| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The anathema of Pharasma against robbing a tomb makes taking loot from undead enemies in a tomb-like dungeon awkward.More deities with this anathema or similar : Anubis, Ashava.
Anubis, like Gravelady's Guard, Pharasma, Selket and Osiris, also has the anathema of "desecrate a corpse". It should not apply to destroying undead, even if these are corpses in a way.
I wonder if something couldn't be rephrased as "Disturb or disrespect the final disposition of the deceased" Since if the corpse has gotten up and decided to gnaw on you, then they've left their final disposition and are fair game to burn or chop up into pieces or whatever stops them from doing that.
Like it's clear that a Pharasman (etc.) shouldn't be pillaging grave goods of an honored interred individual, but if that person is a mummy or a vampire or whatever, it's fair game. Since the ritual to give the grave goods to the individual for their post-life has obviously failed when they got up and tried to eat you.
The anathema of Pharasma against robbing a tomb makes taking loot from undead enemies in a tomb-like dungeon awkward.
Anubis also has "rob a tomb" as Anathema.
Imbrex's anathema is just "Offend Imbrex."
...how, exactly?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imbrex's anathema is just "Offend Imbrex."
...how, exactly?
Exactly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imbrex's anathema is just "Offend Imbrex."
...how, exactly?
The GM controls all the Gods, especially the Eldest.
The GM controls all the Gods, especially the Eldest.Imbrex's anathema is just "Offend Imbrex."
...how, exactly?
Fair enough, I suppose. As long as the GM is clear about what's offensive to their version of Imbrex.
It seems funny that that could be wildly different things depending on the GM's personal tastes, but I guess that's in line with the Eldest and the whole fae aesthetic.
The GM controls all the Gods, especially the Eldest.Imbrex's anathema is just "Offend Imbrex."
...how, exactly?
Fair enough, I suppose. As long as the GM is clear about what's offensive to their version of Imbrex.
It seems funny that that could be wildly different things depending on the GM's personal tastes, but I guess that's in line with the Eldest and the whole fae aesthetic.
From a glance at the wiki, it really seems like worshippers not having a clue what might or might not offend Imbrex is kind of operating as intended. Like, yes, it would be annoying as a player for your GM to declare that you've randomly insulted your god and need to atone, but one would hope you discuss with your GM how to handle following a deity whose edicts basically amount to "do your thing and don't bother me about it, but finish what you started."
Maybe there's some way that could be clearer, but what Imbrex seems to me is a deity with an intentionally flexible code but the upshot is that it also could go wrong at any time.
Yeah, "no one really knows what Imbrex is thinking is a core part of Imbrex's whole deal, and the Anathema is supposed to reflect that. Signing on to be a Cleric of one of the Eldest though is a trust-fall with the GM.
Shumunue has an anathema of "permanently damage a plant or wood creature". Many opponents of the plant type and constructs made of wood will be hard to stop without permanently damaging them. Or does killing/destroying them outright not count ?
Nonlethal damage can be healed and constructs generally lack the plant or wood trait. So it should be fine.
|
For what it's worth, I hope at least some gods stay incompatible with adventuring. Rovagug's followers may generally be babbling lunatics unable to coordinate anything together--and that's just fine. Perhaps they should be highlighted with a warning, but a GM still has a responsibility to review and vet their players' character choices.
|
|
I personally find Angradd's anathema to be a bit... challenging: "Allow weaker evils to survive due to the presence of larger evils" Does this means that if a minion gets away when you're fighting the BBEG, then you've broken anathema? There are few campaign settings that I can think of where evil can be snuffed out completely or all at once. Adventurers, by necessity, need to prioritize (if they didn't, the campaign would have to be a complete railroad and not give choices), and often this is done by prioritizing larger evils to deal with first. I'm not exactly sure how this anathema is supposed to direct such choices? Does a cleric of Angradd take out the lesser evils first? Are they meant to smite anyone with a smattering of evil upon sight? Not to mention, of course, the complication that the Remaster did away with good/evil. Though, I suppose, changing it to Unholy (sanctified) may at least help define what is considered 'evil' when judging lesser evils. But the prioritization is still an issue, because often you can't stop ALL the evil.
I feel Angradd here is a bit like some versions of Marvel's Punisher. He might let the small fish escape when taking down the big sharks but he WILL come after them later.
The classic plot of bargaining with the weaker evil to let them go in order to get their help to fight the larger evil just does not work with Angradd's faithful.
Note though that the anathema is talking about evils and not evil creatures. People who actually change their ways to non-evil need not fear Angradd.