Creative Director
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
The easiest way to interpret this, in my opinion, is to lean on the fact that Lie is a Deception activity, and to simply rule that in order to obey this anathema, a follower of Sarenrae simply won't be allowed to take this activity. Other uses of Deception would be allowed, including Impersonate, but those tactics should not be a "go-to" for a Sarenite.
In your example, where the adventure asks the PCs to infiltrate an enemy fortress to accomplish a greater good, the Sarenite can still play the game. She'd just not be able to take the Lie action. Disguises are fine, and when it comes to a point where the PCs have to talk to interact with a guard, the Sarenite, if she chooses to take part in that roleplaying encounter, should rely on tactics that use Diplomacy or Intimidation to try to get by, or simply let other party members do the lying for the group. (As an aside, this is one of many reasons why it's important for the GM to select multiple skills for solutions when presenting the group with an obstacle that requires skill checks to defeat.)
Keep in mind that other anathemas like "fail to strike down evil" or "edicts like "provide aid or protect allies" are good "triggers" to keep in mind that would allow a Sarenite to engage in the above sort of deceptive shenanigan... but they'd still best not use the Lie activity.
If the infiltration isn't about going in to prevent an evil or do a rescue or the like, then the Sarenite could still go along but wouldn't feel comfortable on the mission, and you as the GM should keep that in mind when running the adventure and do your best to give the Sarenite a reason to want to accompany the rest of the group if the infiltration is a plot-bearing requirement of the adventure.
The easiest way to interpret this, in my opinion, is to lean on the fact that Lie is a Deception activity, and to simply rule that in order to obey this anathema, a follower of Sarenrae simply won't be allowed to take this activity. Other uses of Deception would be allowed, including Impersonate, but those tactics should not be a "go-to" for a Sarenite.
In your example, where the adventure asks the PCs to infiltrate an enemy fortress to accomplish a greater good, the Sarenite can still play the game. She'd just not be able to take the Lie action. Disguises are fine, and when it comes to a point where the PCs have to talk to interact with a guard, the Sarenite, if she chooses to take part in that roleplaying encounter, should rely on tactics that use Diplomacy or Intimidation to try to get by, or simply let other party members do the lying for the group. (As an aside, this is one of many reasons why it's important for the GM to select multiple skills for solutions when presenting the group with an obstacle that requires skill checks to defeat.)
Keep in mind that other anathemas like "fail to strike down evil" or "edicts like "provide aid or protect allies" are good "triggers" to keep in mind that would allow a Sarenite to engage in the above sort of deceptive shenanigan... but they'd still best not use the Lie activity.
If the infiltration isn't about going in to prevent an evil or do a rescue or the like, then the Sarenite could still go along but wouldn't feel comfortable on the mission, and you as the GM should keep that in mind when running the adventure and do your best to give the Sarenite a reason to want to accompany the rest of the group if the infiltration is a plot-bearing requirement of the adventure.
Interesting interpretation....
Poison is a lot less frowned upon by good deities than conventional wisdom would suggest, and it doesn't actually violate any anathema inherently.
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the "Good folks never use poison" thing is not hard-coded into the game. I've always found that to be suspect, personally, all the way back to AD&D where good PCs couldn't use poison, but good monsters like couatls or guardian nagas sure could! It's all about HOW you use it that determines if you're being evil. (Poison, of course, lends itself very well to evil acts, of course...)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ally also gave the PCs some powerful poison and suggested they try to use that on food or drink in the party to give them an edge. I'm curious to see what they wind up doing in that regard and I suspect the Sarenrite will not be comfortable with it at all.
'Not being comfortable with it' is about the spot a follower of Sarenrae would be at, I suspect?
In addition, the 'set-up' is... mildly suspicious to say the least.
So there should be warning bells going off all over the place for genre-savvy players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with poison is in dishonorable use of it.
Things like Assassinations or Weakening a rival in a fair competition
But using poison as a means to defend your life? Probably not inherently dishonorable or evil.
Not all poisons kill either. You could use it to debilitate a foe to make them surrender or easier to subdue without killing them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with poison is in dishonorable use of it.
