Should I / How should I punish this cleric?


Advice

1 to 50 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

During our most recent session the party's Neutral Good cleric of Sarenrae had a lengthy discussion with a slaver about how establishing religion could be a successful tool to control the populous instead of chains and beatings. The lawful evil slaver was pretty excited about the concept and suggested appointing his Kyton guards as apostles in this new society, and was VERY clear about this being a way to control people.

So, I feel like this a pretty dang Evil thing to do - exchanging one form of control for another. In fact, I reiterated twice (as the LE slaver) "So, I don't really have to get their body if I get their mind?" and The cleric replied "Well...Yeah, basically."

Should Sarenrae punish him? Should I change his alignment? Should an evil god offer him a job?

Ideas?

+ Edit For Context +

The slaver is the "Night Peddler" character from the harrowed realm module. He'd offered the PC's refreshments / lodgings and been all together quite reasonable in a evil schemer kind of way. The PC's know that he has Evil alignment due to a detect evil spell cast by the pally. But he's portrayed as a business man, with no interest in bloodshed or enslaving the PC's. The PC's are trying to stage a revolt under his nose and are caught, red handed trying to lift a key from a guard, which, through some diplomacy agreed to bring them before the head honcho (the night peddler) rather than fighting. On the way the rogue decided to try to escape anyway, escalating the situation, as a result both the pally and cleric give up while out matched and are taken in - the rogue is loose. The PC's are brought before the Night Peddler and the discussion about slavery and religion ensued.

The cleric when pressed for clarification explained, out of character, that the rebellion takes place in two days and he's buying time. But maintains that he doesn't need to make any bluff checks because his character legitimately believes this hypothetical religion as a means to control a populous thing is a common practice and legitimate means of doing so.

Also this character has been repeatedly told to consider his actions regarding his alignment what his god stands for.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

He's getting the people to not be beaten and in chains. Sounds like a good thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, but it's a very weird kind of neutral good cleric who thinks that "religion is a tool to control the populace". I mean, like, that's not a neutral good worldview, right? That's like nauseatingly evil.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

First off, reiterating something twice using the voice of an evil character talking to the players character isn't actually iterating it even once as a GM talking to a player.

We can ignore for right now whether this was evil or not and if it was how evil. I could make several arguments on both sides (and I am sure they will be made ad nauseum on this thread) but that doesn't really matter.

Since we don't know otherwise, we have to assume your player didn't think his character was stepping outside the line. Since you didn't tell him that you did, it would be absolutely wrong to apply any sort of punishment at this time. If you feel strongly that what he did was evil, and you don't want clerics of good gods doing things like that in the future, explain to him why, and explain what some of the consequences could be for his character if the character behaves that way again.

Assuming you can manage to communicate this, at least if the character strays the player won't feel betrayed.


I think Dave Justus is spot on vis-a-vis what should actually be done about this. If I was the GM in this situation I would be like, "Wow, this player and I must have completely different definitions of what constitutes 'good' on like a really fundamental level. We should probably talk this over."

I should probably point out I only think it would be evil for the cleric to actually sincerely think and feel these things. If he's just taking the piss out of or trying to deceive the slaver for a good cause, that's a whole different thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Girken wrote:

During our most recent session the party's Neutral Good cleric of Sarenrae had a lengthy discussion with a slaver about how establishing religion could be a successful tool to control the populous instead of chains and beatings. The lawful evil slaver was pretty excited about the concept and suggested appointing his Kyton guards as apostles in this new society, and was VERY clear about this being a way to control people.

So, I feel like this a pretty dang Evil thing to do - exchanging one form of control for another. In fact, I reiterated twice (as the LE slaver) "So, I don't really have to get their body if I get their mind?" and The cleric replied "Well...Yeah, basically."

Should Sarenrae punish him? Should I change his alignment? Should an evil god offer him a job?

Ideas?

I feel like you'd be better off looking up some of the signs of Sarenrae's displeasure in the mortal world and have some of those manifest; with their knowledge of their own faith, the cleric will become aware that the lady upstairs was not happy with his rhetoric without going "BOOM! Lose all your powers and also you're evil now."


Well he did potentially provide the slaves with hope, albeit false... so that's something.

I'd take issue with the fact he's endorsing false worship, even if the target is a real god. Deities frown upon that kind of stuff, even if the slaves believe it, the cleric is still suggesting that the slavers pretend.

That's a pretty big "no no" for just about all deities.

Should a neutral good cleric really have done it? No, unless it was part of a greater good. In my mind it wouldve been better for them to be in bodily chains but free in their mind than captors of their mind. That's a pretty deliberate and big step away from neutral good and it doesnt sound like particularly believable role play on his part.

I'm not sure if Sarenrae would punish him, i think she'd be as "wtf did he just do" as you and I are, because that is pretty crazily far from what is expected of a cleric of Sarenrae.

Although i'm sure the player thought they were being very witty by avoiding combat like that, the way youve presented it, it just sounds like metagaming.

I'd chock it up as a red flag there's something very wrong, but wait for them to slip up again before changing his alignment or taking away his cleric powers.

