|
The big problem is the deity he supposedly worships focuses on mercy and redemption. Any class drawing power from a deity has to at least pay lip service to their deity’s beliefs and codes. All divine classes including inquisitors and warpriests have a section on Ex-<class name>. If he were a worshiper of Torag much of what he wants to do would be not only accepted but expected. Some of what the original poster said does border on evil, but without having more details and hearing from both sides I am inclined to grant the cleric the benefit of the doubt. He simply chose the wrong deity.
While true, that, like many aspects of the game, is very open to interpretation and perspective, or at least can be. The reason I mention Warpriest is that, despite the Cleric class itself being intentionally designed as warriors of the faith, at least originally, there really is no denying that the Warpriest is very much more martially inclined, above and beyond the general/generic tenets of a given faith. I just mean it's very easy in my opinion to hold a Warpriest to a different "moral standard" than a Cleric of the exact same faith based just on the Class.
Something else to keep in mind, as we can very clearly see with the Cult of the Dawnflower, (or the Burners for Iomedae for instance), either the individual deities do not pay very close attention to their chosen mouthpieces, or just don't care that much. Some of this is because Paizo Politically Correct calls that are questionably good, such as with Erastil, and some of it is because it seems the right hand wasn't talking to the left hand, such as with Sarenrae. But, regardless, we do have very different potential things in print, and in multiple versions of in print.
I agree that the behavior of the character in question is a problem. I just have to ask, is he part of the Cult of the Dawnflower?
Even the Cult of the Dawnflower has limits on their behavior. They aren't so far away from Sarenrae's points of view that she has stopped giving them spells.
|
The big problem is the deity he supposedly worships focuses on mercy and redemption. Any class drawing power from a deity has to at least pay lip service to their deity’s beliefs and codes. All divine classes including inquisitors and warpriests have a section on Ex-<class name>.
Oracles, Rangers and Shamans would disagree!
^^
Maybe the Paladin is a true believer trying to shame Sarenrae and perhaps all the good gods into recognizing and punishing those who do evil in the gods' names. He is trying to destroy the religious bureaucracies that are straitjacketing the gods, destroying the from within as hypocrites and apostates.
The big problem is the deity he supposedly worships focuses on mercy and redemption. Any class drawing power from a deity has to at least pay lip service to their deity’s beliefs and codes. All divine classes including inquisitors and warpriests have a section on Ex-<class name>.Oracles, Rangers and Shamans would disagree!
^^
Oracles draw power from their mysteries which often include multiple gods with different alignments. The flame mystery for examples lists both Sarenrae, and Asmodeous. Rangers like druids draw power from nature. Shamans source of power are spirts not a deity. While specific campaigns settings and archetypes may alter this the rules do state that Clerics, Inquisitors and Warpriests lose power if they fail to uphold their deity’s code and ideals.
So instead of all divine classes having a Ex-<class name> section, I should have said any class drawing power from a deity.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something else to keep in mind, as we can very clearly see with the Cult of the Dawnflower, (or the Burners for Iomedae for instance), either the individual deities do not pay very close attention to their chosen mouthpieces, or just don't care that much. Some of this is because Paizo Politically Correct calls that are questionably good, such as with Erastil, and some of it is because it seems the right hand wasn't talking to the left hand, such as with Sarenrae. But, regardless, we do have very different potential things in print, and in multiple versions of in print.
This is mostly untrue.
It's been explicitly noted that Iomedae doesn't support the Burners. They say they follow her but are not Divine casters so that just means they're delusional, not that she approves.
The Cult of the Dawnflower, meanwhile, are explicitly on the very edge of having Sarenrae do something about them. She's only held off this long because she's the Goddess of Redemption and wants to give them the opportunity to realize the error of their ways without her intervention.
Erastil was admittedly an error.
|
|
This is mostly untrue.It's been explicitly noted that Iomedae doesn't support the Burners. They say they follow her but are not Divine casters so that just means they're delusional, not that she approves.
The Cult of the Dawnflower, meanwhile, are explicitly on the very edge of having Sarenrae do something about them. She's only held off this long because she's the Goddess of Redemption and wants to give them the opportunity to realize the error of their ways without her intervention.
Erastil was admittedly an error.
Being that a lot of the Burners where Inquisitors or Separatists last I heard, I dont think thats true, and the Cult of the Dawnflower just got a new Apocryphal Domain, and have going on for a long while, Im not sure either of your comments is correct.