Things like Assassinations or Weakening a rival in a fair competitionBut using poison as a means to defend your life? Probably not inherently dishonorable or evil.
Not all poisons kill either. You could use it to debilitate a foe to make them surrender or easier to subdue without killing them.
The use of poison being discussed here sounds like assassination to me, which you can certainly argue is dishonorable. But Saranrae doesn't tell you to act honorably, she tells you not to lie. A paladin of Saranrae might not be allowed to be part of such a scheme, but that's because of the paladin code, not Saranrae.
I wouldn't prevent a cleric of Saranrae from participating in an ambush either, for example.
The problem with poison is in dishonorable use of it.
Things like Assassinations or Weakening a rival in a fair competitionBut using poison as a means to defend your life? Probably not inherently dishonorable or evil.
Not all poisons kill either. You could use it to debilitate a foe to make them surrender or easier to subdue without killing them.The use of poison being discussed here sounds like assassination to me, which you can certainly argue is dishonorable. But Saranrae doesn't tell you to act honorably, she tells you not to lie. A paladin of Saranrae might not be allowed to be part of such a scheme, but that's because of the paladin code, not Saranrae.
I wouldn't prevent a cleric of Saranrae from participating in an ambush either, for example.
Good point
To head off a possible technical tangent, I don't feel like poisoning food in and of itself is deceptive--its the act of presenting poisoned food as if it were not poisoned that is deceptive. Now, poisoning food and just leaving it around for somebody to eat might make a prospective paladin fall anyway if they're being especially negligent about who could be harmed by their action, but that's a third story
To head off a possible technical tangent, I don't feel like poisoning food in and of itself is deceptive--its the act of presenting poisoned food as if it were not poisoned that is deceptive.
Right, and presumably the cleric wouldn't be the one serving the food in that case. I find it unlikely they'd be administering the poison, either. If only for practical purposes of their likely skill allotment. But letting such schemes play out seems within bounds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm I think it also matters for a Sarenite what the poison will do, who they are poisoning.
Will the poison kill denying the opportunity for redemption? Have you now made them the sick and wounded?
They may have no trouble poisoning an irredeemable evil, but what about anyone not that far gone? Do they have the present ability to cleanse it if they see the person repent as they are doubled over and frothing at the mouth?
Would they then always keep a method of cleansing a poison they administer in case redemption becomes an option?
It's all about HOW you use it that determines if you're being evil. (Poison, of course, lends itself very well to evil acts, of course...)I suspect part of it is natural attacks vs applied to weapons vs applied to food, for example.
A good aligned snake with a poisonous bite is just doing its thing.
A heroic archer who poisons his arrows and slays the evil dragon in an epic battle running up and down a mountain could be a thing.
But you generally never hear "heroic" tales of Bob the Poisoner who slipped into the bandit camp and a few hours later the nearby town was safe as all of the sadistic bandits died after eating poisoned food.
1. Bob sounds like a pretty slick operator; he probably wouldn't let anyone find out it was him.
2. If killing the bandits is the only way to keep the town safe, there's no real moral differences in doing so by poisoning their food and death by the sword. Especially if the former increases your odds of success and reduces the odds of you or the other heroes dying. Depending on the nature of the poison, it might be more gruesome, and unnecessary suffering is generally bad. But the posing might also be completely painless, which would be better than painful death by sword and fireballs.
3. A cleric of Saranrae might not be down to kill a whole group like this because the larger the group the higher the odds someone in it was redeemable. That said, her anathema is to deny a REPENTENT creature a chance at redemption. Most definitions of that word require someone to be actively pursuing redemption or at least displaying regrets for their actions. The anathema doesn't require that you stop and offer everyone a chance at redemption before you kill them.
People think of poison as this thing only bad guys use, but that's a bias not rooted in logic. Pathfinder 2e made a conscious choice to allow paladins to use poisons because forbidding poisoning a weapon but allowing a flaming weapon was never lawful good, it was lawful stupid. The paladin might object specifically to poisoning food, but that's a matter of honor, not goodness. And honor is often stupid when it comes to life or death battles.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People think of poison as this thing only bad guys use, but that's a bias not rooted in logic. Pathfinder 2e made a conscious choice to allow paladins to use poisons because forbidding poisoning a weapon but allowing a flaming weapon was never lawful good, it was lawful stupid. The paladin might object specifically to poisoning food, but that's a matter of honor, not goodness. And honor is often stupid when it comes to life or death battles.
