| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Trying to get them to surrender doesn't even imply redemption.
That said, the Redeemer could phrase it so they directly offer redemption. That should qualify, especially if the Redeemer sacrifices actions to do this. Heck, one could even phrase it as part of Demoralize.
"Let me help you become good or you'll die evil. I am sincere about both options."
2. I do not understand the extra issue from it being a group combat. You could make the same offer for groups of enemies that you could for individuals. Language might be a problem though, so you might want some nonlethal options available.
Same is true in war, a truly difficult place for a Redeemer & their goodness to shine. You do what you can, as often as you can, even at risk to yourself w/o being suicidal. War would strain your tenets I'd think, though if you focus on guarding, especially innocents, that might suffice. Just keep shouting for peace??
3. How much control did you have? If a party member continually thwarts your attempts to redeem, which is ingrained even in your name!, then there should be RPing issues. If the Redeemer's doing what they can, they shouldn't be held accountable, but there should be a breaking point where they realize they cannot pursue their tenets in that party.
4. Judgment will have to vary by individual monster by each table's standards. The answer to the OP is "The GM should only be as harsh as the expectations they've set for the player beforehand."
As for a non-intelligent creature, redemption has no meaning. For an intelligent Golem, do they have free will or were they programmed too strongly? As a Redeemer, you'd have to find out before writing them off.
For a Demon, much the same. Can they ever choose non-evil? Except for specific individuals, generally on behalf of plot requirement, the answer's always been nope. This would be one to discuss w/ the GM!
(Arguably, killing them usually banishes them back to their plane rather than truly killing them, so there's that.)
I'd also factor in risk. It might be a great concept to redeem the rampaging Cloud Giant (since they do have a good faction), but frankly survival might be all that you can manage. Regret might follow.
While if several levels stronger than your enemy, then yes, there's a greater burden on you to give the monsters an opportunity.
|
I've head some horror stories with how a few gms are handling tenants and anathema. It just makes it all the more clear that you have to get in that session 0 and talk to the gm.
1) I would hope that you do t have to start every encounter with trying to convince the foe to change their ways. As long as a reasonable attempt at some point is made you should be fine.
2) absolutely not. It really could go either way depending on the group though.
3) "allowing" them? Yes, I'd say that's a work around, but you cant control others. So if one of you party does off a foe but you wernt able to know that would occure or in a position to stop it then, no.
4) definitely talk to your gm about these expectations. If the case is unique than it is up to the gm to drop sufficient hints that is the case.
My warpriest of Sarenrae is having the same dilemma, however our GM is not especially restrictive when it comes to this topic.
ad 1) As @Castilliano already pointed out I often ask opponents to reconsider and stop fighting at the beginning of a fight. Note that I do not simply ask them to surrender - as any honorable combatant may offer - but nothing less then to to quit their evil ways and to atone for the sins and crimes already committed.
ad 2) Why should group combat not be permitted? As groups containing a redeemer usually fight for a good cause one of your prime allegiances lie with your group. Only if you anyhow managed to join a group of murder hobos that might pose a problem.
ad 3) No, because you are not responsible for other's actions. However this should be addressed within your group (ingame and outgame if possible, so that characters and players are aware) if it ever comes up, i.e. your party should really be aware that it is your desire to no kill on sight but at least try to redeem people.
I had such a situation in our current AP where my warpriest really tried to redeem an obviously misguided NPC for a full 3 turns, even resorting to nonelethal force when our "survival of the fittest" CN party ranger finally decided: "Screw it, I am badly hurt and the wanted poster said dead or alive anyway!" So in the aftermath of the fight we had a nice argument in between my frustrated warpriest and the rather ignorant ranger.
ad 4) There is no general judgment call of what can and cannot be redeemed, however my character and I would not offer "blanket" redemption to non-intelligent opponents, demons and devils, undead or spawn of Rovagug and their likes. However as @LordPretzels already mentioned there might be unique cases that may be worth a try if you only have sufficient information to make that call. For example I can totally see a formerly good person that has become a vampire for any reason redeem himself once you have helped him realise what he has become.
I would say a good general rule of thumb (and proposal I'd make to my GM before playing the character) is that if someone breaks off an attack when they get a Glimpse of Redemption, then Redemption might be on the table for them. A golem couldn't decide to do that because it can't deviate from its programming. An animal probably wouldn't be able to understand what was happening in the first place. A zombie is probably somewhere between those two, but none of them are redeemable. A demon will almost certainly choose not to, and neither will most truly sadistic creatures.
But at least offering a chance to surrender to anything which hesitates, even if it is just a free action sentence, is probably worth doing. You might also consider investing in Glad Hand, Quick Coercion, and/or Intimidate to be able to use actions to try to get people to back down.
Having a Redeemer begin every interaction telling someone to repent is as annoying in game as it is in real life.
There's nothing that says a Redeemer must robotically attempt to convert everyone they meet.
Someone above made a good rule of thumb - if they would actually pause their attacks in light of Glimpse of Redemption, that'd be a time to ask the Redeemer to hold off attacking. Until then, there's no point in cluttering game play with dozens of failed conversions.
I think that's a good rule of thumb, to tie the mechanical benefit of the Redeemer's reaction to their tenet.
It's still sticky though. Redeemer has the potential to be extremely disruptive just by being in a party if you have other players who aren't willing to play along, or actively fight against what the Redeemer is trying to accomplish. Especially when playing in a group where someone or multiple people relish the CN murder hobo archetype.
