|
Honesty is more important than saving lives to Sarenrae except with the POSSIBLE exception if you interpret "protect allies" (however that's supposed to be parsed, does the follower decide what protection means and who is their ally or is that above their pay/divine grade so to speak) or when you can "talk down" a baddie and get them to at least claim they seek repentance/reconciliation/redemption (which is itself a whole OTHER can of worms depending on if the anathema is supposed to be based on the individual perception of the follower and what THEY believe of the actual facts of the case such as if some baddie either lies outright or simply commits to changing their ways out of fear/intimidation without any real internal impetus to actually change once they are no longer in danger etc).
It's all part of the quagmire of complications resulting in a far more "direct" line of communication and intervention in the actual material realm/universe that the Deities of Golarion have. It has its benefits in some areas such as ensuring that faiths are more consistent and evenly applied/understood but it also makes for all manner of weird contradictions in practice and just about the only Deity that according to the lore who would probably even care to hear someone make a case on this type of thing is, ironically, the Prince of Darkness himself as that's kind of his thing, being the ultimate lawyer.
I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that, because Sarenrae's anathema doesn't list protecting innocents, it is not a primary concern for her. Alignment may be leaving the game, but until recently a follower of Sarenrae had to be at minimum good-aligned before the question of following her anathema even comes up. It may be only champions who have to follow the Tenets of Good explicitly, but the fact that the tenets of good include protecting innocents, it doesn't seem like an incredible stretch to imagine that protecting innocents is a trait of good-aligned characters. Sarenrae may spell out lying in her anathema, but if you don't care about protecting innocents in the first place, you won't get far enough for anathema to matter.
Of course, the headache comes in that the Champion's tenets have an explicit hierarchy where adhering to your deity's prohibitions comes before protecting innocents. For deities who allow champions of good but aren't themselves good this naturally creates situations where a champion of good might be forced to square that their deity might allow innocents to come to harm. For good deities, the diverse nature of anathema means it's easy to twist circumstances to say that a goodly deity cares more about X than protecting innocents just because Champions give their prohibitions prime importance over innocents, so I'm actually surprised it took until now for "Sarenrae would kill innocents before letting you lie" came up (unless maybe there was a thread early in the playtest I missed?).
Either way, strictly, mechanically, you could justify that a Champion of Sarenrae must not lie, even if it's the only and exclusive means of saving innocents, but I'm not convinced there is a probable scenario where Sarenrae wanting you to be honest in your dealings actually conflicts with your duty to protect innocents from harm.
...
That said, if you end up in a situation where you could lie and it would save an innocent's life, I can see it as a violation of your anathema not because Sarenrae prefers honesty to saving lives, but because you failed by picking the 'easy' option of lying when you didn't need to. I can even see this being a reason why champions fall--they believed the lie would be excusable because they shied away from the other option. It's up the the follower to square what they believe is most important, then the deity and their priesthood to correct not that "lying is a worse sin than letting people die" but that "there was no need to lie, you trapped yourself in this situation because you felt justified lying when you had other options."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That raises the question does the layman know that Champions of Sarenrae can't lie? Sure someone with ranks in religion probably knows, but I think there's room for plenty of enemies not to know.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honesty is more important than saving lives to Sarenrae except with the POSSIBLE exception if you interpret "protect allies" (however that's supposed to be parsed, does the follower decide what protection means and who is their ally or is that above their pay/divine grade so to speak) or when you can "talk down" a baddie and get them to at least claim they seek repentance/reconciliation/redemption (which is itself a whole OTHER can of worms depending on if the anathema is supposed to be based on the individual perception of the follower and what THEY believe of the actual facts of the case such as if some baddie either lies outright or simply commits to changing their ways out of fear/intimidation without any real internal impetus to actually change once they are no longer in danger etc).
It's all part of the quagmire of complications resulting in a far more "direct" line of communication and intervention in the actual material realm/universe that the Deities of Golarion have. It has its benefits in some areas such as ensuring that faiths are more consistent and evenly applied/understood but it also makes for all manner of weird contradictions in practice and just about the only Deity that according to the lore who would probably even care to hear someone make a case on this type of thing is, ironically, the Prince of Darkness himself as that's kind of his thing, being the ultimate lawyer.
This is just not true.
Honesty is not more important than protecting worthy life to Sarenrae. If the goddess was written up in this fashion, someone wrote her wrong.