To me, honor is following your code even when it is inconvenient.
Life and death battle might be the moment when one would prefer betraying their code than losing their life. It's okay : we have edicts and anathemas and consequences.
Or one can prefer to die with their honor unsullied.
As far as alignment was concerned, honor was indeed deemed lawful rather than good. But then that was a long time ago.
Sarenites don't murder foes they could rather offer a chance at redemption. lethal poisons will kill without intervention and dead people have no chance at redemption.
In battle you can stay your blade when the opponent yields but if you poisoned a foe (the killing kind of poison) the poison may not give you or your foe any options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the extent to which you could stay your blade in a melee is a bit overstated--even assuming your opponent has the wherewithal to realise when thir luck runs out and cry mercy before the strike that ends them, but on the otherhand that's why we play fantasy role-playing games. If it's dramatic, it's worth a story beat.
-
Incidentally, I'm of the mind that killing a sapient creature is never a morally good act, but may much more easily be morally necessary anyway. It nay be splitting hairs, but the good act comes from helping others and saving lives, not from killing villains, even if you might have to do the latter to achieve the former.
|
|
I feel like the extent to which you could stay your blade in a melee is a bit overstated--even assuming your opponent has the wherewithal to realise when thir luck runs out and cry mercy before the strike that ends them, but on the otherhand that's why we play fantasy role-playing games. If it's dramatic, it's worth a story beat.
-
Incidentally, I'm of the mind that killing a sapient creature is never a morally good act, but may much more easily be morally necessary anyway. It nay be splitting hairs, but the good act comes from helping others and saving lives, not from killing villains, even if you might have to do the latter to achieve the former.
The one time one of my PCs killed someone with a coup de grace is also the only time I could see killing as a good action : the target was getting transformed into an evil monster that would then kill their former allies and he begged my PC to kill him before the transformation was done.
I've often said that killing may not be capital E Evil, but it is never capital G Good. Sometimes it just is and Good people have to cope with it.
Knowing of course that Good and Evil aren't things anymore, which I notice across boards hasn't really stopped the momentum of the arguments. ;)
2. If killing the bandits is the only way to keep the town safe, there's no real moral differences in doing so by poisoning their food and death by the sword especially if the former increases your odds of success and reduces the odds of you or the other heroes dying.Golarion is big enough and varied enough to contain both consequentalist and deontological Saraenrites (as well as people who are a mix of both).
So again, rather than the GM setting the terms of whether a Sarenrite should poison or not, I think the better approach is to work with the player to help bring their vision of their Sarenrite to life. And if this means that your in-game religions have a breadth and variety of sects, many of which are inconsistent with each other, and a player's Sarenrite disagrees with the local priest about how Sarenrae wants her to act...well...then your Golarion is quite like RL. :)
My thought was It may be easier to violate Sarenrae's anathema when you take away your control over your ability to stop from killing by setting a time limit on a foes life. Not all foes fight to to the death so it would be important to know what kind of foe your poisoning and if you can stop it. As long as you have the means prepared to cure your poisons you can offer redemption and intervene but I suspect with poison running through someone they might just agree with whatever you say for you to cure it reducing your ability to get a genuine sentiment.
Now if the player would like to make a Sarenite that doesnt care about the consequences of their poison use then at some point I would say they violate their anathema not because they use poison but because they are killing foes whether or not there is a chance of redemption.
I would say a Sarenite using lethal poisons has to be more attentive and careful of its consequences than the typical users of such poisons whos intent is to use them to kill.
|
|
2. If killing the bandits is the only way to keep the town safe, there's no real moral differences in doing so by poisoning their food and death by the sword. Especially if the former increases your odds of success and reduces the odds of you or the other heroes dying. Depending on the nature of the poison, it might be more gruesome, and unnecessary suffering is generally bad. But the posing might also be completely painless, which would be better than painful death by sword and fireballs.
