On the subject of "isn't he beneath Orcus' notice?" keep in mind that as a 12th-level cleric of Orcus, he may well be the single most powerful mortal follower of Orcus.
@ Wheldrake: While I respect your opinion on disallowing Evil PCs, I feel that Evil PCs are awesome characters, perhaps more awesome than most every Good character, when they aren't played as Stupid Evil or Chaotic Stupid, simply because, despite typical aversions, they are compelling and surprisingly viable characters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... I realize I'm late to this conversation and it's already been handled by him leaving the group. I would just like to add...
First, as a cleric, his character is a leader of the faith. People look to him for guidance. If he chops the head off a statue of his god, that could conceivably lose other worshipers. It's a little more important than if some Joe off the street did it. I could understand ruling a powerful demon being sent. Orcus can't afford for his clerics to do crap like that without getting a stern and immediate punishment. He should be made an example of for future clerics and faithful.
Second, I don't think he understands what a cleric is. He seems to think that he can dump one god then go shopping for another. As someone else pointed out, other gods and clerics wouldn't be so quick to grant power and prestige to someone who switches faiths so easy. They might allow him to come to church, but not to lead it without YEARS of faithful service and testing.
Along those lines, a cleric... a true and fanatical believer that his god is right in all things, shouldn't seek revenge. He should ask why Orcus has seen fit to send a demon to fight him. "Did I slight you, mighty Orcus? Have I not been a true priest and spread your glorious word? How can I make things right again?" THAT is what he should have done. Not say, "Screw you, Orcus. I'm dumping you for somebody else". Do, he obviously doesn't understand what a cleric is and does.
Third, since this guy seems a little "unstable", you might wanna make sure your doors and windows are locked at night and keep a gun nearby. You wronged his girlfriend (which is really a subconscious aspect of himself and what he admires and loves) and he might not let that go so easy. If you have any contact with his family, I would suggest letting them know about his little quirks because he may end up needing to be baker--acted for his own safety and other's. That is truly disturbing behavior. Seriously, be careful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funnily enough, the actual “Beblith” encounter that started this whole betrayal of his god sheds a little light on what happened further.
When the party was against the clock, the Villain got on their heels. Their identity wasn’t known to the Villain and they wanted to keep it that way.
Orcus being the demon lord he is hedged his bets. He coincidentally was contacted by said Villain and petitioned for aid to stop the party, which he obliged.
Demons fight among their own kind after all, and Orcus also thought this would be a good test of his followers faith (as someone said it’s VERY rare to see a high level cleric of Orcus around).
When confronted by the Beblith the party fought it without hesitation but he ran and hid while they did all the work. He was soooooo put off that his God would send a demon to potentially kill him, that’s what spurred the reaction.
I explained it to him out of character that it was a test of faith and he failed. He didn’t care; he protested that no good diety would ever send an angel or azata to fight them “just because”. I pointed out the ridiculousness of that, reminding him of who he worships. That’s more the behaviour of an evil god than a good one.
It was at that point he started saying out of character he was going to kill Orcus, felt he could pull it off and get a rival god to his (Demogorgon) to take him on board despite the fact I told him he would be VERY closely watched by said diety to make sure he doesn’t betray them too. IF he got that far that is.
Luckily for the group he wrote himself out of the campaign over the wish situation mentioned on another thread, THAT was the straw that broke the camels back but he wouldn’t stop going on about this “injustice” to his character because CR appropriate encounters weren’t the response he should be getting here because of the adventure module we were running should limit the maximum CR of anything they fight, that’s what he believed. That some cosmic force prevents powerful dragons from burning little villages and so forth lol
On the subject of "isn't he beneath Orcus' notice?" keep in mind that as a 12th-level cleric of Orcus, he may well be the single most powerful mortal follower of Orcus.
Yeah, it's sometimes worth paging through Campaign Setting books just so you can see how relatively low level really important people in the game world are. Like the Lictor of the Order of the Rack is level 11; the Master of Swords, Spells, and Scrolls for the Pathfinder Society Grand Lodge are all level 10; the "Farmers" (i.e. leaders) of the Bellflower Network are both level 13, etc.
