"Overzealous" Inquisitor issues in my RoW campaign


Reign of Winter

Horizon Hunters

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

This is probably more of an "Advice" thread, but given it's taking place in my RoW game, I thought I would start here...

I have a Player running a NG Inquisitor that follows Ragathiel (a LG Empyreal Lord - see Chronicle of the Righteous). Ragathiel's portfolio includes Chivalry, Duty, and Vengeance. The PC Inquisitor is basically a "Monster Hunter" per his back-story, and practices the Vengeance portion of the dogma more than any other...

So, we began play about 2 months ago and in every session the Inquisitor has tortured and or interrogated captured enemies. This includes holding the Winter-Touched Fey over a campfire, plucking off their wings, and "feeding" one to the group's Barbarian (ok he didn't feed it to him, but he gave the Barbarian the burnt body knowing he was going to eat it).

With Rohkar, he interrogated and then executed the guy. It was a clean and "honorable" death, unlike the others so no harm no foul.

Finally, during yesterday's session, after Jairess was knocked unconscious and bound in the aerie, he began interrogating her once she awoke. It went a little something like this... "Tell us all you know about Nazhena and Radosek's plans and I'll let you go free." To wit she conveyed everything she knew (which wasn't anything the PCs didn't already know). At that point, the Inquisitor asks the still bound NPC why, if she isn't Evil, would she help the Pale Tower occupants? Basically her response was something to this affect "I recon the surrounding area and report to the powers that be. It's a job, and as long as I get to work with my birds, I'm happy." Well, that wasn't good enough for the Inquisitor. He then began to berate her for not following the tenets of Gozreh and that she should not serve those that would try to control the planet's climate. At this point Jairess (CN Cleric of Gozreh) makes her Religion check to recognize the PC's Holy Symbol. Succeeding she retorts rather vehemently "How dare you presume to tell me about my God's tenets!! You! A pathetic CULT FOLLOWER of all people! I have done what you asked, cut my bonds or kill me now, but I will not be reprimanded by one such as you!"

So, the Inquisitor smashes her kneecap (coup d'grace style), breaking it and cuts her free. He sends her off limping into the wilderness with no cold weather gear or supplies. Effectively a death sentence...

My response as GM, and due to the other Players concerns that perhaps the Inquisitor is "over-doing" it, was to "warn" him with a shift from NG to CG. I didn't realize that this would prevent him from following Ragathiel (followers can't be CG), so he was pissed. Realizing that was more harsh then I intended, I told him that his alignment would not shift this time, but that this is a warning and that further behavior like this would result in an alignment shift. He stewed for a bit, but eventually conceded, stating that "Well, I need to know what is and isn't acceptable."

So, was I wrong? I think that sort of bloodthirsty, barbaric, and cruel behavior warranted a reprimand. He touts "Inquisitors skirt the edge of right and wrong". My argument was that his deity is LG, and specifically prohibits Chaotic behavior (all the more reason for the reprimand). And though he conceded, he did add "You're the GM, I don't agree, but whatever..."

What do you guys think? Am I being too harsh? Is he too overzealous? Or are we both a little off the mark?


I don't have the book, but I don't see how Chivalry and Vengeance mesh together. If he promised to release her, and then goes, "HA HA didn't say with intact kneecaps," I think you were within your rights to implement an alignment change.


Torture? Betrayal of oaths? Wanton cruelty?

1) that is not good-aligned behaviour
2) you waited too long before calling him on it
3) you have a player problem, so handling this in-game won't work
3a) sounds like an immature player
4) if he's going the Jack Bauer route, let him just admit he wants a LE character

Horizon Hunters

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
darkwarriorkarg wrote:


2) you waited too long before calling him on it

You're right.

Although he did "lighten up" with Rohkar, so I was hopeful I wouldn't have to call him on it. Also, I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt, given they were evil and had tried to murder the PCs. When he kneecapped Jairess though, that was the straw.

Thanks for your input.