Divine Anthology os also suggesting that the church of Iomedae is reclaiming some of the over zealous cults, and while it doesn't mention the Burners specifically, it does imply only one cult, The Children of the Third Crusade is the only one who didn't. But, it doesn't say Iomedae, but rather her church heirarchy.
Just curious where you are getting the information?
The big problem is the deity he supposedly worships focuses on mercy and redemption. Any class drawing power from a deity has to at least pay lip service to their deity’s beliefs and codes. All divine classes including inquisitors and warpriests have a section on Ex-<class name>. If he were a worshiper of Torag much of what he wants to do would be not only accepted but expected. Some of what the original poster said does border on evil, but without having more details and hearing from both sides I am inclined to grant the cleric the benefit of the doubt. He simply chose the wrong deity.I don't see how this is a big problem. Its a minor in game contradiction that could easily be hand-waved. Saranae isn't real. She doesn't actually have an opinion.
Other players being uncomfortable with his behavior is a big problem. But thats not one you will solve by taking away his powers or having him worship a different gd.
And don't forget:
"Yet there are those who have no interest in redemption, who glory in slaughter and death. From the remorseless evil of the undead and fiends, to the cruelties born in the hearts of mortals, Sarenrae's doctrines preach swift justice delivered by the scimitar's edge." (This is the scimitar's edge quote the OP mentions at the beginning - so if these "torture victims" are beyond or refuse redemption, then death is an approved part of the Sarenrae doctrine.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big problem is the deity he supposedly worships focuses on mercy and redemption. Any class drawing power from a deity has to at least pay lip service to their deity’s beliefs and codes. All divine classes including inquisitors and warpriests have a section on Ex-<class name>. If he were a worshiper of Torag much of what he wants to do would be not only accepted but expected. Some of what the original poster said does border on evil, but without having more details and hearing from both sides I am inclined to grant the cleric the benefit of the doubt. He simply chose the wrong deity.I don't see how this is a big problem. Its a minor in game contradiction that could easily be hand-waved. Saranae isn't real. She doesn't actually have an opinion.
Other players being uncomfortable with his behavior is a big problem. But thats not one you will solve by taking away his powers or having him worship a different gd.
So your answer to a player who's totally dissonant with a major world feature, one of the core dieties, is to change the world, and ignore the fact that he's been roleplaying it badly?
|
|
Being that a lot of the Burners where Inquisitors or Separatists last I heard, I dont think thats true, and the Cult of the Dawnflower just got a new Apocryphal Domain, and have going on for a long while, Im not sure either of your comments is correct.
Apochryphal Domains are explicitly heretical. They're extremes often just barely tolerated by the appropriate church and deity. Look at the entirety of Hubris and how it works.
As for the Burners...where are you getting that info? I don't remember seeing it anywhere. I know that they're small 'i' inquisitors in the job sense, but where does it say the have the Class?
Divine Anthology os also suggesting that the church of Iomedae is reclaiming some of the over zealous cults, and while it doesn't mention the Burners specifically, it does imply only one cult, The Children of the Third Crusade is the only one who didn't. But, it doesn't say Iomedae, but rather her church heirarchy.
Reclaiming some heretical sects is one thing...but it doesn't follow that all such sects would be reclaimed. Especially those that have committed atrocities.
Just curious where you are getting the information?
The Cult of the Dawnflower stuff is admittedly mostly from James Jacobs saying so explicitly on multiple occasions. Of course, as creative director, his word on this stuff if controlling as regards Golarion.
The Burners stuff is a bit more nebulous, I admit, but I actually can't find any info about them even with word searches. Could you possibly cite any sources?
|
So, the real questions I need help with are:
1) Can a cleric of Sarenrae actually get away with not using a scimitar?2) I know I can give him small punishments from Sarenrae such as "temporary, unexplained sunburn or blindness" but does not using the scimitar warrant that?
3) How quickly will alignment change and which steps should it go to? If he's "NG" does it go in 1 step increments e.g. NG-N-NE or would his actions take him straight to NE/CE?
4) How many warnings should I give the player before his alignment actually is changed (potentially jeopardizing his class abilities)?
Edit:
I don't want to have him out-right change is deity because I feel like that would take too long in-game. I'm not aware of...
Assuming Non-PFS in responses to OP.
