Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Egres 03-27-08, 09:52 AM	Here's the situation. The PCs are competing in a fantasy "Parigi-Dakar", a desert race without rules: everything is admitted, except teleporting and such. Some of the competitors are ruthless racers that would slain the PC anytime: some of them are not. The pcs think that they must win at all costs, cause the winner could ask anything to the local monarch, and they want to stop an incoming with their country. The wiz and the cleric of Heironeus are in the 2nd position and see a group of opponents approaching. The opponents are simply riding as fast as they can, but do not show any trace of hostility. The cleric casts Destruction on one of these opponents, killing him. So: should the cleric lose his powers? He says that he feels remorse for his opponent's death, but he doesn't repent, cause he's "ready to do it again in the future if a greater good needs a sacrifice", and that "at that time Destruction was his only available attack, and he didn't find another way to stop them". Can he atone without repenting?
Legdiwena 03-27-08, 10:10 AM	Why would he even lose powers in first place?
Egres 03-27-08, 10:15 AM	Why would he even lose powers in first place?Because he killed an innocent?
WhiteGuardsman 03-27-08, 10:22 AM	Why would he even lose powers in first place? This is why "Heironeous is the Oeridian god of Chivalry, Justice, Honor, War, Daring, and Valor." The fact the group wasn't acting in a threatening manner a cleric of Heironeous shouldn't attack with a offensive spell like that. I wouldn't have him lose his powers yet, but I would have another servant of Heironeous send him a message in some way that he understands. You could talk to him as a DM that he could end up losing his powers if he keeps it up, but I prefer the in game approach. He says that he feels remorse for his opponent's death, but he doesn't repent, cause he's "ready to do it again in the future if a greater good needs a sacrifice", and that "at that time Destruction was his only available attack, and he didn't find another way to stop them". The fact that he says this makes me question his choice of deity. A cleric of Heironeous would try to win the race honorably, and the fact the other riders did nothing to provoke said attack is definately wrong.
Shaggy_Shaggs 03-27-08, 10:26 AM	It sounds more like a screwup than murder, and making a mistake isn't reason to lose powers. He could throw a Destruction? That means he's at least 13th level, and at levels like that, whoever shoots first can kill you before you even get to act -- as the NPC found out. Now you said at the beginning that there were participants in this race that would kill the PCs anytime -- the approaching NPCs could very well have simply been pretending innocence until they got into range to unleash a lethal attack of their own. Pre-emptive defense is not generally a great idea, but if you know you're in a situation with people willing and able to kill you, it's natural to be a bit trigger-happy. Seems like the only problem here was reading a bluff where there wasn't one.
Cranewings 03-27-08, 10:27 AM	I guess it depends if the gawds respect the rules of the International Boxing Association of Middle Earth? If he was in a kick boxing match and totally kicked off someone's head with a sweet freekin' round house kick, he wouldn't lose his powers. The guy he killed did enter the race knowing that the most powerful people in the country would be riding in it. He should have protected himself. Now if his deity is displeased because the cleric has done a poor job of showing goodness and compassion, and is stripping him of his powers to make a point, then by all means do it. It is my opinion that the means justify the ends is NOT a good man's morals. A lawful evil, or neutral evil type person can still want the best for the country, and have no problem smashing people to bring it around. That is what this sounds like to me. I'd tell him that if he does it again, he will suffer an alignment shift, and he should lose his powers until the race is over and he atones. In my game, the party went with a noble to attack another country's monestary. Once inside, the marquis, for one reason or another, put all the monks and knights to death. Then he was going to hold the party for questioning, so they ran. The party priests, exhalted monk, and paladin all lost their powers on the premiss that they should have used their high wisdom stats to forsee this happening. Instead of fighting hard to get their deity's favor back, they just started turing to other gods. I don't have much of a problem with it. There will be fall out from it eventually.
Legdiwena 03-27-08, 10:29 AM	Sounds like he would be more suited to Hextor. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. He doesn't repent, therefore atonement wouldn't do anything for him.
