A condensed bit of background:
I'm currently running a homebrew campaign with the Pathfinder ruleset, the Kingmaker kingdom building rules, and the 3.5 dieties. My players are running characters involved in building a nation newly seceeded from an opressive empire and have recently discovered that a "secret police-type" of organization in that empire may be actively trying to oppose them.
Now to the question:
One of the characters is a good priest of Pelor who recently proposed forging a set of documents to discredit those "secret police" and also to attribute a few murders to them that he knows full well that they did not commit. The character in question most certainly has enough ranks in Linguistics as well as samples of reports and writings to make this entirely plausible.
The character is not lawful and has never presented himself as such, but I'm currently on the fence as to whether his faith would be particularly happy with such a deception. As Pelor is largely devoted to the protection of the common folk, I can see where the priest's actions would benefit the citizenry of their budding nation.
However, I'm also having difficulty believing that Pelor would condone such a deceptive act. While truthfullness and honor are not specifically noted as part of Pelor's dogma, I would think that a priest of a good diety may be held to a higher standard than the simple core concepts of that faith.
As I'm on the fence, I thought I would throw this out and see what some others think.
-Brooks
|
Seems this is a test of the ends justify the means. As Pelor is the god of the Sun I would think that truth and doing things above board and in the open would be the prevailing doctrine. Now in times of strife mortals make choices and as mortals are flawed they make mistakes.
I would say let this priest play his gambit. If he succeeds he shouldn't be personally rewarded at all. No positions of power, no higher standing in the church. Even if his superiors don't know he was behind the frame job, Pelor (or a duly appointed servant like an Astral Deva) would have kept tabs on the Priest. He made a choice that benefited the nation and it's people, but he went about it the wrong way. As punishment, he is left as an adventuring priest (albeit a powerful one) and stand outside the chain of command in the new regime.
If the player is truly playing a good alignmed character they'll feel that they accomplished their goal to free the realm and bring peace and realize choices have a price. If the PC pouts or is outraged at the lack of recognition for his accomplishments, then drop the Hammer and have said Divine representative command him to Atone and submit to a Quest or be stripped of his powers. Either way the Character can be sent on more adventures, because really he's an adventurer!
--School of Hard Vrocks
Seems this is a test of the ends justify the means. As Pelor is the god of the Sun I would think that truth and doing things above board and in the open would be the prevailing doctrine. Now in times of strife mortals make choices and as mortals are flawed they make mistakes.
I would say let this priest play his gambit. If he succeeds he shouldn't be personally rewarded at all. No positions of power, no higher standing in the church. Even if his superiors don't know he was behind the frame job, Pelor (or a duly appointed servant like an Astral Deva) would have kept tabs on the Priest. He made a choice that benefited the nation and it's people, but he went about it the wrong way. As punishment, he is left as an adventuring priest (albeit a powerful one) and stand outside the chain of command in the new regime.
If the player is truly playing a good alignmed character they'll feel that they accomplished their goal to free the realm and bring peace and realize choices have a price. If the PC pouts or is outraged at the lack of recognition for his accomplishments, then drop the Hammer and have said Divine representative command him to Atone and submit to a Quest or be stripped of his powers. Either way the Character can be sent on more adventures, because really he's an adventurer!
King,
Thanks for the advice; you were able to concentrate and clarify several of the things that I had bouncing around in my mind much better that I was able to. It's always good to have someone outside of the immediate situation to provide some insight, that oftentimes is difficult for those of us in the middle of it to see.
I particularly like how you rolled Pelor being the "Shining Lord" of the sun to prefer things to be "above board" and in the open; this fits perfectly with the diety's portfolio. I also particularly like letting the character run things as he had planned and then letting them work themselves out, albeit without a direct or personal benefit to himself. As a servant of a god devoted to the benefit of the common man, I think this is particularly fitting. Those common citizens will benefit by the priest's actions, but the priest himself will gain no personal benefit from his deception.
-Brooks
EDIT: I'm also now thinking about unintended consequences.
|
I think you should handle it a different way. Ask the Player what he thinks Pelor's Clerics would think of it. Make him make an argument both for and against it from Pelor's perspective.
Then, instead of coming up with your own absolute rule for this Alignment issue, you're challenging your Player's. Often, just getting the Player to think in character about this stuff gets the Player far more into his character.
I would question the Player's argument, positing different hypothetical situations based on whatever argument he comes up with: If you can forge a document in "this" situation then would it be okay in "that" situation?!?. Make him sweat it a little; make him think.
But whatever he comes up with, you should probably go along with it. That is, so long as he's not metagaming his reasoning. If he's legitimately looking at the issue from both sides and coming up with a reasonable argument and not just looking for an excuse -- let him forge it.
. . . . Now, other Players in the group my want to participate in the conversation and awesome if they do -- but beware -- some gamers really don't like these kinds of conversations. If this is the case in your group, do all this DM-to-Player stuff out of game, over e-mail or something. Don't ruin everyone else's game time if they're not into this.
|
|
W E Ray has a good point too... damned devil's advocate <shakes claw> I like the idea of having the Player rationalize the decision, but unless you have a really good RP Player it could cause friction. Some of my players, especially the Rollplayers would probably feel annoyed at making them think. Of course my Roll players rarely if ever play Clerics for precisely this reason!
I'd still use a long view & come up with some uninteded consequences of the actions. I mean if the truth comes to light imagine the scandal!
I would like to know the priests alignment.
