|
Because I believe it is akin to absolution after confession and thus should be something any ordained servant of a god could cast (ie, 1st-level spell).
Because I believe that, as long as Atonement is rare and costly, paladins will go out of their way to follow the code to the letter, even if it is completely out of character for them to do so, heck even if breaking the code is what they should do, just so they can avoid losing their powers for a long time. Or alternatively, they will argue for hours with their DM to convince him that they did not break the code.
Because it basically robs paladins of the ability to break the code for the greater good. And robs us of good roleplaying moments when the paladin comes to terms with the reason he fell from grace.
The description of the spell already states that the subject must be honestly remorseful. And a GM can easily add any additional condition that the caster would feel necessary before casting the spell. It is enough to protect us from power-hungry players who would play a paladin just for the nice abilities without regards for the code.
BTW : make it free too. Why should gods (especially the patrons of paladin orders) be bribed to welcome back a truly repentant sheep in their flock ?
It's not absolution after confession so much as buying an indulgence.
Indulgences cost money because basilicas don't build themselves.
A paladin needing to buy an Atonement is like a wizard having to replace his spellbook--next time, don't be so careless.
If it really was for the greater good, there will be some higher up in the church who will give them a freebie, meaning the mentor pays for the indulgence out of their personal funds, the same way as the wizard's old mentor gives him a spare spellbook to replace that one the dragon fried--it's a special circumstance administered by the GM.
I think only an established member of a faith can grant absolution. Thus you need a higher ranked (lvled) cleric of a faith to cast it.
Paladins SHOULD not break their code, even if it is stupid, or whatever, that is what their code is for.
The costing material is a little bit silly, but you could take it as a donation, tough I would only ask for an equivalent of this as quest to show their faith.
All these things being said in favor of the atonement spell. I never really liked the alignement as a very accurate description of character, and I always hated the paladin for their strict code. :D
It's not absolution after confession so much as buying an indulgence.
[Catholic Context] Except indulgences cannot be bought. That's simony, and it's always been a no-non. Also, indulgences don't forgive sins. Saying otherwise has always been wrong. [/Catholic Context]
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
You mean Chaucer's Pardoner was wrong?
I mean, they even had a catchy jingle for selling indulgences: "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs."
Next thing you'll be telling me that Pope Joan never existed.
|
|
If the paladin is sincere, and it's a good plot point, and the paladin's god really likes the idea, then the paladin's god should cast it. Or the druid's, or the cleric's. Etc.
And then it doesn't matter what level the spell is.
But if the paladin's god doesn't care all that much, then it SHOULD be hard to get back into that god's good graces. Remember that we're not dealing with ultra-forgiving gods here, most of the time. These are pagan-esque, capricious creatures, not Jesus.
If the paladin is sincere, and it's a good plot point, and the paladin's god really likes the idea, then the paladin's god should cast it. Or the druid's, or the cleric's. Etc.
And then it doesn't matter what level the spell is.
But if the paladin's god doesn't care all that much, then it SHOULD be hard to get back into that god's good graces. Remember that we're not dealing with ultra-forgiving gods here, most of the time. These are pagan-esque, capricious creatures, not Jesus.
Even Jesus was kind-of pagan-esque and capricious if you remember the parable of the fig tree.
If the paladin is sincere, and it's a good plot point, and the paladin's god really likes the idea, then the paladin's god should cast it. Or the druid's, or the cleric's. Etc.
You know, if the paladin was sincere, and following the spirit of the code, and was basically being screwed despite no fault of their own... their deity might just bypass the whole "fall-atonemnent-restoration" process and not take away their powers anyway.
I know, it's against RAW, but if those powers come from an intelligent, divine creature, then it is theoretically possible that it can make an exception every now and then. Especially now that Pathfinder did away with the concept of only falling for "gross" violations, and now paladins can fall pretty much whenever they don't follow every possible by-the-book interpretation.
Seriously, keep atonement as level 5, and don't strip paladins of their powers for every little thing. And please, drop the idea of monetary sacrifice, it tarnishes the very concept of atonement. Paladins are supposed to do things that benefit society and do not provide personal benefit. This is what they should do for atonement; they should show that they've learned their mistake and done their penance. They do NOT have to work as bodyguards or wait tables to collect the fee for the spell.
|
I was playing a paladin recently and I was forced to work alongside an evil character. I couldn't actually kill the jerk, because they never did anything wrong except steal items occasionally, and that's not really an executable offense. I'm well aware that he wasn't playing his alignment, and that I would probably not lose any powers for it, but I sought out atonement anyway, simply because I (and the character) felt dirty having teamed with him for so long.
