| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since one of the major rules of the Society is cooperation, and sometimes that means paladins have to work with evil as part of the job would it be possible to get an answer on whether or not
1. Such cooperation requires atonement as per the Associates section of the paladin class.
While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.[/b] A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
2. If so for this instance of atonement only would or should the Society foot the bill for the cost of the spell?
EDIT: I think that having this codified would help with making sure that GM's aren't causing paladins undue issues due to sheer dumb luck of who else is at the table, and also give the paladin players a RP reason why either they don't need said atonement or how they cover their possible need for constant aura cleansing.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville
|
Sorry, just like all my character's travel claims (bribery, booze and etc..), we get them in our stipend (i.e. The cash on the chronicle sheets) and that's it.
So far I've done like.. two atonements?
One for my warpriest of imomeda for a few of the things that got him from LG to NG.
The fun one to imagine is my Wizard/Pathfinder agent who accidentally ate a bit of someone's soul. Can you imagine her atonement, given she's a follower of Cayden Cailen?
"For your sins my child.. you must face DAS BOOT!!" Thumps down a HUGE glass boot full of rotgut.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville
|
Me'thinks this is a tad bit more dire than travel claims :3
Have you seen some of my character's bribes? Or booze expenses?
True.. but just like my PCs issues.. you will find that Drendle Dreg does not accept them.
Even if you itemized it..
Sorry. :(
Though it would be interesting to see 'Re: My immortal soul's salvation' on an expense report...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does the Society require you to bribe people or drink? The difference is they do require the paladin to work with evilish associates which can bring about that need. Unless you can show me where your class features say that any time the VC's roll you out of bed their is a chance of you needing to drink 450 gp worth of Alcohol then your booze tab is different.
Edit: Keep in mind we are also only talking about waiving the 450 spellcasting fee to cover forced associations and possibly for any missions that might cause through it's completion the need for atonement. Not for covering atonement when the character has taken it upon themselves to go against their god.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player of paladins, and one who has had to atone from time to time, my PC would never let someone else foot the bill for something involving my personal ethics/morality code. Part of atonement is showing genuine penitence and that includes doing your hail Mary's, our fathers, and tithing to the church (requisite gold payment). Sorry, but that is not the responsibility of the Society.
Remember, it is the character's CHOICE to follow those tenets as well as their CHOICE to also join the Pathfinder Society. No one else gets special treatment or additional expenses just so they can get along with others. IMO, this is just part of the struggle that a paladin must endure when seeking ultimate purity. Its not supposed to be easy or everyone would do it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a responsibility of the Society of they force you to work with Necromancers. If I join the Silver Crusade and want to go help people I'm not under the impression that I would be working with people who outside of PFS I would be killing on sight for creating Undead.
whatever you and the necromancer do when you punch out is your business
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a responsibility of the Society of they force you to work with Necromancers. If I join the Silver Crusade and want to go help people I'm not under the impression that I would be working with people who outside of PFS I would be killing on sight for creating Undead.
Not all Necromancers are evil. Not all Necromancers create undead.
And even if they were, simply 'being evil' isn't a good enough reason by itself for killing someone. In every non-PFS game I have ever run, a Paladin killing someone simply because they 'pinged' to Detect Evil would result in instant loss of Paladinhood. Even in a PFS game, if a Paladin killed someone who had 'pinged' but had taken no evil action that the Paladin had witnessed I would warn the player (as required by PFS) that this will be considered an evil act. If they did it anyway, *poof* your Paladin is now an ex-Paladin.I have never seen a PFS scenario where a Paladin's fall was 100% unavoidable. I have never seen a PFS scenario where the mission was impossible to complete successfully without compromising a Paladin. I have seen a (very) few where a Paladin's code might cause them to lose the 2nd prestige, but even those are extremely rare. The PFS developers have been really good about building options for creative responses into the scenarios. It may be more difficult to succeed without the Paladin falling, but it is never impossible.