The problem of poison is its hidden nature.
People can be wary of people with swords and of people known to cast fireballs.
How can you identify someone who could kill you with poison ?
You cannot.
If poison use becomes widespread, then anyone can be a potential poisoner. And then all communities collapse.
So you put stringent laws, if possible with divine backing, against killing with poison and you investigate any such death with great attention and you punish poisoners mercilessly. Because a functioning society is at stake.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Raven, I think you're wandering a bit off topic. Your talking about societal norms, not the individual dilemnas discussed in the OP, which involve evil authority figures who can only be stopped through extra-legal means to stop.
That said, your examples don't really bear out either. You can detect poisons with magic, and cure them as well. Meanwhile, there's no particular way a spell caster needs to look, so you really shouldn't be able to tell if some can cast at a glance. A greatsword might be hard conceal, but a dagger isn't, and there are plenty of monks who can rip your throat out with their bare hands. Heck, the greatsword can easily be concealed with magic-- a ring of discretion is only 15 gp, and of course you have all the illusory disguise variants.
All poison really does is let you get away with it easier, but that's not very hard either with illusions, Translocate, and such. I'd even go as as to say poisons are far less reliable (and therefore less dangerous) than direct attack because of fortitude saves. Our real world sensibilities of their reliability don't really apply any more than our real world sensibilities over how dangerous a gun is.
Violence in all forms is something which society wants to discourage and use only when absolutely necessary. Direct violence and indirect violence aren't really different in that regard.
I feel like the extent to which you could stay your blade in a melee is a bit overstated--even assuming your opponent has the wherewithal to realise when thir luck runs out and cry mercy before the strike that ends them, but on the otherhand that's why we play fantasy role-playing games. If it's dramatic, it's worth a story beat.
-
Incidentally, I'm of the mind that killing a sapient creature is never a morally good act, but may much more easily be morally necessary anyway. It nay be splitting hairs, but the good act comes from helping others and saving lives, not from killing villains, even if you might have to do the latter to achieve the former.
Agreed.
Sarenites don't murder foes they could rather offer a chance at redemption. lethal poisons will kill without intervention and dead people have no chance at redemption.
In battle you can stay your blade when the opponent yields but if you poisoned a foe (the killing kind of poison) the poison may not give you or your foe any options.
That feels skewed to me. Remember, the anathema says you need to give REPENTENT creatures a chance at redemption. It also says you can't fail to strike down evil. Nothing asks a cleric or Saranrae to take non-repentent creatures alive. If that was a goal, then Saranrae would probably bestow non-lethal spells like Phantom Pain instead of very, very lethal fireballs, and probably have a fist or non-lethal weapon instead of a scimitar for their war priests.
Killing isn't itself a good act, but I think you're overestimating how much restraint the sun goddess calls for to avoid it. Even surrending is not necessarily sufficient to spare a life. You need to surrender and pledge to be better. And TBH the cleric has to believe it instead of think you're just saying anything to save your life, because plenty of people will say that and not mean it.
The OP talks about evil overlords leading armies, not small time bandits who might have been forced into a life of crime by poverty. These are people who had every opportunity to be better, and who you can't jail because they control the legal system. I really don't think Saranrae would bat an eye at striking them down, and whether that involves poisons, scimitars, or fire shouldn't really matter.
|
|
Raven, I think you're wandering a bit off topic. Your talking about societal norms, not the individual dilemnas discussed in the OP, which involve evil authority figures who can only be stopped through extra-legal means to stop.
That said, your examples don't really bear out either. You can detect poisons with magic, and cure them as well. Meanwhile, there's no particular way a spell caster needs to look, so you really shouldn't be able to tell if some can cast at a glance. A greatsword might be hard conceal, but a dagger isn't, and there are plenty of monks who can rip your throat out with their bare hands. Heck, the greatsword can easily be concealed with magic-- a ring of discretion is only 15 gp, and of course you have all the illusory disguise variants.
All poison really does is let you get away with it easier, but that's not very hard either with illusions, Translocate, and such. I'd even go as as to say poisons are far less reliable (and therefore less dangerous) than direct attack because of fortitude saves. Our real world sensibilities of their reliability don't really apply any more than our real world sensibilities over how dangerous a gun is.
