
Wolford |
Hey all, I recently started playing pathfinder and currently have a cleric of Iomedae in the Rise of the Runelords campaign (first book). Campaign spoiler alert!
So the problem is that even with the warnings of a good aligned cleric, 2 neutral characters continued to try and put a corpse onto an unholy shrine to an obviously un-aligned god while refusing consultation. The DM is adjusting the cavalier and sorcerers alignments to the corresponding "evil" side of the alignment chart for committing blatant disrespect and blasphemy, and poor role playing (the half orc got a slap on the wrist).
My first question is did the dm handle this appropriately? I think this is a satisfactory ruling for the moment while we bring them back to town for resurrection and judgement.
Secondly, what sort of trial should they be put to? For the halfing I would suggest drinking a pint of liquor, as Cayden's displeasure may make him sick when he drinks the alcohol (reference: Gods and Magic). The Sorceror I have no ideas for, as she has not really aligned herself with any god in a roleplaying aspect, so only lawful judgement would seem fitting, or maybe have her fate tied to the halfling.
Lastly, I am faithful to Iomedae's teachings, meaning I believe anyone can be redeemed, but was hoping there might be some good ideas within the mind of the community. What trials might they face to redeem themselves, possibly done as a side quest while the rest of the party finishes off the dungeon?
Any input and experience would be helpful; also, maybe important to note the player for the Cavalier IS a $#!t disturber and will be DM'ing the next part of the campaign.

Bill Dunn |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Maybe you should lighten up a bit. I don't see how one event is going to affect their alignment at all. What they did was dumb - but unlikely to actually have an effect (at least in most games). While it makes sense that good characters would be horribly offended at these yahoos trying to invoke an evil goddess in the raising of their comrades, a bit of berating them is probably all that's really necessary. They're not clerics, they won't wield powerful divine spells - there's a limited amount of damage they can really do.

DM_Blake |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

Did the GM handle it appropriately? Hooo, boy, that's a loaded question. I think most posters here will tell you that "adjusting alignments" for a single act, especially one motivated by saving a companion, is not cause for alignment shifts. I myself will tell you that I never shift a PC's alignment unless the player wants me to - usually for roleplaying and character-development reasons. I do let players know when I feel they're straying from their alignments and then we talk about whether they want their current one, and therefore should follow it better, or do they want a new one in which case they might get shifted if they stick with the new alignment long enough - it's still not just one deed.
Trial? I don't recall any courts of law in Thistletop. If your group wants some kind of vigilante and/or summary justice, that's for you guys to decide. Roleplay it and have fun.
Punishment by drinking booze? Really? If the U.S. government wrote that into law, there wouldn't be enough cops and national guard and army to keep law and order in the land. What's next, punish them by making them have sex with beautiful women?
Is Cayden really going to get involved? Doesn't he have more important things to do than punish some 2nd level nobody in a backwater corner of Golarion, all for a crime that was probably not even a crime? If he punishes anyone, it might be his cleric for wasting his valuable time with such petty nonsense. However, if he does inflict a punishment, the idea of permanently making a person suffer Nausea whenever he drinks any alcohol sounds perfect- just not for this trivium.
Redemption? For trying to save an ally? Consider them already redeemed (their intentions were good), though maybe not too terribly smart (the consequences were not well thought out). You can't fix their alignment since they didn't do anything wrong enough to fix, and you can't fix their thinking because, as Ron White so frequently says, "you can't fix stupid".