Kursk 03-27-08, 10:30 AM	So: should the cleric lose his powers? He says that he feels remorse for his opponent's death, but he doesn't repent, cause he's "ready to do it again in the future if a greater good needs a sacrifice", and that "at that time Destruction was his only available attack, and he didn't find another way to stop them". Can he atone without repenting? Yes, he should loose his powers for an intentionally evil & chaotic action. No, he can't get them back unless he repents. Pretty simple.
Egres 03-27-08, 10:43 AM	Now you said at the beginning that there were participants in this race that would kill the PCs anytime But not the opponent he killed.
Egres 03-27-08, 10:48 AM	For an unknown reason I'm not able to edit my posts, and I can't see the new posts unless I reply. Bah. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. the problem is: he doesn't interpret "repent" as I do. He thinks that in order to repent you truly say to your self that you'll never do it again. And he will act in the same way again if a greater good asks demands so. I, on the other way, think that repenting means that you feel remorse for what you have done, and sincerely hope you'll never find yourself once again in such a horrible situation.
Shaggy_Shaggs 03-27-08, 10:52 AM	But not the opponent he killed. So the cleric loses his powers for being unable to read minds? Unless, of course, you told him specifically which opponents would be willing and able to kill him. Did you?
Kursk 03-27-08, 10:55 AM	So the cleric loses his powers for being unable to read minds? Unless, of course, you told him specifically which opponents would be willing and able to kill him. Did you? No, for murdering someone who showed no evil intentions towards him & his friends... :rolleyes:
Egres 03-27-08, 10:55 AM	So the cleric loses his powers for being unable to read minds? Unless, of course, you told him specifically which opponents would be willing and able to kill him. Did you? No. He losed his powers because he killed an innocent. If in dubt a good cleric should strike for first in your opinion?
Shaggy_Shaggs 03-27-08, 11:02 AM	If the good cleric has been led to believe there are people willing and able to eliminate him around, (and at these levels, quickly), and this good cleric is one of the only things standing between a lot of other people and their deaths and/or misery (just how big and bad is this invasion of their country that you mentioned?), then yes, a the good cleric should err on the side of not getting himself killed and indirectly allowing many other people to come to harm. If that means mistakenly killing someone that later turns out to be innocent, well, that's what Resurrection is for. Have you asked him if he'd be willing to provide it? It really sounds like you're just not giving enough credit to context of the action here. That tends to go with alignment traps. What, in your opinion, should this cleric have done to ensure his own safety and keep his powers?
Legdiwena 03-27-08, 11:06 AM	Repentanence means being sorry for the actions and strive to never do them again. This is not to say you might be weak and do it again, but you will do your damndest not to. Looked it up on Webster dictionary and he is partially correct. His view is one of the definitions, but I think it should be taken as all the definitions together. Repent. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repent) Clarify what your definition of repent is with him and go from there.
Dunsel 03-27-08, 11:43 AM	I would take away his domain spells and any special granted powers first. Tyhis includes diety granted weapons, etc. Make sure he knows they are gone/unusable. Heironeous would then test his follower with another racer. Or another similar situation if the race is over. If the cleric attacks this one w/o provocation, Heironeous is well within his rights to take away all granted spells and powers. A CLERIC of Heironeous has no reason, except bloodlust, to outright kill someone without the slightest hint of attack. A CLERIC of Heironeous should not have bloodlust. Reading minds has nothing to do with it. The OP has already stated "some" of the racers were dangerous. Players must use proper judgement instead of making knee-jerk decisions.
Dunsel 03-27-08, 11:45 AM	[QUOTE=Cranewings;15447227] In my game, the party went with a noble to attack another country's monestary. Once inside, the marquis, for one reason or another, put all the monks and knights to death. Then he was going to hold the party for questioning, so they ran. The party priests, exhalted monk, and paladin all lost their powers on the premiss that they should have used their high wisdom stats to forsee this happening. [QUOTE] I am confused, the monk, paladin, and priests all lost their powers b/c of something someone else did, and they should have known he was going to do it b/c of a high wisdom? Please tell me there were other circumstances involved, which were not in your post.