Edit: I also wonder which deity (if any) he suggested the slavers use. If shes endorsing the worship of a god opposed to her deity, then that's BAD, because shes working against her faith, if she endorses a god aligned to her deity, then she's essentially promoting slavery as representative of her deity's faith (also BAD), plus as a cleric of Sarenrae there is no way in hell her deity's fellow-minded gods would accept a lawful evil slaver that's just pretending to worship them to manipulate hundreds of oppressed slaves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the things as a GM to a cleric/paladin is to warn them about something CLEARLY outside their guidelines. Because their character should decently know how their God and alignment would react to something. So it's your job to fill in that knowledge.


I feel like you'd be better off looking up some of the signs of Sarenrae's displeasure in the mortal world and have some of those manifest; with their knowledge of their own faith, the cleric will become aware that the lady upstairs was not happy with his rhetoric without going "BOOM! Lose all your powers and also you're evil now."

- I like that a lot, it's dire but not dickish. This PC is a min max, win every time, kind of character and is playing a cleric solely based on the abilities and spells offered. Frankly, after the repeated incidents I'm loath to let him off the hook again. His go to excuse is usually a meta-gameish one, "My character believes that it's our job to stop the big bad thing and that whatever we need to do to get that done is justified - greater good - therefore good -done."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Girken wrote:


+ Edit For Context +

The slaver is the "Night Peddler" character from the harrowed realm module. He'd offered the PC's refreshments / lodgings and been all together quite reasonable in a evil schemer kind of way. The PC's know that he has Evil alignment due to a detect evil spell cast by the pally. But he's portrayed as a business man, with no interest in bloodshed or enslaving the PC's. The PC's are trying to stage a revolt under his nose and are caught, red handed trying to lift a key from a guard, which, through some diplomacy agreed to bring them before the head honcho (the night peddler) rather than fighting. On the way the rogue decided to try to escape anyway, escalating the situation, as a result both the pally and cleric give up while out matched and are taken in - the rogue is loose. The PC's are brought before the Night Peddler and the discussion about slavery and religion ensued.

The cleric when pressed for clarification explained, out of character, that the rebellion takes place in two days and he's buying time. But maintains that he doesn't need to make any bluff checks because his character legitimately believes this hypothetical religion as a means to control a populous thing is a common practice and...

Ok, with this new information as context:

I'd say that cleric did nothing wrong, as he's working on a bigger plan for the greater good, though I would have definitely required a bluff check or something to conceal the fact he has something to hide. And maybe suggest to him that he makes a prayer or something to let his deity know what he's up to, asking forgiveness for risking helping a slaver.

So do ignore my previous post, with this context it seems he's actually playing his character pretty well.


Dave Justus wrote:

First off, reiterating something twice using the voice of an evil character talking to the players character isn't actually iterating it even once as a GM talking to a player.

We can ignore for right now whether this was evil or not and if it was how evil. I could make several arguments on both sides (and I am sure they will be made ad nauseum on this thread) but that doesn't really matter.

Since we don't know otherwise, we have to assume your player didn't think his character was stepping outside the line. Since you didn't tell him that you did, it would be absolutely wrong to apply any sort of punishment at this time. If you feel strongly that what he did was evil, and you don't want clerics of good gods doing things like that in the future, explain to him why, and explain what some of the consequences could be for his character if the character behaves that way again.

Assuming you can manage to communicate this, at least if the character strays the player won't feel betrayed.

He's been well informed about his god's beliefs and shown the descriptor page http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Sarenrae

As the GM, is it really my job after that to say "your god will punish you if you advocate worshiping other gods ESPECIALLY as a means of controlling people." that seems as odd as me saying "Watch out for that trap." to a rogue.


SillyString wrote:
Girken wrote:


+ Edit For Context +

The slaver is the "Night Peddler" character from the harrowed realm module. He'd offered the PC's refreshments / lodgings and been all together quite reasonable in a evil schemer kind of way. The PC's know that he has Evil alignment due to a detect evil spell cast by the pally. But he's portrayed as a business man, with no interest in bloodshed or enslaving the PC's. The PC's are trying to stage a revolt under his nose and are caught, red handed trying to lift a key from a guard, which, through some diplomacy agreed to bring them before the head honcho (the night peddler) rather than fighting. On the way the rogue decided to try to escape anyway, escalating the situation, as a result both the pally and cleric give up while out matched and are taken in - the rogue is loose. The PC's are brought before the Night Peddler and the discussion about slavery and religion ensued.

The cleric when pressed for clarification explained, out of character, that the rebellion takes place in two days and he's buying time. But maintains that he doesn't need to make any bluff checks because his character legitimately believes this hypothetical religion as a means to control a populous thing is a common practice and...

Ok, with this new information as context:

I'd say that cleric did nothing wrong, as he's working on a bigger plan, though I would have definitely required a bluff check or something to conceal the fact he has something to hide.

So do ignore my previous post, with this context it seems he's actually playing his character pretty well.

Really? I mean, he has no guarantee that the rebellion will succeed. And stated that his character believes that this religious control is the way to go - so at the very least isn't he advocating religious dominion?