Liberty's Edge

I probably would have warned and then slapped him with an alignment change long before, though it probably wouldn't have been to chaotic good. . .

Horizon Hunters

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Devastation Bob wrote:
I don't have the book, but I don't see how Chivalry and Vengeance mesh together. If he promised to release her, and then goes, "HA HA didn't say with intact kneecaps," I think you were within your rights to implement an alignment change.

Ragthiel's tainted heritage is to blame for the odd Portfolio, I assume. The write-up in Chronicle of the Righteous does say how he was at odds with his parentage and struggles with it ("Ragathiel's tainted heritage has left him with a wrathful heart, and the angel struggles constantly to

master his baser impulses in service to the light"). But I don't think this is enough to condone wanton cruelty to a captured/surrendered enemy. Being that he is not a Paladin, I'm ok giving a little wiggle room, but this seems over the top to me.

Horizon Hunters

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
ShadowcatX wrote:
I probably would have warned and then slapped him with an alignment change long before, though it probably wouldn't have been to chaotic good. . .

I agree, I should have addressed it sooner. My reasons for not doing so are varied, but suffice to say they were in the interest of having fun and I was hopeful that some of the In Character play of the other PCs would have sufficed. It didn't, and now I realize I should have corrected this immediately.

Hindsight and what-not..


Don't go with alignment change. Go with loss of spells until Atonement. Or even just for 24 hours as a warning. And nightmares of losing his Divinity's good will.

Shadow Lodge

The character's behavior encompasses more an evil alignment than a chaotic one. Inquisitors may skirt the edge of right and wrong but followers of Ragathiel seem to be a little more black and white.

If I was role-playing this internal struggle, then I as the player would have discussed with the GM that my character is going to be shifting between these two aspects and thus losing abilities and regaining them (if such is allowed through atonement). I think this characterization angle would be pretty cool at the right table. If however, the player is just doing this for a triple deluxe cheese pizza with stuffed crust worth of goodies, then you most likely need to discuss the direction of the character with the player.

Cruelty is most certainly not what Ragathiel's lord of and so I think you need to address this first. If an act of vengeance of the character can be viewed as cruel (such as pulling wings off a sprite, burning them alive, etc.) then the player should expect their character to lose some of those obedience goodies.

I think as long as you clearly separate player from character when discussing this type of thing, you should be able to resolve it to everyone's satisfaction.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Horizon Hunters

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

It seems pretty unanimous here, and it was actually the player's idea for me to "put it to the boards".

I'm satisfied that my initial reaction to warn him was the right one. How I did so, maybe not so much.

I'm going with the temporary loss of spells/judgements first as a future caution sign, and then on to permanent loss/alignment shift until atonement thereafter.

Thanks for all the input!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll just chime in with my belated 2 cp ...

Vengeance in Ragathiel's case is not a long, drawn-out process. It is "slay the confirmed evil-doer" quickly, then continue on to other things.

Torture does not - under any circumstances whatsoever - fall under Good alignment, nor does wanton cruelty, etc.

Debatably, a character could use Bluff and/or Intimidate to make the NPC _think_ that torture is about to occur. Then it would be an opposed skill check vs. the NPC's Sense Motive, etc.

With regard to the case in point, the first time that it was obvious that the character was intending to use torture, I would have warned the player that his character would suffer an alignment change if he actually did it. If he followed through with the torture, then he would have been slapped with a LE alignment.

And if he trots out the "Inquisitors skirt the edge of right and wrong" argument, I would answer that that only applies to their cult's/church's normal rules and conventions. They still have to answer to their divine patron. The "extreme measures" that a LG Inquisitor of a LG deity/empyreal lord is allowed to take do not include torture and wanton cruelty. They could allow - when necessary - espionage, theft, lying/bluffing, and possibly the odd surgical strike assassination.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It might work well in an in-game moment to have a sort of dream sequence for him (assuming your other players don't mind him getting a big 'ol spotlight for a bit).