Cranewings 03-27-08, 12:40 PM	If you want to read about that game, go to the website posted on my signature, it is my game's blog. I think it is Game 6 - The city and the monestary. http://coldnorthdnd.livejournal.com/
Dunsel 03-27-08, 01:18 PM	thanks dude!
Cifer 03-27-08, 09:20 PM	I'm not quite sure the cleric should have to atone... the race was "without rules", meaning that everyone who entered it knew what to expect. In another game system we had a race a little like that in honor of a war deity somewhat comparable to Heironeous and it was entirely clear that should two chariots come into contact, the parties involved would most probably fight - possibly to the death if noone gave up or single blows caused too much damage. Regarding the question of repenting... please take a look at the Gray Guard class. It's pretty much built around the assumption that you don't have to swear "I'll try to not do it again if I ever come into the same situation".
J.B. 03-27-08, 09:56 PM	This looks rather silly, and seems to have a simple answer. It doesn't matter what HE thinks repentance is or that he SAYS he won't repent. What's important is that he actually does FEEL remorse (as needed for atonement). I think his god would cut him a break this one time, since it was a bad situation (having no other useful spell on hand) and considering what was at stake. I have a hard time seeing Heronious punishing one of his clerics for being in a situation that pressured him into the choice of having to kill one to save the lives of many.
Mock26 03-27-08, 11:58 PM	Because he killed an innocent? In a no rules type of a race there are no innocents. That person who was killed could have potentially killed the cleric.
Kuros81 03-28-08, 12:50 AM	Since you've decided he's done something wrong . . . I say let him atone with that attitude. But Heironeous is not completely satisfied. As a message, he can no longer memorize Destruction. Once he atones with feeling, he can get that back. If he tries another stunt like this, he starts losing all his powers.
Cranewings 03-28-08, 02:02 AM	Kuros makes a good point. This is my understanding: clerics need a high wisdom because people that are wise are more likely to be trusted with power by the deities sense the gawds CAN'T actually be everywhere at once. If this guy is getting into situations where he only has Destruction and no one else can do anything, he might need a siminar on kinder, gentler spell selections. If not, I'm sure there are other deities and alien intellegences that would love to snach him up.
Gurv 03-28-08, 03:52 AM	This is the oft-overlooked thing called a Neutral act. It certainly wasn't good, since it turned out to be an relatively innocent person who was killed. But there was no way to be sure. Had the cleric been right about the rider being evil, he might have been destroyed and an evil person might have done terrible things with the prize. All alignment issues are tricky. I think it all comes down to this. Your friend is not a cleric of Heironeus. His character is. Since the character is capable of casting Destruction spells, he is obviously an experinced cleric. So the question is, why didn't such an experinced cleric know that his action was at least a little bit questionable? Because the DM didn't tell the player that his character possessed this knowledge, that he knew killing a person who might be dangerous was not a good thing. Another thing. Why do gods allow such spells to work? They can deny the spells at any time. Why not have the Destruction spell fizzle?
Egres 03-28-08, 03:56 AM	That person who was killed could have potentially killed the cleric. Any person in an adventure could be a magically concealed assassin. Does this mean that a cleric can always strike first? Sorry but I don't buy that. I say let him atone with that attitude. But Heironeous is not completely satisfied. As a message, he can no longer memorize Destruction. Once he atones with feeling, he can get that back. If he tries another stunt like this, he starts losing all his powers. That's what I have done. but the player thinks that I'm acting this way only because I want him to play, and he feels he's making fun of his deity in this way. If this guy is getting into situations where he only has Destruction and no one else can do anything He wasn't alone: the wizard was with him.
Egres 03-28-08, 08:48 AM	why didn't such an experinced cleric know that his action was at least a little bit questionable? Because the DM didn't tell the player that his character possessed this knowledge, that he knew killing a person who might be dangerous was not a good thing. By your reasoning a DM should become a moral advisor, or something like a godlike Phylactery of Faithfulness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulne ss). Another thing. Why do gods allow such spells to work? They can deny the spells at any time. Why not have the Destruction spell fizzle? By your reasoning the gods could prevent anything wrong relating to their cleric: then we could start to wonder why the gods don't give them the right spell for the day, since gods know the dangers awaiting the cleric in the city, and so on. Bye bye libero arbitrio.