It just feels to me like the buying time excuse would be fine if he was stalling with sermons or just being chatty or lying but giving the bad guy a better way to be evil? (and legitimately believing in it) - kinda evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Girken wrote:


As the GM, is it really my job after that to say "your god will punish you if you advocate worshiping other gods ESPECIALLY as a means of controlling people." that seems as odd as me saying "Watch out for that trap." to a rogue.

The issue is that these kind of things can be judgement calls and aren't objective.

We can all agree that "Spiked Pit - CR2" Is a trap. And not spying a trap doesn't result in losing your class abilities.

We may not all agree that what the character is doing is not something Sarenrae supports.

Personally, if I was in your place and felt that Sarenrae didn't approve, I'd have the PC dream, and describe the dream as an omen - like "sun permanently set on the slaves" or something else Sarenrae-ish.

Girken wrote:

Really? I mean, he has no guarantee that the rebellion will succeed. And stated that his character believes that this religious control is the way to go - so at the very least isn't he advocating religious dominion?
It just feels to me like the buying time excuse would be fine if he was stalling with sermons or just being chatty or lying but giving the bad guy a better way to...

Maybe he gets a dream from Asmodeous tempting him with power then....


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Girken wrote:
Also this character has been repeatedly told to consider his actions regarding his alignment what his god stands for.

Once again, in a case like this it is vital that the GM, as the GM, communicate to the player, as the player, how he views the morality of something. It is perfectly fine for you to decide that this behavior is wrong, and Sarenrea would have no truck with it, but you absolutely have to make sure that the Player understands how you view things if you are going to be busting out the God punishment.

People will have legitimate disagreements on the morality of this, and you have to absolutely be sure that the player fully understands your views and the consequences or you are likely to destroy your game, and possibly your friendship.

If the player knows that you as the DM will have his god punish his character if the character does a certain thing, and the player has the character do it anyway, go ahead and get your righteous godly smite on, but otherwise it is the wrong thing to do. And you have to be sure that the player knows the consequences, not just feel that he should no the consequences.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since you're giving one example, I'm guessing that this is also the first time: don't punish him. Not yet. Give him a subtle warning. EDIT: re-read. I saw that is wasn't the first time. Still, be patient.

If he keeps claiming that religion is just a way to controll people and keeps advicing evil people as to how they can expand their evil buisness, he's obviously not following Sarenrae. Then you can act accordingly.

Girken wrote:
"My character believes that it's our job to stop the big bad thing and that whatever we need to do to get that done is justified - greater good - therefore good -done."

This is not inline with Sarenrae and her philosophy.


Dave Justus wrote:
And you have to be sure that the player knows the consequences, not just feel that he should no the consequences.

This, a million times this.


Rub-Eta wrote:

Since you're giving one example, I'm guessing that this is also the first time: don't punish him. Not yet. Give him a subtle warning. EDIT: re-read. I saw that is wasn't the first time. Still, be patient.

If he keeps claiming that religion is just a way to controll people and keeps advicing evil people as to how they can expand their evil buisness, he's obviously not following Sarenrae. Then you can act accordingly.

Girken wrote:
"My character believes that it's our job to stop the big bad thing and that whatever we need to do to get that done is justified - greater good - therefore good -done."
This is not inline with Sarenrae and her philosophy.

This is no less than the third time he's done something questionable, or flat out non-good. Before he knew his god represented redemption he was putting everyone to the sword. He still regularly advocates torture, extortion, etc - so long as it progresses the quest line.

also- can you elaborate as to how it's not inline? I'd like to have someone else's words to cite.


AlaskaRPGer wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:
And you have to be sure that the player knows the consequences, not just feel that he should no the consequences.
This, a million times this.

It seems like hand holding to me but if the general consensus is that regardless of materials or explanations previously provided the PC's should be warned if they act out of character - if there will be consequences for doing so - then I'll do it.

Also, AlaskaRPGer? no crap? I'm gaming out in Anchorage.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Girken wrote:


He's been well informed about his god's beliefs and shown the descriptor page http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Sarenrae
As the GM, is it really my job after that to say "your god will punish you if you advocate worshiping other gods ESPECIALLY as a means of controlling people."

I am not convinced that is the case at all.

In our culture being influenced heavily be monotheistic religions heavily focused on the 'have no other gods' command, it might seem that a priest advocating worship of another god would be sinful, but that isn't necessarily the case in Golarion. I could certainly see a Priest of Sarenrae talking with a someone looking for religion who said that they felt most at peace in the forest and felt that family was the most important thing to point them toward the church of Erastil. Similarly, the city loving accountant might be counselled that Adabar might be a good fit for them and the party loving freedom fighter might be steered toward Caiden Caylen. Obviously advocating following after an evil god might be a bit more of a stretch (although Sarenae herself does cautiously work with Asmodeus on occasion) I think the focus of such a priest would be more on the concept that the petitioner should work on not liking/wanting all that evil stuff, rather than the idea that an evil person shouldn't worship an evil god.

As far as religions being a means of controlling people, I think that is widely accepted. In our world many religious groups openly preach that communal services help 'protect from temptation' or 'reinforce proper behavior.' Religion is often touted by the religious as a means of both group and self control, to the point that some religious people find it difficult to trust nonbelievers. Of course they don't view it 'only' as a means of control, and they don't view as a cynical means of control, but the idea that religion has a function beyond making a deity feel good about himself is pretty widely accepted.

