I have ignored the advocating torture because 1) we don't have any context for that at all, even from the GMs perspective on what happened and 2) it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
The OP presented a very specific scenario, not involving any torture, and wanted to know about punishment from a deity for it.
During our next session I'll keep a log of his actions so if you're interested be on the look out for a post I'll title something like "Cleric alignment review /analysis"
Please do.
Also, keep a mental note of the PLAYER reactions. I think a lot of the concern on the "don't affect the player" people (which I am one of) is that the player might genuinely be surprised about the possibility they are doing something "wrong". Again, they might be aware that they are and are interested in seeing what happens.
In one of the games I play we had a N Druid whose actions were slipping him to NE. He knew it, and it was discussed, and it was something that was played out in game well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
OK, ignoring for the moment the REAL WORLD is torture for the greater good an evil thing...
In this particular set of RPG rules why you do something is not always the arbiter of whether it is an evil act. For instance; an orphanage is on fire, I choose to create undead(quite a few times) and send the skeletons in to save the children. Can this make me Evil?
The rules say yes. That particular spell has the [evil] descriptor, and all (well pretty much all) undead in Pathfinder are Evil. So by the book, it's an evil act, and enough of them can change your alignment.
Or, to put it simply; in Pathfinder, doing Evil things for a Good end may work out well for the beneficiary, but not for the perpetrator.
He's totally innocent at this point and should not be punished in any ways, shape, or form.Innocent of slavery, that is. Not of torture.
At the time of writing for my above post, I hadn't gotten to all the torture posts (and yes, I did miss it in the beginning, like many others).
Has he actually committed torture? Or does he just support the idea? If it's the former, than you're right. If it's the latter, than he's still innocent. There are a LOT of good people, both in the real world and in the world of Golarion, that support the idea of torture as an effective means to get information. That doesn't make it right or good--not by a long shot--but it does make clear that merely supporting the idea doesn't in itself, make a person evil. You need real blood on your hands for that.
The difference is that an evil person might relish it, and torture someone even though it isn't necessary. A good person who believes in it, might only resort to it as a last resort, and even then, only under the duress of helping keep others from harm.
|
Maybe he gets a dream from Asmodeous tempting him with power then....
This seems like it would be the way to go in this case.
The player/character is being creative by plying the villain with an argument/scheme that would legitimately interest the villain in order to:
A. Ideally--buy time for the rebellion to succeed
B. Move the villain's domination to a less cruel (but perhaps more effective) form (if the rebellion fails).
There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, though if though if the character is really sharing his own views with no bluff (not even to hide his abhorence of the practice he is describing) needed, then his NG alignment is in danger and he is slipping towards LE.
Alternately, an "Is that really what you think of me?" message from Saranrae might be appropriate.
I have a very different opinion from the majority of posters on this subject.
My first question is whether the character really believes what he is saying, because unless he plans on going through with helping the Night Peddler he needs to make a Bluff check.
I do not believe that a GM should take away a cleric's powers ever. Essentially, this a meta-game issue. If you take away a clerics powers, you as a GM are basically saying "If you don't play your character the way I think you should I will take away your powers." Now the problem with this is that divine casters are the only characters in the game that have this restriction. So then you are creating a meta-game penalty for not playing the character in a certain way. If I'm playing an assassin, and I decide to become a pacifist, I don't lose all my assassin abilities.
I really believe it is not the GM's job to tell players what actions their characters should and shouldn't take. I also am really against the gods taking any direct action in the game world. I've never been in a game where a god showed up, or intervened directly and thought 'Wow, it sure was cool that God X came down and told us what was what.' It always seems heavy-handed and paternalistic.
Now I do believe it is the GM's job to present a world that is internally consistent and has verisimilitude. As a GM, I would never say, "God X wouldn't like that." I would say, "Clerics of this religion act in a certain way. They have a code of conduct and a belief system. Your character is pretty sure other clerics of Saerenrae would find the idea of using any religion to enslave people repugnant. If you continue with that course of action, other members of your church will not look kindly on this."
