Some preliminary information. I am currently playing a NG Inquisitor of Ragathiel in the reign of Winter campaign. My DM and I had a differing opinion on some actions taken by my character, and while we are going with his interpretation (as per DM fiat), the other players and I (mainly I) were wondering if one act in particular crossed the line.
Without using any spoilers, the situation was that we had captured a neutral priestess during the course of the campaign, and I told her I would let her go if she gave me the information on her 'boss'. She divulged that she had been working for this 'boss' for some time, and had been using her powers to attack and waylay travelers and other innocents in addition to the PC party, and that she would do it again if she felt like it. She also gave us no information on her 'boss' (like whereabouts or anything else). Then she went on a minor tirade about how her goddess was far superior to Ragathiel and that I need to take my worship of a minor cult and get out of her face. Then she claimed that she answered my questions and demanded to be released.
In response I told her that her acts demanded vengeance for those that she had wronged. Since I told her I would let her go I did, but first I broke her leg, as a non-lethal way of taking some measure of retribution, both for her slight against my god and for those she had injured while working for the 'boss'.
I'm sorry if this is a little vague, but I wanted to avoid any possible spoilers.
Ultimately though, I wanted to know. Was I indeed in the wrong there? Is what I did an evil act according to the rules? heck, even if it is just a judgment (heh, judgment!) call, was i stepping outside my NG alignment and the tenants of my deity?
I am curious to know what you all think.
Last I checked up on Ragathiel he was the god of righteous vengeance and all that jazz.
Seems to me by that definition you let her off a bit easy since she was basically a bandit.
Nah. Ragathiel's all about that sort of thing. That wasn't an evil act by any means.
Good isn't the same thing as nice.
That's what I thought, but apparently the DM has a differing opinion. Perhaps if more people agree he might change his mind.
That's what i thought, but apparently the DM has a differing opinion. perhaps if more people agree he might change his mind.
Does he have your character confused with Saranrae or something? Ragathiel is the hand of vengeance, the bandit was a jerk. Its mean, but I don't think its evil. Besides, you weren't that brutal. The leg will heal easy.
The DM ALWAYS has a differing opinion, because alignment and everything associated with it pretty much exists only for GMs to say "F*&% you I don't like you leave my game" in a passive-agressive manner and to start arguments over whether the Paladin/Cleric should fall for farting into the wrong headwind on a cloudy day.
The DM ALWAYS has a differing opinion.
Not to go to such an extreme, but alignment is about morality. Morality is subjective. People disagree about subjective things a lot.
And since I have your attention, let me ask a follow up. On two other occasions I used torture to get answers from enemies. They were evil adversaries (checked with discern alignment), who until we subdued them had been trying to kill us. I tortured them with fire for a few rounds and then executed them when they told me what they knew (which wasn't much). My character certainly didn't enjoy it, but felt it was necessary to further our goals (which included the rescue of innocents). So again, were these evil acts?
Mainly I am trying to get a handle on 'doing the right thing' with this character. I certainly don't want to play him like some kind of Torquemada, but I honestly thought I was still firmly in NG land.
Thoughts?
By RAW torture is an evil act last I checked.
I personally believe in mitigating circumstances but the Golarion setting does not.
Still wouldn't be a Good act in my book, and doesn't fit with NG (Good above all else). Torture's kind of a bad thing all around, especially when it's not a one time deal.
By RAW torture is an evil act last I checked.
I personally believe in mitigating circumstances but the Golarion setting does not.
Still wouldn't be a Good act in my book, and doesn't fit with NG (Good above all else). Torture's kind of a bad thing all around, especially when it's not a one time deal.
Noted. I figured that 24 seconds or so of it mitigated it to an acceptable level, "for a good cause", but I am willing to concede the point.
You're in the clear imo. Did your dm give you an alignment switch?
The DM ALWAYS has a differing opinion.Not to go to such an extreme, but alignment is about morality. Morality is subjective. People disagree about subjective things a lot.
Which is of course why I didn't strenuously argue about the DM fiat. If he's in the minority on this one, I'd like the 'ruling' reversed, but if I am (in the wrong), it will make playing the character easier once I hone in on what is acceptable within the alignment.
You're in the clear imo. Did your dm give you an alignment switch?
Almost. Until he realized that I would lose my class. Then he made it a warning.
|
I am curious to know what you all think.