All this really doesn't matter. You are free to feel differently, and in your game if Sarenrea would smite someone who believes the things I just expressed that is perfectly ok. You can have your world be that way.

If you want to be a good GM though, you will make sure your players know that, not just assume they view things like you do.


Seems like he's picked the wrong aligment and the wrong deity. I don't know if it would be possible to rethink his character concept and/or alter the character to something more fitting?
Also, clerics don't tend to be fans of religion in general, just the worship of their particular deity. That sort of pragmatism isn't exactly fitting for a class that gets their class features from faith


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Renata Maclean wrote:

Seems like he's picked the wrong aligment and the wrong deity. I don't know if it would be possible to rethink his character concept and/or alter the character to something more fitting?

Also, clerics don't tend to be fans of religion in general, just the worship of their particular deity. That sort of pragmatism isn't exactly fitting for a class that gets their class features from faith

Actually it is. Again we're not talking about a monotheistic world view here. Gorum for instance has no interest in studies or agriculture. While most people may have one primary patron, they will offer veneration to others for appropriate circumstances, such as praying to Pharasma that a loved one who dies goes to Elysium. Or asking Erastil to bless a hunt to feed the community. Or a dwarven warcommander invoking Torag's blessing when they go warpath on an invading orc horde. It's not a world where anyone expects one god to cover EVERYTHING.


Girken wrote:

During our most recent session the party's Neutral Good cleric of Sarenrae had a lengthy discussion with a slaver about how establishing religion could be a successful tool to control the populous instead of chains and beatings. The lawful evil slaver was pretty excited about the concept and suggested appointing his Kyton guards as apostles in this new society, and was VERY clear about this being a way to control people.

So, I feel like this a pretty dang Evil thing to do - exchanging one form of control for another. In fact, I reiterated twice (as the LE slaver) "So, I don't really have to get their body if I get their mind?" and The cleric replied "Well...Yeah, basically."

Should Sarenrae punish him? Should I change his alignment? Should an evil god offer him a job?

Ideas?

+ Edit For Context +

The slaver is the "Night Peddler" character from the harrowed realm module. He'd offered the PC's refreshments / lodgings and been all together quite reasonable in a evil schemer kind of way. The PC's know that he has Evil alignment due to a detect evil spell cast by the pally. But he's portrayed as a business man, with no interest in bloodshed or enslaving the PC's. The PC's are trying to stage a revolt under his nose and are caught, red handed trying to lift a key from a guard, which, through some diplomacy agreed to bring them before the head honcho (the night peddler) rather than fighting. On the way the rogue decided to try to escape anyway, escalating the situation, as a result both the pally and cleric give up while out matched and are taken in - the rogue is loose. The PC's are brought before the Night Peddler and the discussion about slavery and religion ensued.

The cleric when pressed for clarification explained, out of character, that the rebellion takes place in two days and he's buying time. But maintains that he doesn't need to make any bluff checks because his character legitimately believes this hypothetical religion as a means to control a populous thing is a common practice and...

+Edit for Summation+

Seems like everyone generally feels like it's time for a foreboding kinda dream. I'm thinking a combo is in order, both a symbolic reprimand and a temptation of darker powers. Beyond that I'll be certain to warn him out right that "his god would view such an action unfavorably" before letting him do something like that again. Thanks for all the help - if you want to continue the discussion I'd love any further input or ideas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

---

+Edit for Summation+ (reply)

---

I stand by that the cleric is acting in the best interests of the people, he's just buying time to save them later.

All he's doing is playing a part, it doesnt sound like he wants to be helping the slaver:

Even a saint could admit that religion is a good way of controlling people. Even if he would never act do so. The cleric is just being pragmatic and (sort of)honest.

---

There is one thing as a GM I would expect you to do:
1) Force him to make bluff checks, he's concealing information, he's concealing the reason why he's "helping" the slaver, even if the cleric is stating facts.

2) (if he's the worrying sort) Mention that he could speak to his deity through his holy symbol or make a prayer, chances are, unless outright spitting in the face of his deity, sarenrae will trust her clerics without needing this, but many clerics might feel they ought to check in anyway.

---

PS: Make sure everyone is up to date with the "edit for context" section of the original post. It completely turns the situation on its head.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Girken wrote:
It seems like hand holding to me but if the general consensus is that regardless of materials or explanations previously provided the PC's should be warned if they act out of character - if there will be consequences for doing so - then I'll do it.

We of course don't know all the conversations, we don't know the people involved, and it is possible that you are justified in the god taking away the power or cursing or whatever right now.

Nothing you have wrote convinces me (or even lets me believe it likely) that you have communicated that clearly at all, but if you are sure you have done everything you should, the by all means, do what you can.

I will say one last thing though. There is no such thing as 'warned if they act out of character.' The player is 100% in charge of deciding what their character is an how their character would act. For some classes, their may be consequences to those actions (falling etc.) but there is no out of character. There are also of course actions that regardless of being 'in character' are disruptive to game play, and cannot be allowed but that is an entirely different subject.

