Alignments and Calls Requirements/Restrictions

[Vegepygmy]

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.

No, he doesn't (even though the player is a liar, and why should the DM feel awkward about pointing that out?). He just has to be willing to retcon the use of the atonement spell.

"Oh, your character immediately resumes the bad behavior he supposedly truly repented and desired to set right? I guess he didn't truly repent or desire to set right his misdeeds like you said he did...so the spell actually failed, and he didn't get back his class abilities (or whatever). Also, no further attempts to use atonement on your character will succeed until he does something to prove that he's truly repentant, since evidently I can't rely on your word as a player." (Lined-out text can be omitted if the DM is afraid to openly state the obvious.)

As I said, the rules must be enforced to have any meaning...which means you have to be willing to do what it takes to enforce them.

 

[Greenfield]

Clearly I stand corrected w/regards to Atonement and class abilities. I really need to double check spell descriptions before I open my mouth.

In any case, my final version of how to handle classes with conduct codes:

1) Discuss the code with the player, and consider ways to elaborate or customize. (I'll give an example later).
2) Write out the code, 2 copies, one for each player and DM.
3) If a character breaks a point of code, it gets a black mark.
4) If a character performs above and beyond the call to support a point, a black mark can be removed.
5) If there is ever a time when all points are checked, the character is in violation and consequences set in.
6) If any single point gets as many check marks as there are points to the code, the character is in violation and consequences occur.

Now any rules lawyer can see the flaw: Write a code with 57 points, at least one of which is something like "Don't commit suicide". So the Dm needs to be involved in writing the code, to prevent abuse.

As an example, the Code of the Golden One says:

1) Never willingly commit an Evil act.
2) Defend the weak and helpless.
3) Be just and merciful (I think).
4) Lay the Undead to rest.

A reasonable variation on point 4 might be, "Lay down the dark undead at once. Help other undead find peace."

We had a Paladin in our game who came upon the ghost of a serving girl who had been murdered by her employer, and was stuck there because of unfinished family business. The Paladin noted that she detected as Evil, but recalled that all Undead do, regardless of their true alignment. (The scale includes a note about undead ranking a solid step stronger on the spell than your run-of-the-mill bad guy.) Knowing that he could get a false positive, he decided to cast Detect Good as well, and she showed up on that as well. After talking to her, he voluntarily allowed her to possess his body so she could see to that final task.

Great RP scene, and well played by the Paladin's player.

 

[delericho]

Now any rules lawyer can see the flaw: Write a code with 57 points, at least one of which is something like "Don't commit suicide". So the Dm needs to be involved in writing the code, to prevent abuse.

Indeed. A long code is actually unhelpful anyway - neither the player nor the DM is likely to remember it well. A code of 4-6 items is probably about right, and coincidentally matching up with most of the codes used by published classes.

Personally, I would omit point 6 in your sequence (and just make "black marks" a binary condition), but I do understand why it's there.

Good luck!

 

[Grogg of the North]

For what it's worth, I was in a game where the player interested in playing a paladin sent the DM a 17 page document on what he thought it meant to be lawful good. Given that our bi-weekly game was the only free time the DM had, I don't think he ever made it through the paladin's code. Which made it interesting when the paladin did something that the entire group thought would be an alignment violation but he kept trying to justify it. "But on page 9, paragraph 7...!"

So, writing out a code and going over it won't always help. I have found that a gentle "Are you sure?" from the DM is enough to get most characters to reconsider.