![]() |

So the problem is that even with the warnings of a good aligned cleric, 2 neutral characters continued to try and put a corpse onto an unholy shrine to an obviously un-aligned god while refusing consultation. The DM is adjusting the cavalier and sorcerers alignments to the corresponding "evil" side of the alignment chart for committing blatant disrespect and blasphemy, and poor role playing (the half orc got a slap on the wrist).
My first question is did the dm handle this appropriately?
I don't think so. Let's break it down...
Events
- The half orc barbarian who lacks intelligence wanted to try and resurrect the rogue by putting him on the evil alter and praying
- I interfered and dragged the corpse onto the floor.
- The halfling Cavalier who worships Cayden Cailen proceeded to try putting the rogue back up while arguing that this act is honorable and if he resurrected as an evil being we would simply kill him again.
- I tried to punch him, missed
- then weapons were drawn.
- The half-orc was put to sleep,
- the halfling was knocked out and stabilized,
- the sorcerer was grappled by the half orc when he woke up, ending the dispute.
All I see is a party tantrum.
For one, blasphemy simply means "the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk." Which in a fantasy setting, blasphemy is talking s&@& about people's gods, not doing bad stuff. The evil altar is not blasphemous to the clerics who put it there, it is a place of sacred meaning. If someone compared a good aligned god to an evil god, that might be blasphemy (on both sides). So the charge itself is unwarranted.the problem is that even with the warnings of a good aligned cleric, 2 neutral characters continued to try and put a corpse onto an unholy shrine to an obviously un-aligned god while refusing consultation
Two party members ignoring a better informed party member is not at all unusual in larger groups and role play settings. Especially with folks who like to play miscreants and troublemakers in the mix.
Dropping the Hammer of God on them is excessive and unwarranted. Those characters were not religious, so the evil god may have been hoping for a convert, for instance, and given them a blessing if nothing else. (I shudder at the fate of the poor rogue being offered up as a sacrifice.) Also, religion and gods is only critical to those who commit a life to the study of that pursuit. Paladins and Clerics, for instance, suffer consequences when they go against the belief structure of their deity. Others, from a god's standpoint, is just a potential follower. Events or encounters could change that any time. (A small town ranger is off doing his business, then returns to find everything he loves slaughtered. The ranger stops following a good deity who 'let that happen', and instead follows a dark one to pursue a bloody revenge.)So non-religion centered classes shouldn't get slammed on for being stupid about religion. It would be smarter for the dark god to offer them a bite of the (poisoned) apple. Encourage them to do worse and more often until...well look at that, you're an anti-paladin.
The real issue is character and player dynamics and respect within the group.
I never saw what the Sorcerer did (I guess supported the Cavalier?) and it sounds like the Half-Orc listened to your advice and tried to stop the others because "the expert said it's not a good idea".
Why punish the Half-Orc at all? Why divinely punish any of the non-religious characters at all? Have the party sort it out internally.
For instance, put up a Zone of Truth or something better and rigorously question the two characters. Since you incapacitated the characters, have them bound and without any gear. Do they serve the enemy? Have they been in league the whole time? Why were they so eager to make a sacrifice to evil god? Why did they want to kill the rogue twice if he came back evil? Was it part of some plot? Who else was involved? Make it a real grilling and write up questions before hand so you can remember. Take notes of their answers and ask the same questions again in different ways.
The other party members can then have a conference as to whether or not they trust the characters after that and decide whether or not they'll continue to adventure with them or perhaps even turn them over to the authorities. This may waste half a session or more, but it will be the characters responding to the inappropriate character actions, not the players and the GM responding to the inappropriate characters. Keeping it in game helps mollify feelings and gives the players a sense that it's not just the GM being a jerk, or someone picking on a particular character. Further, you get the rest of the group's input, which should definitely matter in a situation like this.
Because it broke out into inter-party violence, I can't condone just slapping them around and moving along. Player/Character tensions that bad will definitely erupt worse later on and get characters killed and players' feelings very hurt. Possibly a table flip moment.

Jack of Dust |

The DM did not handle this appropriately. For starters you seem to have instigated the PvP which doesn't seem to have been dealt with properly in that it may happen again in the future. Attempting to punch the halfling for wanting to resurrect his dead friend is over the line. Granted the plan was poorly thought out but being triggerhappy would likely only push him away from any good resolution. I also suspect that your personal feelings about the halfling's player are seeping into the game considering you couldn't restrain yourself from leaving a parting insult your original post.
Secondly the DM seems to not only be treating the alignment system as a straight jacket (which is specifically called out as something to be avoided) but is also treating it as a system of punishment. The alignment system is meant to simply be a representation of a character's morals and a single act won't change that. Alignment is not a tightrope. Finally don't forget that Neutral cults of Lamashtu do exist and generally work as midwives while avoiding the more evil parts of her portfolio which seems to indicate that the act of praying to Lamashtu isn't evil by itself.
It really is a shame the party devolved into a PvP. An interesting way to have the rogue brought back if they went ahead with it would be to reincarnate him as a gnoll or other monstrous creature. That could lead to some pretty interesting roleplaying opportunities with the rogue dealing with his new form.
I shudder at the fate of the poor rogue being offered up as a sacrifice.
What do you mean? As far as I can tell they weren't sacrificing anything. They were pleading for aid.