In truth, using the phrase 'act out of character' means that you really just want to punish the player for not doing things the way you would. I'd think on that if I were and try and see if maybe there isn't a way for you to enjoy the character the player wants to play, rather than insisting he play the way you would.

Also, if I recall, the church of Sarenrae is currently in a bit of a schism thing, so it would seem that if you are too insistent on running her as a goddess that would immediately punish anyone who didn't toe the line, that would be out of character.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Renata Maclean wrote:

Seems like he's picked the wrong aligment and the wrong deity. I don't know if it would be possible to rethink his character concept and/or alter the character to something more fitting?

Also, clerics don't tend to be fans of religion in general, just the worship of their particular deity. That sort of pragmatism isn't exactly fitting for a class that gets their class features from faith
Actually it is. Again we're not talking about a monotheistic world view here. Gorum for instance has no interest in studies or agriculture. While most people may have one primary patron, they will offer veneration to others for appropriate circumstances, such as praying to Pharasma that a loved one who dies goes to Elysium. Or asking Erastil to bless a hunt to feed the community. Or a dwarven warcommander invoking Torag's blessing when they go warpath on an invading orc horde. It's not a world where anyone expects one god to cover EVERYTHING.

I don't think anyone is advocating that the general populous would be monotheistic but rather that Clerics / Paladins would be fervent in the belief that their god is the best and nothing is beyond their power - even if not specifically within their domain. So in this case, a cleric of Sarenrae saying - essentially- "any good-god is fine if what you're trying to do is control a populous. Sarenrae is number one but you know, whatever gets the job done." is a pretty off-color sentiment.


SillyString wrote:

---

+Edit for Summation+ (reply)

---

I stand by that the cleric is acting in the best interests of the people, he's just buying time to save them later.

All he's doing is playing a part, it doesnt sound like he wants to be helping the slaver:

Even a saint could admit that religion is a good way of controlling people. Even if he would never act do so. The cleric is just being pragmatic and (sort of)honest.

---

There is one thing as a GM I would expect you to do:
1) Force him to make bluff checks, he's concealing information, he's concealing the reason why he's "helping" the slaver, even if the cleric is stating facts.

2) (if he's the worrying sort) Mention that he could speak to his deity through his holy symbol or make a prayer, chances are, unless outright spitting in the face of his deity, sarenrae will trust her clerics without needing this, but many clerics might feel they ought to check in anyway.

---

PS: Make sure everyone is up to date with the "edit for context" section of the original post. It completely turns the situation on its head.

You make an excellent point, I should have had him make bluff checks despite his character feeling as though theses were facts. Due to him concealing his intent.


Girken wrote:
You make an excellent point, I should have had him make bluff checks despite his character feeling as though theses were facts. Due to him concealing his intent.

Thanks for saying so, to be fair it actually sounds like he's role-played the situation pretty well, he just bluffing on his way to freeing the slaves.

Edit: Theres something specifically for convincing someone to heed your advice, and it includes a bluff check, just refluff the bluff to be convincing them you arent hiding something rather than convincing them its their idea:

pfsrd wrote:

Suggest Course of Action

You can use Bluff and Diplomacy together to make a request of a creature, without it even realizing you have made the request.

Check: You can gradually coax a target into thinking a suggestion is entirely its own idea, making the creature more likely to act on the idea than if you had suggested it outright. You discuss topics subtly relevant to the request, asking leading questions and narrowing the scope of the conversation so that the target eventually decides to take a specific action you have led it to.

You first attempt a Bluff check to convince the target that your request was actually its idea. This is always treated as far-fetched circumstances, resulting in a –10 penalty on the check. If successful, you then attempt a Diplomacy check to make the request of the creature, treating its attitude toward you as indifferent for this single request (regardless of its actual attitude).

Action: Planting a notion and then coaxing a target into suggesting the notion himself each require at least 1 minute of continuous interaction. This can be difficult to arrange with a hostile or unfriendly creature.


Dave Justus wrote:
Girken wrote:
It seems like hand holding to me but if the general consensus is that regardless of materials or explanations previously provided the PC's should be warned if they act out of character - if there will be consequences for doing so - then I'll do it.

We of course don't know all the conversations, we don't know the people involved, and it is possible that you are justified in the god taking away the power or cursing or whatever right now.

Nothing you have wrote convinces me (or even lets me believe it likely) that you have communicated that clearly at all, but if you are sure you have done everything you should, the by all means, do what you can.

I will say one last thing though. There is no such thing as 'warned if they act out of character.' The player is 100% in charge of deciding what their character is an how their character would act. For some classes, their may be consequences to those actions (falling etc.) but there is no out of character. There are also of course actions that regardless of being 'in character' are disruptive to game play, and cannot be allowed but that is an entirely different subject.

In truth, using the phrase 'act out of character' means that you really just want to punish the player for not doing things the way you would. I'd think on that if I were and try and see if maybe there isn't a way for you to enjoy the character the player wants to play, rather than insisting he play the way you would.

