Girken's page

Girken wrote:

During our next session I'll keep a log of his actions so if you're interested be on the look out for a post I'll title something like "Cleric alignment review /analysis"

Please do.

Also, keep a mental note of the PLAYER reactions. I think a lot of the concern on the "don't affect the player" people (which I am one of) is that the player might genuinely be surprised about the possibility they are doing something "wrong". Again, they might be aware that they are and are interested in seeing what happens.

In one of the games I play we had a N Druid whose actions were slipping him to NE. He knew it, and it was discussed, and it was something that was played out in game well.

As requested http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tnno?Cleric-alignment-review-analysis

During our next session I'll keep a log of his actions so if you're interested be on the look out for a post I'll title something like "Cleric alignment review /analysis"

Posted!

Hey all - the spiritual successor for this post is up
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tnno?Cleric-alignment-review-analysis#1
it contains the notes for the last gaming session for all to get a good contextual grasp of this cleric.

Super long post! These are the minutes from the last gaming session as requested by a previous posters (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tn01?Should-I-How-should-I-punish-this-cleric ). Please be aware there are minor spoilers but nothing that would ruin a module or anything. For context, you'll need to know that

Night one- The Night Peddler allowed the Cleric and Paladin to rest while cuffed. Prophetic dreams ensued; Cleric was visited in his dreams by a messenger of Sarenrae who expressed concern for his actions and asked him to return to the light and do good works. Moments later he was visited again in dream form by a demon that tempted him with power from Asmodeus. Rogue-Player blacked out and had her first werewolf transformation. Rogue-Player realized what happened in the morning and why - then decided to conceal those facts and snuck back into camp to uncuff slaves. 5 Slaves died in the night due to her rampage.

Day 1- The party, being the only variable introduce and clearly responsible for the missing merchandise, was charged for the cost. Cleric's alignment was shifted to True Neutral due to his previous actions. The Cleric and Paladin was uncuffed and let loose under the condition they pay their bill before leaving camp.
Rogue-Player successfully got one set of cuffs unlocked.
The next attempted unlocking was a natural 1 and this resulted in a slip that stabbed the slave with the lock pick for 6 points. This resulted in a yelp which alerted a guard – the rogue left until things died down.
Rogue-Player got another 8 successes and another 1, again stabbing someone but this time for 4 points, yelped again, guard took notice of similar injuries and reported this to the NP.
Cleric went into the sunlight and prayed for his spells, "star light star bright, god bless, magic circle against evil, prayer, firewall, fireball, remove fear, doom, protection from energy dispel evil." Cleric-Player " ... it comes out as a rap when I do it." – and danced in the sun.
Paladin unilaterally decided to buy the freedom of all the slaves, cleaning out the party loot (he had the bag and wasn’t being watched) - getting an especially good deal on cleric vestments and a holy symbol of Asmodeus because the NP was interested in founding a religious form of control due to the previous conversation with the Cleric.
There was a large commotion as the slaves were gathered, told they’d been purchased and we’re being let free. The Paladin spoke with the leader of the rebellion who thanked him and was surprised by his altruism and ability to gain their freedom bloodlessly. The NP lowered his price -in grubs- for his token, because he was rather pleased at the recent large deal. Cleric-Player said “Well now we got to kill these guys!” (presumably to recover the party loot sold – clarified slightly by a comment later)
Rogue went to heal the injured with salve and Cleric-Player said, “noooo – don’t waste the salve!”. The Cleric then channeled energy to heal the injured slaves instead.
Cleric-Player said, “The NP has to die, so the antqueen will give us her gem.” He then continued and explained how the Tick Tock Man should be compared to the NP and whichever is a bigger dick they should kill that one. When asked for clarification if his Character felt that way or if this was table talk, The Cleric then officially signed off on the message "we should compare the tick-tock man to the NP character and whichever was a greater dick should be killed." When warned this was essentially advocating murder he smiled and said" no, this will be a holy war" Cleric-Player, then recanted briefly and said, “well first let’s meet the tick tock man - we don’t necessarily need to kill him.”
When told the cost of buying the slaves (most the party loot) freedom Cleric-Player said “Well now we should kill the guy just to get the money back!" and berated the paladin for being inefficient with money.

They asked Jacob (an NPC) to guide them back to the briar (where they’d been) and point them in the right direction (to where they wanted to go but hadn’t been), 2 nights later werewolf transformation #2 occurred and 6 more slaves were lost (time flows weirdly here, style choice, don’t bust my chops). They reached the briar’s edge and set out for the smith’s caldera (the new location).
-Day 3-
Their insults failed to deter the caldera citizens who treat the visitors to a rockslide trap.