Whether you are following the tenets of your deity is a different question from whether the act was evil. There are going to be (fortunately exceptional) cases where you'd clearly be following the tenets of a Good good and still committing an Evil act.
That said, whether your act is evil partly depends on circumstances. If there was some local justice that this person could easily be handed over to then I'd say that the act is definitely Naughty (ie, borderline evil). If you're in a situation where you have to make the call then you're probably being too nice, if anything. I've got lots of good characters that would kill a bandit who openly stated that they were planning to resume their banditry as soon as possible.
I am curious to know what you all think.
Whether you are following the tenets of your deity is a different question from whether the act was evil. There are going to be (fortunately exceptional) cases where you'd clearly be following the tenets of a Good good and still committing an Evil act.
That said, whether your act is evil partly depends on circumstances. If there was some local justice that this person could easily be handed over to then I'd say that the act is definitely Naughty (ie, borderline evil). If you're in a situation where you have to make the call then you're probably being too nice, if anything. I've got lots of good characters that would kill a bandit who openly stated that they were planning to resume their banditry as soon as possible.
This person was working for the authority, so no, there certainly wasn't any place to take her for more legal 'punishment'.
As always, this is only one side of the story, no offense, but your DM may see things differently, especially if you have committed torture on multiple occasions... This sounds like a straw that broke the camel's back sort of thing. For an N-G character, torture is crossing the line, but once it's not enough to force AC alignment change... I would have handily warned you the first time that torture is evil and the second time, I would probably have forcibly changed your alignment to N-N, depending on the specific situation. So I have to say I don't think your DM is in the wrong completely, he maybe just didn't talk to you about it sooner because alignment is such a sensitive topic to some. My suggestion: take your DM out for a beer and have a conversation about how you want your character to be perceived in your DMs world and be open to his suggestions.
I will add tho, that Torture and such typically does fall under the realm of evil(mitigating circumstances aside) especially when concluded with an execution. It does paint a more clear picture of why he's considering an alignment shift.
Might I suggest just cutting back on the Torture? Or at least, offering them their lives for information rather than killing them? Then if they choose to deny you, it's on their heads. And if they do give, you're giving them a second chance and all that.
Also... if you do manage to fall, it doesn't kill the class for your, just ruins some of your features. But you can get them back with an atonement, which is just the price you might have to pay to play this way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say yes. You inflicted needless suffering on someone.
However, alignment isn't like a car's gearshift. To change from one alignment to another instantly would require an act so egregious (*drink*) that I can't even think of a good example.
Alignment shifts are gradual, and take into account all you've done. If you've done a whole lotta good and just had this one little incident, your alignment shouldn't be changing. Whether or not it's your god's thing, I dunno and I don't care.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Alignment discussion. Is this an evil act?"
Yes, alignment discussions are evil acts.
Think the leg breaking qualifies as NG. Any NG comic book hero could get away with it; Batman, Punisher. Don't think one needs to be nice to enemy combatants to qualify as good. Don't think it prevents sucker punching a cocky NPC either. If you haven't a reason to show them kindness, sympathy, or pity I don't see why you'd need to. There's nothing good about letting an unrepentant enemy off the hook. The sad part is if you had killed them outright it's likely the GM wouldn't have given you grief about alignment at all.
I had a CG cleric in my party refuse to coup de grâce Undead for fear of breaking alignment. Think there's a major issue with how people understand what it means to be good and when it's applied to determines alignment. Drop a few gp in a donation box on the way out of town to balance it out if your GM is concerned you aren't being nice enough to those bad guys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, alignment isn't like a car's gearshift. To change from one alignment to another instantly would require an act so egregious (*drink*) that I can't even think of a good example.
Alignment shifts are gradual, and take into account all you've done. If you've done a whole lotta good and just had this one little incident, your alignment shouldn't be changing. Whether or not it's your god's thing, I dunno and I don't care.
Very much agreed on that point. Alignment is not supposed to be a roleplaying straitjacket, nor should it ever change on a hair-trigger. Otherwise Paladins would fall the instant they commit a neutral-aligned act like opening a door.
Frankly, as long as it's not an incredibly common thing, I don't see the problem with a good-aligned character roughing up the bad guys a bit. As far as fictional/heroic tropes go, the idea of a largely good character who will occasionally get his hands a little dirty is pretty common—and very thematically fitting for the Inquisitor of all classes.
