| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I treat hard anathemas like for clerics, druids, champions and barbarians as roleplay guidelines. If the player is following their character concept they're mostly irrelevant.
They have yet to come up in any meaningful way in my games.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me it depends on the type of requirement.
If it is a vague thing, like 1E's version of the barbarian or monk, I don't think you should be forced into a certain manor. There were certainly ways to make a character who was an orderly barbarian or a maverick monk. And I am thankful those limits were removed going into 2e
If it is about aligning with a specific character in lore, a deity being the case, I think it's fine to metaphorically sign the contract and be expected to not make them angry with your actions. If you want to be a more vague priest that doesn't align with an existing god, for example, you can probably have your GM tailor a custom god that does match your exact philosophy. But if you wanna be a cleric of pharasma, well it only makes sense you should lose your powers if you decide you wanna practice necromancy.
Then there are the druid orders. They are a bit more dubious, as they approach closer to the vagueness of 1E I just brought up, but their anathema are pretty hard to break, as they are written in a way that if you wanted to break them, you were unlikely to want to be a druid in the first place. So it's at least certainly better than being in the "You're a monk, so you cannot lean toward chaotic mannerisms." deal.
Yeah, that's basically how I feel about it. Monks and barbarians only made a vague sort of sense with their restrictions, so I'm fine with them being free of role-playing restrictions. I can imagine a barbarian who has a rigid sense of honour and a monk who achieves enlightenment by breaking free of the world's arbitrary restrictions. However, clerics (or at least clerics who worship a specific god) really need to have edicts and anathemas to make sense to me.
In many fantasy settings, including Golarion, clerics are servants of their deity, so it would be weird if a deity continued to provide power to a cleric who worked against their deity's goals. It would feel similar to if an NPC gave a PC aid when the PC was helping save his friends from cultists, but then continued to provide the aid when the PC decided to join the cultists and personally sacrifice the NPC's friends. In such a situation I would actually be disturbed if the GM did not have the NPC act in a realistic fashion by withdrawing his aid, and likewise I would be disturbed if the GM had Pharasma continue to give my cleric magic even when he started using it to create an undead army. Essentially, deities function like NPCs in such universes, and NPCs need to act in a semi-coherent fashion or else they really aren't characters at all.
Of course, that just applies to clerics in settings where clerics are servants of specific deities (and where the deities actually exercise agency). In other settings deities don't care what their clerics do or clerics get their power from some impersonal source. In such cases I would not find it disturbing to have a cleric be free of edicts or anathema. I think I'd still find such settings slightly less interesting because I sometimes find it a fun challenge to role-play characters who have to follow unusual strictures, but that's a very personal preference on my part.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of my players are strong roleplayers. I am more interested in seeing how they develop a consistent character with their own values than how they stick to an outside standard.
None have played a cleric, but one played a druid (both Animal and Storm Orders and two played a champion (one Liberator champion following Grandmother Spider and one Redeemer champion following Cayden Cailean), and one played a barbarian (Giant Instinct). We also had a monk, but that class has no anathemas.
The Animal-and-Storm druid threw a lot of Produce Flame and Fireball spells, but technically, that was not against the Storm Order's no-air-pollution anathema. The player of the Grandmother Spider champion carefully searched through descriptions of several gods until she found one that fit how her champion would act. The Cayden Cailean champion attends the Magaambya Academy and roleplays as a a frat boy, i.e., an athlete who parties with alcoholic drinks. The barbarian was a cute little pine leshy who wielded a big stick, so no-one was interested in challenging her.
In contrast, my Strength of Thousands party at the Magaambya Academy adopted a code of never killing an intelligent creature. This campaign started in a city where criminals could be jailed rather than killed. Their principles may change now that they are away from the city on a field expedition, but when the party encountered their first group of bandits, they laughed at the bandits' attempt to rob the party via Intimidation and gave them directions to Whitebridge Station where they could find honest work.
And edicts and anathemas sometimes have unintended side effects. Currently, I am fleshing out a friendly NPC cleric of Uvulo. The anathema for Uvulo forbids, "crush an egg." That is because Uvulo is a dragon god who represents peace with dragons and hope for the future. To dragons, eggs are a symbol of future generations (at least, that is my interpretation). The weird side effect is that a cleric of Uvulo cannot cook with eggs, because that involves cracking open an egg. But that is no stranger than many dietary restrictions in real-world religions.
In Prisoners of the Blight my Ironfang Invasion party rescued Gendowyn, a fairy goddess with a physical body, from seven centuries of imprisonment by Queen Arlantia, an agent of Cyth-V’sug. In serving Cyth-V’sug Arlantia had created a blighted region in the Fangwood. Therefore, Gendowyn's edicts include, "destroy blighted fey and agents of Cyth-V’sug." But many of the blighted fey were blighted against their will. The party talked Gendowyn into curing them rather than destroying them. This altered Gendowyn's edict in my campaign world to, "protect the forest from corruption especially by agents of Cyth V'sug."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it depends a bit on the context, like I think they work okay for clerics because buying into the anathema is a core thematic tenant and has good flavor/mechanics harmony... and for the most part most mainstream anathema are not written to be stupid or obnoxious to follow. Plus like, since a significant part of choosing a deity is roleplay to begin with, having those restrictions doesn't feel as bad. Like if I'm choosing to make a cleric of a certain deity the idea that I'd want to abide by their tenants sort of follows naturally, which diminishes how much friction the anathema create.
