Before the Remaster, certain Edicts and Anathema took priority over other Edicts and Anathema.
The Champion's Code, their Cause, and their Deity for example.
Since the remaster though, I can't seem to wrap my head around the compatibility errata well enough to know how this order might have been effected.
If it helps, I'm playing a Redeemer champion of Qi Zhong. So if I'm not mistaken, my edicts and anathema are as follows (in no particular order):
EDICTS
- Do not knowingly harm innocents or fail to prevent harm to an innocent if your direct intervention could save them
- Try to redeem those who commit wicked deeds, show compassion to others regardless of their authority or station
- Teach knowledge to others, relieve suffering despite personal difficulty, heal sickness and injuries
ANATHEMA
- Commit murder, engage in torture
- Kill a sapient enemy without first offering a chance at redemption
- Deal lethal damage to another living creature (unless as part of a necessary medical treatment)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Despite it coming up on a number of occasions, to date I have not seen any evidence that a deity's anathema ever had an internal order, nor that any anathema was structured according to priority with the exception of the champion's code. Pre-master, I understood edicts to be "nice to haves" putting them universally below anathema "must not dos". After remaster I'm not spcertainif this has changed any, though many things that were anathema have been moved over to edicts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the compatibility errata didn't really make it clear and we might have to wait until Player Core 2. I agree with Sibelius that for champions (and clerics too but theirs are simpler), not breaking anathema is more important, so if I were to order it from most to least important, I would personally do:
- Deity anathemas
- Tenet anathemas
- Cause anathemas
- Deity edicts
- Tenet edicts
- Cause edicts
Wait. What? I thought the whole point to having an order of priority was to more easily resolve such conflicts and to avoid shenanigans. For example, a champion of Sarenrae shouldn't fall because she was forced into a situation in which she had to lie in order to save a child.
I think I recall lying being a lesser anathema to knowingly harming an innocent, or allowing immediate harm to one through inaction when you know you could reasonably prevent it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait. What? I thought the whole point to having an order of priority was to more easily resolve such conflicts and to avoid shenanigans. For example, a champion of Sarenrae shouldn't fall because she was forced into a situation in which she had to lie in order to save a child.
I think I recall lying being a lesser anathema to knowingly harming an innocent, or allowing immediate harm to one through inaction when you know you could reasonably prevent it.
You remember correctly for the general paladin code. Most deities aren't overly concerned with their followers lying, but all Paladins are prohibited from lying... except when it would conflict with their higher paladin virtues of protecting the innocent. This doesn't remain true for Sarenrae and Torag specifically (among a few others) who bar all their followers Paladin or not from lying, and since Paladins hold deity anathema on the same level as their highest "do no evil" tier, by default Sarenite Paladins (and Redeemers and Liberators) are not allowed to lie on the top order of things.
Of course, that doesn't automatically mean they would allow innocents to die so they could avoid lying, theyd just be forced to save the innocents without lying. There was actually a thread about this a few months ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the compatibility errata didn't really make it clear and we might have to wait until Player Core 2. I agree with Sibelius that for champions (and clerics too but theirs are simpler), not breaking anathema is more important, so if I were to order it from most to least important, I would personally do:
- Deity anathemas
- Tenet anathemas
- Cause anathemas
- Deity edicts
- Tenet edicts
- Cause edicts
Edicts are not enforced it's something that you are suggested to do and care off but break then doesn't gives any penalty. The rest I agree it's the order defined by CRB and the errata don't change it.
I don't see any conflicts between your character's edicts and anathema, so just try to fulfil the edicts while avoiding the anathema. As long as you keep a way to deal non-lethal damage at hand you shouldn't have any trouble with them. There shouldn't be any need to codify everything into a prioritized list. What's most crucial might change depending on the situation. If a villain is about to shoot a child, you might not have time to turn it into a teachable moment
Don't overthink it, and don't let anyone else overthinking it tell you you're playing your character wrong. Characters are supposed to be people. Just do your best to roleplay them doing their best
I agree. If you cannot "deal lethal damage to another living creature" you also is unable to "kill a sapient enemy" and if you cannot kill you also cannot "commit murder". There's basically no reason to worry here.
Wait. What? I thought the whole point to having an order of priority was to more easily resolve such conflicts and to avoid shenanigans. For example, a champion of Sarenrae shouldn't fall because she was forced into a situation in which she had to lie in order to save a child.
I think I recall lying being a lesser anathema to knowingly harming an innocent, or allowing immediate harm to one through inaction when you know you could reasonably prevent it.
You remember correctly for the general paladin code. Most deities aren't overly concerned with their followers lying, but all Paladins are prohibited from lying... except when it would conflict with their higher paladin virtues of protecting the innocent. This doesn't remain true for Sarenrae and Torag specifically (among a few others) who bar all their followers Paladin or not from lying, and since Paladins hold deity anathema on the same level as their highest "do no evil" tier, by default Sarenite Paladins (and Redeemers and Liberators) are not allowed to lie on the top order of things.
