Was my Champion Paladin in Danger of Violating Iomade's Anthema

[Mindfever]

Tonight in our game we were in combat. One of the characters went down to zero. On his turn he stabilized. I took substantial damage and used Laying on Hands to heal myself, then attacked the bad guy.

The GM started telling me that not taking the time to check on my fallen comrade or by using LoH on myself instead of the character would violate Iomade's Anthema as I was potentially "leaving an ally to die." The GM ruled that I wouldn't know that the other player had stabilized.

I pointed out that the Anthema states I can't "leave an ally in need." I argued that since I was continuing to fight the bad guys that my actions wouldn't good against that restriction.

She stated that if the player had died I would have lost my divine powers.

So was I in danger of Violating that restriction?

[Arachnofiend]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect players to make a medicine check to know if an ally has stabilized.

[Mindfever]

Arachnofiend wrote:

I don't think it's reasonable to expect players to make a medicine check to know if an ally has stabilized.

I agree but the question I'm trying to determine is if the character had died while we were in combat would that have been a violation of the Anthema?

[Baarogue]

The champion's code, tenets, and anathema aren't a straightjacket and they aren't a monkey's paw either. They're supposed to guide the player's choices, not force the player to be played like the GMs's sock-puppet. They're not meant to be interpreted to the player's detriment like a no-win scenario

Champion's Code wrote:

You follow a code of conduct, beginning with tenets shared by all champions of an alignment (such as good), and continuing with tenets of your cause. Deities often add additional strictures (for instance, Torag’s champions can’t show mercy to enemies of their people, making it almost impossible for them to follow the redeemer cause). 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. For instance, as a paladin, if an evil king asked you if you’re hiding refugees so he could execute them, you could lie to him, since the tenet against lying is less important than preventing harm to innocents.

Iomedae's anathema is "abandon a companion in need", which I would not say you did. You stayed, risking your life to defend them to the best of your ability. As a front-liner I would assume that to be your role, while the party's back-liners took care of tending to the fallen as is their role. Only clear and flagrant violations should be penalized

[Mindfever]

That was how I interpreted it as well. Glad to know that I wasn't crazy.

[Arachnofiend]

I'd say no to that question as well; Iomedae is a war god, her anathema is against cowardly behavior. Leaving your ally in need would be turning tail and fleeing while their body is left on the ground.

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

I kind of miss the days when a constant thing on this forum was an ongoing thread "Did my paladin fall if he burned down an orphanage full of goblin kids?"/

[Qaianna]

Another agreement here. In fact, healing yourself may have been what saved your comrade. If the champion's on the ground bleeding, there are some severe tactical problems in the battle. Live champion means enemy not finishing off ally, and possibility of healing later. Iomedae would be fully behind that.

[HumbleGamer]

It's right there in the tennets of good

Quote:

You must never perform acts anathema to your deity or willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or the casting of an evil spell.

You must never knowingly harm an innocent, or allow immediate harm to one through inaction when you know you could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents at an indefinite time in the future, or to sacrifice your life to protect them.

Meaning that while you act for the good people, to protect them, you also are not a suicidal fanatic, and if your own judgment decided that if you are dead you can't protect the others ( or just "I don't wanna die", which is a common emotional state ), then there's no issue with both anathema/edicts.

Quote:

She stated that if the player had died I would have lost my divine powers.

I think the DM has the last word, but this part really made me laugh.

[Qaianna]

HumbleGamer wrote:

It's right there in the tennets of good

Quote:

You must never perform acts anathema to your deity or willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or the casting of an evil spell.

You must never knowingly harm an innocent, or allow immediate harm to one through inaction when you know you could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents at an indefinite time in the future, or to sacrifice your life to protect them.

Meaning that while you act for the good people, to protect them, you also are not a suicidal fanatic, and if your own judgment decided that if you are dead you can't protect the others ( or just "I don't wanna die", which is a common emotional state ), then there's no issue with both anathema/edicts.

Quote:

She stated that if the player had died I would have lost my divine powers.