I dislike anathema that don't seem to clearly come from something or tie into a core theme. Premaster Barbarians had anathema and they always felt really strange to me because the Barbarian's power source is so nebulous, and the anathema didn't always necessarily tie to a central theme that made intuitive sense.
On the opposite end of the spectrum from Barbarian, I'm happy they don't but Witch always stood out to me as kind of an odd counter example because there's no class in the game whose power source relies more on a direct link to a being of power. Your familiar is explicitly an agent of your patron and hex spells are explicitly favors provided by your patron to you... yet there's no mechanic at all for a Witch losing their power. Comparatively it's a little bit odd.
I like edicts and anathemas as baseline roleplaying prompts to help guide roleplaying, and I find those among the better ways to get started with a character. I also like how certain faith-bound characters such as Clerics, Champions, and to a lesser extent Druids have gameplay consequences to their anathema, and that I think makes for some especially interesting roleplaying when it creates meaningful conflicts in a character's decision-making. In this respect I don't think these ever force a character to act a certain way, as it is always a choice whether to follow or disobey these anathema even when it can entail the loss of powers: one particular character trope I enjoy is the crisis of faith, and I think it can be interesting for a character to choose to sacrifice their power in order to stand up for what they truly believe in, only to then find renewed strength in a different outlook. This in my opinion is a choice that stems from anathema, rather than a restriction.
One thing I'd like to see perhaps explored a little is the ability to pick up edicts and anathema on a more fine-grained level, such as through individual feats: Barbarian anathema never really made much sense as part of their subclasses for the most part, but picking up anathema through feats that gave them a benefit in exchange for being more superstitious could certainly work. I think this could potentially be even more appropriate for Witches, whose magic is a little quirky and whose quirks could be embodied in the way they choose to act.
The only two I have really found feeling limited by is Druid's (mainly Untamed), and Urgathoa's old overly broad restrictions against destroying undead. For the former, I almost never want to play a Druid-flavored Druid, and if I'm playing a shapeshifter, "the temptations of civilization" are often my character's main motivation. For the latter, it was impossible to have a game in Geb without the issue coming up for one or more players.
On the opposite end of the spectrum from Barbarian, I'm happy they don't but Witch always stood out to me as kind of an odd counter example because there's no class in the game whose power source relies more on a direct link to a being of power. Your familiar is explicitly an agent of your patron and hex spells are explicitly favors provided by your patron to you... yet there's no mechanic at all for a Witch losing their power. Comparatively it's a little bit odd.
There is, but the mechanic isn't codified. It's "you piss off your patron or work against their goals." Your patron can withdrawl their power at any time for basically any reason.
The difference is that deities are individuals: Sarenrae is a single entity with defined goals and such in the setting, so there's specific things to look for there. Patrons are deliberately more obfuscated and mysterious, largely showing up as concepts some entity is supporting.
But they do still have interests, and if you're breaking your end of the deal, the GM is fully empowered to cut you off. You just can't enumerate them when it's not meant to be as specific.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want know how many people like it and how many people would ignore then if they had the option to see how popular it is.
Hell, I add edicts and anathemas to my characters as personal ones on character creation! So definitely wouldn't ignore it.
Class based ones only really make sense in certain cases. Like a Fighter has no reason to have built-in edicts: any given Fighter can be fighting for a myriad of reasons & motivations, and the class shouldn't care about that. Barbarian ones were odd for this reason and removing them made sense.
If your power is coming from another source, though? Clerics definitely need them since they're agents of a deity, and the deity definitely has things they like and dislike. It makes no sense for a Cleric of Shelyn to go around committing arson at art galleries without consequence. Shelyn would not continue to grant that person her power. (If you want to play a Divine caster without such restrictions, there are multiple other options, too.)
There just needs to be enough of them available that a wide variety of concepts work. PF1 Paladins had that problem with being locked to Lawful Good: since you couldn't just play the same class as Chaotic Good, people found all kinds of ways to stretch or bend what "Lawful" means, sometimes to absurd levels, to get around the restriction. At that point it's not helpful as a narrative tool anymore.
This is actually where the remaster helped Champions a lot: Obedience is a LOT more flexible as a cause than Tyranny was. I have one in my Abomination Vaults group right now alongside a Grandeur Champion and they actively work together because as long as the Obedience one views the Grandeur one as a worthy source of authority (or is themself the one in charge), they have no problem getting along as the causes are flexible enough to cover that narrative.
I do miss alignment as a quick GM cheat sheet for "this is a very quick idea of how this NPC might act", because it conveyed a lot of information very quickly. But for PCs? Edicts & Anathemas are great. It's just important to not put them on classes where it doesn't really add anything.
Contributor
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love having small restrictions on my character that I can respond to. Edicts, anathemas, as well as ideals pressed by their culture, class and background are part of the stock ingredients in a character soup. I take them very seriously, and build from them.
Hmm
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want know how many people like it and how many people would ignore then if they had the option to see how popular it is.
I like it, because a player first has to choose the rules elements that engage with and activate those restrictions.
