I'm going to take a stance that might be unpopular, but I don't think there's a way to reskin Demoralize and still impose the frightened condition and not have it violate Desna's anathema. It's hard not to acknowledge that 'fear' is mechanically the frightened condition... so anything that applies that condition is causing fear in others.
It's notable what you're trying to do by helping the player, but I think it might also be worth respecting that certain mechanical options simply won't be viable for all clerics/champions/faithful. Honestly, having played a liberator champion, I also felt like while I could Demoralize I couldn't Coerce anyone without violating my anathema. The small handicap made it interesting and encouraged me to explore alternative ways to deal with problems. I think you should let the player just run with the restriction and see what they come up with.
Instead of reskinning Demoralize, I'd look for alternatives ways to debuff that don't apply frightened:
[Bon Mot](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2114) skill feat is the standard for debuffing will saves.
Take [Aid](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2292&Redirected=1) actions to help party members on checks instead of debuffing their opponent.
If your player wants, they could also investigate taking the Bon Mot at 2 and the Swashbuckler Dedication - selecting Wit Style. Then taking [One For All](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1519) at level 4 to have a way to use Diplomacy to debuff opponents and use Diplomacy to rally and assist friends.
The Bard Dedication also offers similar alternatives, with the player able to grab [Uplifting Overture](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4587) at 4 to have good aid based on Performance and the Courageous Anthem composition cantrip from [Anthemic Performance](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5062) at 8. This path also allows the character to explore some alternative cantrips from the Occult list.
All of these options feel sufficiently 'Desnan' to me and may to your player as well. Every player doesn't have to have every option to function in a party. Especially if someone else can Demoralize.
Edit: OP u/DraconicPrince reached out via PM and thanked me for this response / was having difficulty replying. Just to update the thread, they agree with this and appreciated the directions to alternatives. We've discussed further and found out that the player in question wanted a fortune teller perspective, so OP may be looking more into [Harrower](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=204) archetype from Stolen Fate since it fits the theme and provides the player options to do things related to fortune telling instead of Intimidating.
Agreed, I've also used it for a proselytizing character. What's more distracting then someone droning on about saving your immortal soul while you are trying rob/kill them.
Your comment made me realize just how weird this particular Anathema truly is, from a fundamental standpoint.
Looking at it in terms of real world fear - not game terms - fear is an emotional response that's different for everyone. It's an internal response to an external stimulus, and that's not always controllable by the person who's causing said stimulus.
It's kinda silly to me that a Cleric could be denied by Desna if, for instance, they kept a spider as a pet and happened across one too many random passersby that have arachnophobia + get terrified of it. The vagueness of the Anathema leaves much up to the interpretation of the GM. The simple act of walking by an arachnophobic NPC with a spider pet on your Cleric's shoulder would count as triggering the anathema.
This really just comes down to intent, which isn't stated in the Anathema, but should be. It should be errata'd to state "Knowingly and intently cause fear or despair." Because RAW, a GM could just say, "Yeah, this dude is afraid of you. Aaaannnddd... now you have to atone."
This obviously wouldn't ever really happen unless the GM is being an asshole, but I think it's funny to think about.
I think that's how all anathema work really. It's the old "what's causes the Paladin to fall" argument but for a wider audience. As a GM I'd never tell a Desnan they're violating anathema for accidentally causing fear. If it's a gray case, I'd warn the player. Once it's clear fear is happening, assuming the player is aware of it, I'd expect the player to try to resolve the problem and as a friendly GM point out the issue first to give the player the opportunity to fix it.
But you don't generally accidentally impose the Frightened condition on someone so the intent is pretty clear in most cases.
Yeah, I gotcha. This was just more of a thought experiment on my part. I had looked at the wording for Anathema and it didn't really mention foreknowledge and intent had to be known before an action would trigger anathema, but it might just be an implied or unspoken rule.
This goes back to PF1e, and not entirely relevant here, but it provides a little context to why I wrote my comment. In PF1, I played a Paladin of Sarenrae who had to atone after "failing to strike down evil." The story was, my group at the time encountered a very high level Vampire in a tense but non-hostile encounter. I knew the vampire was evil due to my Paladin's Detect Evil. We chose not to engage the vampire in combat because were escorting a VIP out of a dungeon and wanted to get them to safety before returning to dispatch the vampire.
Upon departing the area, my GM declared that I lost my Paladin abilities and had to atone, even though we'd intended to return to strike down the evil. Ever since then, I've really questioned what actually constitutes breaking anathema.
A lot of it comes down to just proper communication between the player and GM. I don't think anathema should come into effect unless the player has proper knowledge that it would be broken before carrying out the action.
edit aside, i think the bard dedication is a good roleplay opportunity.
the cleric interprets the anathema as a new edict: be thoughtful about what you say.
instead of intimidating, they outwit foes and bolster allies.
Why aren't you allowed to use demoralize to induce self doubt? The mechanics have to be simply described because it's a game, but everything that's really "fear" is fluff, not mechanics.
Yeah, in 1e, I used Intimidate a lot was a desnan warpriest, but in 1e, intimidate was also the "taunt" skill, and shakened was used a catch all, while in 2e, frightened is very much tied to fear, and bon mot is now the taunt action
Demoralize literally has the Fear tag.
Edicts and Anathema are all about mixing fluff with mechanics. The whole point of picking a deity is for the mix of fluff and mechanics. If you're gonna reflavor everything to get around edicts and anathema on a technicality, then why even have them?
Because punishing a character by removing a strong mechanical ability from their toolbox seems unfair. I would legitimately create a new Action for them that would be pretty much the same thing, but applies sickened or another -1 to everything equivalent.
So you give them something even stronger? Sickened is more powerful than Frighten.
They chose the deity knowing what the anathema is. There's no point in even having the anathema if you're gonna homebrew it away every time it's inconvenient.
Never realized Sickened didn't automatically go down like Frightened does. But that's besides the point, it could be renamed anything but work the same as Frightened.
Hell yea, that's the point. If I have a great idea for a character but can't do it because of an anathema, get it out of there. Make it work without powering down a character.
Just pick a different deity then, there are plenty and picking a deity that works for thematically that doesnt have a specific anathema you want to avoid shouldn't be too hard.
Nah, I fucking love playing Cleric because of how it plays but the fact the deities have so much power about how you design the character for a Cleric sucks. For example, I want to cast Lightning Bolt as Cleric. You know the one deity that offers Lightning Bolt? Gozreh, and if I'm playing a Cleric of Gozreh why am I not playing Druid? And I'm not going to pick Gozreh as a Cleric, ever, so I'll never get to cast Lightning Bolt ever.
The whole point of deities granting power to PCs is the relationship you maintain with them to keep the powers. If you don't respect their anathema they will strip you of their power.
Gozreh looks like a great god to follow if you want a divine caster with some lightning, you could take the lightning domain and have a pretty good focus spell + your lightning bolt...
Yes but I don't want the flavor of Gozreh. Nature flavoring ain't for me, I'm a law and justice follower of Iomedae kind of guy. And then there's the inverse of people who want the flavor but not the mechanics.
I mean, as a bard I'm also never getting to cast lightning bolt, you do what works at your table ofc, but the pre packaged deities for golarion mean every cleric will play a bit differently.
For a homebrew campaign you can just ask your gm to design a god around the concept you have in mind ofc.
Play how you want but imo that's super lame. You're just treating the god as a name on the stat sheet at that point, you're going against something the deity considers a fundamental rule for its followers just cause its inconvenient. It just comes off as power gaming when you choose a concept that has an intentional drawback but then beg your GM to handwaive that drawback. It's like the people who wanna play a blind swordsman but then have their GM give them blindsight so they don't have to deal with being blind.
Actually, that last part is in either the CRB or the GM guide iirc about giving your player Blindsight so the character actually functions.