I'd say the only time a single act should ever dictate an alignment change is if the act is very extreme. Breaking a villain's leg isn't an instant alignment shift. Selling the souls of a dozen innocent babies to a demon, on the other hand...
I will add tho, that Torture and such typically does fall under the realm of evil(mitigating circumstances aside) especially when concluded with an execution. It does paint a more clear picture of why he's considering an alignment shift.
Might I suggest just cutting back on the Torture? Or at least, offering them their lives for information rather than killing them? Then if they choose to deny you, it's on their heads. And if they do give, you're giving them a second chance and all that.
Also... if you do manage to fall, it doesn't kill the class for your, just ruins some of your features. But you can get them back with an atonement, which is just the price you might have to pay to play this way.
I have completely changed the way I was acting. After all, in a lot of ways, the DM is always right. So no torture since then for sure.
I guess what gets me is that I AM allowed to hack someones head off in battle, but things get dicey when I execute them instead. It's not like I can take the minions of the local evil queen to a legal court for punishment. To quote the DM (admittedly at the end of the session when he might have been tired): "It would have been better to just kill her than break her leg."
Seriously?
I also thought of torture (as it happened in the game) in the same way. "You can die quick or slow. Help me save lives and its quick, refuse to help me and it's slow. Your choice." That apparently was wrong, which probably says something about me which bears thinking about.
I guess what gets me is that I AM allowed to hack someones head off in battle, but things get dicey when I execute them instead. It's not like I can take the minions of the local evil queen to a legal court for punishment. To quote the DM (admittedly at the end of the session when he might have been tired): "It would have been better to just kill her than break her leg."
I have to sort of shake my head at this. "If you'd killed her, then there would have been no question it was a Good act, because she's Evil; instead you gave her an injury (that will be healed within 6 seconds of her getting to a Cleric friendly to her) you Evil bastard, so say bye-bye to your class!"
Does not compute.
Assuming that the quote is accurate, I wouldn't worry about what your latter statement "You can die quick or slow..." says about you.
After all, in short the lesson your GM is apparently trying to teach you is that if it's evil, kill it. Don't try to find a way to achieve your goals that might hurt someone without killing them, because to do so risks your class - just slaughter it in the name of your god, and know that when you clasp your blood-splattered hands you'll still be Good!
:P I really don't like the alignment system...
I have to sort of shake my head at this. "If you'd killed her, then there would have been no question it was a Good act, because she's Evil; instead you gave her an injury (that will be healed within 6 seconds of her getting to a Cleric friendly to her) you Evil bastard, so say bye-bye to your class!"
She was a cleric. The next day she could have healed herself.
All in all he's been a great DM. It's true that morality is a hard thing to adjudicate. It is also possible (even probable) that his stance is in response to a perceived trend. I don't want to throw him under the wagon. Mainly though, I seek to understand and improve as a role-player, and of course, if I am right, to be able to say "nah, nah-nah, nah, nah" <grin>
I guess what gets me is that I AM allowed to hack someones head off in battle, but things get dicey when I execute them instead.
This came up for my paladin. He would execute enemy prisoners that deserved death. There is no difference between killing a foe in battle and killing them afterward. If their actions merit death, then they still merit death after they've been subdued. My paladin made sure to always carry out his sentence himself, to ensure that each execution was as clean and painless as possible.
To quote the DM (admittedly at the end of the session when he might have been tired): "It would have been better to just kill her than break her leg."
Seriously?
Ordinarily I'd categorize the leg breaking as neutral-leaning-toward-evil. The intentional causing of pain is part and parcel of the Evil shtick. But your god is apparently a god of vengeance so there is bound to be a great deal of latitude regarding what you can get away with, as opposed to my pally who worshipped Pelor.
I also thought of torture (as it happened in the game) in the same way. "You can die quick or slow. Help me save lives and its quick, refuse to help me and it's slow. Your choice." That apparently was wrong, which probably says something about me which bears thinking about.
I can't imagine torture being anything but solid Evil I'm afraid. Especially in a world with detect thoughts, discern lies, zone of truth etc., the intentional causing of pain for its own sake....yeah.... :(
I read the topic title as asking if Alignment Discussions were an Evil act.
Yes they are.
