|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"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?
Whoah, I did!
Yeah, Sarenrae hates you. Bye-bye, holy powers (consider Her letting you keep them for as long as She has to have been Her "let me show you how forgiving I am in hopes you'll see the folly of your ways" period, which is now OVER), hello alignment shift to LN (at best; LE sounds pretty fair) - better hope Asmodeus or Zon-Kuthon have some job openings (then again, they usually do).
People do seem to be on the "cleric should be forsaken!" bandwagon, when really its very clear he's entertaining the slaver in order to bide his time for a moment to rescue the slaves. (Greater good and all that.)
A bluff/ bluff & diplomacy check should have been performed to conceal the cleric's true intentions, but the cleric did get captured in the first place for doing the right thing, he's just manipulating the evil slaver, which isnt against his deity's or his alignments code.
Neither for that matter is speaking pragmatically and honestly about the influence that religion can have over certain people in dire situations.
Out of context, this cleric is an crafty evil son of a goat and that's how he wants to appear to the slaver. But context is everything.
People do seem to be on the "cleric should be forsaken!" bandwagon,Did you miss the little torture part?
Quite right I had, though it's still a tough call. Inquisitors can supposedly get pretty nasty in the service of their deities best interests, provided they're DEFINITELY working towards a greater good in doing so. It might be morally painful to have to resort to torturing another living creature, but if he's genuinely trying to make things better overall then it doesnt sound bad.
That's more in the repertoire of Chaotic good, so I'd suggest that alignment shift immediately. and it'd certainly put him on his deities "watch list" as a volatile individual, good thing his deity isnt LG.
If he's doing it because he likes the way they squirm, then that's something all together more terrifyingly evil. Again, context is everything.
|
People do seem to be on the "cleric should be forsaken!" bandwagon,Did you miss the little torture part?Quite right I had, though it's still a tough call. Inquisitors can supposedly get pretty nasty in the service of their deities best interests, provided they're DEFINITELY working towards a greater good in doing so. It might be morally painful to have to resort to torturing another living creature, but if he's genuinely trying to make things better overall then it doesnt sound bad.
That's more in the repertoire of Chaotic good, so I'd suggest that alignment shift immediately. and it'd certainly put him on his deities "watch list" as a volatile individual, good thing his deity isnt LG.
Um, no. Torture isn't CG, it's E. Evil.
And Inquisitors act outside the interests of the church of their deity, not their actual deity's interests.
You think if lives are definitely at stake then torturing an evil individual to get the information to save them is evil? It's morally questionable to be sure, but then again so is thievery, and robin hood is the go-to archetypal CG character.
If he laughed maniacally and licked his lips as they were being tortured, the area would be less grey.
They follow their own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Its ok to have differing opinions, it's just interesting is all.
If the context supports this, then it sounds like he's actually a paragon of chaotic good, given his unique moral compass and his propensity toward bluffing to gain people's trust.
|
|
You think if lives are definitely at stake then torturing an evil individual to get the information to save them is evil? It's morally questionable to be sure, but then again so is thievery, and robin hood is the go-to archetypal CG character.
If he laughed maniacally and licked his lips as they were being tortured, the area would be less grey.
Its ok to have differing opinions, it's just interesting is all.
Yes.
This isn't some combo where you go Good, Evil, Good, Evil, Evil, up, down, left, right, A, B, Good and since you ended with Good it makes the whole chain Good of actions good. That's not how it works.
If you think thievery and torture are on the same exact playing field then you have a whole heap of issues that go beyond what this thread can accommodate.
And also, no, just because a person doesn't enjoy inflicting torture doesn't make said torture any less evil. The torturing is what makes the torture evil.
@Rysky
1) I think that morality is a two way street. Not just a descent into evil for every decision a person makes.
2) Lets not resort to character attacks here, in the course of the greater good you sometimes need to crack a few eggs.
3) Torture may be an evil act, but the odd good acts can be performed by evil characters. Again, two way street.
The chaotic good "They follow their own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society." section pretty much covers that they will do things that some people dont agree with in the service of a greater good.
|
|
@Rysky
1) I think that morality is a two way street. Not just a descent into evil for every decision a person makes.
2) Lets not resort to character attacks here, in the course of the greater good you sometimes need to crack a few eggs.
