Okay, so hypothetically speaking, if I were going to allow Paladins more leeway to commit minor evil-ish deeds, and then atone for them, how might they go about it?
Some stuff to consider might include that if a paladin can atone multiple times, it's gonna suck for him to have the same quest each time, in which case atonement might involve some sort of game mechanic, such as donating money or performing so many good deeds in a certain time.
somehow i tangented, somewhat in this direction, in another thread. (astonishing, i know.)
but to bring it here where it's all entitled and everything:
for hopefully my last time (since i reckon i've ranted sufficiently on paladins, to be associated with a certain realm of opinion
), i attest in strong support the notion (or rather, canon) that deliberate/willful evil causes an irrevocable fall, and other code violations allow for penitence. i fully support the threshold you've mentioned previously, no single loss of more than 2 is acceptable and so on. (but i don't think there should be a limit on the number of times one takes a virtue hit, just the aforementioned, and to maintain an absolute minimum of 16 or so.
as for recovery when possible:
i thought another method might be to simply allow a timely virtue-gain, through any 'remaining' quest(s), to bring the paladin back up to grace*. i kind of like the idea because, if you avoid the temptation of judging that it induces metagaming (i.e. "i have to make sure i save a couple of the virtue-boosting quests a) in preparation for the hit i plan to take or b) in case i accidentally take a hit"), i think it's quite plausible - it's not The Universe's job to provide an immediate repair opportunity just because the poor little paladin needs their divine gifts back... you have to go out and find the Good-to-be-Done.
this idea would still need a bit of tuning, of course: what's a reasonable time limit? (does the time limit get shorter every [hypothetical] additional time atonement is called for?) and if the virtue loss was 2 points, is a 1-point gain enough atonement? (seeing as how there are precious few virtue-plusses)
*for that matter, i think there should be a timer on the already-extant windspear-atonement deal if there isn't already. especially/at least if the party leaves the region before rescuing garren's child.
another notion - whether it be for 'one more' available atonement-track, or just a way to give the more 'sensitive' (as in, less code-serious
) paladin-players a "lower-hassle" means of restoring their powers - i don't think the temples of ilmater get nearly enough usage (yoshimo's deal goes a long way, but look at how busy all of the other temples can keep you, in comparison). either a new little quest added on (which i'll devote at least a few hours to brainstorming, if the basic idea is worthy of someone else's hard work) exclusively for atonement, or just a whopping donation (a flat fraction of party gold - 1/3 or 1/2, i'd say, but minimum 10k, and even that's a bit low if you ask me - just thinking it's more feasible for the hapless paladin who falls before even getting around to saving up cash for the shadow thieves**).
to put the spending in perspective, even apart from the "bad form to send the message that you can buy virtue back" argument: another aspect of the
original class was that 10% of all treasure the paladin earned/won/'liberated'/etc. went straight to the church. and rather than implement that dunning, a monetary [portion of] atonement should simply reinforce the importance (to the code) of the sacrifice of material wealth, or at least the unimportance of gold in the face of disgrace. it should be a stiff fine so it can't be an easy/casual decision.
OR a fairly big donation to [the order or any church besides talos']
on top of any of the above quest-logistics...
AND/OR remuneration adjustment - if it's done only with money, actual virtue loss is not recovered, it just reverses the fall.
also possible?: for old-school flavor, require a chat with a good priest after fulfilling the requirement(s), for the official Casting of the Atonement Spell, for the actual moment of powers-being-restored.
**and maybe keldorn (and/or
sir anomen, mazzy) could insist or strongly suggest that the "questionable" payment to the shadow thieves should be matched by an equal payment to the order or a temple; or they could argue that, and if the pal. is an undead hunter, gaelan or someone else might throw early extra incentive out there, saying the funds actually go towards fighting this horrific vampiric threat, etc. etc. so maybe an undead hunter wouldn't be under [any/so much] pressure to make a 'matching gift' elsewhere.
as a balance (if it's UH-specific instead of applicable to all paladins), cavaliers could be less/not penalized for going nuts on saladrex;
inquisitors could, hmmm... get a better shot at the cowlies, maybe haul tolgerias in for conspiracy against a noble scion? wait, that's beyond scope. damn. somebody snap it up anyway!
hmmm...
i know! inquisitors could turn in 'naughty magic' (anything with evil connections, e.g. i'd include the robe of vecna even though it's not limited to an evil wearer, maybe vhailor's skull too, ring of gaxx and so on, maybe creepy scrolls like banshee, energy drain, horrid wilting, certainly cacodemon & gate & such) at higher-than-standard sale value for part/all of their payment.
and the true class <tm> could have a slightly lower (5-10%) fine and/or slightly longer time limit? i dunno...
Topic: Atonement (Read 11445 times)