They took some damage, Cleric channeled energy to heal, Paladin spoke to the Citizens for a moment not gathering anything useful (information). Rogue tried to sneak invisibly up the mountain but ultimately failed to find alternate routes. Paladin charged into a rest area and met the ill-tempered cyclops bartender.

The party tried to find a way around the angry bar cyclops, to no avail, but eventually made a side route by stone shaping a whole into an adjacent chamber. They met a fire giant variant and dealt with his insults. (He was not happy about his lot in life) Paladin and Rogue suggested helping him, they consulted the cleric who pawed through his spells and didn’t find the situation solving spell (stone to flesh). The party then attempted to get the bartender's aid / search the area for something to cure him - to no avail. The bartender tried to bounce them due to them essentially lacking the requisite cover charge, a fight ensued, the Paladin did some considerable damage and the bartender acquiesced and gave a key to the next area, after that they went to visit the Tick Tock Man.

While talking to Paladin and Cleric, Rogue snuck about stealing things, got caught, aggravated the situation - The TTM drew his sword trying to find Rogue, he went invisible and used his quicken suggestions (“It’s getting dangerous here, you should leave and not come back.”) to try to get people to leave, Cleric and Paladin resisted but Rogue failed and then fled but not before getting a shot off.. Paladin used his abilities to do nonlethal damage, Cleric went for straight lethal damage. The TTM got a 1 and fell prone, prompting Cleric to say, "co-operate with us or uh, we'll kill you, by the edge of the scimitar." A few boring damaging combat rounds later the TTM turned invisible again and ran for it.
Then, Cleric-Player said, after he was out of the immediate vicinity, "I kind of have half a mind to wreck all of his s#!# buuuut nah, let’s get him! .........subdue him."
They pursued him to the bar where the TTM raised a clamor among the npcs and healed up a bit whilst invisible. Paladin tried to talk him down but the TTM claimed that the PC-party were aggressors that came in smashing and stealing stuff, attempting to go for the throat with the Paladin as the lone exception. Paladin argued that he can't control the individual actions of party members, only his own.
– Tabled the game there for the evening-

Dude, change his alignment one step toward neutral. If he doesn't get the message he never will.

I personally hate alignment because of the human element(nobody can be objective and still be human) which makes these calls very much about perspective. That said, advocating torture is a pretty clear violation of good and really ought to move someone to neutral.

A real mechanical change that doesn't immediately turn off all of his class features is the best middle ground and it gives you a stronger position if and when you actually do take his powers away.

I'm totally going to do so, he can shift it back with actions but regardless of the rationalizations he's going to be chaotic good til' further notice.

Alignment is always a difficult topic, because opinions of it vary greatly. As a general rule, however, as the arbiter of the rules it is the GMs interpretation of alignment that takes precedence.

And it is worth telling your players what your take on alignment is, because it can vary a lot: I've seen games where "Evil" meant "Raving psychopath with less self control and humanity than a balor" and anything less was merely "Neutral". I've seen games where any self-centered behavior (such as asking for a reward for dispatching a roaming monster) was considered neutral at best and potential grounds for alignment change. And a full spectrum in between.

Generally, I'd suggest getting the player to open his CRB and re-read pages 166-168. Of specific interest is the following:

Core Rulebook, pg 166. "Good Versus Evil wrote:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Personally: I consider the alignment wheel to be the "Human Alignment" and stretching out from that is "Monstrous Alignment". Thus, a good aligned character isn't "as Good" as an angel, nor is an evil aligned character as despicable as a pit fiend. Within the mortal spectrum of alignments, "good" doesn't make someone a saint, and "evil" doesn't make someone a villain.

With regards to clerics: Generally speaking there should be some...

Excellent point and suggestions! On the topic of rationalization, you are a 100% correct and that's what this PC does, whatever he wants + tons of explaining why it's fine. I think that I can mitigate that by explaining that the gods judge based on actions not intent. Strictly because in terms of game mechanics it's impossible for me to know his intent at all times. Not to get off topic, but there seems to be a small faction of people in here that seem to think that any kind of DM interference on this stuff is "messing with" the player. Personally, I feel as though playing a cleric vs an arcane caster means you have some kind of code of conduct, generally outlined by your diety - that's basically your arcane spell chance failure equivalent. Pray for your spells, nice list? check. get spells. That said, I've offered on more than one occasion the player consider the in-book role playing cop-out of "If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, she still selects two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations and abilities (subject to GM approval)." but the player has remained insistent on his initial choice. Still, powering down a hero for a day or more sucks, so I'm always hesitant to go that route.