In the Kingmaker campaign my husband runs, a certain fallen paladin was waiting quite a while to be atoned. It must have been Sarenrae's holy grace smiling down on him, or the fact that my cleric is pretty much the biggest proponent of redemption in the world that set him back on the path to righteousness. GM stated that he would like to work to earn the money needed to buy himself a scroll, and it took quite a long time. In the end, after two years of faithful service and taking a pretty big hit for the team, they decided to gift him with the balance.
A paladin falling should have some consequences greater than just attending the nearest temple to his god and being forgiven for everything. If you read it right, there should be several indications sent by god that the paladin is earning his displeasure before he falls if he's doing bad things. For example, Sarenrae might give an errant priest a sunburn, or cause her to go blind for a day, or two, or heck, just not allow her to gain her spells through meditation. These are all things that should be interpreted as warning signs to adjust offensive behavior before one is cut completely from their communion with god.
I agree that lv5 is too high. "Raise dead" should be a grander miracle than "Repair Paladin" (aka Atonement). Level 3, alongside "Remove Curse" and "Remove Disease" sounds like an appropriate spell level in my mind.
Also, if the GM sets up a paladin in an situation of duress where he cannot win and force the paladin to fall, then that GM better have some compensation down the road, because otherwise, that is up there with "Kenders stole your spellbook and doodled all over it".
Paladins should be fun to play. The whole nonsense about "having restrictions for being more powerful" is not a valid argument; a paladin is no stronger than a fighter or cleric, he is just a little more resilient if played selfishly. All divine casters have some manner of restriction on them, the paladin just has a different flavor one. Follow the spirit of the code instead of the letter, and make sure you play with people will not actively seek to find loopholes in the code so they can be douchebags.
I do think that it should be a high enough spell that it takes a particularly gifted cleric to cast it. Think about it a little: the cleric needs to intercede with the deity on your behalf and plead your
case after you've already fallen out of that deity's good graces. I'd expect that the deity would not care about such a plea coming from every initiate and would much rather hear the opinion of a proven servant of the cult. It is a matter of DM adjudication of making such servants not too rare, but not likely to be found at every village temple.
Alternatively, I'd do without the spell at all, instead having the cleric perform a divination (as a spell, enter a trance, or what have you and thus consult with the deity on what the proper form of penance should be. Sorry if it makes things a bit more complex, but the idea of a paladin or cleric having to buy their way into a LG deity's good graces strikes me as simply wrong. Even then, though, I would expect this to be done only by the more senior priests, the ones who have earned the right to call upon their deity for answers to more complex prayers.
I think only an established member of a faith can grant absolution. Thus you need a higher ranked (lvled) cleric of a faith to cast it.
Paladins SHOULD not break their code, even if it is stupid, or whatever, that is what their code is for.
No code can cover every situation, every permutation. Every paladin is going to have to make judgment calls along the way and few paladins are expert theologians. They're going to screw up. Most of their screw-ups will probably be unintentional (i.e. tried to do the right thing) and shouldn't result in loss of powers.
What really should be applied to paladins is something similar to what's applied to druids and metal armors - temporary loss of powers for minor violations. The current guidelines offer no middle ground, so it's either zero punishment (do as you like) or GM 'whack-a-mole' for petty stuff.
|
It's not absolution after confession so much as buying an indulgence.[Catholic Context] Except indulgences cannot be bought. That's simony, and it's always been a no-non. Also, indulgences don't forgive sins. Saying otherwise has always been wrong. [/Catholic Context]
That is the modern Vatican's view on it. The actuality of medieval times had priests offering indulgences. They were not permission to do something bad. They were bribes to shorten the time in Purgatory before going to heaven. Rich people would even buy them for dead family members. The reason people were in purgatory (so they believed at that time) was to work off their mortal sins.
D&D/Pathfinder is much closer to medieval life than to modern day life and religion, therefore medieval examples make much more sense.
And also, the Vatican has been known to say that such-and-such has always been a sin...blah, blah, blah..No, they haven't edited the bible...lies. They may not have in a few hundred years (or claim not to), but they certainly did before that...I can't remember the specific councils, but it was during the early 1000 AD (CE)
Exactly.
And buying a Scroll of Atonement is pretty much buying an indulgence. A non-denominational indulgence at that.
