IMO a tool to control the populace is a very Lawful point of view
It depends really. Believing something can control the populace is very different from believing something should control the populace.
IMO a tool to control the populace is a very Lawful point of viewIt depends really. Believing something can control the populace is very different from believing something should control the populace.
I would think that clergy would think that controlling the population would be for the best. Just look at history.
2 cp inbound.
Girken, I think your faux Sarenrae cleric needs to have his Phaith Phone blow up with a host of messages, metaphorically speaking. This guy wakes up the next morning, or comes out of the lavatory, or whichever SUNBURNED, and his first thought should be something similar to: "I really just ought to tell Night Peddler I'm in charge now, take his stuff, and get in a nice, cold bath to help with this nuisance. Then I can question some of my new followers about whom we should worship."
. . . I'm really so disturbed by your exposition of your player's justifications that I can't quite crystallize a concise response . . . .
This guy starts getting omens, signs, manifestations, text messages, faxes, emails, and snail mail post from Asmodeus. TODAY. Even better? Night Peddler comes back with a representative of another church (likely Asmodean), and *that* disciple makes a sales pitch to your "better rolls-playing" character. Make him an offer he can't refuse.
Explore this guy's intentions -- is he *trying* to convert to another faith? If that's his goal, he's certainly on the right track. His bluff to the Night Peddler (referring to the misdirection, rather than the content of what he reportedly said) is a nice capstone to moving toward LE.
In games that I have run, most cleric players have essentially been paragons of the tenets of their various faiths, so this type of situation hasn't really come up (there was one time one player and I staged a sudden conversion from Pelor to whichever god of war there was in D&D 4E). That being said, there has *always* been an undercurrent of understanding that the gods in the game ARE active entities -- I have always held that notion to be a consequence of the absence of obvious divine intervention in our own, real world. I think a great many players enjoy playing divine characters either because seeing direct supernatural results of faithful action are 'fulfilling' events, or because a world where such things happen is an indirect criticism of the lack of the supernatural in our daily lives. I would suggest, at the very least, that this character be subjected to the "signs of displeasure" given for Sarenrae in the ISWG, and debuff some features (d4 channel dice, or a -1 per die rolled; loss of range on spells ("Player, you *know* you can't quite target him from your current position.")). Forgot who mentioned these earlier, but that's a solid idea.
Asmodeus would *love* to gain this guy as a traveling preacher. "Slavery Light! Hurray!! More calories burned, and you don't feel bad about it!!" And Asmodeus would likely be willing to help ensure this character still had access to the Healing domain, too -- got to keep your minions of drudgery healthy enough to finish building all those monuments and such!!
The best part would be the detachment from the nearest well-established temple of the Dawnflower, sent to redeem or purge this guy. Good story, mechanically reasonable, and maintains the suspension of disbelief.
An option is to have the character take the Separatist archetype.
"A radical cleric, unsatisfied with the orthodoxy of her deity’s teachings, forges her own path of defiant divine expression. Though most members of her faith would call her a separatist or heretic, she continues to receive spells from her deity. Charismatic separatists may develop a large following of like-minded believers and eventually found a splinter church of their deity—and they are just as likely to be the cause of a holy civil war as the branches of the religion fight to determine which is the true faith."
I'm totally going to do so, he can shift it back with actions but regardless of the rationalizations he's going to be chaotic good til' further notice.
Interesting choice. The CG alignment is indicative of one who will break with tradition, convention and even the law to do "what is right" and sacrifice of himself just as readily. The key thing about Robin Hood wasn't that he stole from the rich, it was that he also gave to the poor.
I think it's also important to point something out: Performing an evil act does not make a character evil. Performing a good act does not make a character good. A character's alignment is determined by their overall pattern of behavior: A villain can be a ruthless killer and still donate to charity for war orphans. A hero can be overall driven to kindness and virtue, but possess an unreasonable bigotry towards certain races. The exception doesn't define them, it just makes them more interesting.
Furthermore, intention is not actually relevant with regard to the individual act (the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" exists for a reason). The act is what it is - where intention matters is about establishing the pattern of behavior of the character. A character who wants to assassinate Radovid or Joffrey as a child to prevent them from reaching the throne and causing the damage they do is showing a different outlook and behavior to one who wishes to assassinate the same children for the purpose of getting a friend closer to the throne.
In regards to establishing patterns of behavior and thus character alignment, rationalization of immoral acts is actually the best indicator that an alignment change southward is in the works. A character who displays genuine remorse at his deeds is actually resisting an alignment change. A character who rationalizes his immoral actions as being "for the best" and thus avoids grief or remorse is embracing alignment change.
As an alternative: Don't tell him his alignment has changed. Don't tell him that Sarenrae isn't granting his class abilities, and he is instead getting them from Asmodeus, who is entertained by having the character unwittingly defaming the church of the Dawnflower and weakening her influence in the world. Let him keep torturing people, putting prisoners to the sword and so on. Have word of his deeds spread whenever able, and have the general populace act accordingly. Don't bar him from the road to damnation - let him walk it if he really, really wants.