3) Torture may be an evil act, but the odd good acts can be performed by evil characters. Again, two way street.
1) I never said it wasn't (the opposite in fact), just that the act of torture is an evil act.
2) You said torture isn't evil, but "morally questionable" like thievery, like they're even comparable. That's f&$!ed up.
And the "Greater Good" aka The Ends Justify the Means defense? That doesn't work, if ever. And it definitely doesn't make you a good person.
3) I've never said they can't. I've never said anything of the sort. I LITERALLY said the opposite of such. Spend less time trying to defend torture and more time reading the posts you're responding to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's out of line for a good character to, on rare occasions in extreme circumstances, commit an evil act in the name of the greater good. Especially if it's the sort of no-win scenario that sometimes comes up in fiction; if the only options available in the story are all bad, sometimes the players have to pick the least evil one.
Of course, as always when committing evil in the name of the greater good one must be wary of the slippery slope. If committing evil acts like torture goes from "That one bad thing I did in an extreme situation" to a fairly routine part of the toolbox, you're leaving good territory.
2) Lets not resort to character attacks here, in the course of the greater good you sometimes need to crack a few eggs.And the "Greater Good" aka The Ends Justify the Means defense? That doesn't work, if ever. And it definitely doesn't make you a good person.Torturing one person to prevent the torture of millions? I can think of plenty of good characters who would find it acceptable do that. I can think of plenty of good characters who would find it obligatory to do that. For that matter, I'm sure several good deities that would find it obligatory to do that. In fact, I would find it obligatory to do that.
But not Sarenrae, which is the point here. There's no way Sarenrae would condone torture, particularly in cases like this where it is applied unnecessarily for the sole purpose of convenience. In this case, the torture is evil, and more relevantly, it is about as un-Sarenrae as you can get.
I'm glad that im not the only one that thinks so, I didnt appreaciate being called "f*+@ed up" by Knight-Paladin Rysky.
I actually agree with this, i got preoocupied with shifting the alignment, but if Sarenrae specifically wouldnt condone torture, then thats another matter.
Upon reconsideration: Make him CG AND consider his deity teaching him a lesson, if he's a repeat offender.
|
|
2) Lets not resort to character attacks here, in the course of the greater good you sometimes need to crack a few eggs.And the "Greater Good" aka The Ends Justify the Means defense? That doesn't work, if ever. And it definitely doesn't make you a good person.Torturing one person to prevent the torture of millions? I can think of plenty of good characters who would find it acceptable do that. I can think of plenty of good characters who would find it obligatory to do that. For that matter, I'm sure several good deities that would find it obligatory to do that. In fact, I would find it obligatory to do that.
But not Sarenrae, which is the point here. There's no way Sarenrae would condone torture, particularly in cases like this where it is applied unnecessarily for the sole purpose of convenience. In this case, the torture is evil, and more relevantly, it is about as un-Sarenrae as you can get.
I'm glad that im not the only one that thinks so, I didnt appreaciate being called "f&%&ed up" by Knight-Paladin Rysky.
I actually agree with this, i got preoocupied with shifting the alignment, but if Sarenrae specifically wouldnt condone torture, then thats another matter.
Upon reconsideration: Make him CG AND consider his deity teaching him a lesson, if he's a repeat offender.
You thinking Torture and stealing are the exactly same on the questionable morality board is why I said that about you. And you saying someone should change from Lawful or Neutral Good to Chaotic Good for torturing people is not helping your case.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And when you torture the person to save those millions, and they lie to you to stop the torture and the millions die anyway.
A tortured person will say literally anything to end the torture. The information is not reliable.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And when you torture the person to save those millions, and they lie to you to stop the torture and the millions die anyway.
A tortured person will say literally anything to end the torture. The information is not reliable.
If they even knew anything to begin with.
I think the intent is more important than the result, failure doesnt make you evil.
There was another cleric post very recently where they thought they were doing the right thing but it got someone killed, the cleric was stripped of all his powers as a result. The forums went CRAZY in defense of the cleric, saying the GM was completely out of order but the cleric only did what he thought was best.
To me:
(any)E: Selfish, tortures/kills/steals because fun.
CG: Selfless, tortures/kills/steals in pursuit of greater good or saving lives.