I think the DM has the last word, but this part really made me laugh.

Talk about a killer campaign ...

[Lia Wynn]

I also agree that your actions did not break the anathema. However, even if you had, one violation should not make you fall. You should get a warning 'Keep doing this, and I take your powers away.' It should never, IMO, go to full power loss on one violation.

[YuriP]

Lia Wynn wrote:

I also agree that your actions did not break the anathema. However, even if you had, one violation should not make you fall. You should get a warning 'Keep doing this, and I take your powers away.' It should never, IMO, go to full power loss on one violation.

The best interpretation for this case IMO is not that you will loose your powers but you may fall into self-blame situation where if your ally died you may thinking that you may save him/her if you have made a different choice.

I don't think that a god goddess like Iomedae will punish a follower that tried it's best in a battle to defeat an opponent that's threading you and your allies and had made a choose of try to beat the opponent first because this was thinking that was the best way to protect everyone's life.

And as pointed by HumbleGamer the tennets wasn't made to work like a traps that you may fall unconsciously or due bad decision they are morale restriction that guide your actions and you have to respect. They problem happens when you actively goes against them not when you are forced or inadvertently breaks them. But I can easily see a champion regretting it, even though he knew it wasn't his fault or there was no other way but still keeping it's full powers.

[HumbleGamer]

YuriP wrote:

Lia Wynn wrote:

I also agree that your actions did not break the anathema. However, even if you had, one violation should not make you fall. You should get a warning 'Keep doing this, and I take your powers away.' It should never, IMO, go to full power loss on one violation.

The best interpretation for this case IMO is not that you will loose your powers but you may fall into self-blame situation where if your ally died you may thinking that you may save him/her if you have made a different choice.

I don't think that a god goddess like Iomedae will punish a follower that tried it's best in a battle to defeat an opponent that's threading you and your allies and had made a choose of try to beat the opponent first because this was thinking that was the best way to protect everyone's life.

I definitely agree with this.

Plus, and this is something we all forget sometimes, while we discuss about what to do during our turn at the table, the characters are into the fray, with 6 sec long turns, which can be split in 3x 2sec actions.

If the champion sees that their ally is downed and that they might be the next one, and because so decides to heal themselves to end the fight and then rescue the fallen hero, there should be nothing wrong.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Mindfever wrote:

Tonight in our game we were in combat. One of the characters went down to zero. On his turn he stabilized. I took substantial damage and used Laying on Hands to heal myself, then attacked the bad guy.

The GM started telling me that not taking the time to check on my fallen comrade or by using LoH on myself instead of the character would violate Iomade's Anthema as I was potentially "leaving an ally to die." The GM ruled that I wouldn't know that the other player had stabilized.

I pointed out that the Anthema states I can't "leave an ally in need." I argued that since I was continuing to fight the bad guys that my actions wouldn't good against that restriction.

She stated that if the player had died I would have lost my divine powers.

So was I in danger of Violating that restriction?

Your GM is misreading the relevant anathema. Here's what the anathemas for Iomedae say:

Iomedae Anathemas wrote:

Abandon a companion in need, dishonor yourself, refuse a challenge from an equal

If your GM is disputing that the first line (abandoning a companion in need) equates to you dropping everything, including your own well-being, to save their life, they're in the wrong. Fighting an enemy that's still a threat to said ally (and more importantly, a threat to you being able to help said ally,) is not abandoning them at all. Abandoning them would be acting selfish and trying to run away to save yourself, leaving the ally to certain death, instead of dispatching an immediate threat to give the ally a chance to live (and more importantly, a chance for you to save their life, if possible). The line isn't meant for you to function as a martyr, it's meant for you to not be a deserter, even if the situation is bleak for an ally.

One of our groups has actually ran into such a situation that is far more applicable of the anathema, where an NPC Cleric of Iomedae investigated a crypt with a party, frightened by the sheer power and horror of the enemies that lied in wait, and so to save their own skin, they ran away and trapped their fellow allies inside the crypt, resulting in an immediate loss of power(s) due to the sheer cowardice and lack of attempt to stay and fight with their companions.