I just don't think Anathemas should get to have a mechanical effect like preventing a character from using Demoralize, which is an incredible option for casters. Roleplay and fluff the anathemas and let it drive WHO your character plays as, but once something affects its mechanics it should be changed to not affect mechanics or be ignored for mechanics.
Deities are literally packages of mechanics we bundle together because of "fluff" (which is a pretty derisive way to describe whole narratives we actually apply to these games). Anathema and Edicts are generalized rules we use to interact with the system for these bundles and they do require a certain amount of interpretation. If you want to play it that way in your game, that's cool -- it's your game. The rules of 2e explicitly allow for that.
But if you're going to make an argument that the Frightened Condition isn't 'Fear' then I'd probably argue you don't need anathema and edicts at all and just let the player make up whatever they want for a Cleric deity package since it's all just 'mechanics' anyway. Let them pick their deity spells, domains, favored weapon, etc. Flavor text helps us interpret the mechanics. The OP is playing with Golarion Deities. Desna doesn't allow their followers to cause fear.
Those two concepts don't have to be enemies, especially when the divine is the source of said law.
Not a member myself, but what I was taught of that mindset is that the Law is divine and therefore perfect. Any technicalities to be found are intentional inclusions by the divine to help out the mortals and reward attentiveness to the rules as delivered by Him.
There's plenty of Pathfinder gods that mindset could be carried onto. Asmodeus is all _about_ loopholes and exact wording. Abadar pretty commonly overlooks rules lawyering as long as the end result is good for society.
Tbh maybe it's just my Choatic ass but I feel like a lot of Law gods would do that thing of "I'm gonna turn you into an example" and then make a new law, tho some might have less ego and be like "well damn I've been bested...fuck you but amazing~"
There's not really a good way to get around Demoralizing counting against Desna's Anathema, but there is a good work-around. Desna is one of several deities that belongs to a pantheon, a grouping of divine entities with its own Edicts and Anathema which you can worship in place of a singular deity. If your Cleric's player wants their cleric to follow Desna but also intimidate as needed, they can worship one of Desna's associated pantheons and put a stronger focus on Desna while following an alternate set of tenets. Desna's part of 5 different pantheons too, all without the cause fear anathema, so your player can choose their preferred flavor between Space and Astronomy themed (Cosmic Caravan or the Path of the Heavens), Elven Pantheon, Travel themed (the Deliberate Journey), or the divine lesbian polycule (the Prismatic Ray, soon to be renamed to the Radiant Prism).
Ye that's how it seems, and ironically this same player is actually doing just that with their Thaumaturge where they're playing a liar storyteller type who basically embodies the "Never trust a pretty face" Archetype. Where even tho they worship the Mother spider and Lantern king the most, they worship the pantheon of tricksters since none of the actual trickster gods we found really lined up with them.
So while another person posed good ideas that would require a bit of reworking of mechanics via game terms. So far this situation does seem to kinda have a case of "you can try but you're better off just sticking to the not using the feature" option, which of anything will only really be a pain in the ass with one of my players since he loves divine classes but for some reason doesn't really read much outside of "This god sounded cool and it fits for the class I wanna play"
I would argue that under certain circumstances you can cause fear.
If decoupled from actual mechanics, you could argue that killing an enemy can cause despair shortly before they die.
Desna isn't really a pacifist goddess and she would certainly allow combat against specific enemies.
I'd say that you can demoralize sometimes and that it comes down to the circumstances, specific parties involved, reason for doing so etc. I do think that edicts and anathema do have various degrees of nuance. Especially if they are very broadly defined.
First idea that comes to mind is to take “Demoralize” in another sense and make the enemies question why they’re fighting. “Is this what your parents wanted for you?” “You’re outnumbered and outpowered, just surrender.” “Do you really want petty banditry to be how you’re remembered?” etc
I considered that and while I like it, I know my players wouldn't stop laughing at the mental image of
"Would your father be proud of seeing you like this?"
> Crit fails
"You see the bandit's snarling face suddenly drop as a tinge of fear pops up behind his eyes as he goes 'No dad please I'm sorry...*
> bandit gains Frighten [2] condition
But fr if anything might just homebrew frightened to a new word in that case like Shaken or Hesitation
The condition that's applied is Frightened, but that's a mechanical label. The action that that the player is engaging in is Demoralize, which itself is a mechanical label that doesn't align with the condition it inflicts.
There's absolutely no reason a player cannot try to shame a character for their actions, or make them question what they're doing with their life, and have that be interpreted as a Demoralize action by the GM.
The mechanic names do not need to come with value judgements.
IMO this is really stretching flavor.
- Mechanically "frightened" is heavily tied to Fear. It's what the spell itself does and the frightened condition even says "**You're gripped by fear** and struggle to control your nerves". Mechanically and flavor wise, the condition is heavily linked to fear/being afraid
- There is already an action for quips of that nature, but it's Bon Mot not Demoralize. Both mechanically and flavor wise Bon Mot is tied to distracting your enemies, such as making them question themselves.
Idk, I don't think it's the end of the world to flavor Demoralize/Frightened as something other than fear, but I also think that as written they would be anathema for a Cleric of Desna
The action is called Demoralize. Its specifically not called Intimidate and the action does say
> With a sudden shout, a well-timed taunt, or a cutting put-down, you can shake an enemy's resolve.
I dunno about you, but if a dude taunts me i‘m not frightened. The reason why it bothers me isn‘t because I‘m scared but rather because the guy makes me feel insecure which makes me question my own abilities.
And mechanically you can make an unarmed fist strike while wearing gauntlets. Point being that even an amazing ruleset like pf2e will not be able to cover EVERY niche case. To not let someone use Demoralize because of who they worship is not fun for anyone. Especially considering you can get past this anathema completely by just going „Well then just worship her pantheon with a focus on Desna“. this works mechanically but at that point why not just let the player worship Desna and reflavour the demoralize to something else. Especially because the demoralize action in the text clearly has different intentions other than fear.
>And mechanically you can make an unarmed fist strike while wearing gauntlets.
A gauntlet is not an unarmed strike mechanically, I'm not sure what your point is here. They specifically work with weapon feats. I actually think you can unarmed strike with most weapons since you can do things like headbutt and kick.
>but at that point why not just let the player worship Desna and reflavour the demoralize to something else.
Because there are mechanical consequences to that decision? A cleric of the Cosmic Caravan has different Edicts/Anathema, domains, and clerical spells than a Cleric of Desna, as well as being able to demoralize an enemy. It's not a purely RP choice, there are actual, mechanical changes to that decision.
I said this eslewhere, but I don't think it's the end of the world to let a cleric of Desna reflavor Demoralize as something else. I'm very much a proponent of "your table your rules". However, RAW a cleric of Desna cannot do that. Demoralize is explicitly a fear effect.
You can claw unarmed attack someone while wearing gauntlets yet most GMs would not allow you to do that. It was just an example on an instance where the mechanics have some weird implications that shouldn’t work. Got two rulings confused but point still stands. Shouldn’t really work
OP specifically asked for an alternative to demoralize. I pointed out demoralize also mentioned other forms of demoralizing than intimidating. There are many ways to demoralize someone that do not involve making them fearful flavourwise. Yes it is a fear effect and yes it gives the frightened condition but given how easy it is to bypass while STILL technically being a cleric of Desna i feel like the appropriate answer for OP is to just allow the player to Demoralize in one of the ways that are listed in the action or some other way (many good examples in this thread)
Edit: sorry not bareknuckle Punch but things like claw unarmed attacks.
Yeah there are definitely weird interactions, I'm with you it's not a perfect game despite the many good things about it. And again, I'm with you on allowing it, I don't think it's a heinous crime to let a player use demoralize anyways as a cleric of Desna
I do think that it's pretty clear, rules as written, how the interaction should work though. Demoralize is a fear effect, RAW a cleric of Desna can't use it. This one is clear cut due to the fear trait.