I have not seen this written about her anywhere. I have no stories or parables written about Sarenrae where she teaches her followers to be honest if innocents die.
Why this thread is suddenly making honesty paramount to Sarenrae when for years what is paramount to Sarenrae has been opposing evil, healing, and helping people.
I listed all of her names. None of them indicate, "Honest Sarenrae, The Beacon of Truth." Suddenly, all the other material about Sarenrae is cast aside and she has become this goddess of rigid honesty?
That just isn't what she is.
|
|
I honestly don't think it would occur to the paladin to lie, or even dissemble. Either stand back and let someone else do the talking, or stand up and tell the wicked king what you think of him, and roll for initiative. If the character I'm envisioning is comfortable biting his tongue and being silent in the face of evil, I probably wouldn't play him as a Champion of Sarenrae. Champions, in my opinion, should be naturally and boldly inclined to follow their deity's ideals. Falling shouldn't be impossible, but it should be uncommon circumstances. If you're trying to finesse your anathema, you're probably not in it properly.Lets get another Edge case
You are seperated by the group for reasons, you are alone with a group of innocents
You are asked about those people
You are outnumbered 20 to 1
Saying the truth would condemn those people and fighting would be suicidal (and also threatrn your charges)
So, what do you do?Dame question for raven black
If a lie would make me Fall in auch a situation then I certainly wouldn't want to be in that Game
If you want your PC to be able to lie without falling, why choose to play a Champion of Sarenrae (goddess of honesty who has an anathema against lying) and not a Champion of Desna (goddess who does not care about lies) ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread makes me think of my level 21 oracle of life follower of Sarenrae in Kingmaker where Sarenrae's religion became a foundational religion of the kingdom. That oracle was highly protective of everyone in the kingdom.
Then I created her kid as a cleric of Sarenrae that left home to fight the demons at the Worldwound in Wrath of the Righteous.
Sarenrae is my favorite deity in Golarion. Reminds me a bit of Lathander from the Forgotten Realms.
I like that imagery of the glowing, sun-infused followers of goodness battling evil in all its forms and in all the places they try to hide.
The followers of Sarenrae dealing with evil in the simplest ways of, "You may accept redemption or you may accept death."
So mostly I can't see many followers of Sarenrae put in a situation where they would need to lie as they would go heel on an evildoer trying harm innocents before they would even spend time thinking about lying or other options. They are not a conflict avoiding church. You get offered your chance of redemption, and if you refuse, you get the blade.
In whatever rare circumstance would arise where saving a life would require a follower of Sarenrae to lie, they would do it protect worthy life first. Mostly in that situation it would turn into a fight and they would force submission or kill the opponents to save the life.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH I think anathemas and edicts of deities are pretty well known, especially for the more popular ones.
And I think it is important to Sarenrae as a goddess of redemption that her servants are known to always be truthful. So that when they preach redemption and swear that no harm will befall a darkened soul tempted to reach for the side of Good, the creature will believe them.
I think that might be the thing from the pro- "wouldn't fall side."
Everyone is in agreement that a champion of Saranrae should not lie , that they probably wouldn't lie, and would find any other option in a circumstance then too lie. So in the eyes of "wouldn't fall" side if we are faced with the question, "What happens if the choice is between lying or saving lives." It comes to us in the answer of these are the only options. So in that scenario I just don't see Saranrae say, "let those refugees and potentially yourself die."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH I think anathemas and edicts of deities are pretty well known, especially for the more popular ones.
And I think it is important to Sarenrae as a goddess of redemption that her servants are known to always be truthful. So that when they preach redemption and swear that no harm will befall a darkened soul tempted to reach for the side of Good, the creature will believe them.
That could honestly be the thing. Sarenrae doesn't tolerate lying, even when it would benefit innocents, because it would undermine her and her faithful's role in redemption. How likely will people be to actually try redemption if they fear the words are lies. Even what seem like "small lies in favor of good" are like poison in a such a situation.
When viewed in such a lens, it makes a lot of sense. Combined with that fact that their are almost always going to be better options than lying, though they probably aren't as easy. But being Good has never been easy.
I think that might be the thing from the pro- "wouldn't fall side."
Everyone is in agreement that a champion of Saranrae should not lie , that they probably wouldn't lie, and would find any other option in a circumstance then too lie. So in the eyes of "wouldn't fall" side if we are faced with the question, "What happens if the choice is between lying or saving lives." It comes to us in the answer of these are the only options. So in that scenario I just don't see Saranrae say, "let those refugees and potentially yourself die."