Have him dream of Ragathiel, one of his servants, a ball of light, or just an old man. Get him to justify his actions in character while you as GM and his god/dream urge him to follow an honorable path. This would be a good start to RP'ing the war between light and dark in himself which mirror's Ragathiel's own fight. If he reigns it in a bit he'll have a good excuse to go all kinds of wrath of heaven and hell in the clocktower where some nasty sh*t has gone down thus providing good glimpses of both (potential) sides of the character.

If the character just does vengeance, vengeance, vengeance all day long it's going to be one dimensional and predictably tiresome. He needs the internal struggle for depth and since internal struggles are not always easy to RP, projecting that struggle with honorable behavior until he snaps should be a fun experience for everyone.


have him switch to Lawful Neutral with a solid warning that he is drifting into Zon-Kuthon and hence Lawful Evil. i never allow players to torture in my games, evil or not.

my question to others is: do other GMs allow torturing of enemies? seems like that might say something is psychologically wrong with the player if the default to torture methods (but then again i always hated 24 and other shows like it)

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

have him switch to Lawful Neutral with a solid warning that he is drifting into Zon-Kuthon and hence Lawful Evil. i never allow players to torture in my games, evil or not.

my question to others is: do other GMs allow torturing of enemies? seems like that might say something is psychologically wrong with the player if the default to torture methods (but then again i always hated 24 and other shows like it)

"Look, I just don't think Jack Bauer is the character you should be looking to for an example of how Good is supposed to work. I'm sorry dude, but if he goes down that path, he's looking at LN at best."

"Ah well."

"Okay, Steve, what about your character?"

"He's an inquisitor of Iomedae inspired by Dexter Morgan!"

">:("


captain yesterday wrote:

have him switch to Lawful Neutral with a solid warning that he is drifting into Zon-Kuthon and hence Lawful Evil. i never allow players to torture in my games, evil or not.

my question to others is: do other GMs allow torturing of enemies? seems like that might say something is psychologically wrong with the player if the default to torture methods (but then again i always hated 24 and other shows like it)

Yes.

My issues with those shows is that they don't show the consequesces. Heck, DEXTER has more consequences to his actions than Jack Bauer.

There may be an issue with a player if he/she does this constantly or insists on RP it. Such as the issue the OP brought forth.

If you want to play a cleric of Zon-Kuthon (The Perky Goth from Crimson throne, for instance), go right ahead. But we're certainly NOT delving deeply into details.

I would go for an Addams-family-esque routine or the mostly played for laughs Mayuri from Bleach. Neithe rof which shows anything.


darkwarriorkarg wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

have him switch to Lawful Neutral with a solid warning that he is drifting into Zon-Kuthon and hence Lawful Evil. i never allow players to torture in my games, evil or not.

my question to others is: do other GMs allow torturing of enemies? seems like that might say something is psychologically wrong with the player if the default to torture methods (but then again i always hated 24 and other shows like it)

Yes.

My issues with those shows is that they don't show the consequesces. Heck, DEXTER has more consequences to his actions than Jack Bauer.

There may be an issue with a player if he/she does this constantly or insists on RP it. Such as the issue the OP brought forth.

If you want to play a cleric of Zon-Kuthon (The Perky Goth from Crimson throne, for instance), go right ahead. But we're certainly NOT delving deeply into details.

I would go for an Addams-family-esque routine or the mostly played for laughs Mayuri from Bleach. Neithe rof which shows anything.

Dexter was actually in the hunt for our sons name but every time i brought it up everyone was like "oh, like the show?" i've never had cable so i had no idea what they were talking about. so i googled it, needless to say his name is nowhere near Dexter:)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I kind of wonder how the rest of the party is composed. Seems that the Inquisitor is the only guy who is good or the other players are too timid to speak up to the guy.

Horizon Hunters

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
I kind of wonder how the rest of the party is composed. Seems that the Inquisitor is the only guy who is good or the other players are too timid to speak up to the guy.

You would think.

Actually, the CN Barbarian is getting more grief for his obnoxious attitude toward women, which while obnoxious, does fall in line with his alignment and culture/background story.