Violence in all forms is something which society wants to discourage and use only when absolutely necessary. Direct violence and indirect violence aren't really different in that regard.
The question was about Sarenrae and using poison.
I tried to find an explanation why there is such a strong stigma against poison in our world and I think it also applies to Golarion.
And the crux is the hidden nature of poison use.
Not everyone can be a high-level caster or monk or martial.
Everyone can pour poison in your drink or on your food.
Which is why important people should have food tasters BTW.
And I really believe Golarion's people would react as poorly to such use of poison as people would in our world.
I wonder if the PCs' ally is setting them up for trying to poison the villains.
Raven, I think you're wandering a bit off topic. Your talking about societal norms, not the individual dilemnas discussed in the OP, which involve evil authority figures who can only be stopped through extra-legal means to stop.
That said, your examples don't really bear out either. You can detect poisons with magic, and cure them as well. Meanwhile, there's no particular way a spell caster needs to look, so you really shouldn't be able to tell if some can cast at a glance. A greatsword might be hard conceal, but a dagger isn't, and there are plenty of monks who can rip your throat out with their bare hands. Heck, the greatsword can easily be concealed with magic-- a ring of discretion is only 15 gp, and of course you have all the illusory disguise variants.
All poison really does is let you get away with it easier, but that's not very hard either with illusions, Translocate, and such. I'd even go as as to say poisons are far less reliable (and therefore less dangerous) than direct attack because of fortitude saves. Our real world sensibilities of their reliability don't really apply any more than our real world sensibilities over how dangerous a gun is.
Violence in all forms is something which society wants to discourage and use only when absolutely necessary. Direct violence and indirect violence aren't really different in that regard.
The question was about Sarenrae and using poison.
I tried to find an explanation why there is such a strong stigma against poison in our world and I think it also applies to Golarion.
And the crux is the hidden nature of poison use.
Not everyone can be a high-level caster or monk or martial.
Everyone can pour poison in your drink or on your food.
Which is why important people should have food tasters BTW.
And I really believe Golarion's people would react as poorly to such use of poison as people would in our world.
I wonder if the PCs' ally is setting them up for trying to poison the villains.
Anyone can pour poison in your drink, but doing it without getting caught is something else entirely. Furthermore, you need a pretty strong poison to knock off someone of import before they can get magical or alchemical healing.
And if we want to look at parallels to the real world, I'd argue gun violence is a much hotter topic than poison use. It's actually pretty hard to poison someone in the real world unless you're already close to them (like a spouse) in which case you'll likely be suspected when the toxicology report comes back. Otherwise you basically need to be slipping something into a drink at a bar, which is pretty risky itself. Meanwhile, people regularly murder multiple people in seconds with guns.
You can also consider real world assassination. In war zones snipers are regularly used for this, as are drones. Attempts with poisons have been made, a la Castro, but they are harder to reliably pull off than just blowing up someone's house. And poison at least has lower odds of collateral damage.
I strongly believe the belief that poison is somehow a worse tool for murder than others isn't really supported by much logically, morally, or mechanically. And the people in charge at Paizo agree, which is why paladins can poison their weapons now. Poison is a mechanism for killing or incapacitating enemies, same as any weapon or spell. Like any weapon or spell, it can be used for good or evil, subtley or blatantly, painlessly or sadistically. But people have this deep rooted bias from stories like Hamlet that make them averse to poison in a way they aren't to plenty of other forms of murder and mayhem.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to dig into the sociological tangent too deeply, the theory I have seen wrt poison use being vilified in real life is serving a function somewhat similar to honour--poison is seen as inherently more reprehensible to those with power because while a noble will necessarily have the resources and training to fend off many open forms of attack (particularly honorable 1v1 combat) but any lower class person might slip something in their food and strike them where they are defenceless. Moreover, in this way poison allows the "natural order" to be overturned.
