Vonlok The Bold said:
I wouldn't call forcing a woman who begged for mercy to serve the side of righteousness harboring and sheltering.
I also wouldn't call that associating really. Especially if we look at the definition that says to associate means to join as a partner, ally or friend. The priestus is doing none of that. Instead she is being forced to join as terms of her clemency.
I don't think it is as if the Paladin will all of a sudden give the priestess a say in what course the group should take, or a share of the treasure which one would do to an ally, partner, or friend.
Rather the Paladin is punishing an evil character by making the priestess serve good and righteousness. The paladin may be hoping it rehabilitates the character as well.
I wouldn't call it an association to say follow these rules or you die. It is closer to the paladin imprisoning the priestess. It may be a mistake because once her spells are replentished all hell might bust loose. But I wouldn't call it an association that goes against the Paladin's code.
What you or I call it is irrelevant. The DM running the campaign makes that ruling, based on his/her campaign. If the DM rules that's how the 'law' views it, then that is how they view it. It will vary, two sides to the coin. As I stated earlier, I can see it going both ways.
Once again from the SRD;
"Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."
The RAW gives a guideline for what is and isn't an associate. If the person is
actively adventuring with the paladin, they are an associate. If the person is 'tanking' or casting spells for the party, I would rule it qualifies as associating. YDMMV. From Shark's initial post;
"Bronwyn grants her mercy, and demands as part of the bargain, the beautiful priestess must serve her and her party with the utmost loyalty and devotion, until she says otherwise, as her life is otherwise forfeit for her defeat at her hands.
The cleric of Orcus agrees, reluctantly. Bronwyn makes her swear to serve her loyally. Any treachery will bring her swift death by her sword. Bronwyn used her Sense Motive, and Drusilla seemed quite sincere."
That leads me to think that she is/will qualify as an associate. If that is not the case, then she isn't an associate, we really don't know yet.
I really hope Shark gives us an update on how all this turns out.
?
?
Edit: There really isn't any wrong or right answers to some of these questions/issues. It will vary.