Heck, a wizard can throw Limited Wish to counterfeit an Atonement, so even arcane casters could sell indulgences.
I think the Pardoner from Chaucer would make an excellent character class with just a few fantasy twists.
Maybe it's me, but shouldn't a paladin be doing everything he can to follow his code? If he is just ignoring it "for the greater good" then why is he a paladin in the first place? He should be the shining example of what a good person does. If he follows a specific deity then his actions should remain in line with that deity's teachings. I don't think there should be an easy way back in because the paladin took the easy way out of his code.
If you want to have that option, then play a fighter who strives to be a paladin but just can't stick to the code well enough. Pay for an atonement every now and then for roleplaying reasons. You can even take a level or two of cleric if you want to simulate the guy who just can't cut it as a paladin but works hard to represent his deity.
Maybe it's me, but shouldn't a paladin be doing everything he can to follow his code? If he is just ignoring it "for the greater good" then why is he a paladin in the first place? He should be the shining example of what a good person does.
I disagree. Being LG means that the paladin will put the GREATER GOOD first - i.e. what's best for the most people. He cannot ignore his code for the greater good, his code should be about the greater good. It's the NG types that are the shining examples of goodness. I imagine paladins tend to view NG paragons as admirable but somewhat impractical.
|
|
Clearly, any rule change which by rason of its inherent mechanic, makes breaking a Code of Conduct to become an acy which is almost without consequence in terms of cost, delay or ramifications is A Good Thing™.
Please excuse me, as my eyes have now rolled out of their sockets and I need to go blindly chase them across the floor...
Maybe it's me, but shouldn't a paladin be doing everything he can to follow his code? If he is just ignoring it "for the greater good" then why is he a paladin in the first place? He should be the shining example of what a good person does. If he follows a specific deity then his actions should remain in line with that deity's teachings. I don't think there should be an easy way back in because the paladin took the easy way out of his code.
If you want to have that option, then play a fighter who strives to be a paladin but just can't stick to the code well enough. Pay for an atonement every now and then for roleplaying reasons. You can even take a level or two of cleric if you want to simulate the guy who just can't cut it as a paladin but works hard to represent his deity.
I disagree. Being LG means that the paladin will put the GREATER GOOD first - i.e. what's best for the most people. He cannot ignore his code for the greater good, his code should be about the greater good. It's the NG types that are the shining examples of goodness. I imagine paladins tend to view NG paragons as admirable but somewhat impractical.
+1 for both.
LG means they are as much about Good as they are about the Law. It is completely in character for a paladin to follow the code even when it would be stupid or dangerous to himself (especially if it would be dangerous to himself), because he believes his code was formulated by his God and who would know better than him what is and what isn't the greater good. There are really few situations where the greater good is that different of what the paladin code demands, and even them the paladin should be able to come up with a satisfatory middle ground. Breaking the code should be an act of desperation for the paladin, i.e. choosing to commit a sin. He should strive to find ways to do what needs to be done while keeping to the letter of the code. The gods (AKA the GM) should NOT punish a paladin for breaking the code in desperation or without intent. If the player insists on breaking the code he should be punished. And if the Chosen Champion of the god manages to make his boss that angry, I'm pretty sure confessing to a priest is not going to cut it. You would need to have a heart to heart with an arch-bishop(at least), then he would need a ceremony to have a conference with the god, so he (the god) can give you a test to see if you deserve a second chance.So yeah, I think the level of the spell is about right (high enough that someone with it would be high on the church but low enough that it shouldn't be rare). The spell is not a confession and absolution (any adept can do that, doesn't even have to be a cleric), it's a plea for a god to chance his decision (and one with a good chance of working). The money is not a bribe to the god, it is either for the ceremony done in the spell, or a donation to convince the bishop that you are trying to atone (you have commited what he considers a major sin and been cast out by god him/her/itself, he probably has guards around in case you are there as an anti-paladin to murder him.)
BTW, do people have separate paladin codes as per the dogma of the deity? I think it might work better than the current "one size doesn't quite fit all" version. I think that making a more extensive list with minor and major offenses, and the proscribed penance for them, would go a long way towards making paladins more enjoyable for players and GMs.
I leave it up to my players to write the code and I retain the right to line-item veto. The one player I have who is playing a paladin wrote up a great one for her paladin who worships Iomedae. She works hard to stick to the code even during times when ignoring the code would make things easier. It makes for better roleplaying than just copping out because the code is hard to follow.