Turning Phylactery of Faithfulness into Knowledge: Religion checks (3.5 skill, PEACH)

[TuggyNE]

A recent remark in a discussion about Paladins and pre-fall warnings suggested using K: Religion checks instead of the Phylactery of Faithfulness. I like that idea, so here's a start.

Check
In addition to the usual rules for Knowledge: Religion checks, a character may consider proposed courses of action briefly to determine whether they are likely to go against a divine patron's wishes or code of conduct, especially their own. This check depends on the information available to the character, and as such does not prevent, for example, a paladin from slaying an innocent character due to an unperceived illusion; however, such actions are likely to be considered more leniently anyway.

DC	Question or Problem
15	Will this action cause an immediate change of alignment?
20	Is this action absolutely forbidden by a given religion, such that it could cause an immediate fall?
+5	Does this action tend toward falling or changing alignments eventually?
+5	Resolve an ethical conundrum between two or more actions and inaction, any of which might have bad results

A failed check means you can't think of any reason this would be a bad idea, whether or not it's actually acceptable.

Action
Determining whether a proposed course of action is likely to follow a divine patron's wishes is a move action. You may make a more rapid estimate as a swift action at a penalty of -5 to your check, or as a free action at a penalty of -10; alternatively, by spending a full-round action you may make the check with a bonus of +5.

Special
A character attempting to determine the suitability of an action for their own divine patron's code or wishes gains a +5 bonus to their check. (This does not apply to standards of alignment, which are more universal.)

Try Again
Not usually, although the same situation will almost never arise exactly the same way again.

My prose is a bit turgid right now for some reason, I'll probably have to go back and edit it later.

[Fortuna]

I'd suggest opening this up to anyone with Know (Religion), perhaps making the DC five higher and granting +5 for checks relating to your patron deity (which, let's face it, makes much more sense anyway).

[TuggyNE]

I'd suggest opening this up to anyone with Know (Religion)

Hmm, I guess.

perhaps making the DC five higher and granting +5 for checks relating to your patron deity (which, let's face it, makes much more sense anyway).

That's ... probably reasonable. If phrased properly, an allied cleric could check themselves and say, "you know, Pally, kicking puppies isn't really a very LG thing to do".

Done.

[sreservoir]

why does this take a meaningful action, unlike ... every other knowledge check to know a thing?

suggest failure: you determine that the action is acceptable regardless of its actual acceptability, cannot recheck until bonus has gone up?

[TuggyNE]

why does this take a meaningful action, unlike ... every other knowledge check to know a thing?

My instinct is because it takes longer than a fraction of a second to figure out most interesting ethical/moral problems. (It's an analysis of a situation, not merely a set of factoids.) In point of fact, that's probably way underestimating the time frame, but oh well!

I might bump it back down to a swift, though.

suggest failure: you determine that the action is acceptable regardless of its actual acceptability, cannot recheck until bonus has gone up?

That seems like a good idea, thanks.

[ScionoftheVoid]

This looks pretty good, but you could add an option to rush it as a swift, free or non-action (whichever you think is appropriate) with a penalty to the check. Perhaps not the -10 common to Diplomacy and the like, but maybe -5? Allows for it normally being something you wouldn't "just know", but also for it to be more useful in situations where a move action is too long (such as combat). Could even raise the basic action needed, then, and maybe add a passive option for the DM to roll (as with Spot checks and the like) with the penalty, with the option for the player to actively make a check (at whatever action cost they're comfortable with taking the penalty for).

[PairO'Dice Lost]

You might consider expanding it past "Will X action break my code of conduct?" into a doctrinal analysis, i.e. "Does X action go against the teachings of Y religion?" or "What does Y religion have to say on X belief?" That makes it valuable for more than just clerics, paladins, and druids, since it could also be used to help impersonate someone of another religion and other things like that.

[Yitzi]

My instinct is because it takes longer than a fraction of a second to figure out most interesting ethical/moral problems. (It's an analysis of a situation, not merely a set of factoids.) In point of fact, that's probably way underestimating the time frame, but oh well!

Perhaps make it a free action, raise the DC by 10, and allow a +10 bonus if you use a move action (+20 with 10 minutes to really think it over). That way the really easy stuff (with a high circumstance bonus) can be done quickly, but the tough stuff will take a while.

[TuggyNE]

This looks pretty good, but you could add an option to rush it as a swift, free or non-action (whichever you think is appropriate) with a penalty to the check. Perhaps not the -10 common to Diplomacy and the like, but maybe -5? Allows for it normally being something you wouldn't "just know", but also for it to be more useful in situations where a move action is too long (such as combat). Could even raise the basic action needed, then, and maybe add a passive option for the DM to roll (as with Spot checks and the like) with the penalty, with the option for the player to actively make a check (at whatever action cost they're comfortable with taking the penalty for).

Ahh, makes sense.

You might consider expanding it past "Will X action break my code of conduct?" into a doctrinal analysis, i.e. "Does X action go against the teachings of Y religion?" or "What does Y religion have to say on X belief?" That makes it valuable for more than just clerics, paladins, and druids, since it could also be used to help impersonate someone of another religion and other things like that.

Excellent idea.

I'm not entirely happy with my revised wording, but unless someone suggests a better phrasing it'll have to do.

[VariaVespasa]

I'd say the K:religion check should indeed be able to give you the same information as the phylactery, so I'm all in favor of letting that be one of the things a K:R check can answer. Lord knows all the various knowledge skills could use a usefulness buff since almost all the suggestions/examples in the books are unbelievably lame, with DCs unreasonably high or the answers far too vague.

But I'm still not sure why the original commenter hates the phylacteries. The wearer is burning a gear slot to insure against failed checks and the nasty consequences that come with it, and thats more than a fair trade in my book. The only reason that readily occurs to me for hating the phylacties is the infalability of them for any character who thinks to use theirs, and a DM who objects to a thoughtful player not violating his religion or code is a DM whose motives need careful scrutiny...

[TuggyNE]

But I'm still not sure why the original commenter hates the phylacteries. The wearer is burning a gear slot to insure against failed checks and the nasty consequences that come with it, and thats more than a fair trade in my book. The only reason that readily occurs to me for hating the phylacties is the infalability of them for any character who thinks to use theirs, and a DM who objects to a thoughtful player not violating his religion or code is a DM whose motives need careful scrutiny...

I believe they were objecting to the problem that some DMs will make every effort to make a paladin fall, and even disallow "metagaming" to avoid fall-worthy actions unless they have the Phylactery (which was designed as a last-ditch "see, the rules tell you you have to give me a warning before blowing up my character" tool).

In other words, not so much the Phylactery itself, but the necessity of it in some games.