Wolford |
Maybe you should lighten up a bit.
I'm confused... I thought I was trying to lighten the mood by getting advice for alternate conflict resolution...
I don't see how one event is going to affect their alignment at all.
I kinda agree, once again this is why I was coming for advice and not just go along with what the DM says.
They're not clerics, they won't wield powerful divine spells - there's a limited amount of damage they can really do.
Do you have to be a cleric to call upon the power of the Gods? I know you have to be a cleric to cast divine spells, but gods do interfere/assist mortals who cannot cast from what I have read. Praying at a shrine to a god whose followers we are trying to snuff out can only lead to bad ju-ju.
While it makes sense that good characters would be horribly offended at these yahoos trying to invoke an evil goddess in the raising of their comrades, a bit of berating them is probably all that's really necessary
Fair enough, one of them is as new as I, and the other will not be a pc for much longer so this makes quite a bit of sense.
Trial? I don't recall any courts of law in Thistletop
I never said we were going back to Thistletop... There may be regional laws, or it may even be handled by the laws of Sandpoint as the town is directly tied to the well being of the mission success. If all else fails, frontier justice.
Punishment by drinking booze? Really? If the U.S. government wrote that into law, there wouldn't be enough cops and national guard and army to keep law and order in the land.
Oh geeze, I didn't realize I was playing in the setting of modern United States, I thought the setting was a made up world, glad you corrected me on that :p
All sarcasm aside, this was a *possibility* for punishment/forgiveness for the blasphemous act of going against his God's principles and edicts.Redemption? For trying to save an ally? Consider them already redeemed (their intentions were good)
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind. Save an ally? That's like saying I want to save my dead grandmother by donating to cancer research TODAY, you cannot save a dead person, only bring them back. Why try to bring him back via methods through a evil god instead of being patient and bringing the body back to town and have good ol' father Zantus take a look? Was his hasty idea worth direct confrontation from both a gameplay perspective and a roleplaying perspective? On my end, yes. I will agree your way leaves things a lot less complicated on the forgiveness side of things.
You can't fix their alignment since they didn't do anything wrong enough to fix, and you can't fix their thinking because, as Ron White so frequently says, "you can't fix stupid".
This is apparently a differing opinion between you and my DM, he has in the past made some rather radical moves to add shock value to the pc actions and the consequences so this is not out of character for him. The DM may not be able to "fix stupid", but he can give negative consequences and ways to work past said consequences (learn from your mistakes), and hence why I was asking for opinions on trials.
For one, blasphemy simply means "the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk." Which in a fantasy setting, blasphemy is talking s@&& about people's gods, not doing bad stuff.
I disagree, to quote your quote:"For one, blasphemy simply means 'THE ACT or offense of speaking...'" The Cavalier ACTED against his religious principles, as he follows Cayden's edicts (not that he couldn't be lying as you cover later with the questioning topic).
Those characters were not religious, so the evil god may have been hoping for a convert, for instance, and given them a blessing if nothing else.
Again, the Cavalier was religious and has openly said it throughout the campaign... and the DM said specifically no additional magic was detected (I had detect magic active)
Why punish the Half-Orc at all? Why divinely punish any of the non-religious characters at all? Have the party sort it out internally.
When did I say the orc got punished? I will pass that tid-bit along regarding the sorcerer.
For instance, put up a Zone of Truth or something better and rigorously question the two characters. Since you incapacitated the characters, have them bound and without any gear. Do they serve the enemy? Have they been in league the whole time? Why were they so eager to make a sacrifice to evil god? Why did they want to kill the rogue twice if he came back evil? Was it part of some plot? Who else was involved? Make it a real grilling and write up questions before hand so you can remember. Take notes of their answers and ask the same questions again in different ways.
And I thought the DM was making things difficult... Again I will pass it along to the party.
The other party members can then have a conference as to whether or not they trust the characters after that and decide whether or not they'll continue to adventure with them or perhaps even turn them over to the authorities. This may waste half a session or more, but it will be the characters responding to the inappropriate character actions, not the players and the GM responding to the inappropriate characters. Keeping it in game helps mollify feelings and gives the players a sense that it's not just the GM being a jerk, or someone picking on a particular character. Further, you get the rest of the group's input, which should definitely matter in a situation like this.
You get an A+. This has given me an A-HA! moment. I did not want a drawn out event as this part of the campaign seems to be coming to an end, "slap a band-aid on the situation and rush to the finish line" if you will, but this point does make a lot of sense.
Because it broke out into inter-party violence, I can't condone just slapping them around and moving along. Player/Character tensions that bad will definitely erupt worse later on and get characters killed and players' feelings very hurt. Possibly a table flip moment.
Preeeeeeeeetty sure we're going to take you advice here. I am partially to blame about said violence, but when his character defiantly ignores what mine has to say and then resists a slumber hex leaves little options, and my LG cleric would not allow something like this to happen to a fallen ally... I think I role played it perfectly, but now have to deal with the consequences.
Thanks all for the input, it gives me a peek into the mind of different gaming groups. If anyone else has something new to add or a different perspective please do :)