I theoretically agree with you, but my fear is someone will read that kind of statement and take it to justify lying as a champion of Sarenrae. If literally there is no other option than to lie to save an innocent, then I think Sarenrae would permit it. But I can think of any reasonable situation where that would be the case. For example the evil king asking you to tell you where the innocents are the obvious answer is to refuse to tell them anything. 99% of situations neither telling the answer they want or a lie is an option. You tell them C, "I'm not telling you, and I'm going to stab you to death or die trying".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBH I think anathemas and edicts of deities are pretty well known, especially for the more popular ones.
And I think it is important to Sarenrae as a goddess of redemption that her servants are known to always be truthful. So that when they preach redemption and swear that no harm will befall a darkened soul tempted to reach for the side of Good, the creature will believe them.
That could honestly be the thing. Sarenrae doesn't tolerate lying, even when it would benefit innocents, because it would undermine her and her faithful's role in redemption. How likely will people be to actually try redemption if they fear the words are lies. Even what seem like "small lies in favor of good" are like poison in a such a situation.
When viewed in such a lens, it makes a lot of sense. Combined with that fact that their are almost always going to be better options than lying, though they probably aren't as easy. But being Good has never been easy.
I theoretically agree with you, but my fear is someone will read that kind of statement and take it to justify lying as a champion of Sarenrae. If literally there is no other option than to lie to save an innocent, then I think Sarenrae would permit it. But I can think of any reasonable situation where that would be the case. For example the evil king asking you to tell you where the innocents are the obvious answer is to refuse to tell them anything. 99% of situations...I think that might be the thing from the pro- "wouldn't fall side."
Everyone is in agreement that a champion of Saranrae should not lie , that they probably wouldn't lie, and would find any other option in a circumstance then too lie. So in the eyes of "wouldn't fall" side if we are faced with the question, "What happens if the choice is between lying or saving lives." It comes to us in the answer of these are the only options. So in that scenario I just don't see Saranrae say, "let those refugees and potentially yourself die."
What if a Sarenrae follower is protecting a charge seeking redemption in a lawful city that has given this individual the death penalty and the guard force will force a conflict that will cause the follower of Sarenrae to either give up the charge she has agreed to redeem or kill guards doing their lawful duty?
Does her edict come first or her anathema if using their often high charisma to tell a falsehood would both save the prisoner seeking redemption and the lawful guards from possible harm?
What comes first? Her redemption edict or her no lying anathema if both cannot be fulfilled?
I'm sorry. You guys are just wrong. In no way is Sarenrae that rigid about lying. Perhaps James Jacobs or whoever made her has a bunch of parables about Sarenrae telling the truth even when people die, but I know none of them because everything listed about Sarenrae is her fighting evil, healing people, protecting people, settling disputes between even somewhat decent people in a fashion that protects lives, and acting as a force of goodness.
People seem to be forgetting there is alignment as well as edicts and anathemas. She is neutral good. That also influences action choices over just edicts and anathemas.
If you are up to it, show me a parable or a story of Sarenrae where she put honesty above the protection of life and the opposition of evil if given no choice. There is a lot of material on Sarenrae on her church and nowhere does it say they would tell the truth even to the point of letting people die. I have not seen that teaching of Sarenrae.
I'd love some of the lore people to direct us to some stories where followers of Sarenrae are letting people die because they refuse to lie. I'd like those stories because a person that has read heavily on this goddess since early PF1, I don't recall those stories of Sarenrae being so rigidly honest she would encourage her followers to tell the truth even if it led to the deaths of undeserved innocents.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
King: "Did you free the prisoners?"
Champion: "I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the information requested but, hypothetically, if such data were to exist, the subject matter would be secret, and could not be disclosed."
King: "What?"
Champion: "It's called the Glomar response and it's a new favorite among the champions of Sarenrae. It allows us to avoid leaking bits of information correlated with secrets which may or may not actually exist. By using it both when we don't have something to hide and when we do have something to hide, you can't tell the difference, and we're not lying."
King: "Did you free the prisoners?"
Champion: "I did, and if you go after them, that'd make you evil and I will put you down. This is no mere threat. It is the truth."
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, Lying is anathema and honesty is an area of concern, while Protection of innocents is neither an edict nor an area of concern (Protecting allies, yes, but I think counting the innocents as allies in this case is pushing it), nor is it anathema to let people be harmed.