I do run a difficult group of players to be sure, knew it going in. Lots of egos to contend with.

But to answer the question about party composition,
"NG" Inquisitor
"CN" Barbarian
CG Magus
CG Wizard(spellslinger)/Gunslinger.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, I'm noticing that you have some problems on your hand. What are the two CG guys doing while the Inquisitor is breaking kneecaps? Torture is simply against any good alignment after all.

Horizon Hunters

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Yeah, I'm noticing that you have some problems on your hand. What are the two CG guys doing while the Inquisitor is breaking kneecaps? Torture is simply against any good alignment after all.

The two CG PCs are the ones who said it was going too far with the Inquisitor originally. Again, I take full responsibility for not addressing or correcting this sooner.

The Player running the Inquisitor has conceded (though he still doesn't agree with the torture = evil) and agreed to alter his character's behavior rather than risk losing any spells/judgements and having to atone. But he has now deflected the spotlight onto the Player of the Barbarian... forcing me to wag the finger at what I see as "appropriate" CN behavior. Though that doesn't mean other Players will appreciate it (the behavior).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah... I might suggest finding another player in the future.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
closetgamer wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Yeah, I'm noticing that you have some problems on your hand. What are the two CG guys doing while the Inquisitor is breaking kneecaps? Torture is simply against any good alignment after all.

The two CG PCs are the ones who said it was going too far with the Inquisitor originally. Again, I take full responsibility for not addressing or correcting this sooner.

The Player running the Inquisitor has conceded (though he still doesn't agree with the torture = evil) and agreed to alter his character's behavior rather than risk losing any spells/judgements and having to atone. But he has now deflected the spotlight onto the Player of the Barbarian... forcing me to wag the finger at what I see as "appropriate" CN behavior. Though that doesn't mean other Players will appreciate it (the behavior).

I'd encourage the player to take in-character grievances into the game, instead of making an issue out of them out of game. If the misogyny of the barbarian rubs the other characters wrong, they can certainly talk it out in-character.

Now, as to the insistence of the inquisitor player that torture can be construed as good, you can easily find multiple official sources which corroborate that good characters do not torture ( although there is some older, meaning second edition old, stuff which kinda muddies the waters. R.A. Salvatore did the Clerics Quintet series no favor, IMO, when he introduced the "good cleric torturing a demon for information" concept. But I digress ).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Herremann the Wise wrote:
The character's behavior encompasses more an evil alignment than a chaotic one.

This.

Cruelty doesn't imply chaos unless there's actual rule-breaking going on.

It certainly implies evil.


magnuskn wrote:
closetgamer wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Yeah, I'm noticing that you have some problems on your hand. What are the two CG guys doing while the Inquisitor is breaking kneecaps? Torture is simply against any good alignment after all.

The two CG PCs are the ones who said it was going too far with the Inquisitor originally. Again, I take full responsibility for not addressing or correcting this sooner.

The Player running the Inquisitor has conceded (though he still doesn't agree with the torture = evil) and agreed to alter his character's behavior rather than risk losing any spells/judgements and having to atone. But he has now deflected the spotlight onto the Player of the Barbarian... forcing me to wag the finger at what I see as "appropriate" CN behavior. Though that doesn't mean other Players will appreciate it (the behavior).

I'd encourage the player to take in-character grievances into the game, instead of making an issue out of them out of game. If the misogyny of the barbarian rubs the other characters wrong, they can certainly talk it out in-character.

Now, as to the insistence of the inquisitor player that torture can be construed as good, you can easily find multiple official sources which corroborate that good characters do not torture ( although there is some older, meaning second edition old, stuff which kinda muddies the waters. R.A. Salvatore did the Clerics Quintet series no favor, IMO, when he introduced the "good cleric torturing a demon for information" concept. But I digress ).

i was not a fan of anything salvatore did with Cadderly, especially The Ghost King (the last salvatore book i'll ever read, unless its to re-read the books before them, of which Servant of the Shard is my all time favorite salvatore book, other then the Crystal Shard and Streams of Silver, mostly love bruenor:) and artemis entreri)

Dark Archive

closetgamer wrote:


The Player running the Inquisitor has conceded (though he still doesn't agree with the torture = evil)

I find that genuinely disturbing. Like in-real-life actually distressing.