WhiteGuardsman 03-28-08, 10:20 AM	In a no rules type of a race there are no innocents. That person who was killed could have potentially killed the cleric. I don't believe that could have would cut it with a diety like Heironeous. Just because there were no rules in the race a cleric of Heironeous wouldn't go all nuts and kill everything that MIGHT be a danger during it. If this cleric was in a lawless land or ruled by a evil tyrant would he kill all the people he sees as potential threats? I do not think Heironeous would look kindly down a servant of his for this. As I said before this priest may want to rethink his choice of diety.
Cranewings 03-28-08, 11:12 AM	Another thing. Why do gods allow such spells to work? They can deny the spells at any time. Why not have the Destruction spell fizzle? If they had the power to be everywhere at once, watching everything, then they wouldn't give spells based on wisdom, but on good intentions. The point of the high wisdom is that the gods can trust the person that they will do the right thing with the power.
Cranewings 03-28-08, 11:14 AM	In my games, I'll strip a cleric of his powers in a heart beat for general misconduct and unwise behavior. He doesn't have to break one of the 10 commandments or suffer an alignment change. I think that the normal way clerics lose their powers were written so that 8 year olds could understand how to play dungeons and dragons. I think the real way of handling cleric powers can be a whole lot more difficult than that.
MrCustomer 03-28-08, 11:15 AM	The rules of the race allow violence and attacking your opponents, it's legal, accepted and commonplace. The race is dangerous and extremely risky, some might not use violence but this is just as likely because they aren't skilled in combat or that doing so would ultimately slow them down to stop to fight. The participants know this very well and are prepared to take those risks. In short the race is just as much a battle as it is a race. Heronious is also a god of war, and war is one of his domains. War is brutal and very much akin to this sort of race. That said, killing isn't the most valorous or even honorable way to win the race. However as pointed out by the Cleric, it was his only real option available. It was a valid attack, and though it wasn't exactly honorable, neither was it dishonorable, as both opponents agreed by the rules that attacking was a valid option. Being that being attacked, physically or by magical or divine spells is a valid, legal option, then the opponent must be ready and prepared for such attacks. The reverse of this is, you are asking the Cleric to condemn thousands of people because he's too squimish to make a valid attack. Given that choice the cleric shouldn't be punished. Such situations are rare and it's not like he planned on killing others in the race, just that the situation left him with little choice.
Cranewings 03-28-08, 11:20 AM	Mr. Customer, it depends on the god. In my game, I would. The gods don't wonder if there is an afterlife, they know. Sense they know, people aren't lost to death, but released by it. Maybe a god of valor would perfer to see 10,000 people travel on, than for just one of his priests to act dishonorably.
Yami 03-28-08, 11:58 AM	Mr. Customer, it depends on the god. In my game, I would. The gods don't wonder if there is an afterlife, they know. Sense they know, people aren't lost to death, but released by it. Maybe a god of valor would perfer to see 10,000 people travel on, than for just one of his priests to act dishonorably. If that is the way Heironeous would judge this situation, a high level cleric would, you would think, be aware of it. That's a very...well...in my opinion, that's an unusual way to judge the morality of an action. In my opinion, a good god would view someone who sullied their own perfect reputation to save others to be more "good" than someone that would rather allow others to suffer horrible consequences so they can proclaim their own perfection. If the DM would rather the player interpret his gods desires and wants in Cranewings' manner, I would at least urge the DM to explain this philosophy up front, before character choices are solidified - just like you should with paladins. If the player was aware of their character's god's opinions on this manner, and knew that he would face the need to atone - but sacrificed his own power for the greater good - then good enough. The player made an informed decision. The efficacy of atonement issue also comes down to how the DM adjudicates good alignment, though. If he believes preemptive attacks are always wrong - first of all, good will always lose, because good is stupid. when you're in high level play, that one attack you take to be sure the evil is evil will often be the only attack of the battle. The player must accept that he should rather die than sully his perfect goodness in order for him to be able to atone successfully. If the DM allows judgement to enter into the picture (I'm in a dangerous situation, countless lives hang in the balance, and my fellow competitors have shown both a willingness and inclination to attack without warning), then the player just needs to memorize non-immediately lethal control spells in addition to destruction in an attempt to avoid the all or nothing situation he found himself in as much as possible.
