-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Atonement without repentance?
- Thread starter Egres
- Start date
In my experience, one reason this sort of thing gets so difficult is that it's more an issue of the player feeling he was right than the character feeling he was right.
I mean, did the cleric repent? The cleric isn't real. The cleric repents if the player says he repents. The cleric feels sorry about it and wouldn't do it again if the player says he's sorry about it and wouldn't do it again. The trouble is that if the player has the character say he was wrong, that feels like the player admitting he was wrong. Probably he feels like he did the right thing and was justified.
If you say, "admit you were wrong or your character suffers," then that's going to feel to like you're using your authority as DM to win a real life difference of opinion about morality. I can sympathize with the player. I can get stubborn too, and I can see situations where I'd rather lose a character than say I was wrong.
Probably the easiest way to settle to this is to put it all out in the open. Make it clear that you're not making any judgement on his real life morality or whether the ends justify the means in the real world. Frame it clearly so that it's clear that it's a matter of in-game rules of behavior for clerics of this particular god, and that the faith believes sometimes it's better to fail righteously than win by evil means, no matter what the cost.
Then ask him to just declare that his cleric repents.
I mean, did the cleric repent? The cleric isn't real. The cleric repents if the player says he repents. The cleric feels sorry about it and wouldn't do it again if the player says he's sorry about it and wouldn't do it again. The trouble is that if the player has the character say he was wrong, that feels like the player admitting he was wrong. Probably he feels like he did the right thing and was justified.
If you say, "admit you were wrong or your character suffers," then that's going to feel to like you're using your authority as DM to win a real life difference of opinion about morality. I can sympathize with the player. I can get stubborn too, and I can see situations where I'd rather lose a character than say I was wrong.
Probably the easiest way to settle to this is to put it all out in the open. Make it clear that you're not making any judgement on his real life morality or whether the ends justify the means in the real world. Frame it clearly so that it's clear that it's a matter of in-game rules of behavior for clerics of this particular god, and that the faith believes sometimes it's better to fail righteously than win by evil means, no matter what the cost.
Then ask him to just declare that his cleric repents.
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
I agree with Wolfwood, and would take it farther. First, out-of-game make it clear that you'll be roleplaying the deity's morality, not your own. Then have a representative of the deity contact the character and demand that he submit to judgment. Heironeous would probably be all about submitting for judgment to the proper authorities.
Which raises another question: did everyone entering the race agree that entrants could use lethal force against one another? If so, a highly lawful good god might consider that a mitigating factor: people voluntarily removed the prohibition against attacking them by entering the race.
Appropriate atonement could consist of casting (or paying for the casting of) true resurrection or miracle.
Daniel
Which raises another question: did everyone entering the race agree that entrants could use lethal force against one another? If so, a highly lawful good god might consider that a mitigating factor: people voluntarily removed the prohibition against attacking them by entering the race.
Appropriate atonement could consist of casting (or paying for the casting of) true resurrection or miracle.
Daniel
Nellisir
Hero
I'm not sure if this answers the question or not...but being sorry he -had- to do it is not the same as being sorry he -did- it. The first is pretty much the opposite of repentance; not only is he not sorry for the action, he's shifting the blame (I "had" to) and denying his responsibility for his own actions.
Last edited:
nick012000
First Post
Why are you stripping his powers? There's no rule in the Cleric class that stipulates a code of conduct; they are not paladins, and can behave however they want to behave and retain their powers. What matters is belief, and while the beliefs of a Lawful Good cleric might conflict with this sort of act, it wouldn't be enough to cause him to lose his powers unless he makes it a regular habit, and even then he'd be able to regain them by converting to the appropriate deity (like, say, St. Cuthbert).
MonkeyDragon
Explorer
One question that has not been addressed is exactly why atonement and loss of powers is coming into it. Clerics are not paladins. They do not have a code of conduct. The only rules-based punishment that I can think of is saying that his alignment has slipped to LE and he can't worship his God anymore until he has his alignment restored.
Destruction isn't an Evil spell, and it wasn't cast with Evil intent. There are plenty of reasons listed above for deciding that the act was evil, or not so evil.