If a Paladin falls from grace during a scenario, it's because s/he either chose the expedient option over the good option, didn't examine all the angles of the situation, or simply wasn't paying attention. It's part of the roleplay of a Paladin. Paladins are 'varsity level RP' for a reason- playing one successfully is playing the game on 'hard mode', but that doesn't mean the Paladin is any less responsible for his consequences.
The Society has no more business paying for a Paladin's atonement than it does in raising its members from the dead when they can't afford it, and their party can't/won't help pay for it.
Bob is right. Part of the atonement process is owning your own consequences. If anything, I would argue that expecting the Society to cover the cost of Atonement would indicate that the Paladin isn't truly remorseful, and therefore the Atonement would auto-fail.
(Of course, that isn't my call to make in PFS, but that's exactly how I would handle a Paladin expecting someone else to pay for his Atonement in a home game...)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a responsibility of the Society of they force you to work with Necromancers. If I join the Silver Crusade and want to go help people I'm not under the impression that I would be working with people who outside of PFS I would be killing on sight for creating Undead
Technically speaking no one is "forcing" you to do anything. The PC chose to be a paladin, chose to join the Society, chose to go on the mission and therefore chose to associate with the necromancer (or any other "icky" person).
And to be fair, even if the society isn't exactly up front about who you will be working with all the time, the lengthy period of training prior to confirmation and any/or any reasonable research into the Chronicles would reveal such associations. You cannot really claim ignorance. And if you are a field commissioned paladin, then shame on you for swearing allegiance to an organization without due diligence.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think what the OP is really wanting is to make sure that a PFS GM can't make a Paladin fall and require an atonement *simply due to party makeup*. I think that's pretty clear in the current guide, but it wasn't always.
If a GM could cause you to fall because your Paladin didn't refuse to associate with the Pathfinder team assigned to you, it would be reasonable to have the Society pay for it. Since they can't, there is no need -- and if a GM believes otherwise, they need to be pointed at the most recent Guide.
|
|
I think what the OP is really wanting is to make sure that a PFS GM can't make a Paladin fall and require an atonement *simply due to party makeup*. I think that's pretty clear in the current guide, but it wasn't always.
If a GM could cause you to fall because your Paladin didn't refuse to associate with the Pathfinder team assigned to you, it would be reasonable to have the Society pay for it. Since they can't, there is no need -- and if a GM believes otherwise, they need to be pointed at the most recent Guide.
If something like that is happening, I would encourage the player to discuss the matter calmly with the GM, away from the table. And if that doesn't work, the player can always go to their VO and ask that the matter be resolved.
I've never seen a GM behave that way, though I'm sure there are some. But that's not a matter of the Society paying for the Atonement. That's a matter of the VO having a sit-down with the GM about the GM's behavior, and the VO also going into the system to edit the session, removing the need for an Atonement in the first place.
The Society isn't responsible for the fall because the fall never happened. But if the fall was legit, based on the Paladin's own actions (or inactions), and not the GM overstepping his authority, then that's on the Paladin.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that the gp cost of onyx for a necromancer creating undead for rp funsies is similar to the gp cost for a paladin getting an atonement for rp funsies. And fairly similar to the amount of gp my Sovereign Court character spends on fancy clothes for rp funsies.
If the expense is entirely player motivated, with no mechanical benefit or campaign requirement...IMO that's just on the player.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that the gp cost of onyx for a necromancer creating undead for rp funsies is similar to the gp cost for a paladin getting an atonement for rp funsies. And fairly similar to the amount of gp my Sovereign Court character spends on fancy clothes for rp funsies.
If the expense is entirely player motivated, with no mechanical benefit or campaign requirement...IMO that's just on the player.
agreed!
It would be like the money several of my alchemist PCs burn when they hand out business cards with a list of alchemical items created on them, with spots to check off the items as they are used. Players that game with me have started calling them "party favors". Players give me the cards back at games end and I have a list of what items got used.
Just before starting a "crawl", I'll instruct everyone to pull the med pack (not the grenade pack, the other card) and "drink the first three, and smear the last two over your body." This leads to the expected comments about "lube" and "oiling up" etc. Lots of RP fun!