You can 100% play this game without having any anathema affect your character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly? Not at all. I agree restrictions can be good for the narrative surrounding a character but when those restrictions are imposed by gameplay mechanics most of the time, if not always, they are really bad. Thats why I don't like religious classes because they make it seem like having faith in something/someone is like paragon where all believers think exactly the same when thats nowhere near the case.
What I find interesting about restrictions is how the character is eventually going to be forced to walk around them without breaking them, or eventually break them because the character itself recognizes those self imposed restrictions were wrong to begin with. The mechanics behind religious classes don't allow for this situations to come up IMO, not unless you have a nice GM that is willing to slightly bend the edicts and anathema of a deity for the sake of the narrative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me it boils down 100% to the fact that having any anathema in the first place is opt in. There's only a few classes that have them in the first place, and in some cases are mostly ignorable. Looking at you Barbarian instincts!
Anyways, the fact that its opt in for me means you can't really argue against it. If you're not interested in dealing with the edicts or anathema, play a different class. Yes, it amounts to enforced flavor. But you're choosing that flavor by choosing the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me edicts and anathema are roleplay opportunities. It creates a permission structure for my PC to do things that are not optimal from a meta standpoint and helps to inform the characters actions and decisions.
Another system that my group plays regularly outside of P2 is Savage Worlds. In SW, during character creation, you select hindrances for your character. Some are minor annoyances, some are major obstacles. But they usually lead to the most interesting parts of the character. I had a character that was overconfident and impulsive. Because of that he impulsively accepted the blessing of a blood goddess and even turned against the party to fight for her. The party eventually defeated him, but it is one of the most interesting character and story arcs you table has had.
Anathema are an easy way to lay a foundation for your character's personal philosophy and worldview. It informs your characters actions throughout their adventuring career.
TLDR; come restrictions on a PC make them more interesting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to assume that we are only talking about the mandatory anathema and edicts from classes and class choices. Not the voluntary anathema and edicts chosen by a player for their particular character.
I don't generally see a problem with the anathema and edicts. Yes, it does limit some character concepts - but they are usually ones that don't make much sense anyway.
Players don't generally pick Druid as their class if the intent of the character is to despoil nature and pollute the air and water.
Why, exactly, are you playing a Cleric of Urgathoa in a campaign in Geb that involves fighting against the undead? Why not a Cleric of a different Deity?
The only ones that I can think of that I do find a bit too much is a too-strict interpretation of Untamed Order Druid (which is rare because of the note in the anathema itself) and the Legacy version of Superstition Instinct Barbarian that prevented being a willing target of spells from your party members (that part was toned down to only cause Frightened 1 in the Remastered version rather than violate Anathema).
So, no. I don't see any good reason to make these be optional. You certainly can ignore them anyway. But any player that comes to me asking to have the class anathema removed is going to be seriously questioned on what the character concept is that is needing that.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love them both as a player and as a GM, but only if they're used as tools and NOT as a ridiculous straight jacket.
I REALLY love playing characters with strong restrictions on what they'll do, whether those are self imposed or externally imposed.
But the key is that the code HAS to be flexible and nuanced in practice, not a short list that mostly works that is then rigidly applied even when it doesn't.
I think that it is FAR, FAR better for the conversation to go
GM : So, why does your character, a character who worships Shelyn, think it is acceptable to destroy this piece of artwork?
Player: Well, it is a combination of the fact that this particular art work is totally derivative and so has no intrinsic merit combined with the fact that it was created by the sacrifice of many artistic souls and ..........
than
GM: You can't do that or Shelyn will punish you.
With decent roleplayers the answer to the "Why" question is almost certainly nuanced, reasonable and well thought out and, if it is, the GM should go along with it (the player is just about always going to have a much better handle on the PC's motivations than the GM).
Sometimes the answer from the player is "Uh, you're right. I wasn't paying enough attention. I will NOT destroy the piece of art". We all make mistakes from time to time, a gentle nudge in the form of a question can sometimes be the perfect solution.
With poor roleplayers (or very immature ones, regardless of their age) the answer is often "For the Lols" or "Well. its convenient" or "What is an Anathema?". Only THEN should the GM say "Uh. NO" and, when convenient, have a private discussion with what they expect from a roleplaying game.
Players don't generally pick Druid as their class if the intent of the character is to despoil nature and pollute the air and water.
I saw that happen once in a PF1 Rise of the Runelords campaign run by my wife (months later I took over as GM, beginning my career as forever GM). A teenaged player joined at the end of the 2nd module and wanted to play a big-game hunter. He named his character Saxton Hale after a hunter character in the Team Fortress game. And he decided that druid was the best class for Saxton Hale.
When the party received a reward at the end of the module, Saxton Hale spent half of his share on incendiary consumables. He liked starting fires. And during some downtime in town, he asked the GM whether he could go out into the forest and hunt and kill animals for extra experience points. The GM said no.
Eventually, Saxton Hale's inconsiderate behavior led to the death of another PC. The party voted to kick him out of the party. And we players voted to kick the player out of our group.
Under PF2 rules, Saxton Hale might have worked with the anathema of the Flame Order. But the player would have probably chosen Animal Order and cruelly overworked his animal companion.
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, these (and in the previous editions, alignments) are invaluable roleplaying tools. When I'd create a character, I'd have their personality mostly in mind (often more so than whatever class or ancestry they'd be), so I started from the start looking at options that matched that personality, and then used them in play. The main point of conflict that would sometimes rise is in cases where the other players build characters who are intentionally triggering or complicated... but those players are gonna do that regardless, alas.
