Playing a Redeemer in Organized play

[Grcles de Cross]

I am about to start playing a Redeemer Champion with a background as a Bounty Hunter. My questions are simple:
--when the party encounters a group of foes does the Redeemer need to give a verbal opportunity to each foe he/she faces to repent?
--Does the Redeemer then have to wait for a personal response?
--If the foe turns away from the Redeemer and then turns and attacks one of the Redeemer's allies is the Redeemer OK to attack and possibly kill the foe?
--Is the Redeemer only obligated to try to redeem charters with above an X Intelligence?

I created the Character to be a Bounty Hunter that always tries to bring the bounty in alive. I am wondering how this has played out with people here.

[Rysky]

Yes
Yes, though the "response" doesn't need to be verbal
Yes
That's not something you can really tell in game, but there's not really a way to "redeem" a non-sapient creature, most of which are acting on instincts, though I can see a Redeemer trying to spare companion animals.

[pauljathome]

I'd say that as long as you make a legitimate attempt to offer the bad guys the chance to repent/surrender you're good.

But a general call is fine, And if the bad guys attack you you're fine. Or if combat has already started before you get a chance to act then you're probably fine.

[FLite]

Note that people can speak outside their turn in initiative. So opponents do not need to wait till their turn to declare their surrender.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

I would not worry to much about this, and after all, you can still RP during combat that you are hoping/pleading with them to stop... unfortunately your enemies are not likely to listen. It can feel worthwhile to get a non-lethal weapon, it's ways easier to give people a chance of redemption if they are not dead ^^

[Watery Soup]

I believe, both in real life and in game, that people spend too much time worrying about mechanics and too little time worrying about intent.

A redeemer that runs around town with their weapons drawn and yelling for random people to surrender is way closer to breaking their edicts than a redeemer that immediately fights back when ambushed without asking.

Asking for surrender is not the same as casting protection from GM ire. It's about the overall attitude of the character.

Characters aren't supposed to struggle with edicts and anathemas as long as they're heading towards the Primary or Secondary objectives [citation needed]. As a GM, I'd probably warn characters, champions or not, if they drift.

[FLite]

Watery Soup wrote:

Characters aren't supposed to struggle with edicts and anathemas as long as they're heading towards the Primary or Secondary objectives [citation needed]. As a GM, I'd probably warn characters, champions or not, if they drift.

Not *quite* correct. (That was a rule in PFS1 for a while and it produced some really, really bad things. Like paladins burning down orphanages occupied warehouses full of explosives in the middle of a city.)

The current rule is that specific actions required by the scenario will not directly force you to violate your anathema.