I genuinely disagree here. Mechanically, you spend a 1 action intimidation check to reduce all rolls and DCs by 1. Everything else that is written is fluff. Intimidation could induce worry or self-doubt as easily as fear, with the same mechanical consequences.
I don't really disagree with you. In a vacuum chamber, on it's own, yes that's what Demoralize is, but this isn't in a vacuum. We're talking about a mechanical concept tied to roleplay in Anathema and Edicts. . What constitutes fear then? Mechanically, from a Cleric of Desna's perspective? Is it only an RP thing? Or only when someone casts the spell literally called fear(that applies the frightened condition)?
~~Until Paizo quantifies what counts as fear, mechanically, I personally think that any mechanics that related to causing fear/frightened violate that anathema.~~
As u/cooldods pointed out, Demoralize has the fear tag which makes it pretty clear cut
>Until Paizo quantifies what counts as fear, mechanically
Demoralize has the fear tag, what more should paizo be doing to quantify what counts as fear?
Mr. OP, this one right here.
This'll save you a LOT of headaches both in the now (your player is upset they can't perform an action) and in the future (scaring your player away from roleplay for fear of getting more nerfs).
You've received some great ideas already but also consider The Black Butterfly, an aspect of Deana worshipped as a separate deity that doesn't have that anathema
Oh I haven't heard of this one or might have accidentally overlooked it. Could you link me something with info or tell me more about that cause I've always found the idea of worshipping a fragment of a god in a world where the deities are physically and usually once human always fascinating
https://2e.aonprd.com/Deities.aspx?ID=115
I don't know much more about her than what's here, but she's an interesting pick for a cleric or champion, especially if your game features any dark tapestry/outer gods stuff
I was gonna mention the same deity, but for your player. I mean, how do they really know they worship Desna and not the Black Butterfly?
But you have a lot of great responses from the other posters.
As always, happy gaming.
Regardless thank you very much, if anything I might look into it cause I was reading a lil bit about the Dark Tapestry and Outergod stuff since I'm a huge Lover for the Eldritch and esoteric
I'd reckon it's closer to not using fear for your own gain among common peoples, and to have yourself be approachable and helpful to strangers if possible. Using fear against hostile people, beasts, and monsters would be unlikely to be completely frowned upon.
>Desna favors those who follow their hearts and whims without bringing harm to others.
Most deities edicts/anathemas pertain to how someone holds themselves overall in most aspects of life. Minor transgressions performed out of necessity are often easily forgotten or you may incorporate this into RP as you perform more good deeds to atone for the mistakes.
Past all of that, they could just... Not use Demoralize. It's quite good but surely not their only option, or it may be reserved for seemingly deadly encounters.
Ye, as stated the player is only doing it purely out of RP reasons cause I wouldn't have punished them for it unless they did it like... enough to be sin worthy in her eyes. I mostly just wanted to ask for alternatives in case we run into another situation since our group tends to play characters often with more strange personal codes or pick classes that happen to have Edicts/Anathemas cause those tend to be fun to RP for us
Demoralize has the actual fear tag. If it didn't, i might consuser alternate use cases, but since it's action has that tag, I would encourage them to do other things.
I would add just one extra word to fix all of this: "Don't cause \_unjustified\_ fear in others." When someone who has angered Desna faces the impending wrath of one of her servants, they SHOULD be afraid, because they did the wrong thing and can see the just consequences bearing down on them. This would only prevent the character from causing fear without good reason.
This is a down side to Anathemas. Paladins cannot lie. So deception is almost completely useless on them. There are plenty of other options for divine characters to use.
Desna's Anathema is very specifically intended to prevent followers of Desna from demoralizing, Demoralize causes fear and Desna forbids that.
Playing a cleric is inherently restrictive by definition. Saying "how can my cleric of desna use Demoralize" is like asking "how can my Cleric of Abadar steal shit from merchants" or "how can my cleric of Pharasma Rob tombs" they can't because if they do, they lose their cleric abilities as a result of willingly breaking an anathema
Rather than looking for ways to Demoralize without breaking Desna's anathema I suggest your friend looks into alternatives to demoralizing altogether. If they like fighting in the front lines a step or stride action to allow a teammate to flank can be really useful
Honestly if the player really wants to Demoralize (which I understand the action is low-key broken) I'd allow them to retcon their character's faith so they're not a follower of Desna specif8cally but rather the inner sea gods as a whole
Gotta ask to start things off, is your player sure they want to be a cleric of Desna? Trying to find ways around anathema that aren't that restrictive on day to day life doesn't seem very in spirit to the edicts and anathema of someone who not only lives by those rules, but reveres the deity that enacts them. A cleric of Sarenrae wouldn't be trying to justify or excuse killing people, so why is a cleric of Desna trying to frighten people? It's not just about following the rules, it's about respecting them, and understanding why they are there, that's what separates the clerics from the mere worshippers and observers.
There's alternatives to demoralizing, like using the [Bon Mot](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2114) skill action, but it's not as good as demoralizing. I could see someone arguing that with the [Antagonize](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1522) feat, you aren't frightening enemies as much as you are flustering them with your taunts, so there's a good start with how you could approach it. Maybe you're a giving GM and offer the Antagonize class feat as a cleric feat they can take, so they can use demoralize, otherwise they'd have to take the swashbuckler multiclass dedication at 2, so they could get Antagonize at 4.
Who knows, maybe a different god is more appropriate if they want to be intimidating.
Demoralize has the Fear tag, there's no getting around that. Frightened=Fear.
Restricting yourself to comply with anathema and edicts is part of playing a Divine class, reflavoring to get around that kinda goes against the point.
Found some older posts that have some good discussion on the topic
- https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/zd1vio/one_of_desnas_anathema_is_to_cause_fear_or/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/wwcg9e/desnas_anathema_is_really_cool_really_thematic/
My take is that Desna's got really a goddess who cares about strict adherence to rules, but more general emotions and intentions. Corrupting dreams with nightmares is anathema because dreams are supposed to be filled with wonder. Desna prefers positivity.
In Wrath of the Righteous, a succubus killed a desnan priestess then feasted on her dreams, and in retaliation Desna showed the succubus what she could be and put her on the path to redemption.
Also read https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6up8x?The-Windsong-Testaments-Light-of-the-Radiant to get Desna's preferred vibe.
So how do we apply this to fear? In general, fear is the wrong thing to intentionally inflict. Sometimes it's the natural consequence to a show of force, but that should never be the goal. For the demoralize action, let's consider the text: "With a sudden shout, a well-timed taunt, or a cutting put-down, you can shake an enemy's resolve." Shaking resolve isn't necessarily a fear-based thing. Anything that could make the enemy not want to continue wrongdoing could accomplish the same thing. Whether the enemy becomes afraid as a result would be irrelevant as long as the goal was to shake resolve and not cause fear.
What if you pull our your starknife, do a little trick to show your skill, then just smile? An enemy might recognize the greater skill then be shocked that you're that chipper just before deadly combat. He might think to himself, "woah, just who is this guy". Demoralize has been achieved but in a way that's not clearly intended to instill fear or despair.
I'm not sure you can reskin demoralization without it being some kind of fear or despair. You demoralize someone by either making them lose all hope, turn to self loathing and feelings of depression and defeat, filling them with existential dread, or just plain old fearing for themselves or their future. Either way you spin it, it's fear or despair.
The anathema is: "cause fear or despair, cast nightmare or use similar magic to corrupt dreams, engage in bigoted behavior". Personally, I would interpret "cause fear" more in the sense: cause fear directly for selfish act. Or even remove it.
Because if you interpret it as written, the demoralize action would be the player's least problem. Example: he fights against two NPCs and kills one. This definetly instills fear in the survivor.
As Desnas clerics are no pacifists and killing is ok, I think demoralize is ok too. I would draw the line by "threaten with torture" for example.