They're even more useful for creating an NPC, since they help you guide their role in a game as a GM without having to spend that extra time coming up with their own bespoke personalities. You should of course still do that for key NPCs in your game, but having edicts and anathemas handy to reference is super helpful when your players decide to interrogate the rando on the street you didn't expect them to notice!
I could see it be frustrating for folks approaching from the opposite side of creation—class and mechanics first and personality later, but that's part of why we have SO many deities in the setting to choose from. And of course, you can always chat with your GM to adjust or remove edicts and anathemas if they're that big of a problem.
Spot on James, I think the problem mainly arises when players look at mechanics first.
Like a player who wants to play a Justice Champion, because they like Retributive Strike. But they don't like the edicts and anathema associated with it.
Honestly, in PF2 I think the Champion class is the only one where there's really a rub.
Other classes, like a Druid who wants to respect nature...why would you play a druid if you don't want to respect nature?
Clerics, there are so many gods you can find one that matches your character's concept. Unless you're just after some particular spells and don't want to be bound (but I have no sympathy for that).
Champion is the one where the mechanics accessible to you change a lot depending on your cause, which has varying roleplay mechanics.
But for me you're still opting in by choosing to play the class/cause. Yes the mechanics are tied to certain roleplay. Deal with it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see it be frustrating for folks approaching from the opposite side of creation—class and mechanics first and personality later, but that's part of why we have SO many deities in the setting to choose from. And of course, you can always chat with your GM to adjust or remove edicts and anathemas if they're that big of a problem.
I am a player who approaches building a character from the mechanics first side, and I love having edicts and anathema. I wanted a redeemer champion with a one-handed agile thrown weapon. That lead me to consider Likha. I had just read some history about Roman emperors staging gladiatorial battles as historical recreations. They often changed events to make previous rulers and enemies look good or bad. So my champion is a gladiator who insists on truth in historical gladiatorial matches. (Nonlethal) His reaction is part of his stage fighting technique.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, in PF2 I think the Champion class is the only one where there's really a rub.
The cleric is much worse IMO. I honestly don't want to be the cleric of some random deity that's worshipped in a very specific place and that only exists so players can select it because Paizo explicitly granted it a good favored weapon, domains, and/or cleric spells. I want to worship Pharasma, Desna, or those deities that have tons of lore behind them (thus more support to RP different kinds of worshipers of that same deity).
If I want to play this epic undead hunter warpriest cleric of Pharasma why I'm forced to use a dagger? What tie has Pharasma to daggers that all martial-y inclined warpriest have to use them? And before someone says "Um, actually, a warpriest has really few feats that require their deity's favored weapon and are only forced to switch at 19th level" I'd argue the intention is for warpriest to wield their deity's favored weapon from the beggining because the idea of using a weapon for 18 levels and switching only for the last two not only feels bad from a RP perspective but also feels bad from a design perspective.
If a deity's statblock (cleric spells, domains, and favored weapons) are clearly designed with flavor in mind first and not balance, and I can already cherry pick the deities that have the best spells, domains, or favored weapons, why not allow me to pick those freely myself in the first place and only be "forced" to follow (because if you choose that deity you likely were going to follow them anyways) the edicts and anathema of a deity I actually want to worship with my character instead of picking a deity I don't want to worship because I don't know anything about them but ask my GM if I can RP as I were worshipping this other deity instead?
I'm not exactly against the idea behind these mechanics because I feel each deity having a "default" option for each of these makes sense, but I would want them to instead be flavorful suggestions and not something that's forced into the player. Essentially take Syncretism and make it a baseline option for clerics, changing its flavor a bit.
A champion is way more tied to its cause than a cleric is to its deity (mechanically speaking), but a champion's causes have a more general approach in their design so its easier to adapt their flavor and mechanics to a specific deity if you plan to worship it. I would rather choose a deity's "flavor" as a cleric and them adapt it around the deity I want to worship (reading its lore in the books) rather than having straight jacket deity statblocks for each deity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a little unfair to assume people who dislike a certain anathema design are only mechanically focused. Sometimes the problem with an anathema is that it limits or overly prescribes certain roleplaying options.
A big part of it imo comes down to how much does the restriction logically follow some element within the setting. Secondarily is how much does that restriction connect to a core ability that has mechanical or thematic significance. There is a mechanical element, but I think the bigger concern is how strong the mechanics-roleplay alignment is vs how arbitrary it might feel.
So I think a cleric's deity anathema works fairly well because the versimilitude is high, it connects directly to an in universe force with a congruous nature and (in one of the most incredibly bizarre D&Disms there is) your choice of deity has weirdly little mechanical significance.
But like-... the premaster Dragon Barbarian gave you two options for defining your relationship with dragons. You either revere and can't defy them, or you hate and must kill them. A mechanics only player can simply choose to hate an evil dragon because that's pretty safe and not worry very much, but anyone who has a roleplay concept that doesn't fall within those bounds just doesn't get to make their character, and unlike say... a druid being told not to pollute the thematic pull of the anathema was pretty weak.
The champion example is interesting, and definitely ties to mechanics more, but I do think it comes down a lot to the way those limitations are defined.