I can't imagine torture being anything but solid Evil I'm afraid. Especially in a world with detect thoughts, discern lies, zone of truth etc., the intentional causing of pain for its own sake....yeah.... :(
Torture isn't pain for its own sake. Torture is pain for the sake of getting information. And all those spells may indeed exist, but they're not freely available. If you don't have them prepared or the prisoner simply won't talk, then you're hosed, since the latter two don't force a response. Detect thought requires three rounds just to get "surface thoughts", which may or may not have the answers you want.
In short, magic isn't cheap or 100% reliable.
Sleep deprivation and screwing with the captive's environment(noise, light, etc) are more acceptable ways of getting information in our society, so they would probably be more likely to fly for a GM watching for alignment infractions.
Think the leg breaking qualifies as NG. Any NG comic book hero could get away with it; Batman, Punisher.
I have to be honest. NG definitely doesn't seem like it fits Punisher.
I know I'm not what you call a regular poster.
But I lurk here a lot reading things.
Now what strikes me as funny is:
1) when his GM came here asking about this situation, nearly everyone and his grandma agreed the player was in error
2) now it the opposite
I know I'm not what you call a regular poster.
But I lurk here a lot reading things.Now what strikes me as funny is:
1) when his GM came here asking about this situation, nearly everyone and his grandma agreed the player was in error
2) now it the opposite
Do you mean this thread? Because this isn't the same situation. Cleric of Pharasma vs. Inquisitor of Ragathiel. The cleric murdered the sheriff in the name of Pharasma, which goes against his faith. The inquisitor did no such thing and broke no tenets of his god of righteous vengeance.
Do you mean this thread? Because this isn't the same situation. Cleric of Pharasma vs. Inquisitor of Ragathiel. The cleric murdered the sheriff in the name of Pharasma, which goes against his faith. The inquisitor did no such thing and broke no tenets of his god of righteous vengeance.
No I don't mean that thread. A few weeks ago (I think; it's been awhile) a Gm came calling about this exact situation. I recognised it immediately (including the tortures, the broken leg, and his eventual solution of giving a warning)
It's somewhere on the boards.
That scenario is fine. Your pc is pretty ruthless in the cause of good, but he is an Inquisitor so that is to be expected.
The problem is that some people have a very rarified definition of good where anything less than pure saintliness is a fail.
Actually, I figure unless your a paladin... your allowed more than a few Evil acts. Its a rough world and adventurers do what they need to do...
However, that doesn't make it less evil ;)
But really, doing the occasional Evil act wouldn't change your core alignment... unless it's been so frequent that its BECOME your core alignment...
Ah, found it. Here.
I do note that the DM gives a bit more detail about what's likely to happen to the priestess afterward, her motivations, and the like.
I can't imagine torture being anything but solid Evil I'm afraid. Especially in a world with detect thoughts, discern lies, zone of truth etc., the intentional causing of pain for its own sake....yeah.... :(Torture isn't pain for its own sake. Torture is pain for the sake of getting information. And all those spells may indeed exist, but they're not freely available. If you don't have them prepared or the prisoner simply won't talk, then you're hosed, since the latter two don't force a response. Detect thought requires three rounds just to get "surface thoughts", which may or may not have the answers you want.
In short, magic isn't cheap or 100% reliable.
Not to mention that all those spells come with a will save to resist. Then there's spell resistance, and any special protection against mind-affecting magic...
And even if you have zone of truth/discern lies up, your enemy can always play the usual "What I say is true from a certain point of view" game or setting up their evil plans so they have plausible deniability. A sneaky enough enemy could actually take advantage of that magic to really mess up the PCs' plans by feeding them misinformation they think is 100% reliable.
Hi Daristal.
The alignment chapter is pretty specific about what is, and what is not an evil act. It has to be, because certain classes have mechanics tied into alignment, which necessitates an easy-to-understand baseline.
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.
*
Now naturally, since killing is an evil act, and paladins kill things all the time, we can deduce that the circumstance of the kill matters. And indeed, animals who kill without malice, and for survival, are Neutral.
So what we logically deduce is that the motive for committing acts defined as good, evil or neutral, can change the alignment of the act. Which is why an evil act: "Killing others", can be tempered with an altruistic goal like "Protect the innocent", which is likely meant to turn the act into a neutral act, thereby preventing paladin-fall, whenever he raises his sword against his foes.