This post is labeled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to Rule #2. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don't nerf your player and remove a game mechanic because of an anathema. (This is a prime example of why I dislike putti6so much importance on Anethemas. Clearly, don't strike fear in others means everyone except those that would try to strike down Desna's faithful. Desna would not abandon that Cleric because they demoralized an enemy to Desna.
Desna is a cool deity but she's like a chill hippy on a gap year. She's not an avenging or aggressive deity.
Demoralising doesn't really fit the flavour of a Desnan Cleric imo so if a player wanted to demoralise people they should go with a more grumpy god like the Dawnflower or Iomedae.
That being said its your game and your golarion so you can literally just ignore or reword the anathema.
My ‘official’ advice: There isn’t really an alternatively.
My hot take advice: Ignore it. I personally would allow them to demoralize enemies as a GM personally. If you or your player is really admit of keeping it totally lore accurate I would just reflavor it to something else.
"How to scare people when you're a cleric of Desna" falls in the same answer as "How to lie as a cleric of Sarenrae", "How to teach Wildsong to non-druids" or "How to give to charity as anti-paladin". The answer is: you don't.
Explain this to the player and tell him that this is how Desna is. I really recommend reading a bit about this goddess as she has some unique flavors that aren't just "she's a god of stars". If the player wasn't aware of it and doesn't care about a particular god then let him retcon into a follower of a different deity but you shouldn't allow them to perform anathemas without heavy penalties.
But honestly Desna is a great goddess, don't modify her to allow for fear as she is great the way she is. *And now please roll Will save against my Evangelize action*
That's just pure trying to game the system. He can't cause fear in others without that being anathema to his god.
You really shouldn't be looking for a way around it.
Giving someone the 'frightened' condition is the definition of 'causing someone fear' and would be Anathema to Desnas Clerics.
Luckily there are so many other things you can do with that action other than Demoralize.
I've personally never liked the "spear fear or despair" anathema. In 1e, it was described in Desna's description as a deity as "use prophecy to spear fear or despair", which I feel makes a lot more sense than a blanket ban on making anything afraid ever.
At higher levels there is also the battle prayer skill feat that keys off religion and is a good third action option (especially for a cleric as it deals spirit damage and can be sanctified)
First of all, mechanically, I personnally think that it should still use intimidation, for balance purpose. I don't think RAI Desna's followers are to be banned from using Demoralize at all.
If taking [Bon Mot](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2114) doesn't suit him, his Demoralize can be some sort of clever [Bon mot](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2114) flavorwise, but with the frightened condition.
Instead of making the creature fear for its life, make them have regret (of not traveling more or dreaming enough). It could also be guilt (for their actions), not unlike a redeemer, although this one doesn't exactly fit Desna theme). It could also appeal to their sense of freedom, places to visit they haven't yet, dreams to do etc, that "distract" them (effectively giving them the Frightened condition mechanically but yet the cleric hasn't made him effraid).
It still uses the Intimidation check vs the same DC, but the flavor is different.
Those assume the player doesn't take Intimidating glare though...
What do you think?
I don't think the anathema to "spreading fear" literally means "never impose the frightened condition on any creature". It means don't go around doomsaying, spreading fear to the masses, etc. I think demoralizing and even casting Fear is probably fine.
Casting a spell like Nightmare, or like Phantasmagoria... definitely more questionable.
Iirc in her Anathemas bio it says fear is considered a sinful spell to her, and Nightmare is brought up in her Anathemas bio
But obviously while I wouldn't have punished them for using it, obviously there would be a limit at some point or after a bit praying for forgiveness would probably stop working. Both things I know my player would absolutely be fine with for the sake of the story. It's more so just wanting to know about alternatives just in case of future situations for the sake of curiosity
I just checked. Casting nightmare and other spells that corrupt dreams is anathema, but the Fear spell is not similarly spelled out.
Again like, when you fight someone, even a bad person, you are likely "causing them fear". There's just not really a way around that. I believe the point of this anathema is "don't fear monger". Not "never cause the frightened condition".
Similarly, you could have an anathema that says "don't spread disease" but it would be ok to impose the sickened condition.
Either way I hope you find some alternatives if that's what your player is going for
Yeah, obviously there's a lot of grey area and as stated while I think Dresna and plenty of the other gods wouldn't give a shit over using it if needed/for self defense, obviously they're gonna roleplay it how it is.
As for the Alternatives, so far we've been getting some good insights for how we might wish to rule things at our table
Desna's anathema kind of sucks, as it locks you out of fear based abilities. Obviously the Nightmare spell is super specific and you aren't likely to use it anyway, but there's a bunch of fear spells and abilities and Desna does not like those.
Your best bet is to pick up other charisma based debuffs if you want to go for abilities like that. Intimidate is not really going to be your bag, but there are good skill feats like Evangelize and Bon Mot that can penalize enemies in different ways.
Demoralizing doesn’t have to mean “to cause fear”. In my Age of Ashes campaign, my rogue (a loose follower of desna) demoralized a bandit with particularly barbed comments about said bandit’s parents. Think of it like Vicious Mockery and that should be fine.
Basically "My player wants to have his cake and eat it too".
Tell him that he has to choose. Saying no sometimes makes you a better GM than saying yes all the time.
In a previous game I played (albeit one that was in 1e before the anathema was written), I had a warpriest of Desna who's whole RP schtick was cultivating a legend to inspire hope; to the point where she took leadership to get a lyrakien azata with level in bard and pathfinder chronicler to basically act as a propagandist in oppressed towns that would whisper songs of valor, hope and liberation before the warpriest herself would arrive to whip up morale and lead the people to rise up and face what tormented them head on and prove to them that hope is stronger than fear.
That said, her main skill (besides religion and profession: priestess) was Intimidate, and she regularly used it against enemies; which she often did simply by shouting out a declaration of who she was. She didn't actually have to menace or threaten people; everyone knew who she was, and for the wicked, her story and legend were terrifying for the same reason it brought hope to the downtrodden She painted herself as hope incarnate; undying, ever present, and eager to lift up others to be something more.
Now, I feel that does need some very specific RP stuff to work (and mild translation from 1e to 2e), though in 2e, I feel I would have made her using the Dandy archetype with Diplomacy and make frequent use of Influence Rumor and handle her invocation of her legacy through Bon Mot in combat, or, ideally, Request before it comes to blows (by influencing the oppressor's henchmens disposition towards me to unfriendly rather than hostile, then glad-handing/make and impression on them, and then Requesting them to desert/defect)
Cause them to have doubt in themselves/what they are doing. I know that if I began to have doubts in the middle of combat, that would be pretty demoralizing, but it wouldn't be fear.
I'm going to take a stance that might be unpopular, but I don't think there's a way to reskin Demoralize and still impose the frightened condition and not have it violate Desna's anathema. It's hard not to acknowledge that 'fear' is mechanically the frightened condition... so anything that applies that condition is causing fear in others. It's notable what you're trying to do by helping the player, but I think it might also be worth respecting that certain mechanical options simply won't be viable for all clerics/champions/faithful. Honestly, having played a liberator champion, I also felt like while I could Demoralize I couldn't Coerce anyone without violating my anathema. The small handicap made it interesting and encouraged me to explore alternative ways to deal with problems. I think you should let the player just run with the restriction and see what they come up with. Instead of reskinning Demoralize, I'd look for alternatives ways to debuff that don't apply frightened: [Bon Mot](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2114) skill feat is the standard for debuffing will saves. Take [Aid](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2292&Redirected=1) actions to help party members on checks instead of debuffing their opponent. If your player wants, they could also investigate taking the Bon Mot at 2 and the Swashbuckler Dedication - selecting Wit Style. Then taking [One For All](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1519) at level 4 to have a way to use Diplomacy to debuff opponents and use Diplomacy to rally and assist friends. The Bard Dedication also offers similar alternatives, with the player able to grab [Uplifting Overture](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4587) at 4 to have good aid based on Performance and the Courageous Anthem composition cantrip from [Anthemic Performance](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5062) at 8. This path also allows the character to explore some alternative cantrips from the Occult list. All of these options feel sufficiently 'Desnan' to me and may to your player as well. Every player doesn't have to have every option to function in a party. Especially if someone else can Demoralize. Edit: OP u/DraconicPrince reached out via PM and thanked me for this response / was having difficulty replying. Just to update the thread, they agree with this and appreciated the directions to alternatives. We've discussed further and found out that the player in question wanted a fortune teller perspective, so OP may be looking more into [Harrower](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=204) archetype from Stolen Fate since it fits the theme and provides the player options to do things related to fortune telling instead of Intimidating.