And every now and again, it means I get to point out "hay T.S., did you count the +5 alchemical bonus on that save?"... Sometimes it saves lives...
|
|
actually, I think the issue here is not the GM, it's the Posters view that "If it's saying you should regularly seek atonement and immediately break things off if it's not serving the greater good that kinds seems like you would fall if you hang around a necromancer raising the undead just for funsies."
The poster is saying if he has a Paladin, then the necromancer is causing him to spend money on an atonement for adventuring in the same group. SO...
Player belief = Paladin requires Atonement for adventuring with Necromancer.
NOT...
GM belief: Paladin requires Atonement.
Well, if the player maintains a belief that isn't practically supported by PFS, and isn't being forced on him by the GM, then I'm not sure there's much that can be said. That's no different than a Liberty's Edge member refusing to adventure with Chelaxians/Hellknights/other Enemies Of Liberty. There's nothing in PFS that says that Liberty's Edge can't tolerate the existence of objectionable people, but if the player decides that his PC won't adventure with them, that's on the player making the choice, not on the 'objectionable' other characters.
The player believing that 'the presence of a Necromancer means that the player's Paladin must atone' doesn't make it true. But if the player chooses to maintain that opinion, then he is welcome to do so, and welcome to pay for as many Atonements as he feels is necessary. I think that's a fabulous RP choice to make, though it isn't a choice that I would make.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
they hand out business cards with a list of alchemical items created on them, with spots to check off the items as they are used. Players that game with me have started calling them "party favors". Players give me the cards back at games end and I have a list of what items got used.
That is an amazing idea. I am *so* stealing that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
they hand out business cards with a list of alchemical items created on them, with spots to check off the items as they are used. Players that game with me have started calling them "party favors". Players give me the cards back at games end and I have a list of what items got used.That is an amazing idea. I am *so* stealing that.
Welcome! PM me if you want more details...
I actually have several different kinds (but then I have a bunch of Alchemist PCs - and one Investigator).
|
It's a responsibility of the Society of they force you to work with Necromancers. If I join the Silver Crusade and want to go help people I'm not under the impression that I would be working with people who outside of PFS I would be killing on sight for creating Undead.Not all Necromancers are evil. Not all Necromancers create undead.
And even if they were, simply 'being evil' isn't a good enough reason by itself for killing someone. In every non-PFS game I have ever run, a Paladin killing someone simply because they 'pinged' to Detect Evil would result in instant loss of Paladinhood. Even in a PFS game, if a Paladin killed someone who had 'pinged' but had taken no evil action that the Paladin had witnessed I would warn the player (as required by PFS) that this will be considered an evil act. If they did it anyway, *poof* your Paladin is now an ex-Paladin.I have never seen a PFS scenario where a Paladin's fall was 100% unavoidable. I have never seen a PFS scenario where the mission was impossible to complete successfully without compromising a Paladin. I have seen a (very) few where a Paladin's code might cause them to lose the 2nd prestige, but even those are extremely rare. The PFS developers have been really good about building options for creative responses into the scenarios. It may be more difficult to succeed without the Paladin falling, but it is never impossible.
If a Paladin falls from grace during a scenario, it's because s/he either chose the expedient option over the good option, didn't examine all the angles of the situation, or simply wasn't paying attention. It's part of the roleplay of a Paladin. Paladins are 'varsity level RP' for a reason- playing one successfully is playing the game on 'hard mode', but that doesn't mean the Paladin is any less responsible for his consequences.
The Society has no more business paying for a Paladin's atonement than it does in raising its members from the dead when they can't afford it, and their party can't/won't help pay for it.
Bob is right. Part of the atonement process is owning your own consequences. If anything, I would argue that expecting the Society to cover the cost of Atonement would indicate that the Paladin isn't truly remorseful, and therefore the Atonement would auto-fail.
(Of course, that isn't my call to make in PFS, but that's exactly how I would handle a Paladin expecting someone else to pay for his Atonement in a home game...)
