Atonement without repentance?

[Bladesong]

May I ask you to elaborate?

Can you cite a religious source for this?

I confess my iniquity;
I am sorry for my sin.
Salm. 38:18

Here is one reference point with scriptures if you wish to go that route http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T5304 , but frankly it is summed up in the first sentence: "A feeling of regret, a changing of the mind, or a turning from sin to God." The later part is the key point: "turning from sin TO God." That is to say, you regret what you have done and you are going to do it His way from now on. That, of course, is the part the secular world likes to leave out. In their mind "It is hard enough to say it, I don't want to have to do something about it too!" People tend to not want to be held responsible for their actions, but they don't mind so much paying "lip service".
Not to get into a religious debate, but you'll find that saying you'll change doesn't matter unless you actually change...and do it HIS way. Which if I am not mistaken is why you felt atonement might be necessary in the first place...because he wasn't doing it the big "H"s way...

 

[Egres]

Here is one reference point with scriptures if you wish to go that route http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T5304 , but frankly it is summed up in the first sentence: "A feeling of regret, a changing of the mind, or a turning from sin to God." The later part is the key point: "turning from sin TO God."

What's wrong with the bolded part?

Which if I am not mistaken is why you felt atonement might be necessary in the first place...because he wasn't doing it the big "H"s way...

Nope.

The problem here is that when I asked for an atonement he replied that he would not atone at all, but only because we were speaking of two different meanings of the term.

From his PoV he was like a real life cop that kills an innocent during a shooting.

 

[QuaziquestGM]

If it was an innocent.....then why was he shooting?


For that matter, cops only shoot the guilty when they have no other choice. Most of the time they don't do anything to the guilty as they haven't legal proof of guilt.

But back to the issue.
In education we deal with classroom management: methods of controlling the behavior of students to create and maintain the proper environment for learning.

One of the concepts in this is "the three R's." These represent various stages of moral advancement and acceptance of responsibility.

The first stage is Regret.
The student wishes the situation had not occurred, and thinks of how it could have been avoided and what could be done to avoid it in the future. This is an intellectual response based on personal convenience. This isn't worth the trouble. I'm sorry I got caught.

The second stage is Remorse.
The student is sorry. He feels guilty. This is an emotional moral response based on empathy for the victim (if one exists) and the student feels personally damaged.
I felt bad when she started crying. I'm ashamed to look Dad in the eye.

The third stage is Recompense.
The student is willing to do something to make up for the offense. Pay for damages, do community service, apologize and actually mean it. This is a response based on empathy and repairing a sense of self worth.


Whether religions repentance requires remorse or merely regret is open to interpretation and is the subject of doctorial debate. Is it enough to regret that you have offended God by sinning, or do you have to understand why the act was sinful and be remorseful?

Also, by stating that he would do it again in the same situation, he runs the risk of committing the separate sin of presumption. This is the sin of tempting God by assuming that you will be forgiven if you later repent. The classic example is receiving forgiveness for a sin and then deciding to commit it again thinking that can confess again later and be safe from damnation.

I hope this helps to clarify the issues for you.

 

[prospero63]

What are the alignments involved?

 

[Egres]

If it was an innocent.....then why was he shooting?

Who said he was shooting?

1) Cops can accidentally kill one of the criminals that isn't actively shooting, but is only trying to run while the others cover his withdraw;

2) Cops can accidentally kill a passer-by.

Also, by stating that he would do it again in the same situation, he runs the risk of committing the separate sin of presumption.

That's why he says he's going to change god: because he thinks that not "repenting" the way he interprets the dogma you are making fun of your god.

What are the alignments involved?

The cleric is NG, the god is LG.

 

[mara]

Who said he was shooting?

1) Cops can accidentally kill one of the criminals that isn't actively shooting, but is only trying to run while the others cover his withdraw;

2) Cops can accidentally kill a passer-by.


That's why he says he's going to change god: becasue he thinks hat not "repenting" the way he interprets the dogma you are making fun of your god.


The cleric is NG, the god is LG.

I interpreted that question as why the cleric was shooting, not the target of the spell.

 

[Egres]

I interpreted that question as why the cleric was shooting, not the target of the spell.

He shooted to win the race, cause he realized the opponents were faster than him.

 

[billd91]

He shooted to win the race, cause he realized the opponents were faster than him.

Since the rules of the race allow it, there should be no legal recourse. No problem there.

But I don't think Heironeous should turn away from such an unchivalrous murder. I'd strip away domain powers, spells over 2nd level, and channeling until the PC made whatever amends he could make. That would pretty much require offering some restitution to the dead guy's family or next of kin.
I would not change the PC's alignment. A single incident does not make or break an alignment. But it would be cause for me to scrutinize closer in the future to see if he's trending away from Good.

By the way, is the monarch bound to grant whatever the winner of the race requests? I'd be surprised if a monarch turned from the path of war just because some yahoos won an overland race. Would he also give over an only daughter to a loathesome claimant? Allow them a night of passion with his queen... or with himself should a half-orc barbarian race-winner request it? It might get them an audience, sure. But actual compliance?

By the way, what were they riding if they weren't riding horses or some other animal-powered vehicle?

 

[Quartz]

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

Thunderbolt from the sky, fried PC. Congratulations, your cleric is now cursed as a Death Knight.

Not only did the cleric kill the target (which would have triggered a Miko-like fall), but used a thoroughly evil spell to do it.

But nastier is what I read in another post recently: it's not Hieronious providing the spells but another deity. Hextor's the obvious choice, but there are nastier ones around, perhaps more suitable.

 

[Bladesong]

What's wrong with the bolded part?

Nope.

The problem here is that when I asked for an atonement he replied that he would not atone at all, but only because we were speaking of two different meanings of the term.

There is nothing wrong with the bolded part, it is just that it is only part of the recipe. If you want to make a cake with just eggs and leave out the flour it is up to you.
As for this part: "Which if I am not mistaken is why you felt atonement might be necessary in the first place...because he wasn't doing it the big "H"s way... " you said 'Nope' ...since I was talking about violating his god's will, it is "yep" if he hadn't you would not have even considered atonement since you only would look for atonement if he violated his god's will. If not, this whole thread would have been unnecessary.

There is really no way you could have anticipated the situation arising, but you and your player should definitely get together now and discuss what definition (or parts of definitions you like) that you are to follow to prevent such things in the future.

--End of Line--