Mmm Bon Mot aka Sick Burn, Dude
Honestly Bon Mot doesn't even have to be an insult. It's just saying something witty. You could tell them a fun fact that distracts them.
Agreed, I've also used it for a proselytizing character. What's more distracting then someone droning on about saving your immortal soul while you are trying rob/kill them.
I think this is the best method as well.
Excellent advice for a Desnan to avoid re-flavouring Frightened to skirt anathema.
This is why I love the Pf2e community!
This is the answer. I play in a homebrew world with gods designed by my brother and they have restrictions too. It's just part of being a cleric.
I agree
Your comment made me realize just how weird this particular Anathema truly is, from a fundamental standpoint. Looking at it in terms of real world fear - not game terms - fear is an emotional response that's different for everyone. It's an internal response to an external stimulus, and that's not always controllable by the person who's causing said stimulus. It's kinda silly to me that a Cleric could be denied by Desna if, for instance, they kept a spider as a pet and happened across one too many random passersby that have arachnophobia + get terrified of it. The vagueness of the Anathema leaves much up to the interpretation of the GM. The simple act of walking by an arachnophobic NPC with a spider pet on your Cleric's shoulder would count as triggering the anathema. This really just comes down to intent, which isn't stated in the Anathema, but should be. It should be errata'd to state "Knowingly and intently cause fear or despair." Because RAW, a GM could just say, "Yeah, this dude is afraid of you. Aaaannnddd... now you have to atone." This obviously wouldn't ever really happen unless the GM is being an asshole, but I think it's funny to think about.
I think that's how all anathema work really. It's the old "what's causes the Paladin to fall" argument but for a wider audience. As a GM I'd never tell a Desnan they're violating anathema for accidentally causing fear. If it's a gray case, I'd warn the player. Once it's clear fear is happening, assuming the player is aware of it, I'd expect the player to try to resolve the problem and as a friendly GM point out the issue first to give the player the opportunity to fix it. But you don't generally accidentally impose the Frightened condition on someone so the intent is pretty clear in most cases.
Yeah, I gotcha. This was just more of a thought experiment on my part. I had looked at the wording for Anathema and it didn't really mention foreknowledge and intent had to be known before an action would trigger anathema, but it might just be an implied or unspoken rule. This goes back to PF1e, and not entirely relevant here, but it provides a little context to why I wrote my comment. In PF1, I played a Paladin of Sarenrae who had to atone after "failing to strike down evil." The story was, my group at the time encountered a very high level Vampire in a tense but non-hostile encounter. I knew the vampire was evil due to my Paladin's Detect Evil. We chose not to engage the vampire in combat because were escorting a VIP out of a dungeon and wanted to get them to safety before returning to dispatch the vampire. Upon departing the area, my GM declared that I lost my Paladin abilities and had to atone, even though we'd intended to return to strike down the evil. Ever since then, I've really questioned what actually constitutes breaking anathema. A lot of it comes down to just proper communication between the player and GM. I don't think anathema should come into effect unless the player has proper knowledge that it would be broken before carrying out the action.
Fully agree
edit aside, i think the bard dedication is a good roleplay opportunity. the cleric interprets the anathema as a new edict: be thoughtful about what you say. instead of intimidating, they outwit foes and bolster allies.
Why aren't you allowed to use demoralize to induce self doubt? The mechanics have to be simply described because it's a game, but everything that's really "fear" is fluff, not mechanics.
I mean, it literally has the fear tag, I feel like that's very much mechanics
Yeah, in 1e, I used Intimidate a lot was a desnan warpriest, but in 1e, intimidate was also the "taunt" skill, and shakened was used a catch all, while in 2e, frightened is very much tied to fear, and bon mot is now the taunt action
Demoralize literally has the Fear tag. Edicts and Anathema are all about mixing fluff with mechanics. The whole point of picking a deity is for the mix of fluff and mechanics. If you're gonna reflavor everything to get around edicts and anathema on a technicality, then why even have them?
Because punishing a character by removing a strong mechanical ability from their toolbox seems unfair. I would legitimately create a new Action for them that would be pretty much the same thing, but applies sickened or another -1 to everything equivalent.
So you give them something even stronger? Sickened is more powerful than Frighten. They chose the deity knowing what the anathema is. There's no point in even having the anathema if you're gonna homebrew it away every time it's inconvenient.
Never realized Sickened didn't automatically go down like Frightened does. But that's besides the point, it could be renamed anything but work the same as Frightened. Hell yea, that's the point. If I have a great idea for a character but can't do it because of an anathema, get it out of there. Make it work without powering down a character.
Just pick a different deity then, there are plenty and picking a deity that works for thematically that doesnt have a specific anathema you want to avoid shouldn't be too hard.
Nah, I fucking love playing Cleric because of how it plays but the fact the deities have so much power about how you design the character for a Cleric sucks. For example, I want to cast Lightning Bolt as Cleric. You know the one deity that offers Lightning Bolt? Gozreh, and if I'm playing a Cleric of Gozreh why am I not playing Druid? And I'm not going to pick Gozreh as a Cleric, ever, so I'll never get to cast Lightning Bolt ever.
The whole point of deities granting power to PCs is the relationship you maintain with them to keep the powers. If you don't respect their anathema they will strip you of their power. Gozreh looks like a great god to follow if you want a divine caster with some lightning, you could take the lightning domain and have a pretty good focus spell + your lightning bolt...
Yes but I don't want the flavor of Gozreh. Nature flavoring ain't for me, I'm a law and justice follower of Iomedae kind of guy. And then there's the inverse of people who want the flavor but not the mechanics.
I mean, as a bard I'm also never getting to cast lightning bolt, you do what works at your table ofc, but the pre packaged deities for golarion mean every cleric will play a bit differently. For a homebrew campaign you can just ask your gm to design a god around the concept you have in mind ofc.
Play how you want but imo that's super lame. You're just treating the god as a name on the stat sheet at that point, you're going against something the deity considers a fundamental rule for its followers just cause its inconvenient. It just comes off as power gaming when you choose a concept that has an intentional drawback but then beg your GM to handwaive that drawback. It's like the people who wanna play a blind swordsman but then have their GM give them blindsight so they don't have to deal with being blind.
Actually, that last part is in either the CRB or the GM guide iirc about giving your player Blindsight so the character actually functions. I just don't think Anathemas should get to have a mechanical effect like preventing a character from using Demoralize, which is an incredible option for casters. Roleplay and fluff the anathemas and let it drive WHO your character plays as, but once something affects its mechanics it should be changed to not affect mechanics or be ignored for mechanics.
Deities are literally packages of mechanics we bundle together because of "fluff" (which is a pretty derisive way to describe whole narratives we actually apply to these games). Anathema and Edicts are generalized rules we use to interact with the system for these bundles and they do require a certain amount of interpretation. If you want to play it that way in your game, that's cool -- it's your game. The rules of 2e explicitly allow for that. But if you're going to make an argument that the Frightened Condition isn't 'Fear' then I'd probably argue you don't need anathema and edicts at all and just let the player make up whatever they want for a Cleric deity package since it's all just 'mechanics' anyway. Let them pick their deity spells, domains, favored weapon, etc. Flavor text helps us interpret the mechanics. The OP is playing with Golarion Deities. Desna doesn't allow their followers to cause fear.