For this example I do mean Necromancers in the creating Undead sense, not just people with necromancy spells or who ping as evil. People who create Undead (a very act) in front of the Paladin.
I would say you wouldn't need to be remorseful beyond having to ally with the Necromancer (who raises Undead) since it was outside of your control, you were forced to work with said Necromancer (who raises Undead) due to metagame constraints.
You wouldn't have this in a home game cause in a home game there would hopefully be more cohesion between the party and they would all make things that would actually want to work together, rather than be forced to work together due to metagame constraints.
|
|
actually, I think the issue here is not the GM, it's the Posters view that "If it's saying you should regularly seek atonement and immediately break things off if it's not serving the greater good that kinds seems like you would fall if you hang around a necromancer raising the undead just for funsies."
The poster is saying if he has a Paladin, then the necromancer is causing him to spend money on an atonement for adventuring in the same group. SO...
Player belief = Paladin requires Atonement for adventuring with Necromancer.
NOT...
GM belief: Paladin requires Atonement.Well, if the player maintains a belief that isn't practically supported by PFS, and isn't being forced on him by the GM, then I'm not sure there's much that can be said. That's no different than a Liberty's Edge member refusing to adventure with Chelaxians/Hellknights/other Enemies Of Liberty. There's nothing in PFS that says that Liberty's Edge can't tolerate the existence of objectionable people, but if the player decides that his PC won't adventure with them, that's on the player making the choice, not on the 'objectionable' other characters.
The player believing that 'the presence of a Necromancer means that the player's Paladin must atone' doesn't make it true. But if the player chooses to maintain that opinion, then he is welcome to do so, and welcome to pay for as many Atonements as he feels is necessary. I think that's a fabulous RP choice to make, though it isn't a choice that I would make.
So we shouldn't play Good aligned characters then?
And the "doesn't make it true" isn't actually correct, since the Associates part of Paladin say they have to atone regularly if they work (for the greater good) with someone who is Evil or who offends their moral code.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically I would like something from the higher ups if possible simply stating (mostly to ease and head off any issues whether GM or player) that for all intents and purposes it doesn't matter that you have to work with Evil people and that either it's not enough to warrant the atonement in the first place (though feel free to buy your own for RPness all day) or that if it is required that the society does something to help. We all know that outside of actual PFS play the Society probably doesn't send Paladins out with things that make paladins shudder that often. But in organized play it could be a weekly thing to have to put up with.
EDIT: In short whether its not an issue or the Society at the least covers basic enough aura cleansing that the player would only be out money if the chose to be either by RP reasons or choosing to do something outside their tenets.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like it is time to switch on my Ignore filter... Ignore can be a worderful thing....
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the "doesn't make it true" isn't actually correct, since the Associates part of Paladin say they have to atone regularly if they work (for the greater good) with someone who is Evil or who offends their moral code.
I'd assume the society covers this if it becomes an issue (and have joked as much before)
Your character is only responsible for the things your player makes them do in the adventure. You're fine.
The amount of grarg over paladins on the boards is not representative of them in play. In play, it's generally a given to let the paladin to the illegal mission (because thats what the dm decided to run) in the most legal least murderhoboey way possible. I have seen a paladin be an issue twice: once where it took murderhoboing of 2 competing archeologists off the table, and once where it took murderhoboing a monster that was a town official off the table. Both times it actually helped the party get their second prestige point.
|
|
Never been clear on this one, if a Neutral Necromancer creates undead, and the paladin happens to be allied with the Necromancer (but is obviously not allied with the created undead), does this offend the Paladin's Code?
Seems like, provided the GM doesn't make the Necromancer's alignment evil, then and there, should be within the paladin's code since the paladin isn't allied with evil. Maybe too literal a reading?
Furthermore, does the bit about not asociating with evil prevent the paladin from preaching to evil characters, or otherwise attempting to convert them?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I've been trying to stay out of these "alignment" threads because they never go well and no one's mind is ever changed. But I do feel moved to respond to this.