Wanted to respond to this specifically. If I have decided that someone is under my protection, then they are my ally. Full stop. And in my game Edicts would come before Anathema, so yes, lie to protect your allies. And also we're ignoring some pretty clear text in the CRB:
You and your GM determine whether other acts are anathema
Going by what I know of Sarenrae, which is an awful lot having devoured almost everything PF for the last 15 years, is that allowing harm to come to innocents when you don't have to would also be Anathema.
And of course
If you perform enough acts that are anathema to your deity... you lose the magical abilities that come from your connection to your deity.
So is a single act of Anathema enough to fall? Probably not since it very specifically (bolded for emphasis) uses a plurality in the rules.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...TBH I think anathemas and edicts of deities are pretty well known, especially for the more popular ones.
And I think it is important to Sarenrae as a goddess of redemption that her servants are known to always be truthful. So that when they preach redemption and swear that no harm will befall a darkened soul tempted to reach for the side of Good, the creature will believe them.
That could honestly be the thing. Sarenrae doesn't tolerate lying, even when it would benefit innocents, because it would undermine her and her faithful's role in redemption. How likely will people be to actually try redemption if they fear the words are lies. Even what seem like "small lies in favor of good" are like poison in a such a situation.
When viewed in such a lens, it makes a lot of sense. Combined with that fact that their are almost always going to be better options than lying, though they probably aren't as easy. But being Good has never been easy.
I theoretically agree with you, but my fear is someone will read that kind of statement and take it to justify lying as a champion of Sarenrae. If literally there is no other option than to lie to save an innocent, then I think Sarenrae would permit it. But I can think of any reasonable situation where that would be the case. For example the evil king asking you to tell you where the innocents are the obvious answer is to refuse to tell themI think that might be the thing from the pro- "wouldn't fall side."
Everyone is in agreement that a champion of Saranrae should not lie , that they probably wouldn't lie, and would find any other option in a circumstance then too lie. So in the eyes of "wouldn't fall" side if we are faced with the question, "What happens if the choice is between lying or saving lives." It comes to us in the answer of these are the only options. So in that scenario I just don't see Saranrae say, "let those refugees and potentially yourself die."
The choice is not between not telling a lie and letting innocents suffer.
For a Champion of Sarenrae, it is between falling and letting innocents suffer.
Easy choice.
Lots of edge cases being brewed BTW and deep diving into Sarenrae's psychology. But still no satisfactory answer to "If you want your Champion to lie without falling, why did you choose a deity who specifically has an anathema against it ?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you perform enough acts that are anathema to your deity... you lose the magical abilities that come from your connection to your deity.So is a single act of Anathema enough to fall? Probably not since it very specifically (bolded for emphasis) uses a plurality in the rules.
There is a little ambiguity here because the Champion's Code does add that if you violate a tenet you [lose focus pool and divine ally] and their deity's anathema is included in their code of conduct. It could be interpreted that the Code-specific tenets are a 'one-only' while anathema are only in violation if failed on a couple of occasions. It is in theme for Champions to have stricter demands on their adherence to the code that they are sworn to uphold, at least as far as the design concept used goes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think Sarenrae being a deity of honesty mattered a very great deal in convincing Asmodeus to help her cage Rovagug. Anyone else would have failed at earning the least bit of trust from the Prince of Lies.
That is not at all part of her story.
Just like followers of Iomedae aren't going to be lying a bunch just because it's not part of her edicts or anathemas.
No one is claiming followers of Sarenrae suddenly go around lying all the time.
The thread basis is does a Champion of Sarenrae, a Neutral Good goddess that opposes evil in all its forms, have the ability to lie to save lives if that situation should occur?
For those of us that know Sarenrae well, the answer is a very clear yes.
Some want to paint this as one lie to save lives in a situation that requires it would cause the champion to fall. That's just not true. Not by the rules, not by the lore of Sarenrae.
DMs running it in that fashion would be wrong. They don't care about Sarenrae or who she is as a goddess and are just mindlessly running a rule without regard to the RP of the situation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also think Sarenrae being a deity of honesty mattered a very great deal in convincing Asmodeus to help her cage Rovagug. Anyone else would have failed at earning the least bit of trust from the Prince of Lies.
I've been meaning to say something to this effect, too. Sarenrae's focus on not lying (despite not being a lawful deity) probably has a lot to do with the fact that one of her biggest nemeses (outside of the imprisoned Rovagug) is the archdeceiver, the prince of lies, Asmodeus. Also I find the 'redemption goddess offers an honest olive branch to those who have no reason to trust he forces of goodness to help them change their ways' a very compelling area of concern.
