack everything, just that YOU wouldn't choose negotiation over a demonstration of physical might.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way the anathema is worded, it only applies to you; in fact, there are very few dieties that require you to control the behavior of others, and those that do explicitly say so.
In the second, as long as YOU don't aid in the negotiation, you're fine, though you might end up throwing in some begrudging grumbling. Negotiations like "I duel the leader one on one" might also be an acceptable compromise, and coercion through the intimidate skill is absolutely on the table.
For the third, indirect magic almost certainly means rituals and spells that spread plague or whatevs subtly, using augeries to avoid fights, hallusory terrain to cover pits, etc, and not buffing, healing, debuffing, non subtle control spells, and the like. I imagine he'd also be fine with artillery magic and the like, even if it is indirect combat, since it is still a damaging one. Again, this says nothing about your allies, but you would never seek to aid such deceptive ploys.
Overall, Gorum is one of those gods that can be contentious with your average party. He is, after all, borderline evil, and like all evil or evil adjacent characters and gods, always check with your group first
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anathema applies to the relevant PC's behavior only. Going further than this to impose a behavior on the rest of the party is a player's choice and not imposed by RAW.
So, a Gorumite negotiating to avoid conflict breaks their anathema. Anything else is ok. Trying to disrupt negotiations from other party members is a player's choice though.
This is true, as that kind of anathema would be purposefully spelled out like in the Superstition Instinct anathema, where purposeful involvement with characters whom repeatedly cast spells on you is grounds for anathema.
In Gorum's case, you can ignore it entirely, or if you do participate, as long as your involvement with the negotiations leads to a combat or conflict of sorts, he won't care.
the party shouldn't take a cleric or champion of Gorum to a negotiation for a peace or a avoid a fight. negotiations that lead to either non lethal combat or perhaps a duel to lessen casualties is fine.
Indirect magic and underhanded tactics is actually a very tricky questions.
charm spells and debuffs seem very much the definition of underhanded tactics to me.
indirect spells seem to me to be spells that control the environment.
Gorum based on these, seems really more to be a God of the Duel/Battle like Ares, Rather than a God of War in the same vein of Athena, or Odin.
He seems very much a man o man o kind of God rather than a tactical kind of God.
|
|
Gorum based on these, seems really more to be a God of the Duel/Battle like Ares, Rather than a God of War in the same vein of Athena, or Odin.
He seems very much a man o man o kind of God rather than a tactical kind of God.
I was long befuddled on how to impersonate our Lord in Iron util I met Marvel Comics' Ares.
Your typical badass CN greater god of war, who cares for nothing but the thrill of battle and the glory of triumph.
I wanted to share this epiphany with all, just in case it speaks to people as strongly as it spoke to me.
The Ares mini-serie, as well as the "God of Fear, God of War" issue of the Secret Warriors, are choke full of enlightening quotes for exactly this kind of character.
The one that got me in love ?
"No one I select for my squad of shades will ever lose a fight for the rest of their life.
It's just that the rest of your life may be somewhat shorter than you'd expect."
Some other examples taken from the aforementioned comic books :
- There will always be War
- Good and Evil are for man. Not I
- I need no favors. I am my own god
- Honor above everything
- Brook no insults
- Honor for your comrades and no one else
- Leave no god/man behind
- Some commanders NEED blowing up
Well, you get the drift.
I would be incredibly leery of players who play to the "as long as I am not the one doing it, it is fine" mindset indicated above.
While I don't think they should be punished for the actions of others, deliberately not acting where their beliefs and values would push them to act smacks way too heavily of "I want the mechanics but not the lore" for something heavily lore based such as clerics and deific power in general.
The point of the anathema is to show what goes against your god's values and edicts on a whole. Characters who are devout enough to be granted powers should probably not be regularly engaging or associating with people who countermand those edicts without very good reason.
This is a personal pain point for me though, I have met a couple of people in my GM career who have pulled the "I just leave the room" shtick. I would always rather the player just be upfront with what they want mechanics wise rather than to justify actions via RAW that go hard against thematic intent.
Even in something like PFS being told "I worship xxx god, but it is more for the mechanics" in advance makes it a lot easier to reconcile with as a GM and storyteller/guide.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kinda suspect that the "prevent conflict through negotiation" is poor phrasing for what it actually means... a strict interpretation of that would mean that being present at any negotiating table for any reason is a waste of your time, but I am doubtful that Gorum would disapprove of meeting with an enemy leader to discuss what concessions they will give you after your resounding victory.
I think it's more talking about Neville Chamberlain tactics; when your fear of losing has outweighed your willingness to fight for what's yours then you have lost Gorum's favor. So more proper examples would be accepting vassalhood without a fight or paying protection money to the local gang rather than fighting back. Cowardice is what earns Gorum's ire.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be incredibly leery of players who play to the "as long as I am not the one doing it, it is fine" mindset indicated above.
While I don't think they should be punished for the actions of others, deliberately not acting where their beliefs and values would push them to act smacks way too heavily of "I want the mechanics but not the lore" for something heavily lore based such as clerics and deific power in general.
The point of the anathema is to show what goes against your god's values and edicts on a whole. Characters who are devout enough to be granted powers should probably not be regularly engaging or associating with people who countermand those edicts without very good reason.
This is a personal pain point for me though, I have met a couple of people in my GM career who have pulled the "I just leave the room" shtick. I would always rather the player just be upfront with what they want mechanics wise rather than to justify actions via RAW that go hard against thematic intent.
Even in something like PFS being told "I worship xxx god, but it is more for the mechanics" in advance makes it a lot easier to reconcile with as a GM and storyteller/guide.
I feel the anathema applying only to the player's character is a very big step in avoiding players ruining things for their party, or even worse telling other players what their characters must do, because "it is what my character would do / has to do".
IMO the days of "Paladins are jerks" are behind us thanks to PF2 and the anathemas. I do not wish to see them come back in any way or shape.