And the "doesn't make it true" isn't actually correct, since the Associates part of Paladin say they have to atone regularly if they work (for the greater good) with someone who is Evil or who offends their moral code.I'd assume the society covers this if it becomes an issue (and have joked as much before)
Your character is only responsible for the things your player makes them do in the adventure. You're fine.
No.
There's nothing in the Guide, nothing in the FAQ, and nothing in any post by Campaign Leadership I have seen that says "You get a free pass on the strictures of your class because it is Organized Play."
Playing a divine class is hard. It's not just plugging in the class features you like. You have to live with the fact that those powers are coming from a divine source that holds you to a high standard. And will take those powers away if you don't meet his or her standard.
But this is far less of a problem than it appears on the messageboards. In well over 400 tables of Pathfinder Society I've seen conflict by divine code a handful of times. An inquisitor of Pharasma at the same table as an undead animator. An Andoran cleric of Cayden Cailen at the same table as a character who not only uses profession (slaver) but takes slaves with him everywhere. A paladin being given a mission that is clearly "break the law." In all but one of the cases it was sorted out amicably by one or more people changing characters. And in that case it was a player who said "I don't care what it does to you, I'm bringing the character I want to," forcing the other player to change without even a chance to discuss. (That player was not a nice person and after many talks and chances was shunned by the community.) The point is: don't try to fix a problem by removing role-playing aspects from the game. Fix it by being a good person outside of the game. By being friendly. By having fun as a group.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I've been trying to stay out of these "alignment" threads because they never go well and no one's mind is ever changed. But I do feel moved to respond to this.
And the "doesn't make it true" isn't actually correct, since the Associates part of Paladin say they have to atone regularly if they work (for the greater good) with someone who is Evil or who offends their moral code.I'd assume the society covers this if it becomes an issue (and have joked as much before)
Your character is only responsible for the things your player makes them do in the adventure. You're fine.
No.
There's nothing in the Guide, nothing in the FAQ, and nothing in any post by Campaign Leadership I have seen that says "You get a free pass on the strictures of your class because it is Organized Play."
Playing a divine class is hard. It's not just plugging in the class features you like. You have to live with the fact that those powers are coming from a divine source that holds you to a high standard. And will take those powers away if you don't meet his or her standard.
But this is far less of a problem than it appears on the messageboards. In well over 400 tables of Pathfinder Society I've seen conflict by divine code a handful of times. An inquisitor of Pharasma at the same table as an undead animator. An Andoran cleric of Cayden Cailen at the same table as a character who not only uses profession (slaver) but takes slaves with him everywhere. A paladin being given a mission that is clearly "break the law." In all but one of the cases it was sorted out amicably by one or more people changing characters. And in that case it was a player who said "I don't care what it does to you, I'm bringing the character I want to," forcing the other player to change without even a chance to discuss. (That player was not a nice person and after many talks and chances was shunned by the community.) The point is: don't try to fix a problem by removing...
Not overly hard to play a divine class, since a cleric does not have to follow a code, and there are no rules for "falling" as a cleric. Paladins have a specific code or they will fall. However the Code of Conduct section in the CRB does not include the section listed under the Associates section. The section on Ex-paladins is very explicit of the handful of things that cause you to fall, and partying with someone that does not follow your code is not one of them. Also there is a pile of different paladin codes based on the different gods which have vastly differing rules. The primary issue here is that everyone is incorrectly combining two class features and treating them as the same thing for a paladin. Code of Conduct is a class feature and Associates is a separate class feature. You will see no mention of the class feature associates under the class feature of ex-paladins, therefore in organized play, per RAW, you do not fall for partying with someone who breaks your code.
Edit: Spelling and grammar.
|
|
There's nothing in the Guide, nothing in the FAQ, and nothing in any post by Campaign Leadership I have seen that says "You get a free pass on the strictures of your class because it is Organized Play."
Playing a divine class is hard. It's not just plugging in the class features you like. You have to live with the fact that those powers are coming from a divine source that holds you to a high standard. And will take those powers away if you don't meet his or her standard.
