A new way to do aligned damage

[A Butter Idea]

This is more of a shower thought than an actual homebrew, but I think it could work.

When performing an action that would deal spirit damage, the player declares one act that abides by their character's edicts and does not violate their character's anathema. If the act does not abide by the target's edicts and violates the target's anathema, the target takes spirit damage.

You can determine a target's edicts and anathema through prior research, from making a successful Recall Knowledge check (usually Religion), or just by making educated guesses based on observed behavior.

[NorrKnekten]

Sounds interesting, but also much like a hazzle on the GMs part outside of the very obvious ones like "Do not commit acts of banditry or piracy" against a bandit.

I feel like you would very much need to create a large amount of gray space and interpretation to squeeze in Edicts and Anathemas which may only be vaguely related if you want to go with the path that a characters Edict needs to target an enemys Anathema. How would this work against creatures who are more instinctual but currently have Holy/Unholy traits. Do such creatures have Edicts and Anathema?

Maybe adjusting this so instead of needing an Edict to target Anathema it could instead be that if a creature that has breached or would be willing to breach the player characters Edict/Anathema.

But that does not solve the issue of what edicts a creature driven by instinct would have

[Teridax]

While I like the idea of mixing improv into gameplay here, I think there are a few reasons why this may not work:

As NorrKnekten mentions, this would require a lot of work on the GM's part to adjudicate what a character's anathema is.

I'm not sure this should be generalized to every creature, because not every good or evil person is holy or unholy. Only some creatures are, and usually because they have direct ties to the divine, whether by taking up their deity's sanctification or by coming from the good or evil Outer Planes themselves. By contrast, dealing bonus damage to a tyrant by manifesting the essence of freedom is more something a Thaumaturge would do with their implements.

I'm not sure it would necessarily make sense for a divine or occult caster to be able to constantly manifest anathema. A cleric of Pharasma may absolutely specialize in eradicating undead, for instance, but they wouldn't care at all about wearing clothes out of season, even though that's one of Ng's anathema and probably a serious anathema to any fashionista.

I think if you want to play more with alignment, you could add some extra traits beyond holy and unholy, let the right characters sanctify into those, and give appropriate creatures weakness to those traits. As a basic example, if you add the "lawful" and "chaotic" traits, let Clerics and Paladins sanctify accordingly (Clerics of Asmodeus would definitely be lawful, for example), and then give particularly lawful and chaotic creatures weakness to the opposing trait (aeons, archons, and devils could be weak to the chaotic trait, whereas azata, demons, and proteans could be weak to the lawful trait), you'd get to add a new dimension of alignment for certain characters to play with.

[A Butter Idea]

@Teridax
You're absolutely right that this shouldn't be used on every creature. In general, only sanctified characters and outsiders should have weakness to aligned damage. And In regards to your example of a Pharasmin cleric exploiting Ng's anathema, I didn't intend for something like that. What I should have written was "an act which is enforced by your edicts, and which either violates the target's anathema or singles out a fundamental aspect of the target (such as being undead)." So a Phasmarin cleric should not be able to exploit an Ng worshipper's anathema of wearing clothes out of season, because that is not addressed in Pharasma's edicts.

The main reason why I propose this concept of anathema-based alignment damage is because Paizo has shown a vested interest in moving away from D&D's Good-Evil-Lawful-Chaotic system, and I'm in support of this decision.

[Teridax]

If the usage is strictly limited to applying your edicts against another creature's anathema or vice versa, I think that could work a lot better, for sure. I think the issue there is that edicts and anathema don't always match each other cleanly, but at least that would narrow things down a fair bit.

[Gortle]

A Butter Idea wrote:

This is more of a shower thought than an actual homebrew, but I think it could work.

When performing an action that would deal spirit damage, the player declares one act that abides by their character's edicts and does not violate their character's anathema. If the act does not abide by the target's edicts and violates the target's anathema, the target takes spirit damage.

You can determine a target's edicts and anathema through prior research, from making a successful Recall Knowledge check (usually Religion), or just by making educated guesses based on observed behavior.

For this to be practical then you willl need some specific examples.

[A Butter Idea]

Abadar's edicts are as follows:
* Bring civilization to the frontiers.
* Earn wealth through hard work and trade.
* Follow the rule of law.

The GM may decide that sanctified clerics and champions of Abadar can deal aligned damage to creatures sanctified by or otherwise closely associated with the following gods:
* Gozreh: "do not bring civilization to intrude on the wild"
* Thoth: "do not upset stable ecosystems" (such as by building human settlements)
* Immonhiel: "do not destroy nature" (even in the process of building human settlements)
* Adanye: "do not force anyone into drudgery or mindless work" (particularly via wage slavery).
* Hanspur: "do not impose needless laws or restrictions on others"
* Kazutal: "do not enforce an unjust law"
* Fumeyoshi: "do not allow honor or tradition to prevent you from taking what you want"
* Lao Shu Po: "do not work honestly for something you could steal instead"
* Yamatsumi: "do not become reliant on civilization"
* Srikalis, Sritaming, and Sribaril: "do not lay waste to nature" (even in the process of building human settlements)

Bear in mind that these are not hard-and-fast rules, and the nuances of a given situation are factors in deciding whether any two gods' goals are antithetical to each other. Ultimately, the GM is the final arbiter.