Also, if I recall, the church of Sarenrae is currently in a bit of a schism thing, so it would seem that if you are too insistent on running her as a goddess that would immediately punish anyone who didn't toe the line, that would be out of character.

I disagree that I want to punish the player, quite the opposite -hence the post title-, but I feel as though it's a detriment to the other PC's experience if I allow him to say his character represents certain values only when convenient and weasels around those values whenever it suits him. When a PC actually plays a character I find they make difficult decisions because that's how they feel their character would act. This player, instead makes whatever decision is the most beneficial and then argues that it was the most in character thing ever.


SillyString wrote:
Girken wrote:
You make an excellent point, I should have had him make bluff checks despite his character feeling as though theses were facts. Due to him concealing his intent.

Thanks for saying so, to be fair it actually sounds like he's role-played the situation pretty well, he just bluffing on his way to freeing the slaves.

Have you at least been making him roll diplomacy to

CRB wrote:
Suggest Course of Action: at least 1 minute of continuous interaction.
? Because if not, I'd suggest you make him do that too.

No, at the time I was simply engaging him in role play because so frequently he doesn't actually say anything "in character" but just side table speak. I didn't want him to just say, "so - I tell him there's other things you can do besides slavery" *dice roll* I was foolishly trying to make it more engaging.


Girken wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:
Girken wrote:
It seems like hand holding to me but if the general consensus is that regardless of materials or explanations previously provided the PC's should be warned if they act out of character - if there will be consequences for doing so - then I'll do it.

We of course don't know all the conversations, we don't know the people involved, and it is possible that you are justified in the god taking away the power or cursing or whatever right now.

Nothing you have wrote convinces me (or even lets me believe it likely) that you have communicated that clearly at all, but if you are sure you have done everything you should, the by all means, do what you can.

I will say one last thing though. There is no such thing as 'warned if they act out of character.' The player is 100% in charge of deciding what their character is an how their character would act. For some classes, their may be consequences to those actions (falling etc.) but there is no out of character. There are also of course actions that regardless of being 'in character' are disruptive to game play, and cannot be allowed but that is an entirely different subject.

In truth, using the phrase 'act out of character' means that you really just want to punish the player for not doing things the way you would. I'd think on that if I were and try and see if maybe there isn't a way for you to enjoy the character the player wants to play, rather than insisting he play the way you would.

Also, if I recall, the church of Sarenrae is currently in a bit of a schism thing, so it would seem that if you are too insistent on running her as a goddess that would immediately punish anyone who didn't toe the line, that would be out of character.

I disagree that I want to punish the player, quite the opposite -hence the post title-, but I feel as though it's a detriment to the other PC's experience if I allow him to say his character represents certain values only when convenient and weasels around those...

That's perfectly fine, if the character is just pragmatic, but I'm not sure that entirely works for a Neutral Good cleric of Sarenrae. Especially if they're suggesting outright evil solutions, even for the greater good


SillyString wrote:
Girken wrote:
You make an excellent point, I should have had him make bluff checks despite his character feeling as though theses were facts. Due to him concealing his intent.

Thanks for saying so, to be fair it actually sounds like he's role-played the situation pretty well, he just bluffing on his way to freeing the slaves.

Edit: Theres something specifically for convincing someone to heed your advice, and it includes a bluff check:

pfsrd wrote:

Suggest Course of Action

You can use Bluff and Diplomacy together to make a request of a creature, without it even realizing you have made the request.

Check: You can gradually coax a target into thinking a suggestion is entirely its own idea, making the creature more likely to act on the idea than if you had suggested it outright. You discuss topics subtly relevant to the request, asking leading questions and narrowing the scope of the conversation so that the target eventually decides to take a specific action you have led it to.

You first attempt a Bluff check to convince the target that your request was actually its idea. This is always treated as far-fetched circumstances, resulting in a –10 penalty on the check. If successful, you then attempt a Diplomacy check to make the request of the creature, treating its attitude toward you as indifferent for this single request (regardless of its actual attitude).

Action: Planting a notion and then coaxing a target into suggesting the notion himself each require at least 1 minute of continuous interaction. This can be difficult to arrange with a hostile or unfriendly creature.

You can incept people? That's amazing! and potentially hugely over powered. Diplomacy is already a really crazy skill when boosted.


Girken wrote:
You can incept people? That's amazing! and potentially hugely over powered. Diplomacy is already a really crazy skill when boosted.

Yeah, it requires bluff AND diplomacy, but its pretty cool.

Because there's an odd black hole in the pathfinder rules about "concealing intent when talking" (it could just simply be bluff) I'd use Suggest Course of Action and refluff the "coax target into thinking a suggestion is their idea" into "conceal your true motives while advising him".

PS: sorry for all the edits on that last post, i accidentally posted a snippet out of context then had to rush to correct it and kept missing bits.


SillyString wrote:
Girken wrote:
You can incept people? That's amazing! and potentially hugely over powered. Diplomacy is already a really crazy skill when boosted.

Yeah, it requires bluff AND diplomacy, but its pretty cool.

Because there's an odd black hole in the pathfinder rules about "concealing intent when talking" (it could just simply be bluff) I'd use Suggest Course of Action and refluff the "coax target into thinking a suggestion is their idea" into "conceal your true motives while advising him".