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

@Wolflord: I'm glad you got some ideas and advice to help diffuse the party situation. I wanted to touch on the points where we disagree to explain why I felt the way I did. It's certainly up to your team and the GM to assess the best approach and solutions.
I disagree, to quote your quote:"For one, blasphemy simply means 'THE ACT or offense of speaking...'" The Cavalier ACTED against his religious principles, as he follows Cayden's edicts (not that he couldn't be lying as you cover later with the questioning topic).
It's just the dictionary definition. I read and understand that to mean "the act of speaking against". Considering the etymology is essentially utterance/talk/speech, I feel I am justified in that interpretation. The term offense is added to indicate that in some areas there are actual laws against blasphemy. (Used to be here, too.) It's okay if you guys run it differently. I just objected to the term. I'm a nerd, I do that sometimes.
Again, the Cavalier was religious and has openly said it throughout the campaign... and the DM said specifically no additional magic was detected (I had detect magic active)
My point about non-religious is not about lacking in belief. It is about belief being a core mechanic to the character. Certain character classes have built in connections to the gods and collect benefits from that connection but also suffer consequences when they violate that trust by acting against the gods' will. Assigning those consequences to just anyone who puts a god's name on their character sheet provides the same penalty but none of the benefits. This is what I meant about non-religious. Perhaps a better term to use should have been Non-devotional?
When did I say the orc got punished? I will pass that tid-bit along regarding the sorcerer.
(the half orc got a slap on the wrist).
I was just wondering why there any repercussions at all. No big deal since they were clearly minor.

Qaianna |

Preeeeeeeeetty sure we're going to take you advice here. I am partially to blame about said violence, but when his character defiantly ignores what mine has to say and then resists a slumber hex leaves little options, and my LG cleric would not allow something like this to happen to a fallen ally... I think I role played it perfectly, but now have to deal with the consequences.
Thanks all for the input, it gives me a peek into the mind of different gaming groups. If anyone else has something new to add or a different perspective please do :)
Casting a slumber hex still counts as throwing the first punch.
Between what you said earlier about others not listening to you, and the suggestion about trials to put some of them through, it sounds like you're acting in a judge/jury/commander manner. This kind of thing needs some serious discussion with the other characters to work well. Whether it's something your group wants is left to the group.
Makes me feel like when my CN barbarian argued morality of looting unoccupied houses with our LN 'leader' cleric ... while, behind both our backs, the other three members of the party looted some other stuff. Fun times.

Chengar Qordath |

Yeah, as a general rule it's highly problematic to have one player/character try to act like an authority figure/the leader of the group without discussing it with the other members first. If someone tries to take charge and hand down orders, some players will just dig in their heels and do the opposite on general principle of "You're not the boss of me!"

CampinCarl9127 |

Flagged to be moved to advice. Not really a rules question, plus I think the advice forum would be more helpful for you.
I won't get into the big argument this is bound to turn out to be, but in general I do feel as if the GM overreacted. If they're just a normal adventuring party then there is no reason to bring down the wrath of gods upon them for this one questionable act.

Bigger Club |
Yeah wrong forum, but might as well give my 2 cents.
Short answer: No, and DM should be sitting on a very wobbly chair at the moment if the group knows what is good for it.
Pretty much any character I have ever played with would not be willing to adventure ever again with the people in the "right". They instigated violence among comrades. Good deal of my neutral or south of it characters would respond with murder. If they then had the audacity to try to judge me? Yeah there are very few characters that I have played that would not at the very least give the guy a beating of a lifetime.
Half-orc: Misquided and even if he did not change his mind, it is his business who he prays for help.
Cavalier: Honor is culture based, and if the order the halfling belongs to is one that is all about loyalty towards friend in arms, I would say he was absolutely right.
Sorc: I don't really grasp their involvement here, but essentially the same as half-orc, they just did not change their mind. This going by what little info there is.
So in short. Yourself and the GM are the ones who are wrong not rest of the guys. I would say the witch is in the clear as violence had started at the point they came involved and they tried to deescalate the situation via non lethal means.
Also Qaianna had a good point too. OOC you should definetly talk to other players before trying to assume a boss role in a group. Because if it is not agreed upon, that can very easily bleed out of the game and result in gaming groups shattering.
Speaking of OOC, I think the whole groups needs to sit down what type of characters and themes they wanna play. It seems you are going for more the shining example hero while some of the rest are more gray or even anti-hero theme.
Note, I had to make a bit more educated guesses about the situation than I would like to, but the amount of info wasn't there.

