Atonement ideas

[Elder-Basilisk]

I am more and more convinced that devotion to an alignment is necessary for the use of certain class abilities is just bad design.

If you don't balance a benefit with a role-playing hinderance... why have certain classes dependant on role-playing to get their powers? :\

I disagree. For a number of classes, dependency on role-playing is essential to their design. The paladin, cleric, monk, wizard, and druid are all examples of this. Among non-core classes, the archivist is another example of it. Whatever else a paladin may be, she is a champion of law and good and a smiter of evil through the power of righteousness. The paladin is not a smiter of evil through the her personal skill, discipline, and prowess. It is the paladin's holiness that makes her effective and her devotion that makes her deadly. If you remove the role-playing dependency of the paladin's powers, she is no longer a paladin. Now, her holiness and devotion have no relationship to her effectiveness. Similarly, a cleric is a mortal who serves as a conduit for his god's power. He may be the high priest of a wicked religion or a humble servant of a good god, but either way, the power is his deity's and not his own. If the power were not dependent upon role-played piety--if the cleric had no interaction with his god, then the class would not model what it is designed to model.

Since it's gods that seem to be at the root of the objection in a lot of cases, let's take another look at the wizard class. What if you wanted to play a wizard who wasn't into "book lernin'" and hated every moment he spent seeking knowledge with his head buried in a dusty tome? That wouldn't match the powers of a wizard very well, would it? In fact, you might say that a wizard's power depends upon a role-played affinity for books and learning. (Certainly, a wizard who role-plays an aversion to either thing is not going to be a very good one).

The point of so called role playing hinderances is not that they balance a character's mechanical power. The point of role-playing hinderances is that they define a character class and give them a role to play.

 

[LostSoul]

The point of so called role playing hinderances is not that they balance a character's mechanical power. The point of role-playing hinderances is that they define a character class and give them a role to play.

I'd much rather have the player bring whatever they want to the class, and decide for themselves exactly what they are playing. Is there a game-balance issue caused by playing a NE Paladin? I don't think so. So what's the problem?

If it's just flavour, your group should be able to figure that out for itself. It would avoid the "I don't like what that player did, so I'll gimp his PC using RAW" issue.

I see the Paladin as a set of mechanics. If you want to play him as a holy avenger, that's what he is. Make up your own mind about what is good and evil without having the DM tell you. If you think slaying orc babies is good, guess what, it is. That way you don't have to let the DM tell you how to play your character.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I would explain to the two most active characters the difference between CN and evil. If you don't want an evil party spell this out to them, again if neccassary. Ask them why their characters attcked the dragon, then ask why they as players did it. Make sure everyone is on the same page about what kind of game you are playing, or if not suggest those changes needed to get on the same page.

for the cleric, I would remove domain abilities and spells and remove acccess to spontaneous cures and maybe turning. As to an appropriate quest, I would say that the god gives the authority to grant atonement to... the dragon of course. So the first step is a resurection, spirit quest, or speak with dead situation, followed by whatever the dragon wants to make it up to him.

Oh yeah, and who cares if the cleric knew the dragon was sarcred to his god? If the party had killed and robbed a strange old man who happened to be a high preist of the god, you can bet punishment would be forthcoming. I have yet to encounter a god story whre ignorance of the law was any sort of excuse. He did something that was objectively wrong to begin with and it happened to also be personally wrong to a god wth the on/off switch to his powers handy. Suffer.