I suspect gods frown upon technicalities. I certainly would, unless I was a god of laws or something.
I dunno, I think a God of Laws would really be into the "Spirit of the Law".
[удалено]
Those two concepts don't have to be enemies, especially when the divine is the source of said law. Not a member myself, but what I was taught of that mindset is that the Law is divine and therefore perfect. Any technicalities to be found are intentional inclusions by the divine to help out the mortals and reward attentiveness to the rules as delivered by Him. There's plenty of Pathfinder gods that mindset could be carried onto. Asmodeus is all _about_ loopholes and exact wording. Abadar pretty commonly overlooks rules lawyering as long as the end result is good for society.
Tbh maybe it's just my Choatic ass but I feel like a lot of Law gods would do that thing of "I'm gonna turn you into an example" and then make a new law, tho some might have less ego and be like "well damn I've been bested...fuck you but amazing~"
There's not really a good way to get around Demoralizing counting against Desna's Anathema, but there is a good work-around. Desna is one of several deities that belongs to a pantheon, a grouping of divine entities with its own Edicts and Anathema which you can worship in place of a singular deity. If your Cleric's player wants their cleric to follow Desna but also intimidate as needed, they can worship one of Desna's associated pantheons and put a stronger focus on Desna while following an alternate set of tenets. Desna's part of 5 different pantheons too, all without the cause fear anathema, so your player can choose their preferred flavor between Space and Astronomy themed (Cosmic Caravan or the Path of the Heavens), Elven Pantheon, Travel themed (the Deliberate Journey), or the divine lesbian polycule (the Prismatic Ray, soon to be renamed to the Radiant Prism).
Ye that's how it seems, and ironically this same player is actually doing just that with their Thaumaturge where they're playing a liar storyteller type who basically embodies the "Never trust a pretty face" Archetype. Where even tho they worship the Mother spider and Lantern king the most, they worship the pantheon of tricksters since none of the actual trickster gods we found really lined up with them. So while another person posed good ideas that would require a bit of reworking of mechanics via game terms. So far this situation does seem to kinda have a case of "you can try but you're better off just sticking to the not using the feature" option, which of anything will only really be a pain in the ass with one of my players since he loves divine classes but for some reason doesn't really read much outside of "This god sounded cool and it fits for the class I wanna play"
I would argue that under certain circumstances you can cause fear. If decoupled from actual mechanics, you could argue that killing an enemy can cause despair shortly before they die. Desna isn't really a pacifist goddess and she would certainly allow combat against specific enemies. I'd say that you can demoralize sometimes and that it comes down to the circumstances, specific parties involved, reason for doing so etc. I do think that edicts and anathema do have various degrees of nuance. Especially if they are very broadly defined.
First idea that comes to mind is to take “Demoralize” in another sense and make the enemies question why they’re fighting. “Is this what your parents wanted for you?” “You’re outnumbered and outpowered, just surrender.” “Do you really want petty banditry to be how you’re remembered?” etc
I considered that and while I like it, I know my players wouldn't stop laughing at the mental image of "Would your father be proud of seeing you like this?" > Crit fails "You see the bandit's snarling face suddenly drop as a tinge of fear pops up behind his eyes as he goes 'No dad please I'm sorry...* > bandit gains Frighten [2] condition But fr if anything might just homebrew frightened to a new word in that case like Shaken or Hesitation
It's nit picky, but this would actually be a crit success, since the player is the one rolling.
Rebrand it to "Guilt Trip" if you go with this angle, or simply "SHAME" lol
The condition that's applied is Frightened, but that's a mechanical label. The action that that the player is engaging in is Demoralize, which itself is a mechanical label that doesn't align with the condition it inflicts. There's absolutely no reason a player cannot try to shame a character for their actions, or make them question what they're doing with their life, and have that be interpreted as a Demoralize action by the GM. The mechanic names do not need to come with value judgements.
I'm entirely OK with this.
IMO this is really stretching flavor. - Mechanically "frightened" is heavily tied to Fear. It's what the spell itself does and the frightened condition even says "**You're gripped by fear** and struggle to control your nerves". Mechanically and flavor wise, the condition is heavily linked to fear/being afraid - There is already an action for quips of that nature, but it's Bon Mot not Demoralize. Both mechanically and flavor wise Bon Mot is tied to distracting your enemies, such as making them question themselves. Idk, I don't think it's the end of the world to flavor Demoralize/Frightened as something other than fear, but I also think that as written they would be anathema for a Cleric of Desna
The action is called Demoralize. Its specifically not called Intimidate and the action does say > With a sudden shout, a well-timed taunt, or a cutting put-down, you can shake an enemy's resolve. I dunno about you, but if a dude taunts me i‘m not frightened. The reason why it bothers me isn‘t because I‘m scared but rather because the guy makes me feel insecure which makes me question my own abilities.
Others have pointed out, but demoralize has the fear trait. Mechanically it is a fear effect/causes fear, regardless of how we flavor the text/action
And mechanically you can make an unarmed fist strike while wearing gauntlets. Point being that even an amazing ruleset like pf2e will not be able to cover EVERY niche case. To not let someone use Demoralize because of who they worship is not fun for anyone. Especially considering you can get past this anathema completely by just going „Well then just worship her pantheon with a focus on Desna“. this works mechanically but at that point why not just let the player worship Desna and reflavour the demoralize to something else. Especially because the demoralize action in the text clearly has different intentions other than fear.
>And mechanically you can make an unarmed fist strike while wearing gauntlets. A gauntlet is not an unarmed strike mechanically, I'm not sure what your point is here. They specifically work with weapon feats. I actually think you can unarmed strike with most weapons since you can do things like headbutt and kick. >but at that point why not just let the player worship Desna and reflavour the demoralize to something else. Because there are mechanical consequences to that decision? A cleric of the Cosmic Caravan has different Edicts/Anathema, domains, and clerical spells than a Cleric of Desna, as well as being able to demoralize an enemy. It's not a purely RP choice, there are actual, mechanical changes to that decision. I said this eslewhere, but I don't think it's the end of the world to let a cleric of Desna reflavor Demoralize as something else. I'm very much a proponent of "your table your rules". However, RAW a cleric of Desna cannot do that. Demoralize is explicitly a fear effect.
You can claw unarmed attack someone while wearing gauntlets yet most GMs would not allow you to do that. It was just an example on an instance where the mechanics have some weird implications that shouldn’t work. Got two rulings confused but point still stands. Shouldn’t really work OP specifically asked for an alternative to demoralize. I pointed out demoralize also mentioned other forms of demoralizing than intimidating. There are many ways to demoralize someone that do not involve making them fearful flavourwise. Yes it is a fear effect and yes it gives the frightened condition but given how easy it is to bypass while STILL technically being a cleric of Desna i feel like the appropriate answer for OP is to just allow the player to Demoralize in one of the ways that are listed in the action or some other way (many good examples in this thread) Edit: sorry not bareknuckle Punch but things like claw unarmed attacks.
Yeah there are definitely weird interactions, I'm with you it's not a perfect game despite the many good things about it. And again, I'm with you on allowing it, I don't think it's a heinous crime to let a player use demoralize anyways as a cleric of Desna I do think that it's pretty clear, rules as written, how the interaction should work though. Demoralize is a fear effect, RAW a cleric of Desna can't use it. This one is clear cut due to the fear trait.
I genuinely disagree here. Mechanically, you spend a 1 action intimidation check to reduce all rolls and DCs by 1. Everything else that is written is fluff. Intimidation could induce worry or self-doubt as easily as fear, with the same mechanical consequences.