Now, of course in fantasy there are several ways to guard against poison, and many many more stealthy and cunning ways to strike at a foe without their knowing, so I don't imagine this theory to be universally applicable... much like how in fantasy we imagine honour aligning more with our own value system and less with what gives the warrior class the most advantage in combat.
|
|
Not to dig into the sociological tangent too deeply, the theory I have seen wrt poison use being vilified in real life is serving a function somewhat similar to honour--poison is seen as inherently more reprehensible to those with power because while a noble will necessarily have the resources and training to fend off many open forms of attack (particularly honorable 1v1 combat) but any lower class person might slip something in their food and strike them where they are defenceless. Moreover, in this way poison allows the "natural order" to be overturned.
Now, of course in fantasy there are several ways to guard against poison, and many many more stealthy and cunning ways to strike at a foe without their knowing, so I don't imagine this theory to be universally applicable... much like how in fantasy we imagine honour aligning more with our own value system and less with what gives the warrior class the most advantage in combat.
I think the powerful in Golarion will be as guarded against poison as in the real world (likely more) and guarded about all other risks of dying too early too.
Not to dig into the sociological tangent too deeply, the theory I have seen wrt poison use being vilified in real life is serving a function somewhat similar to honour--poison is seen as inherently more reprehensible to those with power because while a noble will necessarily have the resources and training to fend off many open forms of attack (particularly honorable 1v1 combat) but any lower class person might slip something in their food and strike them where they are defenceless. Moreover, in this way poison allows the "natural order" to be overturned.
Now, of course in fantasy there are several ways to guard against poison, and many many more stealthy and cunning ways to strike at a foe without their knowing, so I don't imagine this theory to be universally applicable... much like how in fantasy we imagine honour aligning more with our own value system and less with what gives the warrior class the most advantage in combat.
That's interesting, and also makes sense why the idea took root. This isn't the first time the rich and powerful have changed public consensus to suit their needs. See this fun example:
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to dig into the sociological tangent too deeply, the theory I have seen wrt poison use being vilified in real life is serving a function somewhat similar to honour--poison is seen as inherently more reprehensible to those with power because while a noble will necessarily have the resources and training to fend off many open forms of attack (particularly honorable 1v1 combat) but any lower class person might slip something in their food and strike them where they are defenceless. Moreover, in this way poison allows the "natural order" to be overturned.
Now, of course in fantasy there are several ways to guard against poison, and many many more stealthy and cunning ways to strike at a foe without their knowing, so I don't imagine this theory to be universally applicable... much like how in fantasy we imagine honour aligning more with our own value system and less with what gives the warrior class the most advantage in combat.
That's interesting, and also makes sense why the idea took root. This isn't the first time the rich and powerful have changed public consensus to suit their needs. See this fun example:
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
This is turning into a RL politics thread.
Hey, you're the one who brought real world social standards into the conversation. ;p
That feels skewed to me. Remember, the anathema says you need to give REPENTENT creatures a chance at redemption. It also says you can't fail to strike down evil. Nothing asks a cleric or Saranrae to take non-repentent creatures alive. If that was a goal, then Saranrae would probably bestow non-lethal spells like Phantom Pain instead of very, very lethal fireballs, and probably have a fist or non-lethal weapon instead of a scimitar for their war priests.
Smiting evil is well within the wheelhouse, but you must know evil first.
How do you know who cannot become repentant once they know they have been defeated? How do you know there are no pressures on the overlord? No compulsion? No coercion from greater powers? What if they themselves are misguided? Manipulated? This seems too black and white and there are plenty of black and white situations but my problem with poison in these cases is there is no room to find out if you are dealing with evil that must be smited or something else.Again im not saying its never ok, I'm saying that Sarenite values seems to make using poison more challenging than those who don't care about who they are killing.
It also seems to me that past evil acts have to exist for redemption to take place so no matter how evil their acts were what matters to a Sarenite is if they now are willing to repent for them. (perhaps there are some acts even a Sarenite could not forgive, absolutism is not a great way to approach anything)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You keep adding stipulations that aren't actually reflected in the anathema. What the anathema says:
Deny a repentant creature an opportunity for redemption.
What it does NOT say:
Deny an evil creature opportunity to become repentent.
They have to be repentant at the time you'd kill them, not just have the potential to eventually regret their actions. That means they are already feeling or showing remorse and guilt for their evil ways. And since clerics of Saranrae don't have mind reading on their spell list, the creature really needs to be showing that, not just feeling it.