[Mindfever]

Thanks for the responses guys. I will definately bring up some of these points with my GM if the situation presents itself again.

[Ravingdork]

Mindfever wrote:

She stated that if the player had died I would have lost my divine powers.

I think that if the player had died, you'd all be in a pretty tough spot trying to explain things to the police.

[Ravingdork]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

I kind of miss the days when a constant thing on this forum was an ongoing thread "Did my paladin fall if he burned down an orphanage full of goblin kids?"/

That brings back memories.

[The Raven Black]

Clearly your GM and yourself were not reading this anathema the same way.

Best to talk together about the anathemas, and even the alignments, so that you both understand each other's take on them and reach an agreement.

[pauljathome]

The Raven Black wrote:

Clearly your GM and yourself were not reading this anathema the same way.

Best to talk together about the anathemas, and even the alignments, so that you both understand each other's take on them and reach an agreement.

I'd go a little further than this.

You definitely need to talk it over with the GM. You need to then decide if, after the discussion, your opinions are reasonably in synch. You also need to decide if, after discussion you're comfortable with how much the GM is policing your actions.

Hopefully you'll be able to come to a mutually acceptable compromise.

But if you can't then you should probably seriously consider changing your character. Trying to play a character with strong tenets with a GM who sees those tenets very differently is, at least for me, a cause of a great deal of frustration.

Or, in the extreme, consider leaving the campaign. Sometimes players and GMs are just not right for each other.

For the record (not that what anybody on the net thinks really matters at all) I think the GM is quite likely being too strict but you haven't really provided sufficient information for me to be certain.

[Mindfever]

pauljathome wrote:

For the record (not that what anybody on the net thinks really matters at all) I think the GM is quite likely being too strict but you haven't really provided sufficient information for me to be certain.

There are a couple of points I left out for brevity's sake and because they didn't seem terribly relevant to the question.

One is that this was a PFS session, so the RAW holds quite a bit more sway and the GM's decsions aren't as final as they would normally be. There is always the option of an appeal if the situation warrants.

I also suspect that the player of the character in question being her son might have influenced her position a bit. There was some eye rolling during his turn in frustration that no one was healing him because no one took medicine. I dont like to dwell on that part because I am loathe to accuse anyone of nepotism.

But to be honest, I am confident that my interpretation of the Anathema is the correct one. As I am new to PF 2E I wanted to double check with the community to make sure.

[pauljathome]

The fact that it is PFS is actually quite important

In my opinion, it is very important in PFS that the GM lean over backwards to NOT try and police character actions except when absolutely required. Any remotely grey areas should be adjudicated in the players favour.

In a home game there can be time and consistency enough to come up with a nuanced agreement.

In PFS a GM should strongly tend towards things like
"So, why does your character think that not healing your companion is acceptable" and accept any reasonable answer

Now, sometimes the GM DOES have to interfere (The champion wants to burn down the orphanage for the pretty things) but those occassions should be few.

So yeah, in PFS this really, really shouldn't have happened.

[breithauptclan]

Mindfever wrote:

One is that this was a PFS session, so the RAW holds quite a bit more sway and the GM's decsions aren't as final as they would normally be. There is always the option of an appeal if the situation warrants.

Yeah, that makes a big difference.

Sounds like that GM needs to re-read the rules for PFS play regarding Anathema.

Quote:

Remember that edicts and anathema exist to create roleplaying opportunities at the table for your character, and should not be used by the GM to pressure PCs, or by PCs to pressure other members of the table toward specific styles of play.

[Cordell Kintner]

Ah, it was PFS. It might be good to post in the PFS forums for more info, but typically in PFS you would have to screw up royally to break anathema. If you think a GM is being too strict on it, feel free to talk to that lodge's Venture Agent about it.

Source: I'm a Venture Agent.

[Megistone]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

I kind of miss the days when a constant thing on this forum was an ongoing thread "Did my paladin fall if he burned down an orphanage full of goblin kids?"/

472 0 days without a Champion falling.