Basically, if there's bad RP on either side the Redeemer amplifies it like crazy, and that's something that might need to be tailored to the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, but if I was going to tailor the RP requirements for the Tenet to the table, I should presumably also be tailoring the mechanical benefits of the Reaction to be in balance with it?
I feel like nerfing someone's character because you don't want to be too strict about RP is... weird.
This whole idea is built on the premise that tenants exist to somehow keep a Champion down when they'd otherwise be overpowered and I'm not sure that's really true.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue of "will my party play nice with a Redeemer" has sort of always been a thing and is a good example of why session zeros to set expectations are so important. It isn't so different from not running a paladin and a evil necromancer in the same party. Lots of personalities aren't compatible with each other.
Ok, but if I was going to tailor the RP requirements for the Tenet to the table, I should presumably also be tailoring the mechanical benefits of the Reaction to be in balance with it?I feel like nerfing someone's character because you don't want to be too strict about RP is... weird.
This whole idea is built on the premise that tenants exist to somehow keep a Champion down when they'd otherwise be overpowered and I'm not sure that's really true.
It isn't, for the record. Seifter confirmed a while back that Champion codes were not meant to justify being more powerful classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
my two cents about the whole thing - as someone who plays a redeemer and is also a gm
1) Redeeming is overall complicated, but inviting the enemy to lay down their arms is always a good step.
1b) I think it is also not unreasonable to try again after you laid low a few enemies and showed the others that standing against you is NOT a good idea and after the combat, but I would say you already have given them a chance so this is not neccessary
1c) Trying to nonlethally apprehend villians is also a nice possibility to give them a new chance to redeem but not always doable or even making sense
2) Explicitly no. Especially if you invited the group to surrender and they didn't. In larger combats one can assume that the leaders tried their best to avoid bloodshed (well, depending on a leader but a redeemer shouldn't exactly serve (willing and knowing) und evil leadership) And defensive combat is just that: self defense, no one will blame you for that
3) 'Allowing' is very vague. As said before if you try to give them a chance and your party members deny it by killing the possibly redeemable your character might want to reconsider his allegiances (and before that probably talk with the perty member) But if you just turn your back and allow them to kill people who are (possibly easy) redeemable, well you should reconsider your job
4a) Fiends and Undead can generally be considered evil. It is in their very nature and if they are not they should have enough sense to explain themselves. Same goes for most chromatic dragons although the chance for them to be good is probably somewhat higher.
4b) mindless creatures are neither evil nor 'redeemable' in the classical sense, same goes for most animals. If they are constructs it is reasonable to destroy them when used for evil. As for mindless creatures, that is a matter of morality and animal love if you consider slaying them or just try to scare them away, admittedly some animals are probably safer to put down.
4c) Mind-Controlled creatures are not more or less likely to be evil then an average creature of their kind, so the other rules above apply. But they don't need to be redeemed from what they have done under mental influence. So good creatures controlled by evil ones and forced to commit evil deeds are a real predicament for a Champion - one should try to nonlethally subdue them. If that is not possible their blood is on the hand of whoever was controlling them. Still this might be hard on the character and an opportunity for rp
And as castilliano said, risk is a factor.
The tenetes explicitly state that you have to uphold them to a [u]reasonable[/u] degree. You don'T have to take unneccessary risks to uphold your code, especially if there is enough merit in it (the tenets of good weigh more heavily then the redeemer tenets)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do find it somewhat amusing that even the most 'lawful stupid' paladin comes out as more reasonable than some interpretations of the neutral and chaotic champion tenets.
The liberator in particular is a game derail waiting to happen, and if read too literally is self-contradictory.
On the other hand, some of the anathema are even worse, and for a couple of gods, having their cleric in the party puts a kibosh on standard adventuring plots (Pharasma and Gorum in particular).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the tenet is mostly against "kill them in their sleep" behaviors. It is not here to prevent self-defense.
Should I play a Redeemer and a party member always went kill first during encounters, I would try to redeem them. Because they have now turned into my enemy.
We play a character. Not just a bunch of stats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I ran my redeemer is generally follow a few guidelines. With the following caveat: mindless, undead, or evil outsiders are beyond redemption with few exceptions and these rules do not apply.
1) If possible, before combat, invite the enemy to put down their arms and surrender. This rarely will have any effect.
2) At some point in the battle, likely when a foe is clearly down and about to be out, offer (again) surrender. Again for many this is unlikely, but some more intelligent foes may see this as preferable.
3) Always accept surrender when offered.
4) Treat prisoners with respect and protect them if necessary. Sometimes you may have to choose between keeping a prisoner, and thus being responsible for them, or letting them go, and risking them taking further evil acts. This is where roleplaying really comes in. Interrogate their willingness to be redeemed. If they are truly interested, then releasing them is acceptable. If they are not, then you can take the necessary actions to prevent future harm, even execution.
Again the tenet is "you must FIRST try to redeem." It does not require you to try to redeem at all costs, including allowing an evil creature/person to escape to continue to cause havoc.
I just want to point out that, to me the more important tenet, the one that has the strongest RP potential and really tells you what kind of person the redeemer is, is not the first tenet, but the second.
"show compassion for others, regardless of their authority or station." THIS is where the meat is for the Redeemer. Showing compassion for your enemies is HOW you get them onto the path of redemption. This is HOW you can begin to convince them that there is a better way. Leading by example.