One of Sarenrae's Anathema's is that you shouldn't lie. Is this outright lying, lying by omission, all of the above, or DM's call?
GM and player's call.
An anathema like that has to be balanced between both the theme of the character, the personality and attitudes of the Deity as played by the GM, and the needs of the campaign and the rest of the party. It really isn't possible to distill all of that into a single unchanging rule that can be applied to all groups of players and campaigns.
But it also should be a discussion among the entire playing group. Not just an arbitrary decision made by one of them even if that one is the GM.
Yeah, from a practical standpoint the rules are more like guidelines. Following the rules is a good idea. But it does take a second seat to having fun and enjoying the game.
The main thing I would mention regarding that is that changes to the rules should all be done above board and with acceptance and agreement from everyone in the game. There shouldn't be hidden houserules or ones that unfairly benefit or penalize some players but not others.
Anathema is in a bit of an odd place. Mostly it is for characterization and role-play rather than mechanical impact. Having an Anathema shouldn't make the game less fun. It may make the game more difficult - but the player playing that character should know that going in. Not have it sprung on them by surprise by the GM mid-game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Awesome. Welcome to the game, and certainly feel free to ask around on here too.
I haven't personally played a character with a formal anathema yet. But the guidelines of them taking second priority to the needs of the campaign are probably best illustrated by the PFS note for Barbarian Superstition Instinct.
Given the slightly relaxed rules around edicts and anathema in Society play, a barbarian with the superstition instinct can benefit from spells and magic items if they are an unavoidable part of a Society adventure, such as if a scenario assumes the PCs are transported to their mission location via a teleport spell, or if an adventure requires that all PCs participate in a magical ritual.
Or perhaps the Champion Tenet rules.
Tenets are listed in order of importance, starting with the most important. If a situation places two tenets in conflict, you aren’t in a no-win situation; instead, follow the more important tenet.
|
There is a fine line between lying by omission and just . . . not volunteering information. If Steve is lying, you are under no obligation to correct him unless someone asks you if you have anything to add. Additionally, since they are in order of importance, you could probably lie by omission if you honestly believe it would lead to you striking down some undead. Just a thought.
Additionally, since they are in order of importance, you could probably lie by omission if you honestly believe it would lead to you striking down some undead. Just a thought.
I have seen deity anathema described as being 'in order of importance' but I haven't yet found any evidence of this actually being the case. Do you think you could point me to a source? Like, as breithauptclan shows, the Champion's tenets explicitly have an order of importance, but even that scenario places "Deity's Anathema" in the first order directly next to "Do no evil". I haven't found anything that gives all anathema the same arrangement, yet.
I haven't found anything that gives all anathema the same arrangement, yet.
I haven't either. But the concept is there in the Champion tenets, and the game would be quite a bit more toxic to play if the GM is trying to hold a player to Anathema that puts them in a no-win situation.
So if a GM is doing that, it is probably better to just leave the game rather than try and find an explicit rules citation to tell the GM that they are wrong.
Fair, though the scenario I'd prefer is more of an open conversation which anathema is most important to a circumstance and to the character themselves. I'd rather avoid no-win scenarios, too, but it seems more likely that most of the anathema (in the CRB at least) are listed in alphabetical order, with the few exceptions including Sarenrae's lie and Torag's tell lies or cheat.
It's not a bad idea to rank anathema by importance, but I feel like it's worth being clear that this isn't strictly RAW and that most of the time this seems to make whichever item starts with 'a' the most important. But then, as you said, if I was in a game where I felt like there was no way out of a scenario that pit two of my deity's anathema against each other, I would either talk to the GM about it or leave the game if the environment was going to be toxic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you say words with the intent of deception, as in intentionally create the omission, then I'd count that as lying. You're communicating to implant that lie in their mind even if you technically evaded saying untruthful words. Such wheedling falls in the realms of devils IMO.
That said, as well as being quiet, there's a whole sphere you can navigate safely without delving into lies.
"What do you think of what your friend said?"
(and they lied for a good reason)
"I think their heart's in the right place."
"Do you agree with what they said?"
"We all speak for ourselves. Or choose not to." (the latter said in case they aim the question at you)
---
There's also the metagame issue. If the first PC's Deception role is to be respected, it should stand (or fall) on its own. Though if dealing with a paranoid NPC who routinely questions multiple people to look for a weak link, then sure, you might have to participate. Heck, I'd be wary of the ally's lie failing and the NPC checking to see if you're a liar too, worse yet, perhaps an imposter or heretic priest of Saranrae cuz' they don't lie!
Best yet would be to simply max out Diplomacy so you can befriend them so that they can handle the harsh truth. Rarely does a social situation only allow one route to success (and it's poor writing IMO when it does).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anathema should be more of a roleplaying challenge that the player takes on voluntarily than a cudgel the GM uses to punish you for not playing your character right.
As long as you can make a plausible case why your character believes what you did is in keeping with what they believe, then you shouldn't be in danger of breaking your anathema. These things are generally vaguely defined just to give people room for interpretation.
But it should be pretty clear that Sarenrae does not want you to immediately disclose to your enemies everything that could possibly harm the cause of goodness. Figuring out how to be misleading without being untruthful is more fun as a RPing prompt than just a blanked allowance for lying by omission.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anathema should be more of a roleplaying challenge that the player takes on voluntarily than a cudgel the GM uses to punish you for not playing your character right.
I wholeheartedly agree. It's a tool of roleplaying, not a weapon of control.
This reminds me of when a fellow player recently attempted to police my Champion in Agents of Edgewatch. I loved the way it was handled.
Champ: I swing my mace in a downward arc towards the gang leader's face. 42 to hit.
GM: A crit! How do you want to play this?
Champ: Catching his head between my mace and the wall, I leave behind a crater in the wall. The thug's neck and upper body dangle from said hole, his head masked in the shadows of its depths.
Rogue: "Aren't you kind of bloodthirsty for a champion of the medical god, Qi Zhong? Isn't one of his anathema 'no killing?'"
Champ: "You need not fear. Our amoral friend here is still very much alive." *Slaps hand playfully on thug's limp knee*
Thug: *gurgles in severe pain*
Rogue: "What!? How is he even still alive?"
Champ: "By the grace of Qi Zhong my unbelieving friend!"
Other players: *Attempt to stifle laughter in the background*