... On the other hand I don't find these very compelling reasons why she would punish doing right by saving innocents, or at least not punish as harshly as she might someone who sacrifices innocent lives rather than lie.
Again, a Sarenite who lies to save an innocent might fall if they had other options and chose not to take them, but I can't imagine being forced into a situation where innocents are going to die with no third option other than lying being anywhere near common enough occurrences that it damages Sarenites' reputation.
...
For interest, there are also two other core deities who hold lies as anathema, so Sarenrae need not keep all the attention for herself. Torag and Erastil both have lies in their anathema, though it's possibly interesting that both of them instead word it as 'tell lies', which feels like an ethically distinct action from just 'lie'. (Not that either Torag or Erastil are strangers to controversy)
Lies is not really part of pathfinder Asmodeus's stuff that I know of, he is god of contracts, pride, slavery, and tyranny, prince of darkness and the lord of darkness and law
DnD Asmodeus sure he's got a whole lord of lies title but for Pathfinder there is like nothing in his write ups that I know of that has him being the archdeceiver
|
|
Yeah, but it IS true. The way importance of A and Edicts are handled is by the order they are listed with the Deity A's and Edicts taking higher priority than that or your Tenet since the Diety Edicts and A are listed above the specific Champion Code requirements, you follow their rules first and THEN fall back on the general Champion Tenet restrictions/guidance.This is just not true..[snip]Honesty is more important than saving lives to Sarenrae except with the POSSIBLE exception if you interpret "protect allies" (however that's supposed to be parsed, does the follower decide what protection means and who is their ally or is that above their pay/divine grade so to speak) or when you can "talk down" a baddie and get them to at least claim they seek repentance/reconciliation/redemption (which is itself a whole OTHER can of worms depending on if the anathema is supposed to be based on the individual perception of the follower and what THEY believe of the actual facts of the case such as if some baddie either lies outright or simply commits to changing their ways out of fear/intimidation without any real internal impetus to actually change once they are no longer in danger etc).
It's all part of the quagmire of complications resulting in a far more "direct" line of communication and intervention in the actual material realm/universe that the Deities of Golarion have. It has its benefits in some areas such as ensuring that faiths are more consistent and evenly applied/understood but it also makes for all manner of weird contradictions in practice and just about the only Deity that according to the lore who would probably even care to hear someone make a case on this type of thing is, ironically, the Prince of Darkness himself as that's kind of his thing, being the ultimate lawyer.
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.
The relevant section for big S is as follows:
[snip]
Edicts destroy the Spawn of Rovagug, protect allies, provide aid to the sick and wounded, seek and allow redemption
Anathema create undead, lie, deny a repentant creature an opportunity for redemption, fail to strike down evil
Areas of Concern healing, honesty, redemption, and the sun
The only thing that is MORE important for a Champion of S is to never Create Undead and to also destroy the Spawn of Rovugug. Protect allies is technically TIED. but the question here is about a random innocent life and not that of a party member or specific individual they knowingly are specifically allied with. If you consider Edicts and A on equal footing but here is the thing, failing to follow an Edict is FAR less of a problem than committing acts of A.
Big S would much rather see you tell the truth and have it result in harm coming to an innocent since her priories fall above that of the Tenents of Good over lying to save a life, doing that even one or two times would end up having you research atonement.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Full disclosure, I didn't read the entire thread, so apologies if anyone else brought this up but...
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). Only rules for good champions appear in this book. 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. Trying to subvert your code by creating a situation that forces a higher tenet to override a lower tenet (for example, promising not to respect authorities and then, to keep your word, disrespecting authorities) is a violation of the champion code.
I understand that the OP is referencing Edicts and Anathema specifically and not the baseline Tenets of the class, but I think the logic still holds, even for Saranrae.
She may not like it a whole lot, but reality is reality. Not every decision made by a character is going to be black or white. There is a whole lot of gray out there. If Saranrae de-Championed every character who uttered an untruth immediately after they spoke it, then there would be a pretty large cottage industry of Spellcasters who specialize in Atonement. Because if there weren't, there would be no Champions of Saranrae left.
Full disclosure, I didn't read the entire thread, so apologies if anyone else brought this up but...
