| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that atonement is not only just casting the spell. That is not really RP valid :) If you feel remorse about the act, then that spell is a way of getting in touch with your god and showing you are willing to go through length and expense to express guilt and remorse. The atonement should be Real (tm).
Keeping the items and just paying an indulgence (medieval catholic fee), just isn't the same. That is just like willfully parking in the only spot for disabled people at a disability rally and just paying the fine laughing, wondering that you were able to park that close to the entrance.
Part of the atonement should be no longer using the items.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
During the "Rise of the Runelord" series for PFS, there are several brands and an ioun stone that the PCs can acquire that give in game benefits, all for the cost of performing an evil act and taking on a taint of evil. Several PCs have taken these items, paid a paltry 2 prestige points for an atonement for performing a "blatantly EVIL act", and are enjoying extra feats or benefits to their saves with no other in game penalty.
I feel that the PCs shoulf suffer from willfully performing their evil acts. PCs should just feel "off" and suffer a -5 penalty to Charisma based checks, or be denied temple services until the big 8 prestige atonement is paid. PCs should take damage from positive energy.
There are no role-playing penalties for performing these evil acts. PCs deserve more than just an "evil aura".
DISCLAIMER: The following is entirely my opinion, and I do not expect others to share it.
I completely disagree. Like... completely, flat on its face, 180 degrees, disagree.
The PCs should enjoy their new benefits with little to no worry. They should be rewarded for their evil actions with genuine, tangible benefits, and have little-to-no tangible disadvantages from it, as long as they don't obviously flaunt their evil in the face of people who are bound to be judgemental about it.
And it should be this way, because evil is supposed to be tempting. It is supposed to feel awesome and rewarding to be evil. A good character who steps foot on the path of evil is supposed to think: "Geez, why didn't I do this years ago?! I'm never f****ng stopping". Because evil is supposed to be the easy way. The quick way. You sacrifice part of your humanity, of your innocence, commiting evil, and you get to see the benefits of it. The real, true backlash does not come during play, unless the PCs are caught in their vile deeds, but once the character dies. Their soul has to go somewhere :)
-Nearyn
This should probably be in the PFS forum. In a normal game you'd be able to talk with your GM about it, and its really up to him how to handle it. Taking an atonement is getting away free, but that's not really awful because you do end up paying for it.*
PFS is a little awkward about alignment sometimes imo. I've always found it rewarded evil more than good, but it has a no evil rule. Pathfinders tend to steal, extort, and murder quiet a bit... so... yeah. There's even a faction mission cheering about the destruction of a city. More importantly you play with loads of people and might never know they took the brand or bonuses.
I suppose I should ask why it matters to you about what other people do?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil should have consequences.
One of the things I love about the Ravenloft setting is that there are consequences hardwired in. And like Nearyn says, there are rewards as well. In game terms, the reward is approximately double the penalty, but it does twist you. It makes you a little better at doing your evil thing, but a little less capable elsewhere. Until you go far enough and your character becomes an NPC.
It's tempting, it's rewarding, but it's also dangerous.
Evil should have consequences.
Well, to be honest everything should have consequences, some large and some small. Even good and neutral acts.
I thought bring Evil wasnt allowed in PFS? Even "just kidding spell will take care of it" might be against the rules.
Playing an evil character isn't allowed and if you turn evil your character isn't playable. You can still atone though(to my knowledge). As to atone being illegal in certain circumstances you'd have to ask the PFS forum.
There are some developer/staff comments on the forums...I forget where, exactly, that state that evil should be tempting, should be easy...but in the end? Good ends up stronger.
Evil also isn't without consequence. I agree on the feeling of "off," though I'd start it small and have that feeling of "discomfort" grow with each step.
But likewise, there's a payoff.
Evil can be seductive. It can be a fast road to power. In the end though... there is always a cost involved. This is the nature of it...an evil deity may offer you riches, but they aren't altruistic.
An evil prince may offer you untold wonders, but he or she isn't altruistic.
He or she will want something. In the end, that may be a strong story component: what does the tempter want? What's their gain? What cost are they looking to extract?