Lethal poisons aren't great for taking prisoners so they can find goodness later, but you know what else aren't? Scimitars and fireballs. If Saranrae cared as much about taking prisoners as you seem to think, her weapons of choice would be saps and non-lethal mental damage. Even killing a surrendering creature wouldn't violate anathema in and of itself. If the creature isn't remorseful, you can still execute them. Nor are you expected to create an opportunity to surrender.
You keep adding stipulations that aren't actually reflected in the anathema. What the anathema says:
Deny a repentant creature an opportunity for redemption.
What it does NOT say:
Deny an evil creature opportunity to become repentent.
They have to be repentant at the time you'd kill them, not just have the potential to eventually regret their actions. That means they are already feeling or showing remorse and guilt for their evil ways. And since clerics of Saranrae don't have mind reading on their spell list, the creature really needs to be showing that, not just feeling it.
Lethal poisons aren't great for taking prisoners so they can find goodness later, but you know what else aren't? Scimitars and fireballs. If Saranrae cared as much about taking prisoners as you seem to think, her weapons of choice would be saps and non-lethal mental damage. Even killing a surrendering creature wouldn't violate anathema in and of itself. If the creature isn't remorseful, you can still execute them. Nor are you expected to create an opportunity to surrender.
That's my take at least.
But on the last point. Battles are not over in one swing right?
If you launch fireballs and strike with a scimitar you haven't condemned the foe to death with it until you take that final strike.
Such a foe has a chance to yield on round 2 or maybe 3. Situations can be complex and if they yield does the Sarenite just cut them down?
Now you have a foe that is no longer a threat wounded (not in the mechanical sense but the literal sense)
With poison that option to stop killing those who yield gets more complicated. That is really what I am getting at.
Is that situation always going to happen? Probably not, but IMO using poison is callous as it takes the choice to kill out of the Sarenites hands if they set it and forget it (especially so with poisoning food style assassinations)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me like this is the fundamental tension all Sarenites must walk. Never be so eager to smite than you miss the opportunity to extend a chance at redemption, and never be so eager to redeem that you overlook the cruelty of the unjust. Similar debates are probably waged among the faithful, which pleases me to think. I don't think there can be any one right answer, since we necessarily have to move the line depending how closely we follow game mechanics vs the narrative they express. On the one hand, a single scimitar strike will almost never fell a foe beyond a certain level, but realistically a blow from a scimitar can kill at any time. Likewise, to be sure of killing a foe with a dose of poison means finding a toxin powerful enough to lay low your target, otherwise you'll do no more long term harm than the scimitar, yet we may readily assume likewise that poisons administered correctly should be dangerous enough to kill their target on better than even odds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Pathfinder poisons aren't actually that likely to kill someone because they run off the same math as everything else. Everything has a saving throw or attack attached to it, and it is very hard to one shot a creature past a certain point unless you massively put level them.
The poison offered to the OP's PCs is supposed to "give them an edge," not outright kill anyone... Because that's generally what poisons do. They contribute a bit of damage over time and probably inflict a nice debuff like clumsy, but if poisons were as sure fire a death sentence as people are acting then alchemists wouldn't be considered underpowered.
The other thing in the OP's example is these do not sound like redeemable people with an ounce of regret. They are fiend worshippers who murdered the good king and are so proud of it they are holding a party. I just don't see why a Sarenrite would have any compunctions about striking down this particular evil through whatever means necessary, nor would I trust the surrender of this level of schemer.
Are there situations where a Sarenrite might be reluctant to use lethal poisons? Sure. But in those same situations, they should be reluctant to use their signature attacks and spells as well. A strong solo opponent could have 2 or 3 rounds to surrender, sure. But strong solo opponents are more likely to have agency in the decisions that pitted them against the cleric in the first place.