Like Justice = Retribution is a very specific (and somewhat awkward in modern contexts) relationship that can feel a little bit constraining... though admittedly the current anathemas are pretty soft. This was more a problem premaster when these abilities were tied to alignments, which effectively gave each alignment one specific way to be a champion which was a little not great.
There is, but the mechanic isn't codified. It's "you piss off your patron or work against their goals." Your patron can withdrawl their power at any time for basically any reason.
Sort of, yeah. As a GM I can ad hoc stuff like this and I agree that the game is better for having it this way, but in terms of rules and mechanics Witch has about as much related to losing their powers as a Fighter does, which imo feels a little bit odd design wise given the way anathemas were being used at the time.
It's less that this is bad, just to me there's a funny incongruity between some of the highly prescriptive CRB anathemas and then the Witch dropping not that long after without even a nod to the idea of losing power.
Sort of, yeah. As a GM I can ad hoc stuff like this and I agree that the game is better for having it this way, but in terms of rules and mechanics Witch has about as much related to losing their powers as a Fighter does, which imo feels a little bit odd design wise given the way anathemas were being used at the time.
It's less that this is bad, just to me there's a funny incongruity between some of the highly prescriptive CRB anathemas and then the Witch dropping not that long after without even a nod to the idea of losing power.
That's not really true though. The Witch class description spells out in multiple places how power is coming from the patron for some purpose. If you're not keeping up your end of the deal, the patron can take it back.
It doesn't have to be spelled out explicitly in a bullet point, it's all already there. Any entity that is giving you power for some reason can not do that. (That's the difference vs say Oracle, where no such relationship exists and you can largely do what you want.)
That is rules and mechanics. There isn't a real divide here: just an artificial one some people try to impose with the infamous "that's flavour text" idea to say that those parts of the rulebook don't count even though that itself has no backing in the rules.
Fighter's power is entirely their own so no one can really take it away from them barring some kind of massive divine curse or something like that.
For me it boils down 100% to the fact that having any anathema in the first place is opt in. There's only a few classes that have them in the first place, and in some cases are mostly ignorable. Looking at you Barbarian instincts!
Anyway, the fact that its opt in for me means you can't really argue against it. If you're not interested in dealing with the edicts or anathema, play a different class. Yes, it amounts to enforced flavor. But you're choosing that flavor by choosing the class.
Agree. All the anathema are opt in, and they are almost universally things a character choosing the associated option would naturally be inclined to do.
If you want a character to have an option but not it's associated anathema, you should think why a character would be drawn to that option and what beliefs they have. What would make them want that option but not it's anathema.
If the answer pans out to be because your making something silly or contrarian, then you should recognise that such things don't generally fit into Golarian, and you should talk with your GM about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like classes built around certain types of roleplay. I think that is very fantasy appropriate. If you want certain powers, you should have to abide by them. I think it is especially important for characters deriving powers from deities or morally aligned forces or forces aligned a natural force like nature.
There are plenty of generic classes with no roleplay requirements. If you don't want to be required to roleplay with limitations, then choose an open class that doesn't have them.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that is fair, people didn’t opt to worship a deity or be bound by their rules; they chose to play a class with healer mechanics and then had the deity and anathema forced on them. Their only option was to either accept those two or not play the class.
They literally did opt for that by playing a class with that as the central mechanic of the class.
Want to not do that? There's tons of other healing capable classes with none of that, including five (I think) other ones that have access to Divine magic without those restrictions. And that's not even the only way to build a healer.
"I decided to play a Cleric and its unfair that I was expected to play a Cleric" isn't going to get a lot of sympathy out of me when Oracle was right there and is extremely capable.
Some players may be hardcore atheists who strongly dislike the concept of worshiping anything and find it humiliating.
Then they probably shouldn't play a class where the entire thing is built around that? This is like playing a Gunslinger and then expressing your heartfelt opposition to ranged weapons.
Others may be very religious and find the concept too close to idolatry (remember the satanic panic).
See above. It's totally okay to not like a class, but it's silly to say "I don't like this class so they should remove its narrative reason for existing to accommodate me." I loathe Necromancer, but my response to that is: I won't play Necromancer.
Some players simply played healers in other games, like MMOs, as a white mage or something similar, and wanted to do the same here.
And you think they can't do that unless they play Cleric because... why? In my Spore War group, the "healers" are the Bomber Alchemist (Battle Medicine in between bomb throwing) and my Cosmos Oracle (in between other spells).
I don’t see the point of forcing a vegan to eat meat, and I don’t see the point of forcing someone who doesn’t want to worship gods into pledging divine servitude to a fictional character.
Did you get a defective copy of Player Core that only has one class in it? No one is forced to play a Cleric. Even if they want to be a strong healer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agree. All the anathema are opt in, and they are almost universally things a character choosing the associated option would naturally be inclined to do.
If you want a character to have an option but not it's associated anathema, you should think why a character would be drawn to that option and what beliefs they have. What would make them want that option but not it's anathema.
If the answer pans out to be because your making something silly or contrarian, then you should recognise that such things don't generally fit into Golarian, and you should talk with your GM about it.I don't think that is fair, people didn’t opt to worship a deity or be bound by their rules; they chose to play a class with healer mechanics and then had the deity and anathema forced on them. Their only option was to either accept those two or not play the class.