Cranewings 03-28-08, 12:47 PM	Yami, I'll second that.
Kuros81 03-28-08, 01:28 PM	That's what I have done. but the player thinks that I'm acting this way only because I want him to play, and he feels he's making fun of his deity in this way. I'm sorry, I don't understand what this sentence means.
Egres 03-28-08, 07:08 PM	The rules of the race allow violence and attacking your opponents, it's legal, accepted and commonplace. The race is dangerous and extremely risky, some might not use violence but this is just as likely because they aren't skilled in combat or that doing so would ultimately slow them down to stop to fight. The participants know this very well and are prepared to take those risks. Let me quote WhiteGuardsman: Just because there were no rules in the race a cleric of Heironeous wouldn't go all nuts and kill everything that MIGHT be a danger during it. If this cleric was in a lawless land or ruled by a evil tyrant would he kill all the people he sees as potential threats? I do not think Heironeous would look kindly down a servant of his for this. The reverse of this is, you are asking the Cleric to condemn thousands of people because he's too squimish to make a valid attack. Given that choice the cleric shouldn't be punished. Such situations are rare and it's not like he planned on killing others in the race, just that the situation left him with little choice. So you think that Heironeus is a "the ends justify the means" like god? In my opinion, a good god would view someone who sullied their own perfect reputation to save others to be more "good" than someone that would rather allow others to suffer horrible consequences so they can proclaim their own perfection. So a good god could accept the sacrifice of innocent people for a "greater good"? I'm sorry, I don't understand what this sentence means. Sorry, my bad: 4 years on these boards and my English didn't improve a little bit. Anyway, what I was trying to say is: I, as the DM, accept his remorse as "repenting", cause I interpret that term in a different way. On the other side the player thinks that I'm interpreting the term in this way only to allow him to still serve Heironeus, and thinks that this isn't a true repenting.
Shaggy_Shaggs 03-28-08, 07:42 PM	Maybe your player is tired of playing a cleric in a game with alignment traps, wants to lose his powers as a way of getting himself killed so he can bring in a better character without directly committing suicide. I mean this is pretty clearly an alignment trap. The cleric was just as much sacrificing innocents here, as he would be by letting his country come to ruin for not having the grit to ensure he's not the victim of a lethal sucker punch when everyone's depending on his results. I wouldn't want to play a cleric in this game either. In fact this game sounds like a pretty good setting to try out a diviner wizard I've been thinking about for awhile... he wants to take over the world, then destroy it and escape to a private demiplane. Seems like it'd be pretty easy if the good guys are too busy putting up with the fallout from their deities' sick senses of humour.
Kuros81 03-28-08, 08:47 PM	Maybe your player is tired of playing a cleric in a game with alignment traps, wants to lose his powers as a way of getting himself killed so he can bring in a better character without directly committing suicide. I mean this is pretty clearly an alignment trap. The cleric was just as much sacrificing innocents here, as he would be by letting his country come to ruin for not having the grit to ensure he's not the victim of a lethal sucker punch when everyone's depending on his results. I wouldn't want to play a cleric in this game either. In fact this game sounds like a pretty good setting to try out a diviner wizard I've been thinking about for awhile... he wants to take over the world, then destroy it and escape to a private demiplane. Seems like it'd be pretty easy if the good guys are too busy putting up with the fallout from their deities' sick senses of humour. How is it an alignment trap? Clerics, druids, and paladins are powerful characters, but they can't do whatever they want.
Shaggy_Shaggs 03-28-08, 09:24 PM	It's an alignment trap because regardless of what he'd done there, he was demonstrating willingness to "accept the sacrifice of innocent people" -- either the masses back home that were depending on him to prevent this incursion into their country, or participants in a death race that may not have been as murderous as the others. In that particular situation he didn't have any option that could not later be used to justify taking his cleric powers away and requiring an atonement.