That said, I can understand wanting his God to take exception, IF the player is aware that such things could happen as a result of his character's actions. I'd probably go for something simple like having an Avatar appear to him with a tongue-lashing and a strong warning about ends and means. For anything stronger, like the suggestions above about changing damage spells or losing domain powers (cool ideas, imo), I would want to work with the player on what he thinks should happen. Players shouldn't be punished for making difficult decisions, even if it makes sense for characters to suffer. If the player isn't going to have fun roleplaying being on God's bad side, you're better off just sticking to a heavenly warning. A celestial babysitter for a time might not be a bad idea, either. If the player thinks it'd be fun to have a great redemption storyline, go all out.
The tempted by Hextor thing could be good no matter what punative measures you take against the character. Don't force him to change gods, but have representatives start showing up trying to talk him over to his side. Signs start appearing around him. Perhaps he suddenly has access to powers or spells that clearly don't come from Heronious, and his attempts to get an explaination from his god don't work. Heronious is testing him. If he gives in, THEN his god turns away. However, he may begin to more fully appreciate the true nature of his actions if the evil god thinks they were really cool.
Destruction isn't an Evil spell, and it wasn't cast with Evil intent. There are plenty of reasons listed above for deciding that the act was evil, or not so evil.
That said, I can understand wanting his God to take exception, IF the player is aware that such things could happen as a result of his character's actions. I'd probably go for something simple like having an Avatar appear to him with a tongue-lashing and a strong warning about ends and means. For anything stronger, like the suggestions above about changing damage spells or losing domain powers (cool ideas, imo), I would want to work with the player on what he thinks should happen. Players shouldn't be punished for making difficult decisions, even if it makes sense for characters to suffer. If the player isn't going to have fun roleplaying being on God's bad side, you're better off just sticking to a heavenly warning. A celestial babysitter for a time might not be a bad idea, either. If the player thinks it'd be fun to have a great redemption storyline, go all out.
The tempted by Hextor thing could be good no matter what punative measures you take against the character. Don't force him to change gods, but have representatives start showing up trying to talk him over to his side. Signs start appearing around him. Perhaps he suddenly has access to powers or spells that clearly don't come from Heronious, and his attempts to get an explaination from his god don't work. Heronious is testing him. If he gives in, THEN his god turns away. However, he may begin to more fully appreciate the true nature of his actions if the evil god thinks they were really cool.
Thing I always consider is this-
- The cleric's God understands the clerics intent, and understanding of the situation. The God also understands how the cleric feels about what he (the cleric) did.
Consider yourself the cleric's God (which you are as the GM) and consider a one on one session with an avatar of the clerics God during his next bit of prayers, explain to the cleric what he could have done, that maybe a LG cleric should not have considered murder an option in the given situation (or however you see it).
If the player has issue with that, then maybe the Player isn't the type to play a cleric of such a god.
Just my POV with what I read here.
Good luck, and hope all your sessions are entertaining.
- The cleric's God understands the clerics intent, and understanding of the situation. The God also understands how the cleric feels about what he (the cleric) did.
Consider yourself the cleric's God (which you are as the GM) and consider a one on one session with an avatar of the clerics God during his next bit of prayers, explain to the cleric what he could have done, that maybe a LG cleric should not have considered murder an option in the given situation (or however you see it).
If the player has issue with that, then maybe the Player isn't the type to play a cleric of such a god.
Just my POV with what I read here.
Good luck, and hope all your sessions are entertaining.
prospero63
First Post
Egres said:
Per alignment the character acted in a chaotic manner, which in and of itself isn't anything to be upset about. However, the action wasn't good either.
IMO the real problem here comes from the nature of the Church of Heironeous. I have read a post (or two) that mentions that clerics have no code of conduct. True... except the church of Heironeous. It is the epitome of chivalric honor. Specifically:
From how you describe it, I fail to see how the actions taken are anything other than cowardly and dishonorable. Whether other competitors have no honor is irrelevant, the cleric must always act with honor. Again, everything being admitted is also irrelevant. The cleric can't put his honor behind winning. He must win, with honor, even if none of the other competitors act in kind. Additionally, from how you described it he KILLED people in order to win a RACE that allows him to TALK to a monarch. He wasn't saving anyone's life, etc.
I think you need to have a talk with the PLAYER and explain clearly what the expectations of the church are. Once that is done, I'd strip the character of abilities until such time that it repented and atoned for its actions.
Similar Threads