I suggest that the player research torture. He might also want to consider reading about moral and ethical systems in the western world.

The short story is that torture in real life rarely works very well and although some ethical systems, Mill's utilitarianism for example, might support doing some seriously wrong stuff in order to save a lot of people, if the seriously wrong stuff is unlikely to work very well it can't be morally supported.


not to sound harsh, but maybe if HE had been water boarded or his knee caps smashed or any number of tortures he wouldn't think it was alright. i have to agree with the dragon, torture is evil in a game and especially in real life. with how good he is at deflecting scorn from himself to the barbarian perhaps a career in politics is in his future:)

i forget the exact name of the episode but Always Sunny in Philadelphia did a GREAT episode about how water boarding and other torture never works, where Frank (Danny DeVito) goes around water boarding everyone to get information and they just tell him what he wants to hear and ends up bugging a complete strangers apartment because he thinks its someone else's apartment. Robot Chicken also did a skit where a nerdy kid looking for cheat codes for middle earth online or something and accidentally finds some government codes so the feds water board him until he confesses that Mordor is in Pakistan. both great examples of how torture only gets you what you want to hear not any actual facts or intelligence.

Horizon Hunters

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I don't think it's his actual ideological stance, especially in real life. I think he is just stuck in his WH40k/Dark Heresy mentality of what an Inquisitor should be.

That, and he wants his cake and eat it too...

I appreciate all the input.

The issue has been put to rest for now and I don't foresee it being a huge problem in the future. He just had a knee-jerk "Why's everybody always pickin' on me" moment I think. I believe things will get back on track when we play again tonight.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
closetgamer wrote:
I don't think it's his actual ideological stance, especially in real life. I think he is just stuck in his WH40k/Dark Heresy mentality of what an Inquisitor should be.

Well, then that's dumb too. I don't recall Gideon Ravenor or Gregor Eisenhorn torturing many people.

Those were some kickin' Inquisitors. Your player sounds like a radical Inquisitor two steps away from getting a Grey Knight's glaive shoved up his @$$.


Well, since you've dealt with this: best of luck with getting him back on the good track.

I'll add my thoughts anyway, though, since I like posting.

It sounds like he basically maimed a cooperating, non-evil NPC and condemned her to a slow death by freezing or starvation... because she said something he thought was uppity. I would consider such behavior to be radically incompatible with maintaining a good alignment.


YuenglingDragon wrote:
closetgamer wrote:
I don't think it's his actual ideological stance, especially in real life. I think he is just stuck in his WH40k/Dark Heresy mentality of what an Inquisitor should be.

Well, then that's dumb too. I don't recall Gideon Ravenor or Gregor Eisenhorn torturing many people.

Those were some kickin' Inquisitors. Your player sounds like a radical Inquisitor two steps away from getting a Grey Knight's glaive shoved up his @$$.

maybe thats his kink;)

Dark Archive

captain yesterday wrote:
YuenglingDragon wrote:
Your player sounds like a radical Inquisitor two steps away from getting a Grey Knight's glaive shoved up his @$$.
maybe thats his kink;)

Hah! Takes all kinds, man. Takes all kinds.

Scarab Sages

closetgamer wrote:
So, was I wrong? I think that sort of bloodthirsty, barbaric, and cruel behavior warranted a reprimand. He touts "Inquisitors skirt the edge of right and wrong". My argument was that his deity is LG, and specifically prohibits Chaotic behavior (all the more reason for the reprimand). And though he conceded, he did add "You're the GM, I don't agree, but whatever..."

It sounds like the two of you have managed to stay friends over this, which means you're doing something right.