Something that "grows with" the PCs also grows that sense of immersion. Say, instead of a -5, begin with a -1 that grows with each significant choice, versus someone neutral. -2 versus someone good. Perhaps they, in the end, gain a +1 versus good-descriptor spells, but a -2 versus evil ones.
It shouldn't overcome their benefits, though. However, it should serve as an illustrative, story-spun tool. Mechanics in this case, can be used to support, breathe life into a narrative. And, some mindsets /need/ that addition to really feel it's occurring and that's it's there.
This is an instance where mechanics may be used not as a penalty so much as a storytelling tool.
It also requires the trust bond between players and DM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I highly disagree that evil should not get away it with through mechanical means. If anything evil should be rewarded in some ways, since it should be a temptation to 'fall'. There is absolutely no virtue in being good if you get punished 'from above' for straying.
Let me reiterate that: being good has no meaning at all if you are punished for being evil
The 'punishment' for being evil should come in indirect ways, such as the reputation among NPCs, the lack of quest hooks, the pursuit of law enforcement, the aimlessness of existence and the fact that you cannot trust anyone. I do admit that is very hard to properly GM evil players but it can be quite fun.
That being said, I've got almost no experience with PFS games so I do not know how much freedom a GM has to explore the consequences of being evil.
Regardless of your views on the matter there is one thing that you've got very wrong: evil creatures do not and should not take damage from positive energy.
Positive energy is not inherently good and negative energy is not inherently evil. They are elemental forces that are as much good or evil as fire, water, earth and air are.
Negative energy is anti-life and creates undead, which are often evil, but negative energy has no moral or ethical value whatsoever. Just check the Inflict [...] Wounds spells, they have no 'evil' descriptor. Yes it can be used to hurt people but so can fire, water or weapons. Bloody hell, so can positive energy: you can die from overexposure to positive energy (check the Positive-Dominant quality of Planes).
There are some developer/staff comments on the forums...I forget where, exactly, that state that evil should be tempting, should be easy...but in the end? Good ends up stronger.
I've never seen this posted but if it has been it's demonstrably untrue due to the way the game works.
With the way they've made certain acts, spells, powers, and so forth Always Evil Acts, Evil simply has more options (the same ones a good character has plus all the Evil ones) even before factoring in the RP value of being unfettered by a conscience and such.
Evil is flat out stronger than Good in Golarion from a pure mechanical perspective (assuming we're talking about mortal creatures with class levels and the options available to them, which is what the discussion is about here. Pretty sure a few of the Good aligned Outsiders are ludicrously powerful in comparison to the Evil ones, though.).
Evil is flat out stronger than Good in Golarion from a pure mechanical perspective (assuming we're talking about mortal creatures with class levels and the options available to them, which is what the discussion is about here.
Not entirely true IMHO. In Golarion, good creatures band together, which makes it much harder to fight them than evil creatures, which are usually more isolated. Additionally, abilities like Detect Good are kind of useless, since a creature that is friendly can be benevolent and not looking to exploit you or pretending to be benevolent but looking to hurt you, in which case it would often show up with Detect Evil.
Abilities like Smite Good and the Unholy weapon quality have the same problem. Good creatures won't fight each other, which means that they only have to specialize in anti-evil abilities. Evil creatures fight everyone, which means that their anti-good abilities are useless against evil opponents, which form a large part of their enemies.
More importantly, non-undead evil clerics are much less powerful than good clerics since they have more problems with healing.
The universal animosity of evil creatures is a huge drawback for them. They can't let their guard down, can't specialize in opposing one alignment and simply are less able to support one-another.
This is what I meant with "indirect punishment" :)
Two words: Lawful Evil.
|
Even among lawful evil, much effort is wasted fighting amongst themselves. IRL look at any lawfirm or partner-organized consultancy: they are very lawful and organized, but they are too busy climbing over each other and stabbing each other in the back for the partners to truly benefit from each other. The company as a whole would get a lot farther if partners did not silo off and hoard resources.
The mob might be lawful to an extent, but each person in it is still playing a game of iterative prisoner's dilemma every day they wake up in the morning: will I get betrayed? Or betray the others first and win? Lawful doesn't mean commitment or doing what is good for the group.