Old Mage Jatembe is level 20 Mythic Tier 6 and he's smart enough to know not to try to fight a demon prince without support (even if he'd probably win, because "level 20 wizard".)
Luckily for the group he wrote himself out of the campaign over the wish situation mentioned on another thread, THAT was the straw that broke the camels back but he wouldn’t stop going on about this “injustice” to his character because CR appropriate encounters weren’t the response he should be getting here because of the adventure module we were running should limit the maximum CR of anything they fight, that’s what he believed. That some cosmic force prevents powerful dragons from burning little...
So does that mean, if encounters are constrained to the level band of the adventure path, that if he fights one random peasant, that peasant must individually wield the power o a 12th-14th level encounter? O.o
A deity should not be intervening in PC actions. That is how it is in most campaign words. I understand that to the worshippers of <insert deity) it can be punishable by death, but if deities aren't intervening in things that can end the world, and decide to leave it to the people of that world, then they certainly aren't going to waste time over a statue, even if it's made in their image.
If deity intervention is more common in your setting then the players should know about it. I've had paladins destroy alters in more than one adventure, and as a GM I could have said they called a pit fiend or balor to handle the transgression, but it would not have gone over well.
...
edit: Since he did this to his own deity he is now an ex-cleric. If he wants to worship a new deity he should have to do something to prove to that deity that he can be trusted. They have no reason to grant him powers if he is not going to follow their tenants.
edit2 : I read info that should have been in the opening post. I don't know how good your warning was worded, but if you let him know that the deity would not care about his PC level and come after him with something that is beyond his ability to handle then he made his choice, and should have to deal with it. If you were vague, then you should have been more specific, without telling him exactly what might happen.
I'm not going to comment on the personal issues here.
That being said, I do not believe the desecration of a statue would invoke the wrath of anyone other than the followers of the deity in question. As a rule, if a deity gets involved, the other deities get involved in equal measure. That is why the fight is left to mortals. If you are playing frog god games' world (given you are playing with orcus, it's a possibility), and if you read the source material, you'll find quite a bit of the desecration of good aligned deities by orcus and other evil deities' forces. I don't believe that the source material indicates any sort of deific retribution to the extent that you are doing so.
As for Orcus' punishment -- He's a chaotic deity, so he may allow the cleric to keep his powers, but alert all other Orcus worshippers (not just clerics) forces that killing said cleric will gain his favor - and let the chips fall where they may.
He definately will be hunted, but no direct divine retribution should occur. Deities use mortals as agents for a reason.
Personally, I wouldn't even have given him a warning. Just a lot of heavy hints (like wanted posters with his image), and let him figure it out.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that when a character worships and even gains benefits from a deity, they are choosing to give that deity authority over them. If a character and their deity have a disagreement, other deities are going to stay out of it, because it's between the deity and his or her follower.
I disagree. The deities themselves have a compact that they cannot break without the intervention of their enemies -- or retribution in the form of an enemy deity that is just looking for an excuse will intervene -- any excuse will do.
As for authority, yes and no. There is an agreement between cleric and deity - and the deity has every right to rescind that agreement if the cleric breaks the rules -- but he doesn't have to.
He could just simply be amused by said cleric enough to watch the chaos from afar like some television show.
There are plenty of options below direct divine retribution to make thing interesting -- with the ability to continue the campaign and not destroy it.
I suspect that Kleestad and Lamia of Avalos might have some thoughts about that. Even Erastil has been known to engage in such divine retribution from time to time.
I doubt that desecration of a statue would trigger that level of power output, even by one of the flock.
Letting your other faithful do their jobs is much easier.
If you rescind spellcasting from a cleric, is he still one of your followers? Isn't that considered divine retribution?
|
Contributor
|
I suspect that Kleestad and Lamia of Avalos might have some thoughts about that. Even Erastil has been known to engage in such divine retribution from time to time.I doubt that desecration of a statue would trigger that level of power output, even by one of the flock.