Then I would let the player decide what they wanted to do. Having other clerics of Saerenrae show up and confront the character is better than having a god do it. The scene where another cleric says "Burn me if you can heretic. Whatever god hears your prayers, I'm sure it isn't mine!" is way better than 'You pray but you don't get any spells.'
Then everytime the character uses any fire magic, turn the flames green. Make it clear that his actions have consequences, but don't strip him of character abilities. All stripping him of his powers is going to do is convince the player next time he should play a wizard, because spell books don't tell you what to do.
The game that becomes about who are the true followers of Sarenrae is fun and interesting to me. The game where the GM says don't do this or I'll punish you seems less fun.
Now SUGGESTING a switch to Asmodeus or something could be a pretty cool story if the player will bite on it.
Mechanically, not much needs to change. You'd have to give him a free retrain on Domains (maybe only one, Sarenrae and Asmodeus share Fire), and his Channeling would change to Negative, but big whoop.
At most move the player to neutral. That shouldn't impact class features immediately while still sending the message you want to send. If the person is upset, then you just have to point out that your opinions on alignment seem to differ and work it out.
Just don't be passive aggressive about it.
|
This PC is a min max, win every time, kind of character and is playing a cleric solely based on the abilities and spells offered. Frankly, after the repeated incidents I'm loath to let him off the hook again. His go to excuse is usually a meta-gameish one, "My character believes that it's our job to stop the big bad thing and that whatever we need to do to get that done is justified - greater good - therefore good -done."
I don't know. It seems to me that you feel the player is meta-gamish and so want to punish him.
It is pretty clear that you have a lot of feelings and/or emotions wrapped up in this, and they might be coloring your judgment.
I would back up a step or two. You are all playing a game, correct? And you want to have fun, correct? What can YOU do to make sure everyone (including you) is having fun?
If you really think the best you can do is having him have dreams about being fallen, then so be it. I think that there are many choices you could make, however, which would result in EVERYONE having more fun at the table.
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.
I don't see why that would necessarily be true. A lot of the good gods consider each other companions or allies, so it doesn't really seem that weird to me.
Sarenrae is even explicitly on good terms with every other good deity other than Torag.
|
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.
I don't think that can be said to 100% be the case in Golarion to be honest, hell, Paladins of the Godclaw order specifically follow a pantheon of 5 lawful gods who they venerate all of. There's a number of examples of temples having smaller alters to other similar, friendly gods or of like minded religions sharing temple space.
Whilst they no doubt think their god is right and that even friendly gods followers are probably a bit misguided there is an awful lot of cooperation and such between religions who share similar themes. When things get dangerous pretty much everyone throws in together, for example to fight Rovagug.
OK, ignoring for the moment the REAL WORLD is torture for the greater good an evil thing...
In this particular set of RPG rules why you do something is not always the arbiter of whether it is an evil act. For instance; an orphanage is on fire, I choose to create undead(quite a few times) and send the skeletons in to save the children. Can this make me Evil?
The rules say yes. That particular spell has the [evil] descriptor, and all (well pretty much all) undead in Pathfinder are Evil. So by the book, it's an evil act, and enough of them can change your alignment.
Or, to put it simply; in Pathfinder, doing Evil things for a Good end may work out well for the beneficiary, but not for the perpetrator.
And that's probably one of the biggest flaws of the whole alignment/spell descriptor thing.
Switching him to some other deity might be a good idea, only problem is I suspect he'll be rather unhappy about changing domains and possibly having to channel negative energy, especially as it sounds like he chose sarenrae for the domains in the first place and negative energy channeling is almost completely useless unless you are doing the army of undead thing. His religion as a means of control thing could be interesting as a concept for a deity less lawful neutral option, worshipping the idea of organised religion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a very different opinion from the majority of posters on this subject.
My first question is whether the character really believes what he is saying, because unless he plans on going through with helping the Night Peddler he needs to make a Bluff check.