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). Only rules for good champions appear in this book. 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. Trying to subvert your code by creating a situation that forces a higher tenet to override a lower tenet (for example, promising not to respect authorities and then, to keep your word, disrespecting authorities) is a violation of the champion code.I understand that the OP is referencing Edicts and Anathema specifically and not the baseline Tenets of the class, but I think the logic still holds, even for Saranrae.
She may not like it a whole lot, but reality is reality. Not every decision made by a character is going to be black or white. There is a whole lot of gray out there. If Saranrae de-Championed every character who uttered an untruth immediately after they spoke it, then there would be a pretty large cottage industry of Spellcasters who specialize in Atonement. Because if there weren't, there would be no Champions of Saranrae left.
I didn't notice until reading closer, but it mentions "Paladin" in reference to the Champion Cause, but not necessarily all Champions.
The tenets of Paladin (Lawful Good) are:• You must act with honor, never taking advantage of others, lying, or cheating.
• You must respect the lawful authority of legitimate leadership wherever you go, and follow its laws.
These would come after the Tenets of Good, including possible Saranrae anathemas.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a prime example of being unwilling to accept the idea of a moral code that is both valid and different from one's own.
Being honest, brave, and forthright can be considered the highest good, and the most effective way to BE Good, in certain value systems. Sarenrae's value system appears to be like that. This thread creates an artificial dichotomy of "save the innocents by lying, or fail and lie by telling the truth." The premise is terrible. By telling the lie, you're probably not going to save the day, because evil doesn't trust. Congrats - you compromised your morals, only to fail and die. If you're bold and honest, there's a chance to drive back the wicked, save the innocent, inspire more people to stand against the darkness, etc. And if you die, at least you died an inspiring death.
Sticking to your oath of honesty even when it is inconvenient to do so would probably earn you a 1d6 bonus fire damage on your scimitar strikes to protect those innocents, as per Sarenrae's moderate boon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but it IS true. The way importance of A and Edicts are handled is by the order they are listed with the Deity A's and Edicts taking higher priority than that or your Tenet since the Diety Edicts and A are listed above the specific Champion Code requirements, you follow their rules first and THEN fall back on the general Champion Tenet restrictions/guidance.This is just not true..[snip]Honesty is more important than saving lives to Sarenrae except with the POSSIBLE exception if you interpret "protect allies" (however that's supposed to be parsed, does the follower decide what protection means and who is their ally or is that above their pay/divine grade so to speak) or when you can "talk down" a baddie and get them to at least claim they seek repentance/reconciliation/redemption (which is itself a whole OTHER can of worms depending on if the anathema is supposed to be based on the individual perception of the follower and what THEY believe of the actual facts of the case such as if some baddie either lies outright or simply commits to changing their ways out of fear/intimidation without any real internal impetus to actually change once they are no longer in danger etc).
It's all part of the quagmire of complications resulting in a far more "direct" line of communication and intervention in the actual material realm/universe that the Deities of Golarion have. It has its benefits in some areas such as ensuring that faiths are more consistent and evenly applied/understood but it also makes for all manner of weird contradictions in practice and just about the only Deity that according to the lore who would probably even care to hear someone make a case on this type of thing is, ironically, the Prince of Darkness himself as that's kind of his thing, being the ultimate lawyer.
You follow a code of conduct, beginning with tenets shared by all champions of an alignment (such as good), and continuing...
No, it isn't true.
Nowhere in any of those rules does it say the tenets are mindlessly followed in order of importance.
This is in fact a listed example:
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. Trying to subvert your code by creating a situation that forces a higher tenet to override a lower tenet (for example, promising not to respect authorities and then, to keep your word, disrespecting authorities) is a violation of the champion code.
It literally describes this very situation as an example and says you can lie to prevent evil king from harming them.
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.
General tenets of good.
If you are forcing any Champion of good that serves a good deity to cause the death of another person rather than lie, then you are in the wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sarenrae is one of the most popular deities on Golarion by virtue of her association with the life-giving sun and her perpetual offer to help anyone be their best, even when they have made mistakes. Most people thank her for her kind work to channel the sun’s power for everyone’s safety and livelihood, and thank her clergy for granting her healing power to all who need it. Mortals look to the Dawnflower as an example of boundless love, exquisite kindness, and true patience. They pray to her to heal the sick, lift up the downtrodden, and illuminate darkness of circumstance as well as darkness of spirit. Her followers aspire to emulate her through generosity, nurturing, truthfulness, and selfless courage. They oppose evil everywhere with words first, and when necessary, with scimitar and flame.