Torture may be an evil trait, but not all who employ it out of necessity become evil, many would just feel bad about it.
Regardless, if Sarenrae doesnt approve, that's another matter.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no necessity to torture.
Just because you don't enjoy torturing someone doesn't make the torture itself any less evil.
Just because you try to justify it yourself doesn't make the torture itself any less evil.
Just because somehow something good happens down the line after you've tortured someone doesn't make the act of torture itself any less evil.
Torture is evil. No exceptions.
After glancing through this threat, it appears as though this character as played would make more sense as a LE cleric of Asmodeous. If that's not what you want in your campaign, you need to chat with the player and lay out what the expectations are of a good-aligned cleric and have the player either comply with those expectations or roll up a different character. This one could make a great villain, even.
As a side note - this has nothing at all to do with a cleric espousing a multi-theistic belief set. That seems totally fine to me. It's about the torture, manipulation of people, summary executions without trials, advocacy for "nice" slavery, etc.
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.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.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
...Why?
Joe Schmoe the Int 8 farmer knows different gods do different things. The village idiot isn't going to pray to Erastil to fill his ale mug, he knows that's what Cayden Cailean is for.
Why are you assuming a Cleric would be dumber than that? They're religious experts. They would KNOW their god doesn't have control over everything.
I might be wrong, but I think Sarenrae would actually endorse violence in this case. Ideally, the slaver could be persuaded by the Power of Love to See the Light and free them all, yadda yadda, but that's exceedingly unlikely (especially given this slaver's described character - he seems very comfortable with what he does), and, as Sarenrae is pragmatic, a more workable solution is the less-ideal one of killing the few who violate the many. What the Cleric has done in this case, however, is the greater of two Evils. History shows that once slavers learn the trick of convincing their slaves that they want to be slaves, the institution only gets stronger.
Remember also that Sarenrae is the goddess of Truth. She would NOT approve of the argument that "they're happy now, so the problem is solved." The problem is not that they're unhappy, the problem is that something is being done to them that would make any feeling, thinking creature unhappy - and the happiness they are being left with is based on a terrible LIE. This is an example of Asmodeus's work if ever there were one.
“I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” ― Harriet Tubman
And yet it's perfectly in keeping with certain members of Sarenrae's faith.
For the OP's reference, the Iconic Slayer is a member of that cult, and he's basically a glorified assassin. And yet, the Cleric members of that group still get their powers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but it's a very weird kind of neutral good cleric who thinks that "religion is a tool to control the populace". I mean, like, that's not a neutral good worldview, right? That's like nauseatingly evil.
Semantics. The whole point of religion and politics is to get a large body of people to behave a certain way. It's called social engineering, a practice performed in EVERY society. It doesn't matter if it's the leaders of the people doing it, or the gods themselves, it's still social engineering. There is nothing inherently evil about it; in fact, most of the time, it results in a very positive outcome.
The cleric is being rather brusque in his description, but that's because he's selling the idea to a twisted human trafficker as a means of buying time.
I'm sure he'd phrase it differently if talking to a fellow cleric or a good-natured civilian.
Also, the cleric actually hasn't acted on anything yet. He hasn't helped the slaver implement any form of mind control scheme. He's totally innocent at this point and should not be punished in any ways, shape, or form.
|
There are always consequences, but they don't always have to be for the player's character directly. I say let the players play but the consequences may fall to NPC's, mentors or other factions that indirectly affect the character.
Maybe the cleric runs into the family of one of these slaves and the interaction doesn't go well - maybe the character runs into another Cleric of Sarenrae with differing ideals or philosophy and his actions are discovered.
Again, let the players play their characters how they want, but turn their actions and consequences into more story. His perception of Sarenrae is his reality - have him run into someone else's reality farther down the road...
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 the consequences are so severe, personally I'd always hedge on "one more warning". But I'm not at your table, and there's likely lots of nuances I am missing....I saw a follow up post that mentioned the player used torture, and lots of other follow up posts after that, an you mentioned you'd do something to give them a hint, so there's no need to go into that again too much.
And no crap, I game out of Anchorage as well. Let me PM you, we will be needing another player in a game I am starting soon as one of our usual is getting ready to move to Juneau on orders.