Letting your other faithful do their jobs is much easier.
If you rescind spellcasting from a cleric, is he still one of your followers? Isn't that considered divine retribution?
Erastil punished a dude who sacrificed a common grizzly bear, Pharasma punished a batch of oracles who were preaching false prophecy, and Zon-Kuthon punished a lowly nobody who betrayed one of his generals. So, it varies pretty broadly.
The Erastil worshiper in question had already turned from Erastil (hence the animal sacriice), while huecuva are created from priests who turn on their deities in a moment of desperation. So faith at the time isn't necessarily a factor.
Basically... it all seems to be up to God. And, given that whole "demon lord of wrath" thing, Orcus is probably going to be OK with a certain amount of disproportionate response. Especially given some of the additional circumstances noted above (in front of all the gods, etc.)
I'm not going to comment on the personal issues here.
That being said, I do not believe the desecration of a statue would invoke the wrath of anyone other than the followers of the deity in question. As a rule, if a deity gets involved, the other deities get involved in equal measure. That is why the fight is left to mortals. If you are playing frog god games' world (given you are playing with orcus, it's a possibility), and if you read the source material, you'll find quite a bit of the desecration of good aligned deities by orcus and other evil deities' forces. I don't believe that the source material indicates...
Thing is, character doing the desecrating was an Orcus worshiper.
This unties Orcus' hands to a significant degree. Yes, the other deities could get involved to an equal degree... but they have absolutely no reason to. Tyr does not care if Orcus acts against a priest of Orcus. In fact, it is in his interests if there is in-fighting.
That said, this was in Sigil. Direct action beyond revoking powers was never in the cards. But Orcus has many powerful operatives there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would have figured that "you can inflict horrific punishment on your own followers, you just can't touch anybody else's followers" to be part of the détente between the divines.
Which is to say if Orcus wants to do really bad things to a mortal before they die (and assuredly he does) the best choice is "someone who most recently worshiped Orcus and managed to offend him somehow." Since nobody else is going to step in and tell him not to.
|
Contributor
|
This is highly valid, of course. Among other things, the relationship between GM and players and the social contract of gaming are vital considerations. The circumstances in which this sort of thing happens to a player character should be rare indeed. ^_^
I merely referenced these examples to provide a counterpoint to the argument that there were in-universe reasons it couldn't happen.
While there are some examples of direct divine retribution in canon, I see that sort of thing in a game (vs being part of "historical record") is more of GM Ex Machina and far too heavy handed a response to what is perceived as player misbehavior and is too easily perceived as punishment vs a cooperation play environment.
Which is why I would recommend avoiding it.
A DM has no authority. It is as much the player's game as it is the GMs. The players have a role and so does the GM.
A good and cooperative game environment is one where all participants are satisfied.
An environment wherein the GM says "I'm the GM, suck it". Is one where he's going to be GMing an empty table.
Yeah, but a game in which a player is being a disruptive dick should give the GM the prerogative to say "Rocks fall, your character is strangely the only one crushed to death".
Yeah, but a game in which a player is being a disruptive dick should give the GM the prerogative to say "Rocks fall, your character is strangely the only one crushed to death".
I was intentionally not commenting on the disruptive behavior of the player, but instead talking about the use of "divine retribution" as a GM Ex Machina device for punishment for actions the GM simply disagrees with for whatever reason.
That being said, I do not believe the desecration of a statue would invoke the wrath of anyone other than the followers of the deity in question. As a rule, if a deity gets involved, the other deities get involved in equal measure. That is why the fight is left to mortals. If you are playing frog god games' world (given you are playing with orcus, it's a possibility), and if you read the source material, you'll find quite a bit of the desecration of good aligned deities by orcus and other evil deities' forces. I don't believe that the source material indicates any sort of deific retribution to the extent that you are doing so.