Getting someone killed by refusing to lie is in incredible conflict with everything else she stands for and is known for.
It is taking one aspect of Sarenrae and making it seem like nothing else matters. I have no seen zero indication that Tenets or any of the flavor text is intended to be used in this fashion to bludgeon a champion into telling the truth to get someone killed that doesn't deserve it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You also have to assume that in an actual game context, the GM probably isn't trying to play gotcha games with the Champion. Like there's always a third choice in a game like this, it's never "lie, or this innocent person dies."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even If this isn't a 'gotcha game', weird situations can turn Up and the gamemaster is bot always at fault for fringe cases (sometimes Players can steer themselves into weird places)
There is *almost* always a third Option, but sometimes things boil down to a binary choice
Those are the points where the morals are tested
Lets not pretend that never happens, No matter for what reason
You also have to assume that in an actual game context, the GM probably isn't trying to play gotcha games with the Champion. Like there's always a third choice in a game like this, it's never "lie, or this innocent person dies."
That is not what this thread is about.
If the thread were what would Sarenrae do in most circumstances, my answer would be followers of Sarenrae would tell the evildoer they did not intend to let them kill whoever they are protecting. If they try, they will be violently opposed.
But the OP is making up a situation where a Champion of Sarenrae would be forced to lie or let some innocent die. As in there is no other way to protect the life.
In that situation, the champion of Sarenrae would lie. Protecting life comes first for Sarenrae, not honesty. I've played so many clerics, paladins, inquisitors, and followers of Sarenrae since starting PF that I am 100% certain that Sarenrae would not punish one of her Champions that if placed in such a situation chose to lie to protect life.
What I'm surprised by is that anyone who knows of Sarenrae and what she's about thinks otherwise. Sarenrae is not a new goddess. She's been around since I first started playing Golarion. She's one of the most powerful forces of good in the Golarion Pantheon.
Someone trying to convince me that that telling a lie to save a life is going to cause a Champion of The Dawnflower to fall is ridiculous.
This should not be confused with the idea that this would be option number one.
Option number for Sarenrae is always give the evil person a chance to see the wrongness of their actions.
Option number two is bring down the wrath of The Dawnflower on them.
Followers of Sarenrae don't have a reason to lie 99.9999% of the time. If they did such as protecting life, Sarenrae isn't so mindlessy ridiculous as to take away their powers.
The fact that protecting life isn't high on her list of Edicts and Anathemas so that The Metric System can pretend that honesty is somehow a higher purpose for Sarenrae than protecting life that I can't believe a Paizo designer wrote that down.
If you asked me, who has played tons of followers of Sarenrae and read on her lore all this time, I wouldn't even have considered honesty even close to as important as any of the following:
1. Fighting against evil.
2. Protecting the innocent and the living.
3. Healing the sick and wounded.
4. Destroying undead with the power of the Sun.
Honest would be somewhere down that list. Important, but not so important as to overlook the primary driving force of the Church of Sarenrae: Oppose evil and protect those that evil harms.
That is what Sarenrae has been about the entire time I've been playing PF in the world of Golarion.
Now I have some folks doing a general reading of the edicts and anathemas of champions that includes like four ideas of each type and that somehow overrides of 10 plus years of Sarenrae being primarily focused on opposing evil and protecting all from evil?
I'm not buying what these folks are selling. I know Sarenrae. That would not be how she works.
Next thing I'll be reading is followers of Iomedae have to be temperate over protecting the innocent because that is the list order in the Edicts section of PF2.
These deities have been around a long time. Some PF2 edicts don't suddenly change who they are.
I'll never run it that way if any champion or cleric happens to end up in that situation. And as far as I'm concerned with what I know of Sarenrae. she's about protecting those who cannot protect themselves from evil. That's her number one edict. Always has been, always will be until I see whoever created the Golarion deities change Sarenrae to do otherwise.
And I'll leave it there.
To the OP : Yes.
Everyone in this thread answered Yes.
We are just disagreeing on the consequences.
In any GM'S game, their word is law as always. So, check with your GM beforehand about what the consequences will be.
Slightly more nuanced than that, we're arguing about under exactly which situations consequences would kick in. But it's still always going to be a GM call, and we could all talk about this until we all died and never reach 100% consensus, and probably still be different than what your GM might rule.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You also have to assume that in an actual game context, the GM probably isn't trying to play gotcha games with the Champion. Like there's always a third choice in a game like this, it's never "lie, or this innocent person dies."That is not what this thread is about.