PS: sorry for all the edits on that last post, i accidentally posted a snippet out of context then had to rush to correct it and kept missing bits.

No worries, your advice has been well worth the edits.


Girken wrote:
No worries, your advice has been well worth the edits.

Oh, you!


I can't help but come away with the feeling that this cleric character is a really manipulative, cynical, unpleasant sort. Maybe I'm misreading things, or maybe it's possible to be that and be neutral good at the same time. I dunno. It just doesn't jive for me, personally.

I definitely think Suggest Course of Action is the appropriate way of handling a situation like this in terms of rules language, though.


Girken, for what its worth, I actually agree with the interpretation that most gods, at least good ones, believe in free will, and therefore their clerics and priests don't believe they are the absolute best god ever, simply the one who fits their moral standing.

Take a look at the ancient greeks for a good example of a polytheistic society. they had priests of different gods, but the priests worked together, and often invoked the blessings of other gods for specific things, like apollo for war, poseidon for a sea voyage, etc.

So in that way, saying that 'any god can be the right god, as long as they align with what is in your heart' is something any good priest might say without having any issue from their god, at least in my opinion.

Its tangental to the main subject, but something touched on, so i wanted to weigh in.


Ethereal Gears wrote:

I can't help but come away with the feeling that this cleric character is a really manipulative, cynical, unpleasant sort. Maybe I'm misreading things, or maybe it's possible to be that and be neutral good at the same time. I dunno. It just doesn't jive for me, personally.

I definitely think Suggest Course of Action is the appropriate way of handling a situation like this in terms of rules language, though.

I get the impression he's an every-man hero that, when caught trying to steal the key, went "What, this? ...errrrrrr... No, you misunderstand! This isnt what it looks like, i'm here to talk to you about exciting new opportunities in slave management!" BLUFFBLUFFBLUFFBLUFF-BLUFFHARDER-BLUFF

(probably as the rogue snuck off)

The truth is probably somewhere in between.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You should speak with your player and come to an agreement on the ethos of her deity. Don't impose your own morality; impose the player's conception. Even if it's totally ridiculous I would still err on the side of caution; GMs are no better arbiters of morality than players; and one shouldn't ruin a player's fun by imposing your viewpoint on the player.


Chess Pwn wrote:
One of the things as a GM to a cleric/paladin is to warn them about something CLEARLY outside their guidelines. Because their character should decently know how their God and alignment would react to something. So it's your job to fill in that knowledge.

I kind of agree with this. I think this is the best practice.

Scarab Sages

Saldiven wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
One of the things as a GM to a cleric/paladin is to warn them about something CLEARLY outside their guidelines. Because their character should decently know how their God and alignment would react to something. So it's your job to fill in that knowledge.
I kind of agree with this. I think this is the best practice.

Probably true - although a serious Cleric player will act enough like a Cleric to read their deity's text and get to know what it means to follow their chosen deity (remember, folks: There Is No Such Thing As "Fluff").

Chess Pwn wrote:
He's getting the people to not be beaten and in chains. Sounds like a good thing.

Seems like it, doesn't it? None are more enslaved than those who think they are free.

Chains and beating are one level of violence - but this is racking it up. This is mindrape.

Under the circumstances, I would suggest shifting this Cleric's Alignment to NN and withdrawing Sarenrae's patronage. This Cleric has SINNED - but maybe it was a mistake, and maybe, once they understand that, they'll ponder the meaning of what they did and reconsider. Then they'll have a choice:

A) Accept that they sinned and aim to right what they did wrong. Sarenrae is the goddess of mercy and redemption, after all, so would definitely offer this. You might even restore the Cleric's original alignment once they make this resolution - but not her divine powers. Not yet. Perhaps they'll get some back - like no Channeling, but they'll get their Domain Powers, and 1st-level spells as a 1st-level caster back, as an initial sign from Sarenrae that they've made the right choice (after all, they need some kind of power with which to solve the problem they've created - but full forgiveness must be earned, and great risk, or sacrifice, may be in order). Bolder actions and actions that Sarenrae favors may be quickly rewarded by additional, incremental returns of power until the wrong has been fully righted.

B) The Cleric is comfortable with what they did. In this case, their alignment shifts to LN, Sarenrae formally abandons them, and a day or two passes before other gods - Asmodeus, most likely by far - come to the Cleric and offer full and immediate restoration as their follower (with Channeling, Domains, and spell access altered as appropriate) - maybe even a small bonus.

This is the kind of theological struggle that REAL Cleric players find exciting, even as it daunts them. Don't be afraid just because of some short-sighted metagamey excuse. This isn't an MMO where nothing matters but numbers and tactics. The reason divine mages are so powerful is because these are the risks they take. The adventures that make Clerics special are struggles of the soul, not just "I got magic I can do whatever I want with" - that's a perk for arcane mages, and the tradeoff is how vulnerable they are, and how much harder they have to work for their finicky magic.