I don't see sending a demon to kill a character as deities getting personally involved. Now, Orcus coming to this plane of existence to start a fight... THAT would get the attention of other deities. Sending the occasional demon to do his bidding is something like a loophole. That's how I see it. "I didn't use my power on that plane of existence. I sent a believer and one I trust. Just like everybody else does". Deities send clerics and other planar minions to send messages all the time. Sending demon to kill a rogue cleric sends a very specific message to any others that might get any ideas seeing that PRIEST being very sacrilege. Like I said, it's a cleric. A leader of the faith. If it was just a common church member, the priesthood would handle it. A cleric of Orcus... HE should want to handle it. Otherwise, being a cleric... and clerics being leaders of the faith... he could start a small revolution in the church and sway beliefs.
Even another faith desecrating a temple isn't as bad as his own cleric doing it. It's not just the desecration of a statue... it's the message it sends to others of the faith. If it was a good guy that did it. The church would go after him. His own cleric did it. What if Orcus did nothing and other members saw it as being weak. Then they starts leaving the faith. Nope. One cleric does it. Orcus sends a minion to splatter him. All the others say, "Yup. That's what he gets. Pretty stupid. He should a known Orcus wouldn't stand for that". And the only power Orcus uses is a simple Plane Shift... or Just tell a demon who can already do that to "Go spank that priest and bring his corpse to the church".| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but a game in which a player is being a disruptive dick should give the GM the prerogative to say "Rocks fall, your character is strangely the only one crushed to death".I was intentionally not commenting on the disruptive behavior of the player, but instead talking about the use of "divine retribution" as a GM Ex Machina device for punishment for actions the GM simply disagrees with for whatever reason.
But that's not even close to what the OP was describing.
This isn't "the guy is annoying me, so I want to have the gods go after him."
This is "The character is a a fairly high-level former cleric of the deity, and is intentionally trying to anger that deity."
Divine retribution should absolutely be used sparingly, but to quote Young Frankenstein "A riot is an ugly thing, und I think it is just about time that we had one!"
In much the same way that it would normally be uncool to have a King and his entire forces be sent after one PC, if the PC was intentionally going around and besmirching the King's name, angering his local officials, beheading statues of the King, etc., that's a time when it's not punishing the player for "actions the GM simply disagrees with," it's a logical consequence of his actions.
A high level character trying to piss off a deity should expect the deity to take notice (otherwise, why try to anger them in the first place?), and for there to be a reaction.
Yeah, but a game in which a player is being a disruptive dick should give the GM the prerogative to say "Rocks fall, your character is strangely the only one crushed to death".I was intentionally not commenting on the disruptive behavior of the player, but instead talking about the use of "divine retribution" as a GM Ex Machina device for punishment for actions the GM simply disagrees with for whatever reason.But that's not even close to what the OP was describing.
This isn't "the guy is annoying me, so I want to have the gods go after him."
This is "The character is a a fairly high-level former cleric of the deity, and is intentionally trying to anger that deity."
Divine retribution should absolutely be used sparingly, but to quote Young Frankenstein "A riot is an ugly thing, und I think it is just about time that we had one!"
In much the same way that it would normally be uncool to have a King and his entire forces be sent after one PC, if the PC was intentionally going around and besmirching the King's name, angering his local officials, beheading statues of the King, etc., that's a time when it's not punishing the player for "actions the GM simply disagrees with," it's a logical consequence of his actions.
A high level character trying to piss off a deity should expect the deity to take notice (otherwise, why try to anger them in the first place?), and for there to be a reaction.
I guess we are disagreeing with the subtext of the initial OP. Any "warning" from the GM about whatever action, to me, is simply a GM using OOC commentary to dissuade a player from using his character in whatever fashion.
The player did what he did, and from the description knew that he would "anger the deity". And the GM agreed that this would do exactly that -- however, the GM then when OOC to warn the player of the consequences -- which amounted to actions not supported by the rules (other than rule zero), which, imo, amounts to out of game punishment.