Even among lawful evil, much effort is wasted fighting amongst themselves. IRL look at any lawfirm or partner-organized consultancy: they are very lawful and organized, but they are too busy climbing over each other and stabbing each other in the back for the partners to truly benefit from each other. The company as a whole would get a lot farther if partners did not silo off and hoard resources.
The mob might be lawful to an extent, but each person in it is still playing a game of iterative prisoner's dilemma every day they wake up in the morning: will I get betrayed? Or betray the others first and win? Lawful doesn't mean commitment or doing what is good for the group.
Lawful Evil organizations are usually absolutely disciplined. Backstabbing is possible, even frequent, but for Lawful Evil the Code, Cause, Organization, or what have you always comes first. Though you'll try your damnedest to climb the ladder as a Lawful Evil character, you won't do so at the expense of the organization (either out of dedication or fear, since your General/Other Commander Guy will probably beat down the cog that's holding the others up).
You just need to look at the descriptions of some LE creatures and organizations to get that.
Naturally ambitious and envious, hobgoblins seek to better themselves at the expense of others of their kind, yet in battle they put aside petty differences and fight with discipline rivaling that of the finest soldiers. Hobgoblins have little love or trust for one another, and even less for outsiders. Life for these brutes consists of duty to those of higher station, domination of those below, and the rare opportunities to seize personal glory and elevate their status.
Rakshasas believe that each and every creature in the universe has a proper role to play, and that success comes from understanding one's position and working to improve it. Rakshasas don't see castes as good or evil, but rather as purely pragmatic. Creatures of higher caste should be respected for their great power, and those of lower caste should be pressed into willing service to expand the holdings of those of higher castes as their betters seek greater wealth and influence.
There is nothing specific in the description of Red Mantis Assassins I can pull, but they have a hierarchy (Assassins below Vernai, Vernai below Blood Mistress, all below Achaekek) which they follow completely, and they've existed for centuries with no visible dissent among the ranks.
Devils, similarly, have a hierarchy which is followed. While among the rank and file there is some jostling, and the Dukes and such have plots set in motion, none of it interferes with the others on most occasions, until a swift and bloody coup is enacted, the plotter almost seamlessly taking over the other's position and keeping the grand Hell machine in motion.
Evil is flat out stronger than Good in Golarion from a pure mechanical perspective (assuming we're talking about mortal creatures with class levels and the options available to them, which is what the discussion is about here.Not entirely true IMHO. In Golarion, good creatures band together, which makes it much harder to fight them than evil creatures,
'From a purely mechanical perspective' was a key phrase I thought. If the only problem is that evil doesn't band together then Golarion is screwed because that's pretty fallacious.
'From a purely mechanical perspective' was a key phrase I thought. If the only problem is that evil doesn't band together then Golarion is screwed because that's pretty fallacious.
Yeah sorry, that's the problem with editing a post once you've written most of it. Most of the post refers to the mechanical benefits of good, like Smite or Detect Evil. I started out with those, later got to the less mechanical benefits, edited the whole thing, rearranged some parts, reedited it and the result is that I began my post with the part I meant to incorporate at the end.
English is not my native language so I sometimes have to do a bit of editing to get your &*$#*@$* grammar correct and still have the post make sense. Sometimes the re-edits have the results of my post not being structured like I wanted it to be.
Lawful Good organizations have to deal with the Peter principle. LE organizations have executions for that.
Lawful evil have cronyism, corruption and shifting the blame >:)
Someone who's good at manipulating others will go further in a LE organization than someone who's good at their job ;)
'From a purely mechanical perspective' was a key phrase I thought. If the only problem is that evil doesn't band together then Golarion is screwed because that's pretty fallacious.Yeah sorry, that's the problem with editing a post once you've written most of it. Most of the post refers to the mechanical benefits of good, like Smite or Detect Evil. I started out with those, later got to the less mechanical benefits, edited the whole thing, rearranged some parts, reedited it and the result is that I began my post with the part I meant to incorporate at the end.