But treat him, for all purposes (such as detect alignment, Smite Evil and so on), as being the Lawful Evil character he seems to be acting like.
If your other players are finding his "Bastard Priest of Sarenrae" act irritating, then the eventual reveal that he is an unwitting priest of Asmodeus will likely be far more satisfying for all than depowering him.
|
I'm totally going to do so, he can shift it back with actions but regardless of the rationalizations he's going to be chaotic good til' further notice.I'm curious, Girken - operating under the assumption that the meddling Cleric is NG at the moment, how is the shift to neutral that Trogdar recommended taking him to CG instead of NN?
The actions you've shown concern about are generally E, with slavery leaning towards LE, torture generically E and extortion probably generally E as well.
I don't really think the meddling Cleric is doing anything wrong on the L/N/C axis at the moment - it is the G/N/E one that he is having problems with. If you're going to shift his alignment, shift him to NN, not CG.
If he is starting at a different alignment, the general points stand, but the final alignment might be different...
Obviously, "reasonable" people disagree as to the proper alignment change. Some people want him LE immediately, some people want him CG, some people want him NN. This is because few things are as subjective as alignment (despite it being "objective" in the Pathfinder world) and people are bound to disagree.
If this difference (wanting all sorts of different alignment changes imposed on the player...CG supposedly isn't remotely like LE) doesn't ring alarm bells in ALL of your minds, I don't know what would. Show some restraint. This is a GAME which you play to have FUN not a LYNCHING mob where you ambush someone to change his alignment.
To the OP: Just talk to the player, and find a solution which is fun for both of you, not some stupid gotcha alignment change and/or (partial) power loss.
Yeah, I was suggesting a move to true neutral if you feel you must do something. if some other major transgression occurs in the future, the loss of powers and eventual change in deity are more reasonable.
To be clear, I don't generally think pushing alignment is a worthwhile endeavor given the tiny pay off you may or may not get from it. At least, getting consensus at the table is a nightmare in a lot of ways. Even if you happen to be in a group of people who can keep their heads, you are still fairly likely to disagree on a number things.
This fellow does seem to think strange things about being good though. I am curious to know how torturing someone could be good. Its pretty hard to get reliable Intelligence from a guy with clamps on his nipples. I think most would agree that the guys only thinking about clamps.
Interesting choice. The CG alignment is indicative of one who will break with tradition, convention and even the law to do "what is right" and sacrifice of himself just as readily. The key thing about Robin Hood wasn't that he stole from the rich, it was that he also gave to the poor.Well, I'd argue Robin Hood is LG, not CG, but the rest of the post is spot on.
I think you're in the minority there, including the game designers. From Complete Scoundrel (3.5), the example scoundrels from fiction are:
LG: Batman, Dick Tracy, Indiana Jones
LN: James Bond, Odysseus, Sanjuro (titular character from Yojimbo)
LE: Bobba Fett, Magneto
NG: Zorro, Spiderman
TN: Lara Croft (original), Han Solo (early on), Lucy Westerna from Dracula
NE: Mystique, Sawyer (from Lost)
CG: Mal Reynolds (Firefly), Robin Hood
CN: Cpt Jack Sparrow, Al Swearangen (Deadwood), Snake Plisskin from Escape from New York.
CE: Carl Denham (King Kong), Riddick (Pitch Black)
Something to consider.
Edit: There is also a strong argument for much of the confusion and disagreement being a product of a change in philosophy by western society. The alignment system was, essentially, a product of modernist thinking, which has fallen from popularity and replaced by post-modernism towards the end of last century. And the two philosophies are very, very different - the former being decidedly Lawful (there is one truth; progress is paramount; right and wrong is irrefutable etc), while the latter is decidedly Chaotic (truth is subjective; individuality is paramount; follow your own morale code). Thus, many (or even most) view the alignment system differently than those who wrote it.
No way is Riddick CE. Probably CN.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No way is Riddick CE. Probably CN.
The book specifically quoted Pitch Black, where he was decidedly less morally grey and more "Pitch Black" (pun intentional) with the faintest glimmer of humanity buried in there. At least, that's my recollection of the movie.
Edit: This isn't to say I agree with them on everything, just that I can understand where they're coming from. Personally I'd peg Batman (Except for the recent abomination of a movie) as LN most of the time.
I'd also argue Mr Bond is more NG than Lawful Neutral.
I mean he acts outside the law rather than on behalf of it, but he does on for self-sacrificing reasons in an extremely heroic way.
Back to the OP: It isn't the GMs job to punish people. If you're approaching it from that angle it's worth stepping back.