A better response to player actions of this kind is to allow it to happen without comment and then have the deity notify his worshipers via whatever method and then have them mobilize to ensure punishment is performed. The followers can summon the demons, or whatever is needed.
Note that this completely negates the need to have the GM decide what punishment is appropriate and is completely supported by RAW (action of NPCs in game), and would be a much more fun result for all involved.
In much the same way that it would normally be uncool to have a King and his entire forces be sent after one PC, if the PC was intentionally going around and besmirching the King's name, angering his local officials, beheading statues of the King, etc., that's a time when it's not punishing the player for "actions the GM simply disagrees with," it's a logical consequence of his actions.
I absolutely agree. Here's the difference though. A "divine retribution" from a deity cursing the character for whatever actions is not supported by any rule that I'm aware of (beyond rule zero). There is no crunch that determines the level of punishment for the degree of blasphemy performed. It is completely arbitrary.
What you are describing is what I am promoting -- but using a deity's resources instead of that of a mundane king.
What I am not saying is that the deity would ignore the blasphemy. He obviously wouldn't. What I'm talking about is the method of punishment -- that method should be via the abilities of the clergy/worshippers of the deity in question, not some undefined curse from on high.
And to add to what my player has said he’s been kicked out of several gaming groups before for this same sort of behaviour I might add.
We tried to accommodate him every which way..
Here are some quotes and demands he's made to show the issues.
"If I can't play CE I ain't playing!"
well, you are the DM and a simple "No Evils" rules would fix this, one way or the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player, I would have just coup de graced his character the next time they went to sleep at that point. What point do the other character have to keep such a nuisance around that just threatened the lives of everyone? No need for that sort of behavior from a player or a character, even in an evil campaign.
You can't solve a OOC issue with IC actions.
He just brings in a new CE who kills yoour PC in their sleep.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, I do not believe the desecration of a statue would invoke the wrath of anyone other than the followers of the deity in question. As a rule, if a deity gets involved, the other deities get involved in equal measure. That is why the fight is left to mortals. If you are playing frog god games' world (given you are playing with orcus, it's a possibility), and if you read the source material, you'll find quite a bit of the desecration of good aligned deities by orcus and other evil deities' forces.
This isn't some teenager playing around by vandalizing a statue.
This is the freakin' pope going to an interfaith conference, and while he is there he bombs a church and shouts "Kali is my god now!" Except instead of a god of love and forgiveness, he's now dealing with Old Testament God all hopped up on the fury and vengeance that he has been bottling up for two millenia.
You better believe there will be a smiting.
@ Quintain: Considering most everyone on these forums uses OOC warnings for when a Paladin player wants to perform an action that may lead to their falling (which is something that the player may not realizs), saying that it is in bad faith to enforce a similar concept with something as imperative as this is counterintuitive with the above precedent.
Unless you don't do that sort of favor for Paladin players, in which case I suggest you grab your Umbrella of Protection +1 for all the rain of "badwrongfun" comments that are about to be made at you.
Rumpin,
I agree with the sentiment, but there is nothing within raw that defines what constitutes what the smiting should entail.
It is better gamesmanship, imo, for the GM in our scenario to have the smiting take a form of something supported by the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was no "divine retribution" or "undefined curse from on high". Orcus sent a minion to punish the blasphemous cleric who could possible cause a rebellion in the church if not handled swiftly and totally. Wipe out that cleric before any other followers or clerics think Orcus is weak and loses more followers or cause doubt in the church. If it was a follower or rival church, I would agree that Orcus should let his church handle it. But this was a cleric of the church who is sowing dissent.Some deities might have the church handle it. Some might actually inflict divine wrath. Sending a minion to deal with it, is somewhere in between.
Just curious, where does RAW state what is proper punishment. This shoud be complete GM purview and ruling. A GM doesn't need to run to the rule book for every ruling, but if there is an actual rule for how this is handled, I would like to know. I'm not trying to be a jerk even though I know the "tone" that I'm writing in could be misconstrued. I honestly don't keep up with all the new books, so it's entirely possible that I'm missing something.