If the thread were what would Sarenrae do in most circumstances, my answer would be followers of Sarenrae would tell the evildoer they did not intend to let them kill whoever they are protecting. If they try, they will be violently opposed.
But the OP is making up a situation where a Champion of Sarenrae would be forced to lie or let some innocent die. As in there is no other way to protect the life.
In that situation, the champion of Sarenrae would lie. Protecting life comes first for Sarenrae, not honesty. I've played so many clerics, paladins, inquisitors, and followers of Sarenrae since starting PF that I am 100% certain that Sarenrae would not punish one of her Champions that if placed in such a situation chose to lie to protect life.
What I'm surprised by is that anyone who knows of Sarenrae and what she's about thinks otherwise. Sarenrae is not a new goddess. She's been around since I first started playing Golarion. She's one of the most powerful forces of good in the Golarion Pantheon.
Someone trying to convince me that that telling a lie to save a life is going to cause a Champion of The Dawnflower to fall is ridiculous.
This should not be confused with the idea that this would be option number one.
Option number for Sarenrae is always give the evil person a chance to see the wrongness of their actions.
Option number two is bring down the wrath of The Dawnflower on them.
Followers of Sarenrae don't have a reason to lie 99.9999% of the time. If they did such as protecting life, Sarenrae isn't so mindlessy ridiculous as to take away their powers.
The fact that protecting life isn't high on her list of Edicts and Anathemas so that The Metric System can pretend...
It's your own game as a GM. You can play Sarenrae however you wish.
Other people will play her with their own understanding and this does not need to match yours.
Now, we have RAW of the Champion class and anathemas for Sarenrae. But GMs can completely adjudicate differently as fits their vision.
What matters is that GM and players are on the same page about this.
I'd say that in a true binary situation the Champion will do what their heart will suggest; whatever their choice, they will probably feel bad: in on case, they have broken their oath; in the other, their oath prevented them from saving innocents.
The mechanical consequences are totally up to the GM and their interpretation (you could ask a million people without ever finding a broad consensus); in any case, the character will likely look for counsel, if not for an Atonement.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
snip
Yeah, it literally DOES state this in the rules and it even uses a LIE as the textbook example...
A Champion of Good Alignment must follow the Tenets listed in the following order of importance as noted above...Champion's Code
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. Trying to subvert your code by creating a situation that forces a higher tenet to override a lower tenet (for example, promising not to respect authorities and then, to keep your word, disrespecting authorities) is a violation of the champion code.
-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.
They're even formatted as bullet points, the acts of A to your Deity are THE most important thing to consider above and beyond all else for a Champion even beyond not committing evil acts which is also in line 1. Lying WILL get you the axe if you're a Champion of the Big S, and that's just facts. I think somewhere along the way you missed that important part or maybe just had it flipped on its head, a Champion of a given Deity serves the Deity first and their Cause and Alignment second, that is what the foundation of and flavor of the Class is fundamentally rooted in.
If you run a super permissive flexible alignment game or just pitch the whole objective alignment viewpoint, good for you, that's great, honestly I basically do the same thing because there is no universe or reality in which alignment and good/evil is anything but subjective based on your beliefs, traditions, and culture you come from but in terms of RAW running it as printed, your Champion of S is going to fall if they willingly lie no matter why they choose to do so. If they choose to lie they are no longer a Champion of S, they are a failed mook who should have chosen an easier job, lying is NOT allowed, full stop.
I think the answer to this is as simple as it is rather unhelpful - it depends. This is a living religion, not a flowchart. As far as we know, religious canon on Golarion is very fractured, even compared to our world. People will have asked themselves this exact question (and many more besides) in-world and will have disagreed about the answer. I mean, we have a church of Sarenrae in areas like Taldor, but in the Lands of the Mammoth Lords, they worship her as Sister Cinder, including quite different religious practices. The broad strokes of your faith are going to be about the same - perks of being able to literally talk to your god's divine servants - but everything else will massively depend on where your character is from and what they personally believe.
The best solution is to have a sit-down with your player and try to get into the head of the character. If you both act in good faith (heh), you should arrive at a non-cheesy answer for that character. That is what they believe and that is good enough. Trying to find a general answer for everyone is missing the point and just robs you of roleplay opportunities. That's one of the easiest setups for character development through adversity I've ever seen.