Also, it would depend on whether the cleric knows that while these people are not guilty of the crimes he's framing them for, that they are guilty of other crimes equally or more heinous.
If the cleric is NG, then he's walking a fine line. Mainly because by framing these guys for murder, he is ensuring the true murderer is not punished. Now, if he knows the real murderer is already dead or already in jail for another crime, then that frees him of this burden.
If the cleric is CG, then more power to him. A CG character IS more concerned about the than he is about rules and laws. He would have no issues framing someone he knows is guilty of other crimes of a convenient crime that carries similar punishments.
As to Pelor... well, honestly, if he's a CG cleric of Pelor, Pelor accepted him as a chaotic priest. He'd never be in the hierarchy of the clergy anyway. If he's NG, he's probably just hosed any chance of getting into the hierarchy. But he also probably doesn't care.
The cleric in question is NG and I'm leaning towards letting the forgeries slide for now. As this is his first questionable act, I'm not quite ready to engage the player in a philosophical discussion, but I want to see how this rides out, so to speak.
I agree that he is using the "ends justify the means" mentality and I want to see if he progresses any further down that potentially slippery slope before taking a more direct stance with the player.
With that said, I am going to keep this deception in the back of my mind and it will certainly be brought up if the character seeks to progress upwards in the church hierarchy. I may also offer some subtle clues that his diety probably wasn't thrilled with the idea such as other Pelorian priests being inexplicably cold or distant towards him in minor ways for a bit.
I'm also thinking about keeping a very close eye on how he handles the logistics of this little plan and agree that there will be a fairly significant scandal if it does come to light. While Pelor is not necessarily a "law and order" diety, as King brought up, he is a god of the sun and light and probably doesn't like the idea of one of his priests skulking about in the moral and ethical shadows, even if it does serve the ultimate good.
Finally, the actual murderer was never brought to justice and this may have some real implications. I'm thinking about, at some point down the road, having the killer stop by and give the priest a quick pat on the shoulder and a heartfelt thanks for "keeping the heat off of him." That in, and of itself, could raise some interesting issues for the party.
-Brooks
I'd certainly let the forgeries slide as far as alignment goes. They're unethical, sure, but we're talking maybe a couple of nights feeling guilty while engaging in penance to feel he's atoned before his god. That's really about it.
If I were tracking the PC's alignment on a grid, maybe he'd move a small amount in the direction away from the lawful and good upper left corner. Hardly a movement at all.
I'd certainly let the forgeries slide as far as alignment goes. They're unethical, sure, but we're talking maybe a couple of nights feeling guilty while engaging in penance to feel he's atoned before his god. That's really about it.
If I were tracking the PC's alignment on a grid, maybe he'd move a small amount in the direction away from the lawful and good upper left corner. Hardly a movement at all.
I'm right with you that the act itself is a relatively minor one and if we were talking about the party's rogue, fighter, or even the druid for that matter, I probably wouldn't give this as much thought as I already have. However, as an earthly representative of his faith's dogma, I feel that the priest should be held to a slightly higher standard and the forgeries are definitely dodgy.
Is it an evil act, probably not. It is a chaotic act, absolutely, but then again neither the character nor Pelor are really focused on law/chaos; the priest simply wants to discredit his enemies and thereby protect the common citizens of his baby kingdom.
At this point, I'm just going to keep an extra eye on the character and see if he uses the same justifications on the forgeries for future acts that might be a bit more egregious. Hopefully this won't be the start of a trend that will require more direct action in the future.
-Brooks
No, not an evil act at all, more neutral than anything else. If they were innocent of any major crimes, then framing them for murder would be evil. These are, however, secret spys. Think James Bond. James Bond has committed crimes in the name of queen and country, so framing him for a murder he didn't commit (after all the ones he did) would be a neutral act. However, if you were to frame instead someone like Mother Teresa, then that would be evil.
All this is is a bump towards Chaos, and only a roadbump, not a swiss alp. If he keeps it up, have a talk with him... eventually just switch his alignment to CG if he keeps up the 'ends justify'.
One of the characters is a good priest of Pelor who recently proposed forging a set of documents to discredit those "secret police" and also to attribute a few murders to them that he knows full well that they did not commit.
Honestly, I haven't read the thread but forgery is not the same thing as accusing people of murders they didn't commit. Forgery in and of itself is Neutral. Getting people probably murdered for crimes they didn't commit is Evil.
Honestly, I haven't read the thread but forgery is not the same thing as accusing people of murders they didn't commit. Forgery in and of itself is Neutral. Getting people probably murdered for crimes they didn't commit is Evil.
It's not particularly the forgery that I'm concerned with, it's what the priest is doing with his forgeries.
Essentially it's the same argument that most technology is not inherently evil, it's how the human (or elf or velociraptor or whatever) does with that technology. If I use a longsword to defend an innocent person against an attacker, it is probably good. If I use that same longsword to kill off the inhabitants of an orphange, well that's pretty bad.
Same thing for the forgeries, it's not the tool that I'm thinking about it's the purpose to what that tool is being put to. And, in this particular case, the pen is likely to be mightier than the longsword.
-Brooks
Well Forgery itself is not strictly ethical; if you forget something, you are 95% of the time going to be breaking some rule or law either in the forgery or the use of it. But it's also not Evil.
And framing for murder is probably not in Pelor's portfolio.
And framing for murder is probably not in Pelor's portfolio.
Exactly.
-Brooks