By comparison, consider fighting a large group of enemies. Say, the evil noble's guards. If you launch a fireball into that crowd, there's high odds someone crit fails. If your fireball doesn't outright kill them, it is extremely likely the martials will quickly finish off the wounded target in the same round. And yet, those mooks are following orders. They likely had less agency in the choices which brought them here, and probably more financial need driving those choices than the nobles who hired them. And yet yet Saranrae grants one of the least discriminating mook killing spells in the game. At a certain point, you need to play the game with the tools that are given too you, and I don't see why you should get hung up about poison specifically.
If you wanted this operation to provide to present a moral dilemma, here's what I'd do: have the cleric overhear a guard say this whole party is awful, celebrating the death of a good man. Maybe another guard indicates the disgruntled guard better keep those opinions to himself lest he join the good man. Suddenly, the cleric is aware of a repentant creature in the mix. That guard could get killed if all the wine is poisoned or if fireballs start going off, this denying them a chance at redemption. What does the cleric do? Do they try and enlist the aid of the guard in the upcoming coup? Do they convince the guard to leave? Do theh trick the guard into leave the banquet hall, knock him out, and stuff him in a broom closet until this is all over?
That example not only adheres to the actual tennets of Saranrae, it creates an obstacle which can be overcome with a variety of skill challenges. That's way more interesting than hemming and hawing over whether your God will arbitrarily be less ok with one weapon of murder over another.
That example not only adheres to the actual tennets of Saranrae, it creates an obstacle which can be overcome with a variety of skill challenges. That's way more interesting than hemming and hawing over whether your God will arbitrarily be less ok with one weapon of murder over another.I agree. A GM using divine tenets as a plot hook for interesting story choices is good. A GM using those tenets to deny or restrict player choices, maybe sometimes necessary but often much less interesting.
I would only caveat your example by saying GMs should (as always) avoid single-path solutions, or damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't situations. If a GM is purposefully setting the PCs up for a tough moral conundrum, then they should also set up multiple paths a faithful follower might take to succeed at achieving the goal while remaining faithful to their goddess. Real life might sometimes give you no-win, "every choice is evil" situations. But this is a game. The point is to have fun. So try to give (the players of...) faith-based characters ways to succeed without breaking their characters' faith.
Yeah, my take making it an obstacle is that depending on your roll, you might raise the overall alertness level, but you should generally be able to get the good guy out of harm's way barring maaaaybe a critical failure.
I'd say poison's as valid as elemental damage & alchemical bombs. The exception being if one's world has an ongoing theme of chivalry and honor unlike Golarion's less outdated version.
I'd more be wary of poison being using indiscriminately, as in the target's food, when innocents might partake, like a waiter taking a nip or the evil king's toddler hopping on his lap and fiddling with his plate.
---
And yeah, the Saranrae follower should not take point, which is why guards should more often than not address quieter guests/travelers/whatnot as much as any that step forward. :-)
It should be a bind, though not a shackle, especially if pursuing an edict. Sometimes one must balance the "must" with the "must not", though in good faith, not with a mind to exploit said rules (unless perhaps a diabolic follower who might be obliged to!).
The entire fall/atonement mechanic is a problem as it mocks a real life religious ceremony.
Make sure you are comfortable with something that is potentially offensive to around 17% of the worlds population if you think it's a good idea to include in your game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The last people on earth that I care about offending with my fantasy game are those who seriously weigh their own "deeply held" religious views that were created to control or deprive the common man from rising up against those who pull the levers in society against the make-believe created for enjoyment and fun and decide that their own cult bible says what is going on is evil or objectionable.
This might be the hottest takes I've dropped in this community to date but, if anything, I'd much RATHER trigger such a person immediately so I can tell them to find another group and, as nicely as possible, suggest that they stay away from roleplaying entirely. I'd rather a billion people consider me a heretic than agree with the notion that art, in any form, should conform to the comfort of religious groups and faiths, full stop.
Freedom of expression is more important than the hurt little feelings of supposedly religious folk, it is the responsibility of the viewer/consumer to decide if a piece of art is right for them, NEVER the other way around, that is the most important and foundational pillar of freedom of expression.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The entire fall/atonement mechanic is a problem as it mocks a real life religious ceremony.
Make sure you are comfortable with something that is potentially offensive to around 17% of the worlds population if you think it's a good idea to include in your game.
I see your point, even if I do not believe it is intended as a mockery.