But this is far less of a problem than it appears on the messageboards. In well over 400 tables of Pathfinder Society I've seen conflict by divine code a handful of times. An inquisitor of Pharasma at the same table as an undead animator. An Andoran cleric of Cayden Cailen at the same table as a character who not only uses profession (slaver) but takes slaves with him everywhere. A paladin being given a mission that is clearly "break the law." In all but one of the cases it was sorted out amicably by one or more people changing characters. And in that case it was a player who said "I don't care what it does to you, I'm bringing the character I want to," forcing the other player to change without even a chance to discuss. (That player was not a nice person and after many talks and chances was shunned by the community.) The point is: don't try to fix a problem by removing...
Another one I've never been real clear on. If you have two thematically conflicting characters, why does either of the players need to switch characters?
Is the Paladin class really unable to be a good person in presence of a neutral person that does bad things? You might be dismayed by the actions of your fellow pathfinder, but you should still be able to work towards the greater good, in the mean time.
You could, I suppose, still switch characters, but I hardly see the benefit. If the players you are playing with don't want to accept your PFS legal character and by extension, don't want to accept you as you are presented to them, you probably don't want to play with those people, either. I'd find another table, or just go home.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have played with PFS folks who believe that a paladin would need an atonement, simply for agreeing to participate in a scenario.
If the GM wants to rule like that, then I agree that the Society ought to spring for the atonement
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing in the Guide, nothing in the FAQ, and nothing in any post by Campaign Leadership I have seen that says "You get a free pass on the strictures of your class because it is Organized Play."
Lets start with Explore. Report. COOPORATE.
Cooperate: The Society places no moral obligations
upon its members, so agents span all races, creeds, and
motivations. At any given time, a Pathfnder lodge might
house a fend-summoning Chelaxian, a Silver Crusade
paladin, an antiquities-obsessed Osirian necromancer, and
a friendly Taldan raconteur. Pathfnder agents, no matter
which of the eight factions they belong to, are expected to
respect one another’s claims and stay out of each other’s
affairs unless offering a helping hand.-guide, season 7 page 12
Black and white, clear as crystal. Your paladin is working with the necromancer AND a fiend summoning chelaxian.
Your options are not that you suck ALL the role playing out of the game or that you have the two working together. Rational beings are perfectly capable of finding some balance between the two that yes, will lean a little more heavily towards giving some things a pass in organized play than they might in a home game. That is in no way, shape or form sucking the fun, soul, or role playing out of the game because binary thinking is a fallacy, not a goal.
It's a disservice to community, the adventures, the players, and the dms to think that because we loosen the tie a bit and let the paladin adventure with the necromancer, or let them smuggle an artifact , or send them off to look at some peasant architecture every once in a while that we've taken all the role playing out of the class. Role playing is like any other consideration: it can bend without being removed entirely.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville
|
Lets just put it down as an attempt to reform an evildoer and call it a day
Please call it a day...
PLEASE
|
|
Another one I've never been real clear on. If you have two thematically conflicting characters, why does either of the players need to switch characters?
Its a matter of "need" to avoid uncomfortable table disagreements moreso than a campaign directive. Usually, two players with conflicting characters can come to a compromise such that they can work together. However, there are times when the player's vision of the character just will not allow it or that the player is just an asshat. It is in those situations that the "need" to switch characters (or just leave the table) becomes paramount for the sake of the other players at the table who did not sign up for four hours of player vs player bickering and oneupmanship.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of the opinion that Schrodinger's party of a Necromancer and a Paladin doesn't actually happen nearly enough to warrant this much conversation. And when it occasionally does, I have faith in people's abilities to figure it out cordially among themselves (as happened in the one case I've ever personally seen).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is in those situations that the "need" to switch characters (or just leave the table) becomes paramount for the sake of the other players at the table who did not sign up for four hours of player vs player bickering and oneupmanship.