I do not believe that a GM should take away a cleric's powers ever. Essentially, this a meta-game issue. If you take away a clerics powers, you as a GM are basically saying "If you don't play your character the way I think you should I will take away your powers." Now the problem with this is that divine casters are the only characters in the game that have this restriction. So then you are creating a meta-game penalty for not playing the character in a certain way. If I'm playing an assassin, and I decide to become a pacifist, I don't lose all my assassin abilities.
The game rules disagree with you, and so do the game designers. It is not really about telling someone how to play something. The gameworld assumes that deities only grant power to those who further their goals.
If deity X is the god of happiness, life, and all things good then some psychopath out killing random people, or <insert other bad thing> is not going to be doing what the deity wants so there is no reason to give said cleric/inquisitor/paladin/etc any more power. Let him go to some other deity to get it.
The same would apply to a deity of death and carnage granting powers to someone who is out kissing babies, and walking old ladies across the street.
Alignment is always a difficult topic, because opinions of it vary greatly. As a general rule, however, as the arbiter of the rules it is the GMs interpretation of alignment that takes precedence.
And it is worth telling your players what your take on alignment is, because it can vary a lot: I've seen games where "Evil" meant "Raving psychopath with less self control and humanity than a balor" and anything less was merely "Neutral". I've seen games where any self-centered behavior (such as asking for a reward for dispatching a roaming monster) was considered neutral at best and potential grounds for alignment change. And a full spectrum in between.
Generally, I'd suggest getting the player to open his CRB and re-read pages 166-168. Of specific interest is the following:
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.
With regards to clerics: Generally speaking there should be some leeway, but actively working against your deity's interests (regardless of your intent) is not something that should go unanswered. And once again, it is the GMs verdict on the deity's opinions and interests that takes precedence.
My Suggestion:
- Think about his actions. Read the CRB on alignment. Decide what you consider good acts, and what you consider evil acts.
- If he isn't behaving in a manner consistent with NG, adjust his alignment one step towards what he is playing and explain why, and the consequences if this trend continues.
- Ignore all attempts to rationalize his actions. One can rationalize anything - I'd suggest reading The Wasp Factory by Iain Banks for a good example of such.
- Remember that a "Lawful Greater Good"* paladin is actually a blackguard. Such terminology is used to describe the "Ends Justify The Means" mindset which is decidedly not good.
- If the player argues, remind him that part of your role as GM is to make judgement calls on the rules, and to do so consistently for all players. This is why the table uses the GM's interpretation of alignment, not each player using their own.
- If the player alters their behavior (judging by what they do not by how they try to spin it) to be more aligned with NG, consider reinstating the old alignment. If they do not, consider whether further alignment change is warranted. If this results in losing class abilities by being too far from NG, they'll need to either atone or find a new deity more aligned with their beliefs.
- Be open with the player about this. Be willing to roleplay out his finding a new god if that appeals (it does to many). But don't back down.
My 2c, anyway :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the detect [alignment] spells are any indication, it's ultimately intent that determines alignment.
Girken, why did your player choose Sarenrae and not Asmodeus for his Cleric's deity ?I discussed that with him briefly and basically it's because he wanted "big heals". he's a asimar cleric with the healing domain and some feats so essentially he can heal and get 150% standard healing and channel quite a bit.
Well, then really talk with him about what your expectations are for the diety's clergy then let him know when he's doing something outside those expectations.
Sounds like he would be happier being an evil Life Oracle, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game rules disagree with you, and so do the game designers.
There are lots of things I disagree with the game designers about and numerous ways I would advocate for ignoring or changing the rules. To use a less controversial example: The game rules state when you kill a monster you get an award called XP. When you get enough XP your character increases in level. The intention of the game designers was to include a meta-game reward for killing monsters. I don't think that makes for good gameplay and I would encourage anyone who plays the game to ditch XP and just level characters at either regular intervals (i.e. a level every 2 or 3 sessions) or at story appropriate points.