With that, let's look at -your- character's motivation, and situation.
The cleric was your captive, and you deliberately hurt said captive, despite her not being a threat to you in the situation. This, I say, would be evil.
You offered her a way to be released from her captivity, in exchange for some information, but she did not deliver the information required, and then insisted she be released. Since you set the terms of the deal, and legitimately did not feel you got what you asked for, you were under no obligation to keep your end of the bargain either. I find this neutral. (It, of course, also has points to be made about Lawful and Chaotic, but I'm not discussing those now)
The acts in and of themselves smell evil, with a dash of neutrality.
Now, motive. Your motives for breaking her legs were to extract revenge on behalf of those she had hurt, and revenge for her slight against your god. But she (the servant of an oh so powerful god), was your (the servant of this insignificant cult) captive, meaning that in all likelyhood, she did not feel that her life was in danger, and she was likely just tending to her bruised pride. For the slight against your god, a witty retort or some form of rubbing it in, maybe taking away her holy symbol as pennance, would be more down the line of a Chivalrous god of vengeance with LN, LG and NG leanings. At least, -I- feel that would be the case. But then there's the issue of the people she had hurt, and would continue to hurt. We cannot judge her based on what she claims she'll do, righteousness does not work that way. But extracting vengeance on behalf of those that WERE hurt is definitely within your dogma, though I find the motive neutral at best.
DO NOTE:
I cannot speculate on the exact circumstance since I have not read the path, and don't know what options were available to you, so take my analysis with a grain of salt :)
But all in all, I'd say, that while you were completely justified from a dogmative perspective, and your god is likely giving you a thumbs up, from up above, your acts themselves were on the side of evil. This is not me condemning them, since you're not a paladin you are under no obligation to not commit certain acts of evil in your line of work. It is important that your temper these evil acts with good and neutral acts, but you seem to be doing just that, so I'd say you're in the green, despite the acts being on the evil side.
It's all a bit fiddley, but when alignment ties into mechanics, I feel you have to look at, and use them, sorta blunt-force-trauma.
Hope it helps.
-Nearyn
*Note that these help us determine the alignment of acts, rather than the alignment of characters, since character-alignment describes a set of morals and are far more complex. A better description of character-alignment and the nuances of these can be found in the gamemastery guide.
We're talking about crippling a proven wrongdoer. You know what Ragathiel likes to do with proven wrongdoers? Tell his followers to kill one every single day in his name, and if they do, he'll give them a bonus. So the bandit got off light. As for the torture, however, I believe Ragathiel would not approve. Intimidation is one thing, but causing deliberate pain without the intention of enacting vengeance is another.
|
I think you're good on the first count. Ragathiel is a vengeance deity, and just because you're good doesn't mean you can't punish a bandit. A warning like that isn't really evil, especially if you know that she could heal herself later. Besides, the whole point of the Inquisitor class is they can do some morally iffy things "for the greater good" without pushing aligment borders or losing class levels.
That said, and while it fits thematically with the inquisitor as a whole, the torture might be a little much. Especially otrture by fire. That's...well, that's just brutal. One of the worst possible pains, and at the same time, you can smell your own flesh cooking...yeah, no. Totally not a good act, even if it is justified. Even Ragathiel would probably dissapprove. Seeing as how he's an angel born to an archfiend, I'm pretty sure he knows what the road to Hell is paved with, and he doesn't allow those good intentions to justify that sort of treatment. Just my opinion, anyway.
Torture isn't pain for its own sake. Torture is pain for the sake of getting information.
I disagree. Torture has proven unreliable. Set a man on fire and he'll make things up just to make the pain stop. Torture is sadistic and cruel and outright Evil, especially in a world of objective morality, such as most D&D campaigns with real gods.
And all those spells may indeed exist, but they're not freely available. If you don't have them prepared or the prisoner simply won't talk, then you're hosed, since the latter two don't force a response. Detect thought requires three rounds just to get "surface thoughts", which may or may not have the answers you want.
All of these things are, however, more reliable than torture. Also, just because something is less convenient does not justify using a more convenient Evil alternative. It isn't always convenient to be Good, and expediency is one road to Hell.
In short, magic isn't cheap or 100% reliable.