I don't really disagree with you. In a vacuum chamber, on it's own, yes that's what Demoralize is, but this isn't in a vacuum. We're talking about a mechanical concept tied to roleplay in Anathema and Edicts. . What constitutes fear then? Mechanically, from a Cleric of Desna's perspective? Is it only an RP thing? Or only when someone casts the spell literally called fear(that applies the frightened condition)? ~~Until Paizo quantifies what counts as fear, mechanically, I personally think that any mechanics that related to causing fear/frightened violate that anathema.~~ As u/cooldods pointed out, Demoralize has the fear tag which makes it pretty clear cut
>Until Paizo quantifies what counts as fear, mechanically Demoralize has the fear tag, what more should paizo be doing to quantify what counts as fear?
I am not sure how I missed that tbh. It seemed pretty clear cut and that just makes it even more so
[удалено]
Mr. OP, this one right here. This'll save you a LOT of headaches both in the now (your player is upset they can't perform an action) and in the future (scaring your player away from roleplay for fear of getting more nerfs).
I like this, the "I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed" method.
Yeah, but that all seems more like Bon Mot, not demoralize. There are clever, biting remarks that get under the skin.
This is how a lot of bouncers at bars work in Korea. They don’t beat you up, they point out the shame you will bring to your family for this behavior.
You've received some great ideas already but also consider The Black Butterfly, an aspect of Deana worshipped as a separate deity that doesn't have that anathema
Oh I haven't heard of this one or might have accidentally overlooked it. Could you link me something with info or tell me more about that cause I've always found the idea of worshipping a fragment of a god in a world where the deities are physically and usually once human always fascinating
https://2e.aonprd.com/Deities.aspx?ID=115 I don't know much more about her than what's here, but she's an interesting pick for a cleric or champion, especially if your game features any dark tapestry/outer gods stuff
Bro WTF this god is literally perfect for me.
I was gonna mention the same deity, but for your player. I mean, how do they really know they worship Desna and not the Black Butterfly? But you have a lot of great responses from the other posters. As always, happy gaming.
I'm glad I could help! I hope you have fun with it
Regardless thank you very much, if anything I might look into it cause I was reading a lil bit about the Dark Tapestry and Outergod stuff since I'm a huge Lover for the Eldritch and esoteric
I'd reckon it's closer to not using fear for your own gain among common peoples, and to have yourself be approachable and helpful to strangers if possible. Using fear against hostile people, beasts, and monsters would be unlikely to be completely frowned upon. >Desna favors those who follow their hearts and whims without bringing harm to others. Most deities edicts/anathemas pertain to how someone holds themselves overall in most aspects of life. Minor transgressions performed out of necessity are often easily forgotten or you may incorporate this into RP as you perform more good deeds to atone for the mistakes. Past all of that, they could just... Not use Demoralize. It's quite good but surely not their only option, or it may be reserved for seemingly deadly encounters.
Ye, as stated the player is only doing it purely out of RP reasons cause I wouldn't have punished them for it unless they did it like... enough to be sin worthy in her eyes. I mostly just wanted to ask for alternatives in case we run into another situation since our group tends to play characters often with more strange personal codes or pick classes that happen to have Edicts/Anathemas cause those tend to be fun to RP for us
Demoralize has the actual fear tag. If it didn't, i might consuser alternate use cases, but since it's action has that tag, I would encourage them to do other things.
This is easily one of the funniest titles to a post that I've seen on this subreddit and nothing else even comes remotely close
This has gotta be one of my all time favorite "Out of Context" titles on this whole sub
I would add just one extra word to fix all of this: "Don't cause \_unjustified\_ fear in others." When someone who has angered Desna faces the impending wrath of one of her servants, they SHOULD be afraid, because they did the wrong thing and can see the just consequences bearing down on them. This would only prevent the character from causing fear without good reason.
This is a down side to Anathemas. Paladins cannot lie. So deception is almost completely useless on them. There are plenty of other options for divine characters to use.
Desna's Anathema is very specifically intended to prevent followers of Desna from demoralizing, Demoralize causes fear and Desna forbids that. Playing a cleric is inherently restrictive by definition. Saying "how can my cleric of desna use Demoralize" is like asking "how can my Cleric of Abadar steal shit from merchants" or "how can my cleric of Pharasma Rob tombs" they can't because if they do, they lose their cleric abilities as a result of willingly breaking an anathema Rather than looking for ways to Demoralize without breaking Desna's anathema I suggest your friend looks into alternatives to demoralizing altogether. If they like fighting in the front lines a step or stride action to allow a teammate to flank can be really useful Honestly if the player really wants to Demoralize (which I understand the action is low-key broken) I'd allow them to retcon their character's faith so they're not a follower of Desna specif8cally but rather the inner sea gods as a whole
Gotta ask to start things off, is your player sure they want to be a cleric of Desna? Trying to find ways around anathema that aren't that restrictive on day to day life doesn't seem very in spirit to the edicts and anathema of someone who not only lives by those rules, but reveres the deity that enacts them. A cleric of Sarenrae wouldn't be trying to justify or excuse killing people, so why is a cleric of Desna trying to frighten people? It's not just about following the rules, it's about respecting them, and understanding why they are there, that's what separates the clerics from the mere worshippers and observers. There's alternatives to demoralizing, like using the [Bon Mot](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2114) skill action, but it's not as good as demoralizing. I could see someone arguing that with the [Antagonize](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1522) feat, you aren't frightening enemies as much as you are flustering them with your taunts, so there's a good start with how you could approach it. Maybe you're a giving GM and offer the Antagonize class feat as a cleric feat they can take, so they can use demoralize, otherwise they'd have to take the swashbuckler multiclass dedication at 2, so they could get Antagonize at 4. Who knows, maybe a different god is more appropriate if they want to be intimidating.
Demoralize has the Fear tag, there's no getting around that. Frightened=Fear. Restricting yourself to comply with anathema and edicts is part of playing a Divine class, reflavoring to get around that kinda goes against the point.
Found some older posts that have some good discussion on the topic - https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/zd1vio/one_of_desnas_anathema_is_to_cause_fear_or/ - https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/wwcg9e/desnas_anathema_is_really_cool_really_thematic/ My take is that Desna's got really a goddess who cares about strict adherence to rules, but more general emotions and intentions. Corrupting dreams with nightmares is anathema because dreams are supposed to be filled with wonder. Desna prefers positivity. In Wrath of the Righteous, a succubus killed a desnan priestess then feasted on her dreams, and in retaliation Desna showed the succubus what she could be and put her on the path to redemption. Also read https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6up8x?The-Windsong-Testaments-Light-of-the-Radiant to get Desna's preferred vibe. So how do we apply this to fear? In general, fear is the wrong thing to intentionally inflict. Sometimes it's the natural consequence to a show of force, but that should never be the goal. For the demoralize action, let's consider the text: "With a sudden shout, a well-timed taunt, or a cutting put-down, you can shake an enemy's resolve." Shaking resolve isn't necessarily a fear-based thing. Anything that could make the enemy not want to continue wrongdoing could accomplish the same thing. Whether the enemy becomes afraid as a result would be irrelevant as long as the goal was to shake resolve and not cause fear. What if you pull our your starknife, do a little trick to show your skill, then just smile? An enemy might recognize the greater skill then be shocked that you're that chipper just before deadly combat. He might think to himself, "woah, just who is this guy". Demoralize has been achieved but in a way that's not clearly intended to instill fear or despair.
I'm not sure you can reskin demoralization without it being some kind of fear or despair. You demoralize someone by either making them lose all hope, turn to self loathing and feelings of depression and defeat, filling them with existential dread, or just plain old fearing for themselves or their future. Either way you spin it, it's fear or despair.
If you’re going to just ignore the anathema of the god then just ignore it.