Of course, that doesn't automatically mean they would allow innocents to die so they could avoid lying, theyd just be forced to save the innocents without lying. There was actually a thread about this a few months ago.
The order already solves this:
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.
The only problem is that remaster compatibility FAQ doesn't state if deity's anathema is more important then the tenets of good when it substitutes the tenet anathema but due CRB text says "you must never perform acts anathema to your deity" as first sentence and explains that in case of conflict follow the tenets description order I consider that deity anathema as prevalence. The rest (causes) comes later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Page 106 of the CRB was what I was thinking of. Thanks for the quote, YuriP.
So I guess it only applies to tenants and not to other anathema?
EDIT: Actually, the way the text on that page is written, they are all "tenants."
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).
So it seems pretty clear to me now that it starts with Tenants of Good, followed by Tenants of your Cause, which is then followed by the Tenants of the character's chosen deity. Within a given tenant, those things mentioned first take priority over those mentioned later.
At least prior to Remaster that is.
It's all right there in those first few paragraphs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You might want to take a second look. You say Tenets of Deity come last, prior to remaster, but in the version I see, the fist Tenet of Good is "Must never commit deity anathema nor an evil act" (paraphrased). The paragraph describes the order of tenets and causes, certainly, but the hierarchy of the code is laid out in the actual tenets and causes themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is this what the Remastered "You are playing your character's alignment wrong" arguments are going to look like?
You might want to take a second look. You say Tenets of Deity come last, prior to remaster, but in the version I see, the fist Tenet of Good is "Must never commit deity anathema nor an evil act" (paraphrased). The paragraph describes the order of tenets and causes, certainly, but the hierarchy of the code is laid out in the actual tenets and causes themselves.
Yes, and that's part of what prompted the creation of this thread. It's certainly not as clear as it could be.
Was that changed or removed in the Remaster?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would suggest solving that problem the same way that alignment arguments are solved - by being a better player and not trying to micromanage other player's characters.
Let the player of that character decide what the interpretation is for their Edicts and Anathema and which ones take priority if there is a conflict. And that includes for the GM. The GM should not be laying punishing traps like that, and should not be micromanaging or invalidating the player's interpretation of the role-play of a player's character.
|
I would suggest solving that problem the same way that alignment arguments are solved - by being a better player and not trying to micromanage other player's characters.
Let the player of that character decide what the interpretation is for their Edicts and Anathema and which ones take priority if there is a conflict. And that includes for the GM. The GM should not be laying punishing traps like that, and should not be micromanaging or invalidating the player's interpretation of the role-play of a player's character.
I remember an old thread where the GM asked for advice on how to convey to the Cleric of Gorum that his deity did not look kindly on sneaking into an enemy's camp and slitting their throat while they were sleeping.
Some players can be quite creative and unorthodox in their PC's understanding of anathemas.
I would suggest solving that problem the same way that alignment arguments are solved - by being a better player and not trying to micromanage other player's characters.
Let the player of that character decide what the interpretation is for their Edicts and Anathema and which ones take priority if there is a conflict. And that includes for the GM. The GM should not be laying punishing traps like that, and should not be micromanaging or invalidating the player's interpretation of the role-play of a player's character.
Ideally yes, but I've seen at least one such trap appear in a published adventure path (sorry I don't recall which as it was a long time ago). It looked unintentional on the part of the authors, but it was still there.
As with other aspects of the game, having an established order of operations can help provide clarity, prevent misunderstandings, and generally get players and GMs on the same page regarding expectations--which is why I figured the Champion Code was written the way it was in the first place.
I haven't seen (or don't remember) the old thread, but what's the problem here? It's solved like always: "GM: your char violated anathema 'win a battle through underhanded tactics', these are the consenquences in losing these abilities and probably some story ones, no, you don't get to argue with me about this, it's my decision and understanding, you have to take it into account further on, done".I remember an old thread where the GM asked for advice on how to convey to the Cleric of Gorum that his deity did not look kindly on sneaking into an enemy's camp and slitting their throat while they were sleeping.
Some players can be quite creative and unorthodox in their PC's understanding of anathemas.
That seems unnecessarily confrontational and even toxic. It's essentially "Shut up and suck it up."
|
|
That seems unnecessarily confrontational and even toxic. It's essentially "Shut up and suck it up."I haven't seen (or don't remember) the old thread, but what's the problem here? It's solved like always: "GM: your char violated anathema 'win a battle through underhanded tactics', these are the consenquences in losing these abilities and probably some story ones, no, you don't get to argue with me about this, it's my decision and understanding, you have to take it into account further on, done".I remember an old thread where the GM asked for advice on how to convey to the Cleric of Gorum that his deity did not look kindly on sneaking into an enemy's camp and slitting their throat while they were sleeping.