Some players may be hardcore atheists who strongly dislike the concept of worshiping anything and find it humiliating. Others may be very religious and find the concept too close to idolatry (remember the satanic panic). Some players simply played healers in other games, like MMOs, as a white mage or something similar, and wanted to do the same here. I don’t see the point of forcing a vegan to eat meat, and I don’t see the point of forcing someone who doesn’t want to worship gods into pledging divine servitude to a fictional character.
I can get what you're saying here, but this is Pathfinder 2E. You literally have options when it comes to a healer role, you are not forced into the cleric role.
Yes, divine font for cleric is great, but so are Divine based sorcerers, Divine witches, oracles or even druids if you want to go down a healing heavy route. Anyone can go medic and heal people up. If you want to be a healer in this game, you have a plethora of options.
No one is forcing an atheist to play a god or anything else of that matter. It's not hard to see that if you do more than a cursory glance at the system.
I don't think that is fair, people didn’t opt to worship a deity or be bound by their rules; they chose to play a class with healer mechanics and then had the deity and anathema forced on them. Their only option was to either accept those two or not play the class.Agree. All the anathema are opt in, and they are almost universally things a character choosing the associated option would naturally be inclined to do.
If you want a character to have an option but not it's associated anathema, you should think why a character would be drawn to that option and what beliefs they have. What would make them want that option but not it's anathema.
If the answer pans out to be because your making something silly or contrarian, then you should recognise that such things don't generally fit into Golarian, and you should talk with your GM about it.
I mentioned that my campaigns have not yet had a cleric PC. Pathfinder 2nd Edition is good about other classes becoming healers. The healers have been a druid, a primal sorcerer, a playtest animist, and a bard.
And as OrochiFuror said, we GMs can change edicts and anathema if the player provides a good reason.
Some players may be hardcore atheists who strongly dislike the concept of worshiping anything and find it humiliating. Others may be very religious and find the concept too close to idolatry (remember the satanic panic). Some players simply played healers in other games, like MMOs, as a white mage or something similar, and wanted to do the same here. I don’t see the point of forcing a vegan to eat meat, and I don’t see the point of forcing someone who doesn’t want to worship gods into pledging divine servitude to a fictional character.
Yes. One member of my housemate's Elder Scrolls Online guild is an observant Jew who avoids the most idolatrous parts of the game. ESO still has plenty of other content for her.
Pathfinder would be great for a vegan. That player could play an ancestry that cannot eat meat, such as a poppet.
This feels like a good time for describing how the champion of Grandmother Spider fulfilled the edicts and anathema of Grandmother Spider. I am copying and pasting from How does a Liberator Champion Deal with Slavers? comment #45.
Let's look at how this is roleplayed. The tailed goblin detective-background liberator-cause champion Tikti grew up in the Goblinsworth Library, a project to raise civilized goblins. She is an avid bookworm and crafter. She follows the goddess Grandmother Spider, also known as The Weaver. The edicts of Grandmother Spider call for acting skilled and clever, thinking for yourself, taking due payment for your work, and humiliating the powerful. The anathema of Grandmother Spider forbid abusing someone you have power over, harming someone who has given you sincere kindness, letting a slight go unanswered, and owning a slave. And because Grandmother Spider is a god of crafting, Tikti can Refocus by repairing her shield after combat.
Her build is strange enough that she is clearly thinking for herself. She is a high-Dexterity champion in light armor. Her animal companion from Steed Ally is a velociraptor Liklik. Tikti specializes in defense and Liklik specializes in offense, so as a pair they are well-rounded in melee. Or Tikti pairs up with other party members to keep them alive. She is very tactical.
The party had no social problems dealing with slavery, because the slavers are their enemies in a war. Nevertheless, I recall a social situation that occurred.
The party had defeated the Ironfang garrison in the conquered village Ecru and freed some slaves. Then the party moved on to an adjacent Ironfang camp on another mission; however, Tikti and an elf ranger needed to sit out that second mission because their players were not available that session. We declared that Tikti and the elf were guarding the slaves rescued in Ecru, waiting for a boat that the party had called for via a Sending spell, and hauling the munitions stored in Ecru down to the docks.
Next game session I had a hobgoblin patrol return to Ecru along the river. The elf spotted them first and hid, but Tikti said that she did not need to hide. She was trained in Deception. She is a goblin and pretended to be a workboss ordering the slaves around as they carried barrels of explosives. She bantered with the hobgoblin patrol as they passed. The hobgoblins had some racial prejudice against goblins but were not going to bother a lesser member of the Ironfang Legion. The patrol moved on and soon realized the garrison was missing, but the other five members of the party returned at that moment. The patrol was caught between the two parts of the party and quickly defeated without risk to the rescued slaves.
Trickery is one of Grandmother Spider's domains.
But Tikti would have been clever even without an edict demanding that she be clever. The one edict that she barely follows is taking due payment, because the party gives most of their loot to the needy. What is due payment when the character is her own boss and voluntarily works pro bono?