Kuros81 03-28-08, 10:37 PM	It's an alignment trap because regardless of what he'd done there, he was demonstrating willingness to "accept the sacrifice of innocent people" -- either the masses back home that were depending on him to prevent this incursion into their country, or participants in a death race that may not have been as murderous as the others. In that particular situation he didn't have any option that could not later be used to justify taking his cleric powers away and requiring an atonement. Hold person. (I know he didn't have it memorized at the time, but can that really be construed as a trap?) Readied action Destruction in case of an obvious threat. Anyway, while it might have been a tough situation, to establish an "alignment trap" the DM needs to have bad faith. I don't see that here.
Egres 03-29-08, 06:06 AM	regardless of what he'd done there, he was demonstrating willingness to "accept the sacrifice of innocent people" -- either the masses back home that were depending on him to prevent this incursion into their country, or participants in a death race that may not have been as murderous as the others. In that particular situation he didn't have any option that could not later be used to justify taking his cleric powers away and requiring an atonement. That's patently false. The gods require to you try your best, not to succeed. But you must try with honor, not succeed with shame.
Rood_Inverse 03-29-08, 01:06 PM	Anyway, what I was trying to say is: I, as the DM, accept his remorse as "repenting", cause I interpret that term in a different way. On the other side the player thinks that I'm interpreting the term in this way only to allow him to still serve Heironeus, and thinks that this isn't a true repenting. Even if the god forgives him, legitimately... Maybe he won't grant the spells because the cleric still has a crisis of conscience. You don't give a gun to someone who will hesitate to use it, or end up using it wrong. You're trusting that person with your safety and your life. I don't think a god is going to hand a cleric a loaded gun if the cleric is unsure of how to use his powers properly. Until he has faith in himself that knows what is just and right in his god's eyes, let him be unable to cast spells. It's not that the god doesn't believe in the cleric... It's just very hard to support a cleric who doesn't believe in himself. Maybe some downtime for "retraining" in seminary? Give him another character for a few sessions?
Cifer 03-29-08, 07:51 PM	That's patently false. The gods require to you try your best, not to succeed. But you must try with honor, not succeed with shame. Please explain again in which way the character acted without honor when the race conditions explicitly allowed fighting and killing others.
Rood_Inverse 03-30-08, 03:22 AM	Please explain again in which way the character acted without honor when the race conditions explicitly allowed fighting and killing others. Honor is a generally a self-defined code of behavior, unless you're part of an alignment based organization like paladins or clerics, where such behaviors and attitudes are set out in your god's portfolio? Honor is not just about, "Did I follow the rules?" and leaving it at that...
Egres 03-30-08, 05:57 AM	Please explain again in which way the character acted without honor when the race conditions explicitly allowed fighting and killing others. The act wasnt only dishonorabel, it was also evil. The fact that the race had no rules doesn't mean the cleric hasn't his own rules to follow. Let me quote Whiteguardsman again: Just because there were no rules in the race a cleric of Heironeous wouldn't go all nuts and kill everything that MIGHT be a danger during it. If this cleric was in a lawless land or ruled by a evil tyrant would he kill all the people he sees as potential threats? I do not think Heironeous would look kindly down a servant of his for this.
Gurv 03-30-08, 06:24 AM	The fact that the race had no rules doesn't mean the cleric hasn't his own rules to follow. Exactly. If this cleric went to a city where murder was legal, that wouldn't make it okay for him to do it. It would still be an evil act. You could claim that since the people who live there know they they can be murdered at any time and are free to go elsewhere then it isn't an evil act to do it...but I don't think that would be true. It would certainly be a lawful act.
Timlagor 03-30-08, 12:01 PM	I agree with the player: if he'd do it again then he most definitely has not repented. If you've already decided that repentence is nceessary (and with that god I'd agree that it is) then if it reaches the level of requiring an Atonement, he' in trouble. I'd remove some/all of his powers and then have NPCs come to him to try to show him how he should have acted and why. There's lots of material for good roleplaying there and if the character remains unrepentant then he can look for another God or live with not being a Cleric.
Legdiwena 03-30-08, 01:43 PM	Time to break out Ur-Priest