Some players can be quite creative and unorthodox in their PC's understanding of anathemas.
You are taking it way out of the context. Yes, making a note about anathemas before the campaign is necessary, that they are important and they are adjudicated by a GM. Also probably a round of discussion about PC's particular anathemas, and what they mean. Again, before the campaign. Yes, actual wordings could be a little bit milder. But also yes, that is the gist of the case: adjudicating anathemas is GM's right and duty, there's nothing to argue too much about during the game.
Especially in this situation I doubt there could be more clear-cut case of 'winning a battle through underhanded tactics' than assassinating sleeping enemy. There just isn't anything to argue about at all.
And if a player begins an argument in this particular case - no, that's not a toxic GM, it's a completely unreasonable player.
Toxic players can be a thing too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to pop in here to note that the topic of discussion did change. In case someone didn't notice that.
Originally the topic was how to handle conflicting and contradictory Anathema in a particular scenario and which Anathema would take priority.
Now we are discussing how to handle a player/character disregarding and violating a single Anathema.
Those are two very different things. And may have very different approaches to dealing with.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To talk about the original topic then: there have been various dev statements that anathemas are supposed to be an RPG tool.
If your character has to choose between two anathemas, RPing your character agonizing over the choice is certainly working as intended. But I think they don't really love the idea of trying to mechanistically determine the objectively correct thing to do based on anathema order.
We don't know how remastered paladins will work yet. So that rules question can't be answered. For cleric though we do have remastered rules:
If you perform enough acts that are anathema to 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 cleric spellcasting. These abilities can be regained
only if you repent by conducting an atone ritual (page 390).
As you can see, it's actually pretty loose. "Enough" violations result in punishments fully determined by the GM, with some likely ones listed, but the GM is not compelled to stick to that.
If your cleric had to choose between two anathema and did the best they could, a kind deity might understand that and just not punish at al. A vengeful or unreasonable deity on the other hand might lay down the law severely. A more balanced one might not punish heavily (and let the party finish the current quest at full power) but afterwards demand that the cleric make things right (post-adventure sidequest).
Agreed with Ascalaphus
Of course every deity has their rules set down, but most of them (probably not all) know that at times keeping to these rules can be hard and sometimes people have to make dfficult choices
IIRC it is also said that players should follow their anathema and edict To a sensible degree
this starts with 'you don't have to protect the innocent if it means certain doom that wouldnt change the outcome' but certainly will go further, depending on the deity
if a character keeps those rules at heart (and maybe makes offerings and smaller atonements at time) most gods should be able to tell that they make an effort, what at least with some deities (i.e. those not classically coined 'lawful first' ) be enough to let the occassional misstep slide, especially if the character had no real choice or it would cause some other troubles
Even if an AP or GM put you in a no win scenario, so long as it's a one time thing then it becomes a part of your character, the time they couldn't live up to their ideals. Maybe they blame themselves and see it as a mark they need to become better, either stronger to get through such situations or smarter to unravel them before they get too tight.
Codes of conduct have never been a mechanic for players or GMs to use as a weapon to justify things, they are tools to build a character and tell that characters story, if either can't figure out how to reasonably tell that story then it's a table problem.
For the long term,I think deity anathema is likely the most important thing for the "deity warrior" class. However I don't think we need a priority as that would just leave out character concepts.
On top of what was already said, I would use the curse/boon system to further show the difference between edict and anathema.
Before making them fall, I would hit the player with a minor curse if they break the anathemas, unless it was motivated by a desire not to break a "greater" anathema", or unless the break is so eggregious that the PC should fall on the spot (in which case I might add the medium curse as bonus point for pissing their god off so effectively). Minor curses work well as warning and to show the god displeasure, as a way to put the PC back on track.
However, I wouldn't use curses if the PC fail to uphold their edict, unless they really actively disregard it in situations were they don't have to go out of their way at all to follow them. Likewise, I wouldn't make a player fall for failing to uphold edict, unless it's a situation that have gone on for a pretty long time and the PC simply isn't doing anything the deity want, to the point where the deity have no interest empowering them anymore. And even then, if the PC don't follow the edict strictly but is still doing things the deity would approve of (like a champion of Cayden that is spending time protecting innocent as a whole rather than the oppressed in particular).
On the other hand, going out of their way to follow the edicts of their deity would net them regular minor boons, as long as they keep up the good work. Choosing to do so even in situation of moral dilemna or when their own interest go the other way may even net them the medium boon (not every time tho, the medium boon should never be expected of the PC, it should be a nice surprise that happen very infrequently in the moment where it resonate well enought). But "not breaking the anathema" on the other hand wouldn't grant any boon on it's own. Only on those case of "high moral dilemna" may the PC get a boon out of not breaking their anathema, and even then, not everytime. Not doing the stuff your deity hate is simply expected of them, and the PC don't get good grade for not being bad at their job.