I'm trying to find the specific rules wording for Anathema. But I can't remember where it is.
I have a player that I am playing with that is playing a Paladin and is concerned that they won't be able to use Feint in combat because it uses the Deception skill.
Now, that is not the intent of Anathema, and we have convinced them of that. But I would still like to have the actual rules to back that up. So far all I can see is in Champion Code where it says that the Tenets are listed in order of importance. But that isn't quite enough to say that you are allowed to use Deception in battle since you could also battle things without using Deception. You aren't in a position where the tenets cannot be satisfied even if you decide that Feint is considered lying.
There's a big part of interpretation in Edicts and Anathema. You won't find anything defining exactly lie, and depending on tables the line will be drawn more or less strictly.
It's your table, do what you like.
Yeah, I get that. To clarify, what is bugging me right now is that I can't find the definition of what Anathema actually is or what it does.
Shouldn't there be something in general rules (not class-specific) that defines what Anathema is? Then each class or class option defines what Anathema that character actually has.
I thought I had even read it before - but now I can't find it.
|
Source
Core Rulebook pg. 116 4.0
Acts fundamentally opposed to your deity's alignment or ideals are anathema to your faith. Learning or casting spells, committing acts, and using items that are anathema to your deity remove you from your deity's good graces.
Casting spells with the evil trait is almost always anathema to good deities, and casting good spells is likewise anathema to evil deities; similarly, casting chaotic spells is anathema to lawful deities, and casting lawful spells is anathema to chaotic deities. A neutral cleric who worships a neutral deity isn't limited this way, but their alignment might change over time if they frequently cast spells or use abilities with a certain alignment. Similarly, casting spells that are anathema to the tenets or goals of your faith could interfere with your connection to your deity. For example, casting a spell to create undead would be anathema to Pharasma, the goddess of death. For borderline cases, you and your GM determine which acts are anathema.
If you perform enough acts that are anathema to your deity, or if your alignment changes to one not allowed by your deity, you lose the magical abilities that come from your connection to your deity. The class features that you lose are determined by the GM, but they likely include your divine font and all divine spellcasting. These abilities can be regained only if you demonstrate your repentance by conducting an atone ritual.
And
Anathema
Flagrantly disrespecting an animal of your chosen kind is anathema to your instinct, as is using weapons while raging.
Which is also specific to a particular character or class.
I could also reference Anathema in the dictionary. Which is useful.
But am I just mis-remembering? Is there no general game definition of what Anathema means?
I have a player that I am playing with that is playing a Paladin and is concerned that they won't be able to use Feint in combat because it uses the Deception skill.
Now, that is not the intent of Anathema, and we have convinced them of that. But I would still like to have the actual rules to back that up. So far all I can see is in Champion Code where it says that the Tenets are listed in order of importance.
I mean it is the intent if their god is against deception in general.
"You must act with honor, never taking advantage of others, lying, or cheating."
I would personally say feinting is borderline but entirely up to the player. It isn't called out in the examples, but it isn't exactly honourable either even if an argument of it being dishonourable could be just as easily rebuked.
I wouldn't if I were running/playing a paladin, but that would be a roleplaying choice. If a player were more interested in the mechanics of the class and not the RP thematics I would be more lenient on them than I would be on myself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Explain to the player that Feint could be denial rather than deception. Denial and deception means keeping secrets from an enemy. Deception keeps the secrets by misleading them with false information. Denial keeps the secrets by preventing information from getting to them. Thus, a paladin could feint just by their body language giving no clues as to how the paladin will strike next. A character could make a Thievery check without theft and could make a Deception check without deceiving, because the skills are more than their names.
In contrast, the liberator champion in my game follows Grandmother Spider, who favors trickery. She has no problem outright lying to her enemies.
I can see and understand a Paladin avoiding deception strategies like a feint considering it a dishonorable action instead of do a clean fight also I can see a deity having the same vision and punishing some champion follower.
This can easily fall into:
You must act with honor, never taking advantage of others, lying, or cheating.
Simply because feint action is in the borderline of lying and cheating.
If I was interpreting a paladin I avoid usage such actions once I can use more honorable actions that's aren't questionable.
Maybe do a feint in a moment of necessity (for example in order to help to grab a controlled ally) this can be justified. But to gain an advantage during a battle simply don't feels too right as a paladin.
The support of the ruling decision that we already made is rather nice.
But the conclusion that I am coming to is that I am just hallucinating and there never was a class agnostic definition of what Anathema itself means.
I had to hunt for something the other day myself and found is bizarrely confounding that there's just no page on the AoE for "Anathema". I have heard repeated that anathema are listed in order of importance, but outside the Champion's code there seems to be no evidence within the text for this.
I did, however, find this from the Gamemastery Guide from a section on Divine Statistics:
Anathema: The opposite of edicts, anathema are those things a deity will not abide. 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. Like edicts, a deity usually has two to three simple and straightforward elements to their anathema.
I feel like "strike where the enemy is not expecting it" is just the normal understood strategy in hand-to-hand combat, to the extent that I don't think feinting would be dishonorable for a Champion because this is a tactic understood by and available to literally everyone.
It would be like saying a play-action pass in the game of American Football is dishonorable, since you imply that you're going to hand off the ball but you're going to throw it instead. The defense understands that this is just an option available to the offense and simply have to prepare for it. "Unfair" doesn't enter into it because each team's offense can do this.
When a tactic is symmetric for everyone involved in what's going on, then it's not dishonorable to use it. You're not a more honorable chess player if you never use your bishops.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since someone brought up this old thread again, I will also mention that Player Core does now have a general definition of Edicts and Anathema on page 26.
Add me to the "feinting is just how melee combat works" group. It's fencing 101.