Alignments and Calls Requirements/Restrictions

[Grogg of the North]

For what it's worth, the Book of Exalted Deeds touches on this a little bit. Generally it states that committing an evil for a good cause is, at best, a neutral act. And, after repeated neutral acts, it's possible to slide from LG to LN. Also, such thinking is abhorrent to anyone that would be considered exalted.

How do the other DM's feel about the Golden One? If there's a consensus about his alignment being violated, I'd give him a warning in game via a dream or something and if he keeps it up, I'd let him fall and fall hard.

 

[Greenfield]

I actually like an idea that was proposed: Write down the specific points of his code. They're spelled out in the same place the class is descriped.

Check off items if/when he violates them. Un-check if he goes above and beyond to redeem himself for those violations.

If he ever gets all items checked at the same time, his code has been broken. I'd let him know when I'm checking and un-checking items, so there's no "Surprise, you're hosed" moment.

 

[howandwhy99]

If he ever gets all items checked at the same time, his code has been broken. I'd let him know when I'm checking and un-checking items, so there's no "Surprise, you're hosed" moment.

I track Alignment and only somewhat Player codes. If I think a player is breaking their character's code, then I ask the player if they are. If the player ever tells me, asked or not, they are breaking their code, then I have them fall out of their deity's favor. Or whatever the predetermined consequence may be (Maybe they have a many-faced god or something and switch to another face?).

Alignment changes are also told to the player prior to the action which will shift it out of the current class. Not a bump or two in one or another direction, but a LG paladin slaying his LG priest or something. They get a save, but can choose to fail it. Loss of LG status for a Paladin however is a great deal more than for other classes. The one-and-done design means it isn't for everyone.

 

[Greenfield]

I've always seen Alignment as a description of the character's personality and behavior, rather than a club they belong to or some rank they've achieved. (I even played it that way in 1st Edition, when there were specific "Alignment Tongues". )

The only time I have to deal with a "code of conduct" is if it's part of a class requirement, the way Paladins are. In this case "Golden One" has such a standard, spelled out as part of the class description. Break it and you stop being a Golden One.

Many play that an Atonement spell can restore lost class status. By the book, it restores Alignment. Class features are something else, and I don't think they should be restored by the casting of a single spell.

But that's just me. To me, the Atonement spell is actually superfluous. It doesn't force the PC to change their behavior, which is what defines alignment. And if they do change their behavior, then they've changed their alignment, no Atonement needed.

If the spell plays a role at all, it's kind of like going to confession. It's an acknowledgment that you've been doing it wrong, and a statement that you intend to change. It marks an awareness that change is needed. And maybe that's important. But I've seen it used as a patch-job on a reputation, a bit of lip service without meaning or impact. PC pays for spell so they can pass muster with whatever force or institution is requiring an alignment, then goes right back to the same old behavior.

But that varies from game group to game group, and my experience isn't necessarily a sign of anyone else's experience.

 

[delericho]

Many play that an Atonement spell can restore lost class status. By the book, it restores Alignment. Class features are something else...

The SRD would disagree on that last point.

 

[Herobizkit]

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”

IMO, A Paladin who does not actively oppose avenues of action by his teammates that are clearly outside his purview of Law and Goodness begins a slide to Neutrality.

[sblock=Netbook of Classes v1]Golden Ones are highly spiritual and spend much of their time fasting and praying. When they are part of a church hierarchy, they are active and vocal, often volunteering to take on special duties. As a result, combined with their obvious strong connections to the gods, they occupy positions of power within the church.

When operating independently of an organization, a Golden One often behaves as a questing knight or paladin, seeking out wrongs to right and evil to subdue. Golden Ones are particularly vehement about combating undead. They will rush off to investigate the vaguest rumors of inno-cents endangered by undead and hold necromancers as their greatest adversaries. [Emphasis mine][/sblock]
You've got three sources of "code" in play here:
a) The Golden One's code
b) The Paladin's alignment code of being LG
c) the code of the Paladin's God/dess (to a lesser extent).

Bottom line, I feel that the character is a Paladin first, Golden One second, and servant of his God/dess third. Anything he does to shun, avoid, or otherwise "technicality" out of repercussions for his non-doings slides him away from Paladinhood... and since non-Paladins can't cast spells, the Golden One benefits go as well.

 

[Greenfield]

The PC is a Cleric/Golden One, not a Paladin/Golden One.

That makes the code a bit simpler.

 

[Vegepygmy]

But I've seen it used as a patch-job on a reputation, a bit of lip service without meaning or impact. PC pays for spell so they can pass muster with whatever force or institution is requiring an alignment, then goes right back to the same old behavior.

By the book, the spell would fail under those circumstances:

This spell removes the burden of misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds...

Of course, as with everything else in the game, the rules have to be enforced to have any meaning.

 

[Greenfield]

That would require a DM to make the (arguable) judgment call that the PC wasn't truly remorseful. The player always say that he is, after all. The DM has to call the player a liar in order to enforce the rule.

Can you spell "Awkward"?

 

[delericho]

The issue with players always saying they're truly remorseful is indeed an issue. That's presumably why the spell description says, "Many casters first assign a subject of this sort a quest (see geas/quest) or similar penance to determine whether the creature is truly contrite before casting the atonement spell on its behalf."

If the players are treating atonement as a speedbump, I would certainly advise applying that requirement!

Additionally, the spell description says, "However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 500 XP) in order to expunge the subject’s burden."

Again, if the players are treating atonement as a speedbump, then their behaviours will certainly be "knowing and willful" (and certainly on the second casting!). So, be sure to apply that 500XP requirement - and, if the spell is cast by an NPC caster (or from a scroll), that vastly increases the cost the players will need to pay to get it done!