Sarenrae is a very pragmatic deity. She understands that redemption isn't just a "one-and-done" process. Even her Paladin code says to fight fair if it's a fair fight, but don't die in vain when you know they won't fight fair. Seems like the Cleric in question is trying to set the slaver on a path away from brutal beatings and towards some kind of redemption. The Nirvana Fallacy is arguing in favor of the status quo just because the proposed improvement isn't perfect. Better than the current situation is still better. Now, if the Cleric thinks, "Well, my work here is done, this slaver is redeemed" and leaves it at that, well, that might be another thing. But once the slaver starts seeing that brutal beatings aren't the way to go, that might, inexorably, lead towards that the notion that slavery itself is an inefficient means of establishing a work force.

Scarab Sages

I might be wrong, but I think Sarenrae would actually endorse violence in this case. Ideally, the slaver could be persuaded by the Power of Love to See the Light and free them all, yadda yadda, but that's exceedingly unlikely (especially given this slaver's described character - he seems very comfortable with what he does), and, as Sarenrae is pragmatic, a more workable solution is the less-ideal one of killing the few who violate the many. What the Cleric has done in this case, however, is the greater of two Evils. History shows that once slavers learn the trick of convincing their slaves that they want to be slaves, the institution only gets stronger.

Remember also that Sarenrae is the goddess of Truth. She would NOT approve of the argument that "they're happy now, so the problem is solved." The problem is not that they're unhappy, the problem is that something is being done to them that would make any feeling, thinking creature unhappy - and the happiness they are being left with is based on a terrible LIE. This is an example of Asmodeus's work if ever there were one.

“I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” ― Harriet Tubman


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Havent' read the last few posts, but...
Make him "fall" to neutral.
Sarenrae is a NG deity, that means that the cleric could be N and still gain all the same things.
This sounds more fitting for their character.

For a cleric to lose their power they have to GROSSLY violate the code of conduct required by her god, not just do things the god wouldn't approve of.


Chess Pwn wrote:

Havent' read the last few posts, but...

Make him "fall" to neutral.
Sarenrae is a NG deity, that means that the cleric could be N and still gain all the same things.
This sounds more fitting for their character.

For a cleric to lose their power they have to GROSSLY violate the code of conduct required by her god, not just do things the god wouldn't approve of.

But don't make the "fall" immediate and instantaneous. If this happens again, give a heads up that it's somewhat non-good to use false religion to control people. If the player continues this sort of thought and/or acts upon it after that, bump them to neutral.


He has continued and the GM feels he's not good. So tell him your making his character N and if he starts to be good again you'll make him NG again. Alignments change, and are based on your choices. The GM feels the guy is clearly not good, so that means the guy is N.


Girken wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:

First off, reiterating something twice using the voice of an evil character talking to the players character isn't actually iterating it even once as a GM talking to a player.

We can ignore for right now whether this was evil or not and if it was how evil. I could make several arguments on both sides (and I am sure they will be made ad nauseum on this thread) but that doesn't really matter.

Since we don't know otherwise, we have to assume your player didn't think his character was stepping outside the line. Since you didn't tell him that you did, it would be absolutely wrong to apply any sort of punishment at this time. If you feel strongly that what he did was evil, and you don't want clerics of good gods doing things like that in the future, explain to him why, and explain what some of the consequences could be for his character if the character behaves that way again.

Assuming you can manage to communicate this, at least if the character strays the player won't feel betrayed.

He's been well informed about his god's beliefs and shown the descriptor page http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Sarenrae

As the GM, is it really my job after that to say "your god will punish you if you advocate worshiping other gods ESPECIALLY as a means of controlling people." that seems as odd as me saying "Watch out for that trap." to a rogue.

Yes, it is still your job. The PC should understand his deity even if the player does not. Players may also think the have leeway they do not have, and since only the GM knows where this ends and every GM is different only that GM knows 100% how it works in his gameworld. The player is not a mindreader. This is not comparable to traps because there are hard rules on that, and they are taken care of with dice rolls. You could of course allow a knowledge religion check for the player/PC to know he is messing up, but I would not advise it.


Changing the tool of control from physical punishment to religion is a transition that could be followed by several other gradual changes for the better. This might take years of time, but it might change things for the better in the long run.

Check if the cleric/player hat something like this in mind:

Physical punishment never changes, but religion is subject to change:
- followers of the "religion" might be allowed to join the ranks of the church themselves
- these followers, as they improve their ranks in the religious hierarchy might be able to user their influence to loosen the controlling grip of the "religion" on their people

It might be plan that needs to be executed over centuries, but it might work. I don't think that it can be seen as evil that way.

Silver Crusade

Girken wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
Girken wrote:
"My character believes that it's our job to stop the big bad thing and that whatever we need to do to get that done is justified - greater good - therefore good -done."
This is not inline with Sarenrae and her philosophy.

This is no less than the third time he's done something questionable, or flat out non-good. Before he knew his god represented redemption he was putting everyone to the sword. He still regularly advocates torture, extortion, etc - so long as it progresses the quest line.

also- can you elaborate as to how it's not inline? I'd like to have someone else's words to cite.

Emphasis mine.

Has everyone else overlooked this?


Rysky wrote:


Has everyone else overlooked this?

I missed that.

1 to 50 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Should I / How should I punish this cleric? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.