English is not my native language so I sometimes have to do a bit of editing to get your &*$#*@$* grammar correct and still have the post make sense. Sometimes the re-edits have the results of my post not being structured like I wanted it to be.
English is my first and only language and I do those things all the time, eh.
LE enemies work together. They maneuver each other to gain advantage, but they won't sacrifice the organization.
Thankfully LE is only one flavor of evil, and there are a GREAT many CE enemies.
Good of any flavor will help Good of any other flavor, in the majority of circumstances, though certainly not all.
LE enemies work together. They maneuver each other to gain advantage, but they won't sacrifice the organization.
Thankfully LE is only one flavor of evil, and there are a GREAT many CE enemies.
Good of any flavor will help Good of any other flavor, in the majority of circumstances, though certainly not all.
Chaotic evil can help chaotic evil too. I don't know why people think that it can't. Not everyone who's CE suffers from chronic backstabbing disorder. Some good guys can have that issue even.
Just not literally
|
The Atonement spell is not a free pass :
"The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. "
Also note that, in addition, the zero cost version is only "If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion".
To sum it up, atonement's power rests completely in the hands of the GM. It is NOT a way to game the system.
This is a very important point--no GM needs to worry about a player 'getting away with' anything, but he can simply rule that the Atonement didn't work. Why? "Because I don't think your character actually regrets what he did--based on all the snickering he's doing."
I roll to bluff the GM!
Anyways, that's always an option and what you can do when someone has the option to throw around some money and always makes a mess of things. The solution I like best is to talk to them if you actually think its a problem. In PFS there is a slightly different take on it because of the variety of GMs you meet and the nature of organized play.
Atonement usually involves giving up any benefits you may have gotten from being evil, so they need to give those items up to truly atone.
Atonement usually involves giving up any benefits you may have gotten from being evil, so they need to give those items up to truly atone.
Where are you getting that from?
The problem with evil is you aren't the only a&&$!@~ in the room, and weakness is a very relative term. The guy building indoor plumbing may not be cut out for raiding, but I know which I want in my town.
Atonement usually involves giving up any benefits you may have gotten from being evil, so they need to give those items up to truly atone.Where are you getting that from?
I dont want to put words in someone's mouth but I am thinking they meant atonement as the concept rather than than the spell.
Atonement usually involves giving up any benefits you may have gotten from being evil, so they need to give those items up to truly atone.Where are you getting that from?
"The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. "
One might argue that being truly repentant would mean giving up your ill-gotten gains.
Ok, this might be a bit controversial but bear with me.
Atonement does/would/should mean that you're willing to give up the benefits of your evil actions.
On the other hand, those actions are in the past and the gains may be used for good! Is it really a good deed to give up the means that can be used to do good?
There are of course a LOT of caveats here and it refers specifically to things that would be directly used for good. E.g. money should be given away, since that 200 gp could directly benefit the poor.
But say a +2 longsword? Even if you would not destroy it as part of your repentance, it's not gonna be sold easily (8,000 gp is an insane amount of money in PF society) and it's gonna do more good in the hands of an atoned warrior than in the vault of a church.
A lot of Nazi researchers and the results of their (often unethical) experiments were instrumental in modern day science, especially the space program and medicine.
IF an atoner was truly repentant he could still make the case for using his ill-gotten gains for good.
Disclaimer: this is not exactly my opinion on the matter, I'm a bit on the fence. I'm mostly providing a counter argument that players will use for sure.
During the "Rise of the Runelord" series for PFS, there are several brands and an ioun stone that the PCs can acquire that give in game benefits, all for the cost of performing an evil act and taking on a taint of evil. Several PCs have taken these items, paid a paltry 2 prestige points for an atonement for performing a "blatantly EVIL act", and are enjoying extra feats or benefits to their saves with no other in game penalty.
I feel that the PCs shoulf suffer from willfully performing their evil acts. PCs should just feel "off" and suffer a -5 penalty to Charisma based checks, or be denied temple services until the big 8 prestige atonement is paid. PCs should take damage from positive energy.
There are no role-playing penalties for performing these evil acts. PCs deserve more than just an "evil aura".