[A Butter Idea]

Calistria's edicts are as follows:
* Pursue your personal freedom
* Seek hedonistic thrills
* Take revenge

The GM may decide that sanctified clerics and champions of Calistria can deal aligned damage to creatures sanctified by or otherwise closely associated with the following gods:
* Erastil: "do not choose yourself over your community".
* Irori: "do not engage in overly unhealthy or self-destructive behaviors".
* Torag: "do not tell lies or cheat someone" (even in pursuit of revenge).
* Horus: "do not undermine a rightful ruler" (even one that restricts your personal freedom).
* Ma'at: "do not deal unfairly with your family or community" (even if this would get in the way of your personal freedom).
* Barbatos: "do not hide any plot against your masters".
* Folgrit: "do not abandon your family" (even if they restrict your personal freedom).
* Kols: "do not lie, do not dishonor yourself or your family, do not shirk your duties, do not break an oath".
* Magdh: "do not lie".
* Ashava: "do not intentionally mislead someone".
* Black Butterfly: "do not interrupt tranquil moments, do not play noisy or discordant music" (if your preferred form of hedonistic thrill involves loud music).
* Eritrice: "do not sow or perpetuate lies".
* Tanagaar: "do not abandon your post".
* Vildeis: "do not indulge in luxury".
* Rowdrosh: "do not abandon your community".
* Kerkamoth: "do not perform an act of wanton and significant destruction".
* Narakaas: "do not take joy in suffering".
* Lissala: "do not disobey a superior, do not shirk your duties".
* Vineshvakhi: "do not abandon your post, do not willingly suffer corruption over death or grievous harm".
* Mugura and Nrithu: "do not steal credit from others, do not upstage or sabotage, do not spread rumors to get ahead" (all valid forms of revenge).

[A Butter Idea]

I've come up with a better way to implement this concept in gameplay. I will use Irori as an example this time.

Irori's edicts are:
* Be humble
* Help others perfect themselves
* Hone your body, mind, and spirit to a more perfect state
* Practice discipline

Whenever a sanctified follower of Irori deals spirit damage to a target sanctified by another deity, the player must declare an act or behavior that abides by Irori's edicts and either violates the target's anathema or singles out a fundamental aspect of the target. The GM arbitrates, and can reject a declaration that they deem too vague or too contrived. The GM can instead allow the target to treat their save as one degree of success better if a declaration does not strictly follow these guidelines but still feels "on-brand" for an Irori worshiper.

This is a non-comprehensive list of declarations that a reasonable GM might accept for the purposes of an Irori cleric dealing spirit damage against sanctified followers of other deities.
Asmodeus: "I would share my power with the downtrodden to give them the opportunity to grow and become better."
Calistria, Dranngvit, Grandmother Spider, Dahak, Gyronna, Eiseth: "When someone slights me, I turn the other cheek."
Lamashtu: "I will help you fix your imperfections."
Norgorber: "I will show mercy and not give in to the temptations of wrath."
Urgathoa: "I will deny my appetites in pursuit of self-discipline."
Baalzebul: "I will show humility."
Belial: "I will stop you from indulging in wanton acts of hedonism and teach you to become more disciplined."
Jaidz: "If a creature shows cowardice, I will discipline them to the extent necessary to help them grow out of it."
Charon: "I'll offer to train you to become your best self, and I won't even charge you for it."
Fandarra: "If I can hone my physical form to the point that I achieve immortality, I will do so."
Lao Shu Po, Lahkgya: "I work honestly for the things I need, and I do not succumb to the temptation to steal."
Diomazul: "If someone provokes a fight with me, I refrain from needless violence."

[Teridax]

As a thought, what if sanctification were domain-based? You'd apply your deity's domains whenever dealing sanctified damage, while also having anathematic domains, and if one of the damage's domains is an anathematic domain to the target (for example, the freedom domain for a devil), then that would trigger their weakness. It wouldn't be as in-depth as edicts and anathema, but it would also be a bit more defined, and although you'd still require a lot of GM adjudication, there would also be room for more general templates based on which plane a NPC comes from: the perfection domain, for instance, would probably be anathematic to most demons, whereas the tyranny domain would probably be anathematic to any chaos-aligned creature, particularly azatas.

[A Butter Idea]

@Teridax: You know, I think that might actually work.

I made a Google Sheet to map out which domains are opposed. In most cases, there are pairs of domains that are mutually weak to each other, but in some cases one domain is weak to the other, but not vice versa (Metal is weak to Lightning, but Lightning is not weak to Metal.)

Anyone on this forum can contribute here.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tfmufJbtcfPgMw1mnHqQf-1TrykjSVlD-dk 0Pk1rC4U/edit?usp=sharing

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Personally, I would suggest against Metal being weak to Lightning. It would make no sense to me that something which can conduct electricity virtually harmlessly to itself would be weak to it. Plus, it seems like most metal elementals have electricity resistance.

Aside from that, neat plan!

[A Butter Idea]

I just realized I didn't make it available to edit earlier. Now anyone who uses the link can contribute.