Atonement without repentance?

[Egres]

Here's the situation.

The PCs are competing in a fantasy "Parigi-Dakar", a desert race without rules: everything is admitted, except teleporting and such.

Some of the competitors are ruthless racers that would slain the PC anytime: some of them are not.

The pcs think that they must win at all costs, cause the winner could ask anything to the local monarch, and they want to stop an incoming war with their country.

The wiz and the cleric of Heironeus are in the 2nd position and see a group of opponents approaching.

The opponents are simply riding as fast as they can, but do not show any trace of hostility.

The cleric casts Destruction on one of these opponents, killing him.


So: should the cleric lose his powers?

He says that he feels remorse for his opponent's death, but he doesn't repent, cause he's "ready to do it again in the future if a greater good needs a sacrifice", and that "at that time Destruction was his only available attack, and he didn't find another way to stop them".

Can he atone without repenting?

The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds.

The problem is: he doesn't interpret "repent" as I do.

He thinks that, in order to repent, you truly say to yourself that you'll never do it again. But he will act in the same way again if a greater good demands so.

I, on the other way, think that repenting means that you feel remorse for what you have done, and sincerely hope you'll never find yourself once again in such a horrible situation.

 

[robertliguori]

Here's the situation.

The PCs are competing in a fantasy "Parigi-Dakar", a desert race without rules: everything is admitted, except teleporting and such.

Some of the competitors are ruthless racers that would slain the PC anytime: some of them are not.

The pcs think that they must win at all costs, cause the winner could ask anything to the local monarch, and they want to stop an incoming war with their country.

The wiz and the cleric of Heironeus are in the 2nd position and see a group of opponents approaching.

The opponents are simply riding as fast as they can, but do not show any trace of hostility.

The cleric casts Destruction on one of these opponents, killing him.


So: should the cleric lose his powers?

He says that he feels remorse for his opponent's death, but he doesn't repent, cause he's "ready to do it again in the future if a greater good needs a sacrifice", and that "at that time Destruction was his only available attack, and he didn't find another way to stop them".

Can he atone without repenting?


The problem is: he doesn't interpret "repent" as I do.

He thinks that, in order to repent, you truly say to yourself that you'll never do it again. But he will act in the same way again if a greater good demands so.

I, on the other way, think that repenting means that you feel remorse for what you have done, and sincerely hope you'll never find yourself once again in such a horrible situation.

That's a personal issue. IMC, the gods are pretty much wankers; they care about their portfolios, the conduct of their champions, and not much else. IMC, Heironeus would be quite unambiguous; given the choice between commiting a murder and preventing a senseless war that would scar the land and bring ruin, plague, famine, etc., and not commiting it and having the red tide of battle engulf the land, letting war happen is the correct option.

Alternately, have Heironeus pissed off that the PC didn't simply talk to the monarch, demand the lack of war, and Destruct him if he refused. If you emphasize that the problem was not so much the violence as it was the violence against the wrong parties, you can make Heironeus out to be less of a wanker.

Finally, you can run with this development. Offer the cleric the chance to rededicate himself to the ideal of the greater good, and abandon Heironeus.

 

[Bladesong]

Kind of tricky this one...bottom line you are the DM so what you say stands. However, your player's definition of repentence is more accurate than yours strictly speaking since it means "passionately regret your action and sin no more" (though that is probably immaterial for the situation at hand). Regardless, since this is fantasy, you only need to take into account how Heironeus would view his actions not you personally. If this "god" believes it was definitely against his faith, he can take the cleric's abilities away without a problem. If the cleric is a true follower, he should get the clue and work towards attonement. If the cleric refuses, he needs to either choose another deity of be a "powerless" cleric and take up another class.
Keep in mind this is just the what I would look at if it was my campaign.

 

[roguerouge]

If you do cast him out of the faith, make damn sure to have a replacement god eager for his services, so that he can keep playing the character. Sell it to him as a great "redemption" story arc for his character.

 

[Umbran]

The problem is: he doesn't interpret "repent" as I do.

He thinks that, in order to repent, you truly say to yourself that you'll never do it again. But he will act in the same way again if a greater good demands so.

I, on the other way, think that repenting means that you feel remorse for what you have done, and sincerely hope you'll never find yourself once again in such a horrible situation.

Well, the GM is the one who decides what level or repentance is appropriate.

That being said - to me, real repentance is the desire to take back one's deeds - to want a "do over", to make it never have happened. That's beyond merely being sorry that it had to happen, especially if one is willing to do it again.

If one is willing to do it again, then clearly one doesn't think it was all that bad. By description, the Big H there isn't exactly one for "the ends justify the means", so I, personally, would not allow atonement.

However, I would not necessarily have this one act have him require atonement in the first place. It was bad, but must be looked at in comparison to all the good the character has done, and what the stakes at the time are. I don't have enough information to really make the call.

 

[Simplicity]

The ends justify the means is the not the way of a good diety.
It's time for the cleric to lose his powers. Have a neutral diety tempt him to join their following, and thus gain his powers back. If he rebuffs the offer, then consider him tested by Heironeus and possibly worthy of redemption.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Why didn't he cast Destruction on the enemy's mount?

 

[blargney the second]

Why didn't he just use it on the horse?

Edit: Rodrigo beat me to it.

 

[WayneLigon]

You don't get to use 'for the greater good' as an excuse for everything.

I also find it kinda hard to believe that someone who is at least a 13th level cleric doesn't have something other than Destruction left in his arsenal.

 

[Egres]

That's a personal issue. IMC, the gods are pretty much wankers; they care about their portfolios, the conduct of their champions, and not much else. IMC, Heironeus would be quite unambiguous; given the choice between committing a murder and preventing a senseless war that would scar the land and bring ruin, plague, famine, etc., and not committing it and having the red tide of battle engulf the land, letting war happen is the correct option.

You are assuming that killing that opponent would assure a 100% victory.

However, your player's definition of repentance is more accurate than yours strictly speaking since it means "passionately regret your action and sin no more"

That's not what I have found.
intransitive verb
1: to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life
2 a: to feel regret or contrition b: to change one's mind
transitive verb
1: to cause to feel regret or contrition
2: to feel sorrow, regret, or contrition for

Yours is only one of the meanings: nowhere I have found it's more accurate than mine.

It was bad, but must be looked at in comparison to all the good the character has done, and what the stakes at the time are. I don't have enough information to really make the call.

This is the 2nd bad act he does.

The 1st time he had to fight against a divine messenger to atone.

Why didn't he cast Destruction on the enemy's mount?

Because they had no mount at all.

I also find it kinda hard to believe that someone who is at least a 13th level cleric doesn't have something other than Destruction left in his arsenal.

He had used all of his remaining spells to buff and cure his allies.

He didn't have ranged weapons and had no magic item that could help him make a ranged attack.