To the OP:
I'm not a part of PFS, but I've been dming for a long time. I believe atonement requires you to genuinely repent/apologize. If the player's don't give up their ill gotten gains by donating it to the temple, donating them to charity, or giving it back the spell should fail, thus leaving them with whatever taint/alignment changes they have incurred. Reasoning that they should keep them with some mental gymnastics doesn't make it right. I'm just going to bet if those items are removed they will repeat the offenses.
And a smart GM will definitely make that argument. The great joy of Atonement spells is that the GM stands in for the gods, who are fully aware of all the metagaming opportunism the players are trying to pull, and who never fall for it.
I think our definitions of smart and how to handle atonement differ. I'd say that's pretty situational. More understandable if you stole something, but less so if you didn't do anything evil or carry profit in the first place. Varies from situation to situation, though I'm not a big fan of atonement having come up.
Also in society play your in a much different situation there.
And don't forget players aren't your enemy. If you don't want 'metagaming opportunism' talk with them.
I might let that slide, but with the caveat that the character is expected to adhere to their faith's tenets with Paladin-esque commitment or lose their atonement.
Paladin level commitment? They're screwed.
Paladin level commitment? They're screwed.
The character's party members?
;)
My comment about giving up ill-gotten gains was actually based on something I read from a 3.5 product, the Fiendish Codex II (which obviously has something to say about atonement), so take it with a grain of salt. Still, I'd personally use that at my table.
Why is this such a problem? A single evil act shouldn't make them evil anyway, so no need for an atonement.
Why is this such a problem? A single evil act shouldn't make them evil anyway, so no need for an atonement.
In PFS in particular there are three(I think four) acts that can change your alignment on the spot as part of a scenario. If I remember right anyway.
I think those four work that way anyway. Don't have the scenario's on person. Not sure if I agree with them, but I think those are the ones the OP was referring too. Eventually in the Waking Rune scenario the boons the 3 acts mentioned above give you do turn against you, but its rather late and not every character goes into it.
In the PFS games I've played or run, murder has never counted as an evil act. Hell, three of four have the PCs more or less being at least bad, clearing the way for criminal operations. Very bad, escorting torture bait to be tortured. And pretty evil, helping to cover up 500 years of sending slaves to a horrific fate. (I did the math, if 3 slaves a month for 500 years, 18,000 people)
At this point, the above magic items or acts don't impress me much on the evil scale.
In the PFS games I've played or run, murder has never counted as an evil act. Hell, three of four have the PCs more or less being at least bad, clearing the way for criminal operations. Very bad, escorting torture bait to be tortured. And pretty evil, helping to cover up 500 years of sending slaves to a horrific fate. (I did the math, if 3 slaves a month for 500 years, 18,000 people)
At this point, the above magic items or acts don't impress me much on the evil scale.
Killing is evil in Pathfinder. As is oppression and harming others. Seems odd that outright murder (unjustified killing) wasn't considered evil.
|
Even before I picked up my trusty ioun stone, I light up the sky purple as anything when the Paladins "Detected EVIL"
You can have an evil aura without being evil yourself. I keep telling people I'm just lawful neutral.. Just like all the normal people.
Is there a negative - I have to raise my hand so much (those jumpy Paladin guys constantly detectin here there n everywhere.) Sure sure I'm going to heck but who isn't these days?
Life is simple, I know where I'm going (no matter what I do...) You just have to step one toe out of line and whammo you're in a lake of fire with me. Remember to bring the marshmallows, swimsuit optional.
Meridoc Attorney at Law
Cleric of Asmodeus
No Legal Issue too big, No fee too High
My PFS Cleric detects as (strongly) Evil, because he worships an Evil God(dess) despite the fact that he is in fact Neutral. So far, no death-by-Paladin.
Killing is evil in Pathfinder. As is oppression and harming others. Seems odd that outright murder (unjustified killing) wasn't considered evil.
And that's the catch. Justification is pretty easy to come by, even before I decided my Mage was on the unethical side of the Objectivist philosophy.
To go back to the items that turn you evil, in that case it's not a stretch to pick up a spell to undo the change while holding onto a useful tool.