Maybe you should have spoken to him sooner, but there's no sense beating yourself up about that.

If he is able to keep himself separate from his original characterisation idea, and consider the needs of the game, and what turns off the other players, then regardless of what some may say, I don't think you've got a closet psycho in your group.

If you've seen some of the similar threads, where someone gets pulled up for gore/torture/porn/racism/sexism/whatever, they're full of people rage-quitting, and hating each other for the nth generation.
This doesn't come close. It just sounds like two people having a chat, and realising they were on a different page.

Horizon Hunters

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Snorter wrote:
then regardless of what some may say, I don't think you've got a closet psycho in your group.

Yeah, those comments, I thought were a bit "overzealous" too. He's not a closet psycho, just a little "munchkinny" and dramatic at times. To jump to the conclusion that he is somehow a psychopath based on the very limited info I gave is more frightening to me personally. Knee-jerk much?

Snorter wrote:
It just sounds like two people having a chat, and realising they were on a different page.

Yes, this is exactly what it was. He has since conformed to what the rest of the table agrees to be acceptable "vengeance" (ie NO torture or inhumane treatment). I told him to refer to the Geneva Convention for further explanation of what will most likely be acceptable.

I appreciate all the feedback. And though I was a bit taken aback by some assumptions in this thread, I used all the posts to help me get through this misunderstanding.

Thanks!

Dark Archive

closetgamer wrote:


Yeah, those comments, I thought were a bit "overzealous" too. He's not a closet psycho, just a little "munchkinny" and dramatic at times. To jump to the conclusion that he is somehow a psychopath based on the very limited info I gave is more frightening to me personally. Knee-jerk much?

You know, I read this and then left and then I had to come back. My first post had ideas on how to guide the player back to a path your table found acceptable. I didn't call him a psychopath there. The YOU said he didn't think torture was evil. I said that it was a disturbing position to take and explained why. Still didn't call him a psychopath. I was rather more under the impression that he just wasn't aware that a great deal of research in interrogation shows that torture is by and large not an effective way to get accurate, actionable intelligence. Then you clarified that it wasn't an ideological stance that he was adopting in game. I suggested inquisitors from his inspirational source that might prove better examples of what it looked like you were wanting to see from his character.

I'm glad you guys worked it out but YOU asked for advice and gave limited information (which is always going to be the case on message boards) and in one case misleading information. We just gave advice as best we could based on that limited information. To now call me and other out for that is crappy. It's crappy.

Horizon Hunters

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeungling, I'm not sure why you assume my last comments were directed at you specifically. To be clear, I was actually referring to another member's comment.
And even then, my intent wasn't to stir up controversy. I was just voicing an opinion.

Perhaps I should have added a smiley face at the end of my knee-jerk comment.

I apologize if you (or anyone else here) felt this was a personal attack. It wasn't. My point was simply, just because someone occasionally plays like a munchkin, and tries to rationalize a PC's actions to meet their own in game goals doesn't mean that person has "psychological" issues. Maybe he was just trying to ride the fence or "have his cake and eat it too". I was just alarmed at the leap from point A to point B, that's all.

Please accept my apology for any misunderstanding. I honestly didn't think I would have offended anyone.

And again, thanks for ALL of the input.

Dark Archive

I didn't think they were directed at me specifically, just people who voiced comments like mine. I just used me as an example because I am me. Generally.

Smiley face would have been nice. It's impossible to get tone from text. I'm also a little sorry I blew up. I was, I think, not having a great day yesterday.

Peace and beer, fellow gamer.

Horizon Hunters

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
YuenglingDragon wrote:

I didn't think they were directed at me specifically, just people who voiced comments like mine. I just used me as an example because I am me. Generally.

Smiley face would have been nice. It's impossible to get tone from text. I'm also a little sorry I blew up. I was, I think, not having a great day yesterday.

Peace and beer, fellow gamer.

;)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Reign of Winter / "Overzealous" Inquisitor issues in my RoW campaign All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Reign of Winter