1) Under the impression that the deity grants proficiency, but doesn't require use, of their weapon. I have encountered PFS scenario NPCs without their deity weapon, but that may be an oversight if they are actually required to wield their deity's weapon.
2) You are the GM, so if you think it is warranted, then go for it. I would make a point of clarifying your stance (out of game) on deity specific weapons to the player and giving the player the option to switch to a deity with a weapon they want to use, if they intend to go this route.
3) Alignment shouldn't be affected by not following all of your deity's tenants (unless in not following them, you behave as of another alignment). You can become an Ex-cleric without changing your alignment.
As for actual alignment changes, really, the alignment is a reflection of what the character is doing, not a ridged thing the player must maintain. So if the player isn't playing NG, you can change it whenever you want, to reflect what the player is actually playing. And as GM, you really don't need to tell the player, unless you think they need to know. Just note it and wait until it becomes something the player needs to know (like if their alignment becomes so bad they lose class features).
4) Warnings? None are needed. A generous GM would warn players by non-mechanical afflictions to their character, like your example sunburns, possibly even allowing the player to reconsider actions they've already declared they were doing. A cruel GM would have the PC's powers fail in-combat. The average GM approach is probably in between those. You should, however, make very clear what is expected of each player regarding the roleplaying of alignments in your groups and the role playing of divine classes.
Even if the player disagrees with how you perceive the rules, having consistent rules the player knows in advance will avoid many negative encounters between GM and players.
Am I the only one who finds picking a fight over weapon choice rather petty? There must be more to it than that surely!
Put it this way, is adherence to game canon more important than an IRL friendship? ...
Am I the only one who finds picking a fight over weapon choice rather petty? There must be more to it than that surely!
Put it this way, is adherence to game canon more important than an IRL friendship? ...
No one on this thread other than the original poster has made a big deal over the use of a weapon. What everyone does think is a big deal is the fact that the cleric is pretty much ignoring his deities teachings and pretty much doing the opposite.
The rules of the game clearly state that when a cleric violates the code of conduct expected by the deity they become an Ex-Cleric. This is no different than a paladin falling, or a wizard wanting to cast spells in full plate armor without any chance of arcane spell failure.
|
So your answer to a player who's totally dissonant with a major world feature, one of the core dieties, is to change the world, and ignore the fact that he's been roleplaying it badly?The big problem is the deity he supposedly worships focuses on mercy and redemption. Any class drawing power from a deity has to at least pay lip service to their deity’s beliefs and codes. All divine classes including inquisitors and warpriests have a section on Ex-<class name>. If he were a worshiper of Torag much of what he wants to do would be not only accepted but expected. Some of what the original poster said does border on evil, but without having more details and hearing from both sides I am inclined to grant the cleric the benefit of the doubt. He simply chose the wrong deity.I don't see how this is a big problem. Its a minor in game contradiction that could easily be hand-waved. Saranae isn't real. She doesn't actually have an opinion.
Other players being uncomfortable with his behavior is a big problem. But thats not one you will solve by taking away his powers or having him worship a different gd.
I have never considered the core deities a big part of my campaigns. Its very rare for someone to directly interact with one of them, certainly not several of them.
Unless Saranae is a big part of the campaign changing her personality will have no impact on their adventures while smoothing things over out of character.
The OP was asking for advice regarding the actual Pathfinder and Golarion Deity Saranrae.
Completely shifting her personality and what she encompasses veers into homebrew territory.
|
|
There are big differences from a wizard wanting to cast in full plate. The wizard is getting a mechanical advantage through extra AC. The cleric gets no mechanical advantage.Am I the only one who finds picking a fight over weapon choice rather petty? There must be more to it than that surely!
Put it this way, is adherence to game canon more important than an IRL friendship? ...
No one on this thread other than the original poster has made a big deal over the use of a weapon. What everyone does think is a big deal is the fact that the cleric is pretty much ignoring his deities teachings and pretty much doing the opposite.
The rules of the game clearly state that when a cleric violates the code of conduct expected by the deity they become an Ex-Cleric. This is no different than a paladin falling, or a wizard wanting to cast spells in full plate armor without any chance of arcane spell failure.
The Cleric's "mechanical advantage" is keeping its class abilities.
|
|
I have never considered the core deities a big part of my campaigns. Its very rare for someone to directly interact with one of them, certainly not several of them.
