Would an inquisitor of Shelyn have a duty to protect the innocent at risk?

[Mrpops]

So I have come to a little debate with my party members. I am playing a Tiefling (Half kyton/half orc) CG inquisitor of Shelyn.

We have come to the point where a black dragon is destroying a nearby fort controlled by hell knights. We found the black dragon as a woman trapped in a runed box after defeating some bandits. It asked us to rescue her child from somewhere. We carried it unknowingly for a small portion of time, and investigated into it once we got to the fort. We found it was a mutated abberation black dragon, and someone ratted us out to the hell knights. They had arrested me and tortured me (Among other things) for carrying a weapon of mass destruction (Just me, the rest of the party was off doing some theify stuff, and looking at a subplot rather than investigating.). We escaped when it started destroying the town, and ran off to another town. We are far too low-leveled to deal with this directly, but the other party members want to find the dragon's child to appease it . We have not actually been payed or been offered any reward or motivation for this.

I argued that we had no reason to actually pursue this, and we should leave the hell knights to fry. The party said I had a moral obligation to put myself in danger to save innocents if I could, as an inquisitor of Shelyn. One of the party members promised to the dragon she would get the child back, and feels obliged to help.

Do I have an obligation? I know I wouldn't get my powers taken as away as an inquisitor, but would I have a moral obligation?

[Bob Bob Bob]

Serving Shelyn? Yes. The answer to "do I have to help" and "Shelyn" is always yes. If you're at all faithful to Shelyn then you have to believe that every life is worth saving and every being can be redeemed. If at any point she gives up on that she'd have to admit her brother is beyond saving, so she (and by extension her clergy) never can.

[Kobold Catgirl]

You arguably do not have to save the Hellknights. But you absolutely have to save the innocents, which has the unfortunate side effect of saving those guys. A Shelynite has to be able to put aside his/her own grudges when it comes to helping those who need help.

You could also try and make a deal with the black dragon to help bring down the Hellknights in exchange for everyone else being left alone, though whether it'll keep its word is dubious at best.

[Captain Morgan]

Doesn't the Inquisitor class description give you the right to wave religious clauses if they would interfere with your specific mission for the church?

Seems like it is up to you whether this warrants that waving, but you are the person that basically does the wet works for your God. You're supposed to have looser morals. Beyond that, it's context and roleplay.

[Deylinarr]

^ This. Ive always seen this as the distinction between a Cleric and an Inquisitor: the cleric HAS to say yes, the Inquisitor has to pause and consider the big picture before answering.

[Bill Dunn]

Obligation? Nah, obligation is for lawful types. But as a CG character, your PC probably should want to help save people. That's what good characters do, willingly.

[BretI]

Find the child (dragon), and teach it goodness so it can be redeemed.

I am imagining a teenage dragon going good just to annoy the parent...

[Akerlof]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Doesn't the Inquisitor class description give you the right to wave religious clauses if they would interfere with your specific mission for the church?

Seems like it is up to you whether this warrants that waving, but you are the person that basically does the wet works for your God. You're supposed to have looser morals. Beyond that, it's context and roleplay.

Not by my read:

Ex-Inquisitors wrote:

An inquisitor who slips into corruption or changes to a prohibited alignment loses all spells and the judgment ability. She cannot thereafter gain levels as an inquisitor until she atones (see the atonement spell description).

You're not beholden to following the orders of the church of your deity, but you are still required to serve your deity's goals. "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" is very much not not in line with Shelyn's goals, though neither is suicidally attacking something head on when you have no chance of winning. On its own, cutting and running might not be enough to make you become an ex-Inquisitor, it's certainly putting you on the road for that. Being an Inquisitor means you can try unconventional means of protecting those people your actions have put in danger, but you still really, really should be trying something.

[Calth]

This situation doesn't really seem directly relevant to be being an inquisitor, more to general alignment. Abandoning innocents to be destroyed without making an effort to stop it would be at the very least a neutral, if not full out evil act, and a fairly major one. You are putting your own convenience over the lives of others. Not saying you should be lawful stupid and charge in blindly to die, but since there appears to be a reasonable course of action, a good character should pursue it because that is what a good character should want to do. Being an inquisitor has nothing to do with the situation, other than you would lose class features if your alignment shifts, which I could see this course of action causing.

[Mikaze]

If you're good, you have a duty to protect the innocent, period.

[Weirdo]

Shelyn is pretty big on saving innocents and redeeming evil. CG characters also should also want to save innocents wherever possible, especially when your actions put them in danger in the first place.

In your case it's understandable that you'd want to leave the Hellknights to their fate and you're certainly allowed to act out of alignment and decide to let the innocents go hang, too, but that should be a significant decision and not just "I'm not interested enough in this quest."

Deylinarr wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Doesn't the Inquisitor class description give you the right to wave religious clauses if they would interfere with your specific mission for the church?

Seems like it is up to you whether this warrants that waving, but you are the person that basically does the wet works for your God. You're supposed to have looser morals. Beyond that, it's context and roleplay.