The fact that it's in the rules doesn't mean that taking away a cleric's powers is the best thing for a game.
It is not really about telling someone how to play something. The gameworld assumes that deities only grant power to those who further their goals.
And I would encourage GMs to remove that assumption. All that does is encourage players to play classes that don't have behavior restrictions. What purpose does it serve to say— you can play your wizard any way you want, but if you play a divine caster you have to follow a certain code of conduct?
If deity X is the god of happiness, life, and all things good then some psychopath out killing random people, or <insert other bad thing> is not going to be doing what the deity wants so there is no reason to give said cleric/inquisitor/paladin/etc any more power.
I guess it really comes down to whether you think gods are characters with motives, thoughts, feelings, and desires or whether you think they're more like ideas. I don't think gods should be characters. I have no problem with the Church punishing a wayward priest, but I don't think gods should ever "do" anything. Anymore than arcane magic or psionics should have an opinion.
And since I don't think Saerenrae should be a character, it doesn't really matter who is answering the prayers of the player character. Lots of posters have advocated for switching/suggesting a switch to Asmodeus. I say it doesn't matter which "god character" answers there prayers, what matters is how the gameworld reacts to the PC. Do followers of Saerenrae stop listening to him? Do adherents of Asmodeus start showing up at his new Church? Do peasants that once came to him for comfort and advice now cross the street to avoid him?
Have the gameworld react to the character the way you think the gameworld would react to him. Don't use meta-game punishment.
Dude, change his alignment one step toward neutral. If he doesn't get the message he never will.
I personally hate alignment because of the human element(nobody can be objective and still be human) which makes these calls very much about perspective. That said, advocating torture is a pretty clear violation of good and really ought to move someone to neutral.
A real mechanical change that doesn't immediately turn off all of his class features is the best middle ground and it gives you a stronger position if and when you actually do take his powers away.
I see this as good act not evil. The cleric in this case can only exert influence with in their sphere of influence. In this negotiation the character was able move the slaver to a different position. Not the ideal position but baby step in the right direction. Nothing evil about not being successful as you'd wish.
This Cleric is NOT following the path of his Deity since their portfolio includes HONESTY. Sarenrae would disavow and reject him until his values match hers.
As for the player's claims, NO, this is NOT for the greater good at all, it is only for the win regardless of cost. Presenting a path to mental and emotional control through organized religion (or organized anything) is raw and moral-neutral LAW. The clerics alignment should shift to Lawful Neutral OR to Lawful Evil if his first choice is still torture (LN will use torture as needed, LE leads with torture and tries questioning afterwards)
There doesn't seem, to me at least, to be any grey area here. Smite him with the reality of the world he lives in and the Deities who live there and let him decide if he wants to change and atone or let him petition a new god for acceptance. (Note: LOTS of Lawful gods will NOT accept a cleric who has already shown their inability to remain faithful, so role play out any petitioning and make the Cleric earn either redemption from Sarenrae or acceptance from a more Lawful Deity.)
Specifically, it's the torture I would be concerned about. Convincing the slaver to use religion as a method of control seems fine if he was only doing it to ease suffering in the meantime. That said, I would require a bluff check because he was hiding his true intent.
I do think intent matters (Ultimate Intrigue certainly seems to indicate that it does). Nevertheless as the GM, you have final say over what is considered a good/evil or chaotic/lawful act as well as whether a deity would approve of an action.
When the cleric is about to perform an action that goes against their deity/alignment, it's a good idea to let them know but ultimately leave the decision on whether to carry it out up to them. If they go ahead with it, talk to them about it after the session and hear them out on their reasons and rationalizations for those actions. The decision of whether the action had appropriate intent for their deity and alignment remains with you and any alignment changes should take place during this time. Remember that singular actions generally don't require an alignment change. It's a good idea to explain your reasons for how you came to a decision to make sure you and the player on the same page but the decision is still yours regardless.
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.
It's more cynical than evil, and not an opinion that a cleric necessarily would/should voice... in public.