Tikti once met Grandmother Spider face to face. She appeared to help a fellow party member acquire divine powers. Those divine powers later let the party defeat an avatar of Hadregash, the goblinoid hero-god of tyranny, but Tikti was instrumental in keeping that other party member alive during the fight. The humiliating defeat of the avatar let Lamashtu appear in person and remove slavery from Hadregash's areas of concern. Lamashtu dislikes slavery because it prevents slaves from being monstrous. The PF1 version of Hadregash in Goblins of Golarion has his areas of concern as "slavery, supremacy, territory," but slavery is not mentioned in the Remastered PF2 version except that his religious symbol is still "Chain and manacle." Instead, PF2 Hadregash is demands conquest that gains subjects rather than slaves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agree. All the anathema are opt in, and they are almost universally things a character choosing the associated option would naturally be inclined to do.
If you want a character to have an option but not it's associated anathema, you should think why a character would be drawn to that option and what beliefs they have. What would make them want that option but not it's anathema.
If the answer pans out to be because your making something silly or contrarian, then you should recognise that such things don't generally fit into Golarian, and you should talk with your GM about it.I don't think that is fair, people didn’t opt to worship a deity or be bound by their rules; they chose to play a class with healer mechanics and then had the deity and anathema forced on them. Their only option was to either accept those two or not play the class.
Some players may be hardcore atheists who strongly dislike the concept of worshiping anything and find it humiliating. Others may be very religious and find the concept too close to idolatry (remember the satanic panic). Some players simply played healers in other games, like MMOs, as a white mage or something similar, and wanted to do the same here. I don’t see the point of forcing a vegan to eat meat, and I don’t see the point of forcing someone who doesn’t want to worship gods into pledging divine servitude to a fictional character.
This isn't an MMO.
If that is a problem for you, how about you talk to the DM about it and see if they want to allow you some leeway?
Fantasy game designers that are usually fans of mythology and fantasy generally like to design fantasy worlds where things like gods and demons and such are real. If you want to derive power from such beings, they have a price.
That's why in PF2 you have options for agnostic or atheist healers like a divine sorcerer or an oracle or a bard or the medicine skill.
When you have a game where you can completely avoid worshipping anything and still make a healer or what you want, not sure what more you can ask for. Seems Paizo designers have already provided what you are asking for.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is tongue-in-cheek.
Some players may be hardcore atheists who strongly dislike the concept of worshiping anything and find it humiliating.
As a hardcore atheist myself, allowing a fictional god the power to humiliate you is in my personal, IRL anathema. Maybe someone has significant religious trauma or triggers, but I don't think just removing Edicts and Amathema is enough to help them play a cleric. You should respect that by playing Shadowrun or something.
Others may be very religious and find the concept too close to idolatry (remember the satanic panic).
If Baldur was close enough for Christians in Norse lands, I'm certain they can find someone among Pathfinder's Gods. If they're not flexible, they probably aren't going to be ok with some of the things other players do. (I'll not comment on Non-Christians)
Some players simply played healers in other games, like MMOs, as a white mage or something similar, and wanted to do the same here.
Copying MMOs should not be the goal of a tabletop game. Also, MMO players seem to exclusively view healer as a burdensome job. That's the worst attitude to take to a tabletop game. Give them the DPS job that everybody wants.
I don’t see the point of forcing a vegan to eat meat,
You can actually harm a vegan by forcing them to eat meat (I've heard), but no one is harmed by loose rules in a pretend game.
|
Agree. All the anathema are opt in, and they are almost universally things a character choosing the associated option would naturally be inclined to do.
If you want a character to have an option but not it's associated anathema, you should think why a character would be drawn to that option and what beliefs they have. What would make them want that option but not it's anathema.
If the answer pans out to be because your making something silly or contrarian, then you should recognise that such things don't generally fit into Golarian, and you should talk with your GM about it.I don't think that is fair, people didn’t opt to worship a deity or be bound by their rules; they chose to play a class with healer mechanics and then had the deity and anathema forced on them. Their only option was to either accept those two or not play the class.
Some players may be hardcore atheists who strongly dislike the concept of worshiping anything and find it humiliating. Others may be very religious and find the concept too close to idolatry (remember the satanic panic). Some players simply played healers in other games, like MMOs, as a white mage or something similar, and wanted to do the same here. I don’t see the point of forcing a vegan to eat meat, and I don’t see the point of forcing someone who doesn’t want to worship gods into pledging divine servitude to a fictional character.
1. The PC is pledging divine servitude. Not the player.
2. You play a Cleric for the deity's servant role. Not for healer's role or even Divine spells, that are quite reachable with other classes.
On the last point, PF2 made huge progresses compared to PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that is fair, people didn’t opt to worship a deity or be bound by their rules; they chose to play a class with healer mechanics and then had the deity and anathema forced on them. Their only option was to either accept those two or not play the class.
Some players may be hardcore atheists who strongly dislike the concept of worshiping anything and find it humiliating. Others may be very religious and find the concept too close to idolatry (remember the satanic panic). Some players simply played healers in other games, like MMOs, as a white mage or something similar, and wanted to do the same here. I don’t see the point of forcing a vegan to eat meat, and I don’t see the point of forcing someone who doesn’t want to worship gods into pledging divine servitude to a fictional character.
To address the concern about healers being forced to choose a deity, there are quite a few solid options to avoid this, such as Animists, Cultivation Druids, divine and primal Sorcerers, and Starfinder 2e's Mystic if you're okay with a bit of cross-play (and the Mystic I think ports very well to Pathfinder). Thanks to the strength of the Medicine skill in 2e, you don't even specifically need a class with access to heal spells, just a bit of skill investment for your out-of-combat recovery needs.