There really isn't one.
The closest would be to follow the portfolio of said deity and think in his shoes how he would handle the situation. Which is basically GM FIAT.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess we are disagreeing with the subtext of the initial OP. Any "warning" from the GM about whatever action, to me, is simply a GM using OOC commentary to dissuade a player from using his character in whatever fashion.
The player did what he did, and from the description knew that he would "anger the deity". And the GM agreed that this would do exactly that -- however, the GM then when OOC to warn the player of the consequences -- which amounted to actions not supported by the rules (other than rule zero),...
Not only was "curse from on high" never the proposed form of retribution, it was literally impossible at the time because they were in Sigil and the gods cannot act directly. The only proposed retribution was in the form of the forces sent after the character in question for directly offending said god.
We're not talking blue bolting or the orbital bovine launcher here. You're arguing against something nobody is proposing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The player knew fine well Orcus could not directly do anything in Sigil, but a huge element to the sheer gravity of what they did is that In Sigil, all the Evil God's are housed in one temple in Sigil, Good God's in another, all kept in check by the Lady Of Pain.
He did it because the other God's (and enemies of Orcus) would SEE what he did, and Orcus isnt the kind of God would stand aside and allow a slight of this magnitude by what is essentially one of his highest level Clerics (Lv 12 Cleric / Lv 2 Bard) who for all intensive purposes wanted to get revenge in the most public of forums.
Needless to say, I warned him multiple times over but his answers never changed. He literally quoted Orcus as only being equipped with his +6 Mace and quoted his statistics as he believed them to be, saying not now but down the road he was certain somehow he could dethrone him and take his spot. All of this done infront of the faithful of the Diety who were all shaken by what happened. He used that shock to escape rapidly after his adamantine sword took the head off the statue, even though the mob chased him he had already planned a contrived escape via Invisibility and Expeditious Retreat, as well as literally paying some poor schmuck to dress up like him and loiter nearby who was the first target they went after.
It was purely the discussion of what Orcus COULD do, that set him off. He wasn't some pleb to the God, he was someone of significance, furthermore he showed Orcus up infront of his enemies and other evil Dieties and lost Orcus face, essentially made him look like a laughing stock (his whole point).
He believed only CR appropiate "agents" should come after him, and while I stressed this may be the case to start with, the sheer gravitas of what he did merited a more harsher response and he could be very well facing hit squads of Demons or Undead tooled specifically to his demise or to bring him in, make an example of him so this kind of behaviour was never repeated.
His meglomania knew no bounds - he planned to aim for Lichdom down the road or Vampirism if that failed once he gained more levels and he already had a Vampire Cohort (who was pretty weak but a Vampire all the same) who he planned to use to create more thralls ontop of his extensive Leadership following.
But this is NOT an isolated behaviour of this player, there was instances in the past where he frequently acted without thinking it through and bemoaned the fallout of said consequences. Here's a few examples.
- NPC quest giver asks the party to save their mother who is cursed into an undead state. The players managed to have the curse lifted but a side effect of the curse was she aged horribly. The character felt "she was going to Hell anyway" because she killed people as an undead and offered to "save her" by turning her undead again. When the NPC quest giver was understandably upset by this offer he acted like it was the most confusing response ever and wondered why the party was groaning and shaking their heads. Some good Diplomacy on the Party Leaders part managed to massage the situation into something salvageable.
- He went into a small town and boasted about "summoning a few Succubi and opening a brothel" openly and loudly, "I can get all their coin and souls, it's a brilliant idea" he also said loudly. News reached the towns mayor who contacted the Party Leader, who was deeply concerned by his characters claim. He didn't even deny it when confronted, he wanted to kill the Mayor for "causing him trouble" with the party. It took alot for the party to fix his mess there again.
- The party were fighting a rather powerful etheral undead, a variant of a Banshee and whole two party members were in really bad shape in the fight he literally tried to stop the party fighting it because "he wanted it". He planned to control it somehow he said and didn't want them killing it. His actions nearly caused two party member deaths as people had to fight around him and he made their lives difficult. He bemoaned constantly at the loss of his "pet" he wanted.