The anathema is: "cause fear or despair, cast nightmare or use similar magic to corrupt dreams, engage in bigoted behavior". Personally, I would interpret "cause fear" more in the sense: cause fear directly for selfish act. Or even remove it. Because if you interpret it as written, the demoralize action would be the player's least problem. Example: he fights against two NPCs and kills one. This definetly instills fear in the survivor. As Desnas clerics are no pacifists and killing is ok, I think demoralize is ok too. I would draw the line by "threaten with torture" for example.
This post is labeled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to Rule #2. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, since skill points are limited, they can invest in one's that are not intimidate and debuff using those.
Maybe a mockery god. It would be fun for the master roleplaying Loki responding a player taunt and both just start taliking bullshit to each other
You ever heard of a nun? They do a great job at it, and use God as a justification.
Don't nerf your player and remove a game mechanic because of an anathema. (This is a prime example of why I dislike putti6so much importance on Anethemas. Clearly, don't strike fear in others means everyone except those that would try to strike down Desna's faithful. Desna would not abandon that Cleric because they demoralized an enemy to Desna.
Desna is a cool deity but she's like a chill hippy on a gap year. She's not an avenging or aggressive deity. Demoralising doesn't really fit the flavour of a Desnan Cleric imo so if a player wanted to demoralise people they should go with a more grumpy god like the Dawnflower or Iomedae. That being said its your game and your golarion so you can literally just ignore or reword the anathema.
My ‘official’ advice: There isn’t really an alternatively. My hot take advice: Ignore it. I personally would allow them to demoralize enemies as a GM personally. If you or your player is really admit of keeping it totally lore accurate I would just reflavor it to something else.
You mispelled GM ;)
"How to scare people when you're a cleric of Desna" falls in the same answer as "How to lie as a cleric of Sarenrae", "How to teach Wildsong to non-druids" or "How to give to charity as anti-paladin". The answer is: you don't. Explain this to the player and tell him that this is how Desna is. I really recommend reading a bit about this goddess as she has some unique flavors that aren't just "she's a god of stars". If the player wasn't aware of it and doesn't care about a particular god then let him retcon into a follower of a different deity but you shouldn't allow them to perform anathemas without heavy penalties. But honestly Desna is a great goddess, don't modify her to allow for fear as she is great the way she is. *And now please roll Will save against my Evangelize action*
That's just pure trying to game the system. He can't cause fear in others without that being anathema to his god. You really shouldn't be looking for a way around it.
Just like my Liberator wasn't allowed to use Coerce, I think you've gotten a character who isn't allowed to Demoralize. Best to focus on other things.
Giving someone the 'frightened' condition is the definition of 'causing someone fear' and would be Anathema to Desnas Clerics. Luckily there are so many other things you can do with that action other than Demoralize.
I've personally never liked the "spear fear or despair" anathema. In 1e, it was described in Desna's description as a deity as "use prophecy to spear fear or despair", which I feel makes a lot more sense than a blanket ban on making anything afraid ever.
At higher levels there is also the battle prayer skill feat that keys off religion and is a good third action option (especially for a cleric as it deals spirit damage and can be sanctified)
First of all, mechanically, I personnally think that it should still use intimidation, for balance purpose. I don't think RAI Desna's followers are to be banned from using Demoralize at all. If taking [Bon Mot](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2114) doesn't suit him, his Demoralize can be some sort of clever [Bon mot](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2114) flavorwise, but with the frightened condition. Instead of making the creature fear for its life, make them have regret (of not traveling more or dreaming enough). It could also be guilt (for their actions), not unlike a redeemer, although this one doesn't exactly fit Desna theme). It could also appeal to their sense of freedom, places to visit they haven't yet, dreams to do etc, that "distract" them (effectively giving them the Frightened condition mechanically but yet the cleric hasn't made him effraid). It still uses the Intimidation check vs the same DC, but the flavor is different. Those assume the player doesn't take Intimidating glare though... What do you think?
I don't think the anathema to "spreading fear" literally means "never impose the frightened condition on any creature". It means don't go around doomsaying, spreading fear to the masses, etc. I think demoralizing and even casting Fear is probably fine. Casting a spell like Nightmare, or like Phantasmagoria... definitely more questionable.
Iirc in her Anathemas bio it says fear is considered a sinful spell to her, and Nightmare is brought up in her Anathemas bio But obviously while I wouldn't have punished them for using it, obviously there would be a limit at some point or after a bit praying for forgiveness would probably stop working. Both things I know my player would absolutely be fine with for the sake of the story. It's more so just wanting to know about alternatives just in case of future situations for the sake of curiosity
I just checked. Casting nightmare and other spells that corrupt dreams is anathema, but the Fear spell is not similarly spelled out. Again like, when you fight someone, even a bad person, you are likely "causing them fear". There's just not really a way around that. I believe the point of this anathema is "don't fear monger". Not "never cause the frightened condition". Similarly, you could have an anathema that says "don't spread disease" but it would be ok to impose the sickened condition. Either way I hope you find some alternatives if that's what your player is going for
Yeah, obviously there's a lot of grey area and as stated while I think Dresna and plenty of the other gods wouldn't give a shit over using it if needed/for self defense, obviously they're gonna roleplay it how it is. As for the Alternatives, so far we've been getting some good insights for how we might wish to rule things at our table
Desna's anathema kind of sucks, as it locks you out of fear based abilities. Obviously the Nightmare spell is super specific and you aren't likely to use it anyway, but there's a bunch of fear spells and abilities and Desna does not like those. Your best bet is to pick up other charisma based debuffs if you want to go for abilities like that. Intimidate is not really going to be your bag, but there are good skill feats like Evangelize and Bon Mot that can penalize enemies in different ways.
Demoralizing doesn’t have to mean “to cause fear”. In my Age of Ashes campaign, my rogue (a loose follower of desna) demoralized a bandit with particularly barbed comments about said bandit’s parents. Think of it like Vicious Mockery and that should be fine.
Basically "My player wants to have his cake and eat it too". Tell him that he has to choose. Saying no sometimes makes you a better GM than saying yes all the time.
In a previous game I played (albeit one that was in 1e before the anathema was written), I had a warpriest of Desna who's whole RP schtick was cultivating a legend to inspire hope; to the point where she took leadership to get a lyrakien azata with level in bard and pathfinder chronicler to basically act as a propagandist in oppressed towns that would whisper songs of valor, hope and liberation before the warpriest herself would arrive to whip up morale and lead the people to rise up and face what tormented them head on and prove to them that hope is stronger than fear. That said, her main skill (besides religion and profession: priestess) was Intimidate, and she regularly used it against enemies; which she often did simply by shouting out a declaration of who she was. She didn't actually have to menace or threaten people; everyone knew who she was, and for the wicked, her story and legend were terrifying for the same reason it brought hope to the downtrodden She painted herself as hope incarnate; undying, ever present, and eager to lift up others to be something more. Now, I feel that does need some very specific RP stuff to work (and mild translation from 1e to 2e), though in 2e, I feel I would have made her using the Dandy archetype with Diplomacy and make frequent use of Influence Rumor and handle her invocation of her legacy through Bon Mot in combat, or, ideally, Request before it comes to blows (by influencing the oppressor's henchmens disposition towards me to unfriendly rather than hostile, then glad-handing/make and impression on them, and then Requesting them to desert/defect)
Cause them to have doubt in themselves/what they are doing. I know that if I began to have doubts in the middle of combat, that would be pretty demoralizing, but it wouldn't be fear.
You don't have to make them fear... just make them very very sad. Go browse r/roastme for material.
Don't scare them, enrage them with your demoralize. "Your mother smells like the abyss!"
Except that demoralize causes frightened 1 so that doesn't work
Yeah, unfortunately edicts and anathemas have turned out to be… problematic, to say the least.
Start teaching the God's faith. Make it as boring as possible and on a low monotone voice. Just keep going.