Nope, it isn't. But it's also not Evil. If your PC chooses to go the torture route because the alternatives are too expensive, well...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To OP: Upon following the link provided by someone above, which has this exact situation but from the GMs perspective, I have to say the best thing is for the two of you to sit down and discuss this. No amount of random people on the internet agreeing/disagreeing w/ either of you will do anything other than potentially further intrench you both in your positions and harm your game. Sit down w/ the other players if you want to as well and consider this issue as a group if it helps. If everyone present brings an open mind and is willing to be reasonable, you'll be able to hammer out a way to solve this.
It can be difficult to determine how a good yet vengeful character should act at times, and this can only be answered at the table w/ the people you are playing w/.
Hope that helps and that your game is more fun for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing people seem to forget is your god is wholly seperate from your al8gnment an act doesnt become nicer because your god believes it. The leg breaking looks like petty vengence against a helpless target because she expressed her views on your characters religion. Its at best a neutral act but certainly isnt good.
To OP: Upon following the link provided by someone above, which has this exact situation but from the GMs perspective, I have to say the best thing is for the two of you to sit down and discuss this. No amount of random people on the internet agreeing/disagreeing w/ either of you will do anything other than potentially further intrench you both in your positions and harm your game. Sit down w/ the other players if you want to as well and consider this issue as a group if it helps. If everyone present brings an open mind and is willing to be reasonable, you'll be able to hammer out a way to solve this.
It can be difficult to determine how a good yet vengeful character should act at times, and this can only be answered at the table w/ the people you are playing w/.
Hope that helps and that your game is more fun for it.
We have, and have come to an agreement. There isn't really any animosity over the issue. I went back and read his version of what happened, and he certainly painted the situation in a much different light than I. Interestingly enough, his description sounds like he was talking about something else entirely. We have no issues out of play about all this.
One thing people seem to forget is your god is wholly seperate from your al8gnment an act doesnt become nicer because your god believes it. The leg breaking looks like petty vengence against a helpless target because she expressed her views on your characters religion. Its at best a neutral act but certainly isnt good.
Somewhat unrelated to the original topic, I would love for Pathfinder to possibly 'fix' this in 2.0. I dislike the idea of alignment being wholly separated from your deity; if you choose a deity for thematic\character purposes it can be a bit grating when you suffer mechanical penalties even though the actions you're taking are perfectly in line with your chosen deity's domain of ethics.
One thing people seem to forget is your god is wholly seperate from your al8gnment an act doesnt become nicer because your god believes it. The leg breaking looks like petty vengence against a helpless target because she expressed her views on your characters religion. Its at best a neutral act but certainly isnt good.Somewhat unrelated to the original topic, I would love for Pathfinder to possibly 'fix' this in 2.0. I dislike the idea of alignment being wholly separated from your deity; if you choose a deity for thematic\character purposes it can be a bit grating when you suffer mechanical penalties even though the actions you're taking are perfectly in line with your chosen deity's domain of ethics.
Well, for divine casters it is linked to your deity, for everyone else its not because who cares who you follow. A regular person can call pharasma their deity and have gone to church through all their life and still be a necromancer who thinks he's worshipping pharasma. Your not fixing anything, just limiting people.
Well, for divine casters it is linked to your deity, for everyone else its not because who cares who you follow. A regular person can call pharasma their deity and have gone to church through all their life and still be a necromancer who thinks he's worshipping pharasma. Your not fixing anything, just limiting people.One thing people seem to forget is your god is wholly seperate from your al8gnment an act doesnt become nicer because your god believes it. The leg breaking looks like petty vengence against a helpless target because she expressed her views on your characters religion. Its at best a neutral act but certainly isnt good.Somewhat unrelated to the original topic, I would love for Pathfinder to possibly 'fix' this in 2.0. I dislike the idea of alignment being wholly separated from your deity; if you choose a deity for thematic\character purposes it can be a bit grating when you suffer mechanical penalties even though the actions you're taking are perfectly in line with your chosen deity's domain of ethics.
Well, but it's not, even for Clerics - that's my point.
As a vengeance god, Ragathiel would have few moral qualms about 'eye for an eye' justice, but by the overall alignment guide (which is the only thing important) meting out such punishment would frequently be considered evil.
Eventually, following your god's purpose, you'd wind up shifting your alignment, and whether your god likes it or not, the rules require at that point that you lose your powers.