Unless Saranae is a big part of the campaign changing her personality will have no impact on their adventures while smoothing things over out of character.
I'm perfectly willing to believe this is true for you.
It'd be one of the most completely untrue statement about my own gaming experiences someone could make. I care about worldbuilding, verisimilitude, and lack of retcons. A lot.
And I actually really like the Golarion deities, and while they seldom appear in person, worshipers of them acting in a manner consistent with their doctrine appear regularly. Plus the players actually read about them.
So suddenly changing their personality would be like running a game in the Star Wars universe and having the Sith suddenly be the good guys mid-game because someone wanted to play Darth Maul. Everyone would know the world got changed just for that one player (and as a retcon) and people would probably be pretty upset...especially me.
I'd probably walk out of a game that did something like that as a retcon to excuse a player not caring about the world lore, and would not return.
.
.
.
So the answer to whether that's appropriate depends a lot on your group, but I'd tend to err on the side of it not being appropriate in most cases, if only because retcons are always super awkward.
|
|
The Cult of the Dawnflower stuff is admittedly mostly from James Jacobs saying so explicitly on multiple occasions. Of course, as creative director, his word on this stuff if controlling as regards Golarion.
The Burners stuff is a bit more nebulous, I admit, but I actually can't find any info about them even with word searches. Could you possibly cite any sources?
I agree, it's difficult to find much actual information. I was mostly going off of Divine Anthology and Inner Sea World Guide, which do not outright say "the Burners", but do talk about them in a general sense and do specify their leader Hulrun to help identify them. (I've heard that he and the Burners where wiped out in the Wrath of the Righteous AP, but not sure how true or fully that was, and the AP itself needs to be taken with a grain of salt).
As far as the Apocryphal Domain, the point I was trying to make is that at least some of them do still have divine magic, and I do know that from both the Wrath of the Righteous and Chronicles of the Righteous, Ioemdae is a bit on the crazy, not very LG side of things that might make haters of Ragathiel a bit uncomfortable. And while it does say (lower case "i") inquisitors/inquisitions, it does the same with other words like prophet, priest, or crusader, and are mainly setting books rather that speaking about specific Game Terms (like Cleric, Paladin, or Inquisitor). I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.
As far as the Cult of the Dawnflower, it is indeed an oddity, and I'm aware of James's dislike of them, but it's also an issue that while he doesn't approve of their concept, they are in print. There has been an effort to alter them slightly, or rather aspects around them (Taldor hating Sarenrae worshippers, the issue with slavery), it's still there in print. The point I was trying to make there is that it really depends on what information a given person has on setting lore, in regards to a player and DM agreeing on "true" canon).
All in all, and within the context of this topic, all I am saying is that it is possible that the said "problem player" might have some grounds within the setting for playing the character as he is, based on some of the published material. I don't mean that as an excuse to have party conflict, if that's truly what's happening, but rather, if it's more of a case of the DM not approving of his playstyle, or not liking the sort of unexpected actions he is taking, that's a little bit of a different story, and it's really hard to say when there is really only the one side of the story, and no real examples given other than a pretty generic "he does things like _____", which I can see not being as evil/dark/grim as presented without any further context or the player's intentions added in.
Am I the only one who finds picking a fight over weapon choice rather petty? There must be more to it than that surely!
Put it this way, is adherence to game canon more important than an IRL friendship? ...
The issue is not the weapon choice, it's the conduct of a character that's not befitting the worship of a good deity.
And if a friendship is on the line over this... that speaks volumes on the quality of that friendship.
|
|
The issue is not the weapon choice, it's the conduct of a character that's not befitting the worship of a good deity.
We are assuming based off of very little, and very generic information without full context.
And if a friendship is on the line over this... that speaks volumes on the quality of that friendship.
I found this a little strange as well, and the initial indication was that it was a new player joining an existing group, and that the DM hadn't really done an in depth look at the new player's character sheet. Something seems,. . . off here.
The absolute easiest thing I can think of has been mentioned already, and simply ask the player to choose a different deity who doesn't seem to cause as much rifts with the perceived tenets of faith. IF THAT is still an issue, than clearly it's everyone else at the table that has the issue, and not that player or their choice of deity.
The issue is not the weapon choice, it's the conduct of a character that's not befitting the worship of a good deity.We are assuming based off of very little, and very generic information without full context.