Which is to say: worshiping a deity in this game is a choice, regardless of the role you want to play. You don't need to pick a Champion for a high-AC tank when the Guardian exists, and you don't need a Cleric to cast from the divine list. In fact, you could very well pick an Oracle to spurn the gods and resist the oracular curse they inflict on you as you seize divine magic for yourself. I too am a hardcore atheist, and the narrative arc of a religious zealot coming to eventually reject their deity is one I personally enjoy, and appreciate being fleshed-out in mechanical terms here. Edicts and anathema go beyond deities and worship, and personal anathema I think can help define strong boundaries for a character, so I'm quite happy they exist even when they come with no mechanical tie-in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And, if someone wants to be a white mage, there are many options.
Just be any other Divine, Primal, or Occult caster that doesn't follow a god. Be an Animist, a Bard, a Druid, a Mystic, an Oracle, a Psychic, a Sorcerer, a Summoner, or a Witch.Any of these classes is well kitted to be a great healer and white mage.
If we're talking FFXIV, Tempest Oracle is a better White Mage than Cleric is in terms of how it feels to play, IMO. You get Waters of Creation (aka Cure 3). You can get Nudge the Scales easily (aka Afflatus Solace). You have tons of Heal. You also have a bunch of solid "blow things up" abilities, and WHM is known as "Glare Mage" for a reason.
If you want something that mimics the lore, Animist is closer than Cleric is as Conjuror is tied to the spirits of the Twelveswood in Gridania, not the gods.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that is fair, people didn’t opt to worship a deity or be bound by their rules; they chose to play a class with healer mechanics and then had the deity and anathema forced on them. Their only option was to either accept those two or not play the class.
There are many ways to play a "healer" in PF2.
Any deity with healing font can make any cleric a healer, anyone with medicine skill can be a healer, champions with lay on hands. There are many options to accomplish a general idea.
Where the problem lies is when you want very specific mechanics and to avoid the associated lore.
And I honestly have no sympathy for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that is fair, people didn’t opt to worship a deity or be bound by their rules; they chose to play a class with healer mechanics and then had the deity and anathema forced on them. Their only option was to either accept those two or not play the class.
Some players may be hardcore atheists who strongly dislike the concept of worshiping anything and find it humiliating. Others may be very religious and find the concept too close to idolatry (remember the satanic panic). Some players simply played healers in other games, like MMOs, as a white mage or something similar, and wanted to do the same here. I don’t see the point of forcing a vegan to eat meat, and I don’t see the point of forcing someone who doesn’t want to worship gods into pledging divine servitude to a fictional character.
As others have pointed out, you literally chose the god servant class and then complain about serving a god. The cleric isn't even a healing class, if you end up with harm font then at best your as good as any class that gets access to the divine list.
It sounds like you don't know much about PF2, because just taking a quick glance at a class and assuming that it does X and that's your only option is going to hurt you and your players. Others have already given some examples of how to build healers with other classes.
Now that we have Guardians, we can finally say that there is always more then one option to fulfill even the most hard coded old-school quad of tank, mage, healer, skill monkey.
If you want more help on the subject I'd suggest doing a search in advice for creating a healer, it's been tackled a few times. Or start a new thread with a note on avoiding anathema or similar effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That all said, if a player wanted to play the mechanics of a Wisdom-based prepared divine caster but didn't want to worship a deity or deal with anathemas or edicts, then I wouldn't mind reflavouring the cleric a bit. I'd probably remove a few deity-specific abilities to make sure that the ability to choose one's domains and the freedom from anathemas didn't make it an objectively better choice. Certainly no free divine skill, and if that's not enough maybe take out the free domain and divine simplicity feats from the doctrines (though certainly they can buy them with their regular feats).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That all said, if a player wanted to play the mechanics of a Wisdom-based prepared divine caster but didn't want to worship a deity or deal with anathemas or edicts, then I wouldn't mind reflavouring the cleric a bit. I'd probably remove a few deity-specific abilities to make sure that the ability to choose one's domains and the freedom from anathemas didn't make it an objectively better choice. Certainly no free divine skill, and if that's not enough maybe take out the free domain and divine simplicity feats from the doctrines (though certainly they can buy them with their regular feats).
You could bring back the concept of Clerics of philosophies that appeared in PF1 and D&D. I would likely remove the favored weapon and bonus spells. And make up (as a GM) divine attribute, font, sanctification, skill, and domains that I thought were appropriate for the philosophy.
That said, if one is truly against gods, then having any kind of Divine power seems like it would go against that. Even Oracles really get their power from a deific beings, though without worship. Divine sorcerers are weird in that they somehow tap into divine power through their blood.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never said healers are being forced to pick a cleric. I'm just questioning the claim that because they picked a cleric they did so because they wanted to have or liked the restrictions. I'm merely pointing out that saying they consented to it so they can't complain is dishonest.
I feel like what I said is at best being seriously misinterpreted and at worst being deliberately distorted.
You said a lot of things about how it was unfair for someone to be forced into that if they want play a healer. It was pretty clear.
Maybe you didn't say what you intended to. That's fair. But the idea that everyone is misrepresenting what you said doesn't fly: when everyone except you reads what you said a certain way, the more likely explanation is what you actually said and what you intended to say didn't match.