^ This. Ive always seen this as the distinction between a Cleric and an Inquisitor: the cleric HAS to say yes, the Inquisitor has to pause and consider the big picture before answering.

Yes, inquisitors get more leeway, but their decision to go against church doctrine is supposed to be backed up by the big picture or a specific competing mission. Being "above many of the rules and conventions of the church" doesn't mean can do whatever - you still need to serve your deity's will.

As always, it's a good idea to check with your GM about how they handle divine classes & characters.

[Captain Morgan]

That's fair. But as I said, context is important. Is there actually a way to save the innocents? Are these actual innocents? How bad are these hell knights?

But it seems like a general alignment question more than an Inquisitor question.

[Rysky]

Captain Morgan wrote:

That's fair. But as I said, context is important. Is there actually a way to save the innocents? Are these actual innocents? How bad are these hell knights?

But it seems like a general alignment question more than an Inquisitor question.

That is a rhetorical question, yes?

[Captain Morgan]

Rysky wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

That's fair. But as I said, context is important. Is there actually a way to save the innocents? Are these actual innocents? How bad are these hell knights?

But it seems like a general alignment question more than an Inquisitor question.

That is a rhetorical question, yes?

I guess I meant would the world be a better place if the dragon killed all the hell Knights. It sucks if a few innocents die in the process but those Knights may be responsible for more deaths if they live.

It's hard to make that call without context though. Don't get me wrong, I don't endorse drone strikes, but there are acceptable levels of collateral damage in the real world for war, and the existence of evil forces like Hell Knights basically means the whole world is at war with evil.

It isn't cut and dry, is what I am saying.

[LazarX]

Why is this even a question if you're actually playing a Good aligned character?

[Arachnofiend]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

That's fair. But as I said, context is important. Is there actually a way to save the innocents? Are these actual innocents? How bad are these hell knights?

But it seems like a general alignment question more than an Inquisitor question.

That is a rhetorical question, yes?

I guess I meant would the world be a better place if the dragon killed all the hell Knights. It sucks if a few innocents die in the process but those Knights may be responsible for more deaths if they live.

It's hard to make that call without context though. Don't get me wrong, I don't endorse drone strikes, but there are acceptable levels of collateral damage in the real world for war, and the existence of evil forces like Hell Knights basically means the whole world is at war with evil.

It isn't cut and dry, is what I am saying.

This is the kind of rhetoric that gets a CG character to spit in your face.

[SAMAS]

Hellknights may be wrong, in many ways, but they are not Evil.

[Captain Morgan]

Arachnofiend wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

That's fair. But as I said, context is important. Is there actually a way to save the innocents? Are these actual innocents? How bad are these hell knights?

But it seems like a general alignment question more than an Inquisitor question.

That is a rhetorical question, yes?

I guess I meant would the world be a better place if the dragon killed all the hell Knights. It sucks if a few innocents die in the process but those Knights may be responsible for more deaths if they live.

It's hard to make that call without context though. Don't get me wrong, I don't endorse drone strikes, but there are acceptable levels of collateral damage in the real world for war, and the existence of evil forces like Hell Knights basically means the whole world is at war with evil.

It isn't cut and dry, is what I am saying.

This is the kind of rhetoric that gets a CG character to spit in your face.

See, that's just using alignment as a straight jacket.

I'm not saying a good character shouldn't try and stop this fiasco, or that I myself wouldn't. I'm saying an argument for the greater good could be made in the right context. And frankly, if the character decided to let the dragon kill the hell knights, there would be interesting ways to role play it without actually penalizing the player. Maybe the Inquisitor will be haunted by the guilt of this decision. Character growth is thing.

Let me compare to a recent thing in my campaign. We found out this town by a dam was built on a dragon nest-- with hundreds of thousands of eggs which were about hatching and getting ready to fly away. Enough to wipe out civilization. We basically had the option to blow the dam, wipe out the town and all it's inhabitants, and wipe out the dragons. There wasn't time to evacuate. It was now or never.

My CG character made the call not to blow the dam, and find another way to deal with the dragons. Even though at the time now option seemed to exist. Would my alignment have shifted if I had blown the dam? Probably not.

[Weirdo]

I believe that utilitarian ethics are perfectly compatible with a good alignment. However, you have to make every effort to determine the course of action with the best possible results, not simply justify the action most convenient for you because it will have some good consequences.

The OP's party members have suggested attempting a diplomatic solution. A Shelynite should be all over diplomatic solutions - especially if it discredits the Hellknights' needless brutality.

Mrpops wrote:

We have not actually been payed or been offered any reward or motivation for this.

This is not the reasoning of a good character.

SAMAS wrote:

Hellknights may be wrong, in many ways, but they are not Evil.

Correction: Hellknights aren't all evil. All three Lawful alignments are represented in their ranks. So "how bad are these Hell Knights" is a reasonable question. These particular Hell Knights tortured the OP's character, so they probably are not only the LE sort but also at the bottom of the list of people the character would give a fig about. It would make sense if he decided to leave them to their fate - but it's not consistent with CG ideals or those of Shelyn, which value life and forgiveness.