I don't want to start the torture debate again but I strongly disagree that torture for any reason is evil. Torture is a result driven by a reasoning. The reasoning for it may be evil but the result is not. Just like killing to defend yourself is not evil but killing someone for the fun of it is evil. Torture to get important information to save lives is not evil. Torture for fun is evil.
I just had my DM totally mess with one of my cleric characters, and it was the most unpleasant gaming experiences of my life. I was livid. I almost quit the game.
Don't mess with a player's character. Especially arbitrarily and unilaterally. It is disrespectful and insulting.
If the player wants to work with you to make an interesting with his character, that's totally different.
But don't mess with someone else's character.
Linky Goodness
I appreciate the sentiment, and for the most part agree.
I say "for the most part" as when players play an alignment very different from what's on paper, it should result (eventually) in alignment change. Ultimate Campaign has some good guidance on the topic*. Coupled with this, part of playing a Cleric involves keeping your alignment within one step of your deity... which might sound harsh, but it really, really shouldn't be too much of a challenge, especially if one's deity is NG.
*Edit: Specifically, the idea that there are degrees of alignment, allowing one to track movement in smaller jumps. For example, let's say our titular cleric started off in the middle band of "Good".
- After he put calmly some enemies to the sword rather than take them captive, the GM may be concerned about his alignment slipping, and take note.
- After the cleric tortures a prisoner for information, or endorses torture, the GM drops him to merely "Lower-Good".
- The cleric then presents the concept of organized religion as a means of controlling the masses to a slaver, without any attempt to change the goals of the slaver, and while presenting the concept as one that requires no subterfuge because they sincerely believe it.
- Without having performed any notably "Good" acts to have picked himself back up above the bottom rung, the GM then adjusts the characters alignment to the upper band of Neutral. At this point the character is Neutral (and still has all their class abilities), and is very close to regaining their original alignment, should they perform redeeming deeds.
Now, you may ask "but surely he'll be doing good/redeeming deeds all the time?", and the answer is "Not necessarily". The route to evil is, to quote Star Wars, the "Quicker, easier and more seductive" path. Characters don't fall because they want to be underhanded and unscrupulous, they fall because being underhanded and unscrupulous is the easiest path to victory, and taking the morale high ground is harder.
I really do disagree that PC's characters are sacrosanct and beyond the touching of the GM.
That being said you shouldn't just change them without warning. If someone is acting in a way that seems outside of how you interpret they should be just ask them to justify it, and say that you don't feel they are acting properly for how their god/code/whatever would require them.
This is a social activity, a GM should always talk to PC's (and vice versa) as equals who want to share a good time. Don't torpedo a character just because you can.
Girken:
I frequently have strong reactions to events like these (paying lip service to what is, in my mind, a clearly communicated element or elements of the game [i.e., alignment and clerics' code of conduct], and then injecting a player's convictions to roleplaying scenarios that are in direct opposition to that/those element(s)). I earlier advised an alignment shift *toward* LE, a change/debuff in abilities, *and* communications from interested deities.
I truly appreciate Raynulf's input. I second the incorporation of the "sliding scale". Communicate with your player -- he needs to know you believe he has consistently demonstrated behaviors/advocated ideas that run counter to his declared alignment. Inform him that he is well on his way into TN, leaning toward LE as a "destination". Ask him what he thinks of an alternative job offer from some other deity; ask him what he would expect from Sarenrae if she were an active deity, and what he would expect from her as an inactive entity. I believe that you can bring the ISWG content regarding the expressions of favor/disfavor of deities into play with no mechanical aspect -- just the aesthetic description(s) -- and be well within the more . . . "limited" GM domain many are supporting here.
Have fun. Ensure he's having fun. But try your very best to make sure there's consistency in the "world" and the metagame.
While I prefer a gameworld that has sudden, dramatic shifts that are the direct result of PC's choices (mostly for the sake of seeing how they choose to work through the challenging consequences), and would levy a stronger approach at such a point as the one you have described, I don't believe in torpedoing a game, even for one player. SmiloDan mentioned his hypernegative reaction to a GM/DM doing something that heavy-handed (and it is!) to him; most players would react similarly to such unannounced. This is why I always make time to discuss things with my players (usually through text messages) regarding their characters' actions and goals between sessions. I have a great rapport with 87.5% of my group by virtue of long friendships, and the new guy (the 12.5% . . . . Is this starting to sound like Sanders? Or Romney??) is *very* new to the group (three months or so). Make sure your player knows what you've been thinking about all this. And before the next session. That's the most important thing here.
And about Richard B. Riddick -- definitely CE. At least in Pitch Black. Chronicles tried to dress him up a bit differently in a metaphysical sense, but he still acted in a totally self-serving fashion, to the delight of Judi Dench's character. Riddick portrayed him properly. We may sympathize with his character, and idealize some of his virtues (and they *are* there!!), but, to me, this is the crux:
Riddick will do what Riddick wants to do, regardless of the consequences.