- He was obsessed with Undead, so much so he advertised quite openly that he wanted to bring back another party members dead love (which was part of his back story)....as a Mummy. "If he loved her he would accept her for what she is" he argued. I explained that would not go down well and the player whose love was to be brought back as his horrid undead mess was supposed to be grateful for the suggestion. They were not. The player constantly talked about how "ungrateful" They were and repeatedly preached how Undead are better than being living any day of the week in his opinion.
Those are just some examples. We have been more than tolerant and understanding of him and it's because he's a friend we put up with it. But he wrote himself out of the game arguing about a "loophole" he found (mentioned in another thread) that he found to get catch free wishes from an Efreeti for 4.5 thousand gold using a Contract Devil he would.bind to draft a contract to protect him from any possible twisting of the wishes, which was never going to fly. He quit for good this time because he wasn't getting his way to exploit that particular loophole (It's all explained on that other thread)
Like, isn't it a +6 mace that makes you save or die at like 30+ every time he hits you and he's got like 5 attacks?
Edit:
Unique Item: Wand of Orcus
Mighty Orcus wields a huge black skull-tipped rod that functions as a Large +5 unholy greatclub.It slays any living creature it touches if the target fails a DC 40 Fortitude save. Orcus, can at will, shut this ability off so as to allow his wand to pass into the Material Plane (and usually into the hands of one of his servants).
Further, the wand has the following powers (Caster Level 20th; save DC 25 + spell level):
3/day—animate dead, deeper darkness, desecrate, fear, unhallow
2/day—blasphemy, unholy aura
Needless to say, I warned him multiple times ...
It was purely the discussion of what Orcus COULD do, that set him off. ...He believed only CR appropiate "agents" should come after him, and while I stressed this may be the case to start with, the sheer gravitas of what he did merited a more harsher response and he could be very well facing hit squads of Demons or Undead tooled specifically to his demise or to bring him in, make an example of him so this kind of behaviour was never repeated.
His meglomania knew no bounds - he planned to aim for Lichdom down the road or Vampirism if that failed once he gained more levels and he already had a Vampire Cohort (who was pretty weak but a Vampire all the same) who he planned to use to create more thralls ontop of his extensive Leadership following.
Here's the thing -- and I'm not criticizing you in any way. What I'm talking about is simply a method of interaction and what I think (again giving advise -- take it for what you will) --
It sounds like all of this discussion is out of character, from GM to player. What is preferable, IMO, is this discussion should never have happened.
The description of what he said is entirely in character for a CE Cleric of Orcus. Megalomania is entirely appropriate, his reaction to the Bebilith is not out of character.
I'm currently in a campaign where we are mostly Chaotics and/or Evils -- with a priest of orcus -- who just became a vampire and who's end goal is to overthrow Orcus. "The son deposes the father" and all that.
It is my impression that his behavior as a player and it's negative effects bled over into what happened in game -- and in a game as personal as RPGs, that can happen. I'm not blaming anyone - I was attempting to stay out of that aspect of the discussion.
As a point of advice, here, is regardless of his behavior as a person, keeping the response to his in game actions in game would be much better in the long run. You don't have to discuss Orcus' response to his actions or even outline what will happen. He was obviously metagaming. Arguing over what the response will be or not be out of character is not something that needed to have happen. Just let it happen over the course of the campaign.
Hound him down. Don't follow the guidelines of a normal campaign (i.e. 4 encounters per day or whatever). But be fair and realistic to the campaign setting.
Anyway. Take it for what you will.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alternately don't tolerate a disruptive player whose presence is annoying and screwing with the enjoyment of everyone else at the table.
@ Quintain: Considering most everyone on these forums uses OOC warnings for when a Paladin player wants to perform an action that may lead to their falling (which is something that the player may not realizs), saying that it is in bad faith to enforce a similar concept with something as imperative as this is counterintuitive with the above precedent.