Sure, but how is this an issue of the characters? I mean, are nice people really designing characters that role play specifically as ass-hats to a select group of character classes? Sounds like a player issue, not a character issue.
But I suppose, the character swap actually solves things...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have played with PFS folks who believe that a paladin would need an atonement, simply for agreeing to participate in a scenario.
** spoiler omitted **
I think that this may be the root of the problem. Peoples opinions on what Paladins can do without falling can vary a LOT. Issues arise when the people at the table (especially but not exclusively the player of the paladin and the GM) disagree significantly.
I'm fortunate to have only played with mostly reasonable people who mostly come to reasonable solutions when the various theoretical problems raise their heads. But I can see people being very wary if they've been unlucky enough to actually see the issues come up in play. At least from their public postings there are some GMs and some players who should never be allowed to play and/or run paladins in PFS games :-).
But there really can't be a PFS leadership answer to the question. The answer is "Play nice and be reasonable". No way that can be written down in an enforceable law any more than it already is
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect there are two things being blended here...
1. Scenario has *Item A* as part of it that more often than not would cause even the most liberal of GMs to say a paladin would need an Atonement simply by playing in the scenario.
In this particular instance, the Society put this mission together, *knowing* the religious restrictions that the members operate under, so they should be culpable and responsible for causing the Atonement situation.
2. Scenario is fairly straight-forward, but two 'incompatible' team members have found themselves on this mission, with one being in danger of violating religious tenets and requiring an Atonement as a result.
I believe OP is asking that in the case of the second, the Society offer to compensate the character that requires Atonement/provide the service 'for free', since the Society put this team together.
I suspect there are two things being blended here...
1. Scenario has *Item A* as part of it that more often than not would cause even the most liberal of GMs to say a paladin would need an Atonement simply by playing in the scenario.
In this particular instance, the Society put this mission together, *knowing* the religious restrictions that the members operate under, so they should be culpable and responsible for causing the Atonement situation.
2. Scenario is fairly straight-forward, but two 'incompatible' team members have found themselves on this mission, with one being in danger of violating religious tenets and requiring an Atonement as a result.
I believe OP is asking that in the case of the second, the Society offer to compensate the character that requires Atonement/provide the service 'for free', since the Society put this team together.
That covers it Wei Ji
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds a bit like a fix for a problem that doesn't occur very much in practice, but gets people really riled up in theory.
That said, as a GM I would just waive the "association" part, because it's incompatible with the PFS meta where you can't tell other people not to play their character.
It's fine if people want to RP about their characters disagreeing (but not ad nauseam) but I'm just not going to punish the paladin player because someone else decided to play a necromancer.
|
|
It sounds a bit like a fix for a problem that doesn't occur very much in practice, but gets people really riled up in theory.
That said, as a GM I would just waive the "association" part, because it's incompatible with the PFS meta where you can't tell other people not to play their character.
It's fine if people want to RP about their characters disagreeing (but not ad nauseam) but I'm just not going to punish the paladin player because someone else decided to play a necromancer.
However, there ARE GMs out there that *would*, and that's where the concern is coming from. Because 'expect table variation' shouldn't be a thing for playing two core classes (Paladin and Necromancy School of Wizardy or Death Domain for Clerics...)
|
|
However, there ARE GMs out there that *would*, and that's where the concern is coming from. Because 'expect table variation' shouldn't be a thing for playing two core classes (Paladin and Necromancy School of Wizardy or Death Domain for Clerics...)It sounds a bit like a fix for a problem that doesn't occur very much in practice, but gets people really riled up in theory.
That said, as a GM I would just waive the "association" part, because it's incompatible with the PFS meta where you can't tell other people not to play their character.
It's fine if people want to RP about their characters disagreeing (but not ad nauseam) but I'm just not going to punish the paladin player because someone else decided to play a necromancer.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fun one to imagine is my Wizard/Pathfinder agent who accidentally ate a bit of someone's soul. Can you imagine her atonement, given she's a follower of Cayden Cailen?
"For your sins my child.. you must face DAS BOOT!!" Thumps down a HUGE glass boot full of rotgut.