And if a friendship is on the line over this... that speaks volumes on the quality of that friendship.I found this a little strange as well, and the initial indication was that it was a new player joining an existing group, and that the DM hadn't really done an in depth look at the new player's character sheet. Something seems,. . . off here.
The conduct of the player has been pretty extensively spelled out as that of a typical murderhobo wearing the clerical robes of Sarenrae. It's not really that ambiguous. I do think that the non-use of a scimitar is a non-issue.
|
|
No, it really hasn't, unless I'm missing it. It's heavily implied that they are "murderhoboing", which can mean a great deal of different things, and that they do "stabilize enemies, get information, and kill them". Depending on the circumstances that we have no real idea of, that can range basically any alignment.
"Murderhoboing" isn't really evil as much as it is a simple playstyle, based off of things like PFS where the party travels all over the world (hoboing), and tends to focus on one of the basic assumptions of the game (killing things to take their stuff so that you can then kill stronger things in order to take their stuff). A paladin that goes from nation to nation to slay only Evil Dragons is still "murderhoboing".
It's more of a comment on the combination of the basic assumption of the game combined with the episodic nature of adventures, where generally the character doesn't stick around too long afterwards to have any real penalties for potential collateral damage they might have left in an area.
Am I the only one who finds picking a fight over weapon choice rather petty? There must be more to it than that surely!
Put it this way, is adherence to game canon more important than an IRL friendship? ...
No one on this thread other than the original poster has made a big deal over the use of a weapon. What everyone does think is a big deal is the fact that the cleric is pretty much ignoring his deities teachings and pretty much doing the opposite.
The rules of the game clearly state that when a cleric violates the code of conduct expected by the deity they become an Ex-Cleric. This is no different than a paladin falling, or a wizard wanting to cast spells in full plate armor without any chance of arcane spell failure.
The idea that the goddess of redemption would withhold spells over somebody using a different weapon, seems rather extreme to me. Of course if there was more to it than that, e.g. it was part of a pattern of disrespectful behavior, that would be different.
The idea that the goddess of redemption would withhold spells over somebody using a different weapon, seems rather extreme to me. Of course if there was more to it than that, e.g. it was part of a pattern of disrespectful behavior, that would be different.Am I the only one who finds picking a fight over weapon choice rather petty? There must be more to it than that surely!
Put it this way, is adherence to game canon more important than an IRL friendship? ...
No one on this thread other than the original poster has made a big deal over the use of a weapon. What everyone does think is a big deal is the fact that the cleric is pretty much ignoring his deities teachings and pretty much doing the opposite.
The rules of the game clearly state that when a cleric violates the code of conduct expected by the deity they become an Ex-Cleric. This is no different than a paladin falling, or a wizard wanting to cast spells in full plate armor without any chance of arcane spell failure.
You are completely misunderstanding what I am and most of the other posters are saying. To make it clear the cleric can use any weapon he wants without having any problems with Sarenrae.
The real problem is that the player is completely ignoring just about everything Sarenrae stands for. The original poster has outright stated the cleric does not care about the things Sarenrae stands for. Then goes on to give the example of killing someone and bringing them back from the dead, only to kill them again after questioning the person. He also mentioned the character is ok with torturing prisoners for information. He also says that the way the cleric is being played is evil. Since I don’t have the full information I have given the clerics player the benefit of the doubt on the alignment issue, but that does not change the fact that the player is not living up to the standards and code of his deity.
To make it clear the cleric can use any weapon he wants without having any problems with Sarenrae.
A cleric of Sarenae expressing too much interest in using the Stingchuck as a weapon might merit comment from the GM, however.
No, it really hasn't, unless I'm missing it. It's heavily implied that they are "murderhoboing", which can mean a great deal of different things, and that they do "stabilize enemies, get information, and kill them". Depending on the circumstances that we have no real idea of, that can range basically any alignment.
"Murderhoboing" isn't really evil as much as it is a simple playstyle, based off of things like PFS where the party travels all over the world (hoboing), and tends to focus on one of the basic assumptions of the game (killing things to take their stuff so that you can then kill stronger things in order to take their stuff). A paladin that goes from nation to nation to slay only Evil Dragons is still "murderhoboing".
It's more of a comment on the combination of the basic assumption of the game combined with the episodic nature of adventures, where generally the character doesn't stick around too long afterwards to have any real penalties for potential collateral damage they might have left in an area.
