As a player in a recently-run PFS scenario, I recently ran into a somewhat troubling situation with my cleric of Erastil that I think might warrant a bit of rules clarification. Specifically, my cleric participated in an adventure where the objective was to raid an evil temple and remove its evil occupants. During an early part of the adventure, our party found a number of amulets that included a depiction an evil deity. Through discussion with NPC's and also by the circumstances presented by the adventure, our party came to believe that use of the amulets would be useful if not absolutely necessary to fully complete our objectives. We also came to believe that a likely purpose of the amulet was that it could be worn to bypass deadly traps.
Other party members, with the exception of our Paladin (who followed another god), decided to wear the amulets. At this time, I asked our GM as to whether Erastil would be offended if my character wore the amulet solely for the purpose of subterfuge and obtaining safe passage through the temple. Although I asked this question several different times, the GM refused to provide any information and stated I would have to "decide for myself." Regrettably, I misinterpreted this exchange as a statement that the GM was relying upon me, as the player to police my adherence to my character's alignment and faith. Notably, I had just turned down a powerful but evil blessing apparently bestowed by an evil god, so I was hardly neglecting faith or alignment issues.
Because I was invited to decide whether Erastil would object, I considered the issue. Noting that stealth and subterfuge are a part of hunting and nature, I decided that Erastil (a nature-themed deity) would not have a problem with wearing the amulet solely for that purpose. Moreover, I decided that the intended outcome of our adventure was good and that, in the context of the adventure, my character did not owe any particular legal duties to the evil god's followers not to deceive them. Finally, the amulet detected as neither magic or evil. As such, I put on the amulet. No "unusual discomfort" or "sound of thunder of lightning" or other GM warning occurred upon my donning of the amulet or contemplation thereof.
Much to my surprise, the GM announced much later at the end of the game that I needed to spend 3000 GP on an atonement for wearing the amulet. He admitted that the adventure materials did not specify this outcome and that it was purely a GM decision. Because I was clearly annoyed by the lack of warning, the GM told me to make a DC15 Knowledge Religion "mercy roll" (well after the fact) that I failed.
Still annoyed by his decision, my next step was to cite to the GM the following language from the Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play:
Pathfinder Guide excerpt from "Alignment Infractions" Section wrote:
Alignment infractions are a touchy subject. Ultimately,
the GM is the final authority at the table, but she must warn
any player whose character is deviating from his chosen
alignment. This warning must be clear, and the GM must
make sure that the player understands the warning and
the actions that initiated the warning. The PC should be
given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it,
or face the consequences. We believe a deity would forgive
a one-time bad choice as long as the action wasn’t too
egregious (such as burning down an orphanage full of
children, killing a peasant for no good reason but sport,
etc.). Hence, the GM can issue a warning to the player
through a “feeling” he receives from his deity, a vision
he is given, his conscience talking to him, or some other
similar roleplaying event.
If infractions continue in the course of the scenario
or sanctioned module, an alignment change may be in
order. If the GM deems these continued actions warrant
an alignment change, she should note it on the character’s
Chronicle sheet at the end of the session in the Conditions
Gained box. The character may remove this gained
condition through an atonement spell. If the condition is
removed, the GM should also note it on the Chronicle sheet.
My GM's primary response to this was to state that his ruling was not based upon an "alignment infraction" but upon a "tenets of the faith" infraction. I found this to be an interesting argument in light of the fact that he repeatedly mentioned the significance of Erastil's Lawful Good alignment. That notwithstanding, my question in this post is whether an alleged "tenet of the faith" infraction falls within the "alignment infraction" warning requirement. I believe it does.
The first indication is that the "alignment infractions" section above contains language such as "[w]e believe a deity would forgive a one-time bad choice." Clearly these rules are intended to apply broadly to GM adjudications of a conflict between a character and his deity.
More importantly, the issues that the above text is trying to address are the same for both "alignment infractions" and "tenets of the faith" infractions. Specifically, "alignments" and "tenets of faith" are both nebulous concepts that are subject to extensive interpretation. What the above rule wisely allows for is the application of the GM's interpretation of these concepts. However, the rule also specifies that the GM must warn the player of his or her interpretation before the player accrues a penalty, except in the most drastic and obvious of situations, such as a Paladin slaughtering a village of innocents.
I also think my GM's position as to "tenets of faith" is problematic from a roleplaying perspective. A cleric is by definition a minister of his or her faith, with all of the attendant knowledge of his or her own faith that that entails. It is simply absurd that a cleric would not have the enough basic knowledge to know that a particular proposed action would "grossly" (the standard for requiring an atonement) violate the tenets of his faith. However, when a GM fails to share his or her interpretation of the deity's tenets, as occurred here,that is exactly what happens.
As a final note, my GM also made a secondary argument that the failure of the Paladin (who worshiped a different god) to wear the amulet was itself an adequate warning. Paladins, however, have a restrictive code of conduct that they must comply with in addition to their alignment. Moreover, a Paladin must absolutely be Lawful Good, whereas even a Lawful Good deity accepts Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral clerics, suggesting a looser philospohy. Finally, my continued requests for information should have made it clear that I did not understand whatever supposed "warning" was given by the actions of the other player.
In short, I believe that treating "tenets of faith" infractions differently that "alignment infractions" violates the intent of the "alignment infractions" rule and also creates a loophole that has the potential to make the "alignment infractions" rules ineffective. Opinions are welcomed.