"Is that just booze? It's detecting as magic. What does it do?"
*laughs*
"It'll make you puke so hard that bit of soul will come right out."
"The most dreaded thing the Drunken Hero can give a devout follower..."
"What? No! Not that! I'll be good, I promise!"
"Nope. Too late. Time for The Mother of All Hangovers. The Hangover that Asmodeus had when he negotiated the Holomog treaty. The Hangover that allowed the other deities to bind Rovagug. The Hangover... that even the Great Old Ones are insanely fearful exists..."
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fun one to imagine is my Wizard/Pathfinder agent who accidentally ate a bit of someone's soul. Can you imagine her atonement, given she's a follower of Cayden Cailen?
"For your sins my child.. you must face DAS BOOT!!" Thumps down a HUGE glass boot full of rotgut.
"Is that just booze? It's detecting as magic. What does it do?"
*laughs*
"It'll make you puke so hard that bit of soul will come right out.""The most dreaded thing the Drunken Hero can give a devout follower..."
"What? No! Not that! I'll be good, I promise!"
"Nope. Too late. Time for The Mother of All Hangovers. The Hangover that Asmodeus had when he negotiated the Holomog treaty. The Hangover that allowed the other deities to bind Rovagug. The Hangover... that even the Great Old Ones are insanely fearful exists..."
My other big caydenite (Boom Stick, Gunsling/Inqu/Sheild Marshal) carries around coasters with sayings on them. I have props with several sayings.
-Drinks that are colors not commonly found in nature are to be respected.
-Mind the bartender, he holds your tab.
-Beware of red heads (Boomstick is formally married to a dwarven paladin..guess hair color)
-Do not eat the little mint..
And always looking for more. ;d
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fun one to imagine is my Wizard/Pathfinder agent who accidentally ate a bit of someone's soul. Can you imagine her atonement, given she's a follower of Cayden Cailen?
"For your sins my child.. you must face DAS BOOT!!" Thumps down a HUGE glass boot full of rotgut.
"Is that just booze? It's detecting as magic. What does it do?"
*laughs*
"It'll make you puke so hard that bit of soul will come right out.""The most dreaded thing the Drunken Hero can give a devout follower..."
"What? No! Not that! I'll be good, I promise!"
"Nope. Too late. Time for The Mother of All Hangovers. The Hangover that Asmodeus had when he negotiated the Holomog treaty. The Hangover that allowed the other deities to bind Rovagug. The Hangover... that even the Great Old Ones are insanely fearful exists..."
My other big caydenite (Boom Stick, Gunsling/Inqu/Sheild Marshal) carries around coasters with sayings on them. I have props with several sayings.
-Drinks that are colors not commonly found in nature are to be respected.
-Mind the bartender, he holds your tab.
-Beware of red heads (Boomstick is formally married to a dwarven paladin..guess hair color)
-Do not eat the little mint..And always looking for more. ;d
"never fry bacon in the nude"
|
And always looking for more. ;d
-Beware a celibate calistrian
-never tick off the druid when they've befriended anything with more legs than the party.
-all things in moderation, including moderation
- Drinking is a marathon, not a sprint. Drink during a marathon, not a sprint.
- all that glitters does not pay the bar tab
-99 bottles of..98, 97, ...HEY!
- how dry I am, how wet I'll be, if you can't find the bathroom key
- prepare the coffee the night before not the morning after
-beer before liquor never sicker liquor before beer you're in the clear
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And always looking for more. ;d
-Beware a celibate calistrian
-never tick off the druid when they've befriended anything with more legs than the party.
-all things in moderation, including moderation
- Drinking is a marathon, not a sprint. Drink during a marathon, not a sprint.
- all that glitters does not pay the bar tab
-99 bottles of..98, 97, ...HEY!
- how dry I am, how wet I'll be, if you can't find the bathroom key
- prepare the coffee the night before not the morning after
-beer before liquor never sicker liquor before beer you're in the clear
This almost justifies it's own thread I think...