Unless you don't do that sort of favor for Paladin players, in which case I suggest you grab your Umbrella of Protection +1 for all the rain of "badwrongfun" comments that are about to be made at you.
Yeah, I'm not in any way attempting to criticize anything that happened on a personal level -- it sounds like the player was disruptive and that is always problematic.
I don't want to involve myself in that discussion.
I've been gaming for roughly 35 years, and just trying to put forth a suggestion that in character/in game actions should have in character/in game consequences. Introducing non-rules (again barring rule zero) based consequences can destroy campaigns and ruin long standing friendships. Don't make it personal, even if the guy is being a d*ck.
This applies equally well with Paladins as CE clerics -- or any sort of event that can change the direction of a campaign. Often enough, having a player go off script and ruin all the preparation work a GM goes through can cause bad reactions. It's all to human a thing.
The best GMs I've played under all could think on their feet and react to off the wall actions by creating realistic consequences.
I guess we are disagreeing with the subtext of the initial OP. Any "warning" from the GM about whatever action, to me, is simply a GM using OOC commentary to dissuade a player from using his character in whatever fashion.
The player did what he did, and from the description knew that he would "anger the deity". And the GM agreed that this would do exactly that -- however, the GM then when OOC to warn the player of the consequences -- which amounted to actions not supported by the rules (other than rule zero),...
Not only was "curse from on high" never the proposed form of retribution, it was literally impossible at the time because they were in Sigil and the gods cannot act directly. The only proposed retribution was in the form of the forces sent after the character in question for directly offending said god.
We're not talking blue bolting or the orbital bovine launcher here. You're arguing against something nobody is proposing.
Unless the GM decides otherwise. He has the power, if not the responsibility, to do that, what's written in the campaign setting books be damned.
The player did what he did, and from the description knew that he would "anger the deity". And the GM agreed that this would do exactly that -- however, the GM then when OOC to warn the player of the consequences -- which amounted to actions not supported by the rules (other than rule zero), which, imo, amounts to out of game punishment.
A better response to player actions of this kind is to allow it to happen without comment and then have the deity notify his worshipers via whatever method and then have them mobilize to ensure punishment is performed. The followers can summon the demons, or whatever is needed.
Note that this completely negates the need to have the GM decide what punishment is appropriate and is completely supported by RAW (action of NPCs in game), and would be a much more fun result for all involved.
Clerics losing their power if they violate their faith is part of the class, and defiling your god's temple definitely counts for that.
And a demon hit squad (as was the suggested punishment) can be handled easily just by having one person capable of casting Gate gating in a few of Orcus' servants. Since many demons have Greater Teleport at will (and gated outsiders can still use teleportation effects, as opposed to summoned outsiders), this person could be pretty much anywhere in the world. And if we're feeling really cheesy (but "supported by RAW"), they could simply be using a few Candles of Invocation.Nothing rule-zeroed here.
On the other hand, the GM still has to decide how large the cult of Orcus is, how large a part of it gets mobilized, what kind of NPCs show up, what resources they have...
Saying "follow the rules" doesn't really help if your solution is in as much in gray rules space as the original solution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Side question: wait he disses Bards and..., Plays a Bard?
Logic? Even if his main class is Cleric, what kind of screwy round about logic is that?
Unless the GM decides otherwise. He has the power, if not the responsibility, to do that, what's written in the campaign setting books be damned.
Verisimilitude is important. To have Orcus take direct action in Sigil breaks the setting and the narrative, in ways that aren't even necessary, as Orcus has assets capable of acting indirectly in his stead, and of course Orcus can deny one of his Clerics their power. Being reduced to essentially a 2nd level Bard and a 12th level Expert with Orcus' demon minions on his trail and a party that's willing to just step aside when it comes time to pay the piper is plenty without breaking one of the foundational conceits of the setting.
And breaking the setting just to give a player the middle finger is not a GM responsibility; it's a GM failure.