You could have the Night Peddler call in the cleric in the morning and proclaim how his advice on controlling his captives by using religion to 'ease their minds and suffering' has swayed him. Then have another figure walk in, an Inquisitor or Cleric to another, not so nice, god.

The Night Peddler talks about how the cleric persuaded him to look more into religion and this particular guy seemed willing and able and... just a bit more... suited to the job.

...

I like that, I think I may have to work that in.

Girken, why did your player choose Sarenrae and not Asmodeus for his Cleric's deity ?

I discussed that with him briefly and basically it's because he wanted "big heals". he's a asimar cleric with the healing domain and some feats so essentially he can heal and get 150% standard healing and channel quite a bit.

Rysky wrote:

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?

Wow - WOW... well hello, sinner.

To start: "She dislikes cruelty, lies, needless suffering, and thoughtless destruction". 'Needless' in this context means pretty much anything that isn't directly to stop evil that refuses to be redeemed.

Further, about her clergy: "They see no point in punishment for its own sake—loving kindness and acceptance draw the lost back to the path of goodness far more effectively than threats or pain—but they do not confuse patience with allowing evil to work its will unopposed. Force may be a last resort for a priest of the Dawnf lower, but when she draws her scimitar, her justice will be swift, implacable, and complete. Those who wage war in Sarenrae’s name attempt to ensure that it is as clean as they can make it, and that it ends as quickly as possible." - This is directly connected to torture and why Sarenites don't perform it.

It's mentioned that the Dawnflower cult members are more often Neutral than actually Good aligned. They do, however, offer a second chance to everyone. "Do whatever we need to do" is never their first answer and "whatever" still does not include taking part of evil acts or what Sarenrae strongly discourages (and they're not considered Good, stepping away from this further and you're closing on...

Excellent Quotes, I'll cite them with the cleric when we discuss how his god will be portrayed.

During our next session I'll keep a log of his actions so if you're interested be on the look out for a post I'll title something like "Cleric alignment review /analysis"

Avoron wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Especially since, ultimately, we're talking about a fantasy setting.

Exactly. It's a fantasy setting. You could have an actual magical effect that can only be negated by inflicting a certain amount of pain and suffering on the creator.

A good aligned deity would say that there is ALWAYS another option besides an evil act.

That spell you mention is not the only spell by which such information can be obtained. It is just one of many. How about Charm Person? Hypnotism? Contact Other Plane? Etc.?

And, looking at it from a game mechanic standpoint, why not use Diplomacy or Bluff to get the information they want? Why default to torture?

Right?! I mean, I get that sometimes there seem like there is no option and in that case yes, torturing some murderous cretin doesn't seem particularly bad if it does some good thing. But the fact remains that going into it you have no guarantees that you'll get anything out. So you end up measuring theoretical gain vs a definite act.

I am baffled that the player did not know from the beginning about Sarenrae's redemption aspect. This is definitely the kind of things a GM should clarify at character creation IMO

I think he would be a GREAT Cleric of Asmodeus

Oh he was educated about sarenrae's redemption policies like 3-4 sessions ago and it influenced some actions for a session or two but then seemed to fade.

Wow! I'm thoroughly impressed with the conversations this has spawned! Well done, all. I wish we all had the time to pour over this character's past decisions but it's been about 20+ game sessions so you'll all simply have to trust me. Given his previous acts and input from the additional conversations you all had overnight I'm amending my plan. First, combo dream sequence that essentially comes out to Sarenrae worried/displeased - Asmodeus hiring, second alignment shift to chaotic good - with options to shift any which way his future actions dictate - at the moment I'll treat his alignment as though it can more easily shift, slippery slopes / internal strife and all that. I'm debating slightly on a very minor - nearly cosmetic debuff, to rail home his deity has slightly less faith in him. Firebolts only fly half as far -or some such, he rarely uses them now anyway (Level 9 PC).

Thank you all for your contributions! If any of you are interested in future developments with this character PM me and I'd be happy to keep you in the loop.

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:

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 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:

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.

---

+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.

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.

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+

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.

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.

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?

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

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."

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.