DM_Blake |

Giant wall of excuses
It seems pretty clear now that you posted this thread to get justification for your in-character party conflict, much of which seems to have been started by your character treating his allies as if they were the enemy. Instead of actually wanting advice, you wanted us to tell you that you did the right thing so you could feel justified.
Sorry that didn't work out for you.
Hopefully you'll think about the answers you've gotten; it might improve your future roleplaying and the enjoyment you get from it. Or you could just argue the points and make excuses, which won't help you much at all. Your choice.

Fernn |

Hey all, I recently started playing pathfinder and currently have a cleric of Iomedae in the Rise of the Runelords campaign (first book). Campaign spoiler alert! ** spoiler omitted **
So the problem is that even with the warnings of a good aligned cleric, 2 neutral characters continued to try and put a corpse onto an unholy shrine to an obviously un-aligned god while refusing consultation. The DM is adjusting the cavalier and sorcerers alignments to the corresponding "evil" side of the alignment chart for committing blatant disrespect and blasphemy, and poor role playing (the half orc got a slap on the wrist).My first question is did the dm handle this appropriately? I think this is a satisfactory ruling for the moment while we bring them back to town for resurrection and judgement.
Secondly, what sort of trial should they be put to? For the halfing I would suggest drinking a pint of liquor, as Cayden's displeasure may make him sick when he drinks the alcohol (reference: Gods and Magic). The Sorceror I have no ideas for, as she has not really aligned herself with any god in a roleplaying aspect, so only lawful judgement would seem fitting, or maybe have her fate tied to the halfling.
Lastly, I am faithful...
Well considering the following:
In order to get some sort of boon from any god, it usually involves an extensive dedication and effort.
As far as evil gods go, you need to defile something to a really perverse degree (can't go into much detail as some spoiler related stuff). And at that, an evil god will grant you something minor.
If I plopped my ally in front of any altar of any god and prayed
"please fix my buddy"
1 out 13,000,000 Times it would work.
Otherwise, you could have NPC's plopping down bodies on top of any altar and bringing gramps back to life.
It just doesn't do anything.
If you had just layed back, and done nothing at all. And let the Barbarian do what he did, absolutely nothing would have come out of it. Then you guys could have continued.
It should have been a DC10 or DC5 knowledge religion check to know praying to any god to bring someone back to life is just not the way things work.

The Sword |

Worshipping or praying to Lamashtu is defo evil. She is one bad mamma!
As for punishment... Brand them with a witch Mark. If they transgress again, kill them.
Alternatively as this with lead to the disintegration of the party as their replacement character take totally metagaming revenge against you it may be better to have a conversation as a group about the intended alignment of the group and maybe create new characters to fit with the party style.

PossibleCabbage |

If you want to adjust alignment for a single act, it has to be a really, really good/evil/chaotic/lawful thing to do. Like "I have been sent to rescue the holy priestess, but instead I decide to sacrifice her to dark powers" kind of evil, and it should have to be a conscious, informed act.
Ignorant or foolish acts can get the player rolling down the hill towards falling out of/into grace, but they shouldn't be the sole adjudicator of this, they should be setups to put a player at the crossroads to get them to RP either their current or their new alignment and let them figure out what their alignment should be.
As for "being punished by your god" it should really be a thing that is limited to those characters that get their powers from said god. If you annoy your deity badly enough, you're going to have to apologize or find a new one somehow. But deities are busy, and above really paying that much attention to Bill the Barbarian or Sandra the Sorceress, they just care about their clerics and paladins because those classes represent the deity in some sense, and nobody wants bad PR.
But regarding the intraparty imbroglio, I don't think anybody really did anything worthy of notice by divine forces. The cleric is the only one who actually merits divine attention and "failing to prevent an evil act from occurring" is an unreasonable onus to place upon a cleric, since that's more or less impossible. Standing by and looking the other way while the party does something evil is probably off the table, but "a sternly worded warning" is probably sufficient for the cleric to be in the clear.