Ya know, that's probably the most important thing for the OP to discuss with her new player! And sure, expectations as to the consequences of socially polluting one's environment differ.
To the OP:
If you're running a coherent, long-running campaign, you no doubt provide all sorts of RP consequences for the PCs' actions. My suggestion is that you find a quick opportunity to do so -- good consequences for the actions you want to encourage, preferably. (I'm learning to train dogs, you can tell, and they keep reinforcing in us positive reinforcement...) :)
Please, please, do not involve people not in the room when you talk with this player. Saying "some of the other players are unhappy with your character's behavior" just sets up an angry dynamic that cannot be resolved. "Why didn't they talk to me about it, if they're so unhappy?" You might prep those players that you're going to address this issue after the next game, maybe, so that they can leave, or stay & join in. But if they go, or stay & don't join in, then their opinion really shouldn't come up. My two cents, anyway.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, it's difficult to find much actual information. I was mostly going off of Divine Anthology and Inner Sea World Guide, which do not outright say "the Burners", but do talk about them in a general sense and do specify their leader Hulrun to help identify them. (I've heard that he and the Burners where wiped out in the Wrath of the Righteous AP, but not sure how true or fully that was, and the AP itself needs to be taken with a grain of salt).
Okay, looking at that, Hulrun hasn't tortured anyone, though he may've killed some innocents on suspicion (all they actually say is that his doing so is rumored...and given that he's an Inquisitor, that's actually sorta unlikely, they have a lot of ways to check). He is an Inquisitor of Iomedae, so he can't have done too much bad stuff...but he is also LN, so he's probably done some.
As far as the Apocryphal Domain, the point I was trying to make is that at least some of them do still have divine magic,
The Cult of the Dawnflower? Sure. They're explicitly still given spells...but just barely.
and I do know that from both the Wrath of the Righteous and Chronicles of the Righteous, Ioemdae is a bit on the crazy, not very LG side of things that might make haters of Ragathiel a bit uncomfortable.
This is actually untrue. People have seriously misinterpreted the intent of the scene in WotR. Iomedae isn't the friendliest deity, but she's not remotely on the shady side of things per se.
And while it does say (lower case "i") inquisitors/inquisitions, it does the same with other words like prophet, priest, or crusader, and are mainly setting books rather that speaking about specific Game Terms (like Cleric, Paladin, or Inquisitor). I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.
Looking at it, as led by Hulrun, they appear to be Inquisitors at least partially...but there's little evidence they've done anything too terribly Evil.
The ones who burned the people of Sarkoris are all dead, and we have no idea of their Classes or Levels. It seems unlikely they were actually Divine casters, though, since any divine Caster with Detect Evil wouldn't have made the mistakes they did.
As far as the Cult of the Dawnflower, it is indeed an oddity, and I'm aware of James's dislike of them, but it's also an issue that while he doesn't approve of their concept, they are in print. There has been an effort to alter them slightly, or rather aspects around them (Taldor hating Sarenrae worshippers, the issue with slavery), it's still there in print. The point I was trying to make there is that it really depends on what information a given person has on setting lore, in regards to a player and DM agreeing on "true" canon).
Well, even the actual books are very clear that they're heretics who differ from the mainstream church and who are not approved of by the Goddess. The only thing that's not clear is exactly how close Sarenrae is to bringing the hammer down.
All in all, and within the context of this topic, all I am saying is that it is possible that the said "problem player" might have some grounds within the setting for playing the character as he is, based on some of the published material. I don't mean that as an excuse to have party conflict, if that's truly what's happening, but rather, if it's more of a case of the DM not approving of his playstyle, or not liking the sort of unexpected actions he is taking, that's a little bit of a different story, and it's really hard to say when there is really only the one side of the story, and no real examples given other than a pretty generic "he does things like _____", which I can see not being as evil/dark/grim as presented without any further context or the player's intentions added in.
Nah, even the Cult of the Dawnflower explicitly offer enemies an opportunity for mercy. They have to. They just only offer one.
(I'm learning to train dogs, you can tell, and they keep reinforcing in us positive reinforcement...) :)
LOL!!! That's one of the more egregious instances of an unclear antecedent that I've committed. The antecedent for "they," "my trainers," isn't just unclear, it's outright missing! I realized what I'd said after I'd left the keyboard last night. No, I did not mean that the dogs are reinforcing my giving them treats!
Although my bichons are working on it...