Atonement without repentance?

[prospero63]

That is, by the RAW, incorrect. Clerics have no single defined code of conduct, however, go to page 33 of the PH under Ex-Clerics. Clerics do have undefined codes of conduct based on the alignments and purposes of their gods.

That's also not correct specifically as it relates to the Church of Heironeous. That church actually has a defined code of conduct, best summed up as "to act with honor and uphold the virtues of justice and chivalry in both word and deed at all times".

 

[prospero63]

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.

I agree. Tangent. I've always liked handling things like communes, etc. that way. Gods are supernatural. No reason to handle it like email. I'll have solars, etc. show up for the conversation, to provide the answer, etc. Makes for good role playing in my experience.

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.

I'd agree, in general, but not in the case of Heironeous. He's all about the honor and chivalry. The actions committed seem to fall on the wrong side of mercy (one of the Knightly Virtues).

Appropriate atonement could consist of casting (or paying for the casting of) true resurrection or miracle.

I like that.

 

[billd91]

That's also not correct specifically as it relates to the Church of Heironeous. That church actually has a defined code of conduct, best summed up as "to act with honor and uphold the virtues of justice and chivalry in both word and deed at all times".

If you look at more specific sources like the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, that may be true. But the Heironeous in the PH makes no specific claim that I'm aware of and could appear in campaigns without that the specific code you quoted above.

Nevertheless, the PH is fairly clear that clerics are expected to conform to behavioral norms or risk losing their powers. And the code specified in other sources for Heironeous is a darn fine example.

 

[Egres]

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.

?

"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 "or" there makes me think that they aren't part of the same recipe at all, unless you are going to say that you can make cakes with eggs or flour.

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.

Unfortunately you hit the mark Wolfwood2.

You'll never find a player more stubborn than my cleric.

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.

Done, but he refuted to resurrect them.

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.

Well, maybe he's sorry for both reasons.

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.

Would you suggest a deity that could accept such a behaviour?

 

[SlagMortar]

If it were my campaign, I would do one of two things:

If the cleric has been good for his whole career and just has a single slip up or two that he has already atoned for then, have Heironeous refuse to grant him Destruction (or any stronger save or die like implosion) until the one killed by the act has been resurrected. It is a real punishment because he clearly likes preparing and using destruction, but it does not gimp his character very much at all. Play can continue whether the player decides the character should atone or not.

If the cleric has been walking a fine line between changing alignments already, then I really like the idea above of having Hextor actually have granted the spell and try to sway him to the dark side. Many DMs don't like having evil characters, but if he's already acting evil (not saying this one act qualifies as acting evil) with some regularity then it might as well say it on the character sheet.

 

[Arkhandus]

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.

*snip*

So: should the cleric lose his powers?

Heironneous says?
*BEEP* Yes!

Given what the PCs should know about the event, and the fact that cleric of Heironeous should be holding to Heironeous' code regardless of his personal goals, Heironeous would probably strip him of his powers until he atones properly.

Heironeous is not Neutral Evil. Neutral Evil is what 'the ends justify the means' equates to in D&D. There's nothing Lawful about killing someone just because they might possibly be a threat, that's impulsive and Chaotic, not methodical or honorable. There's nothing Good about killing someone just because they might be a threat; the postman might be a threat, but you don't kill him just because he approaches your house.

Killing someone that just might, possibly, be hostile, based on some flimsy premise as "he was kind of close at the time and we're in an important competition right now, so he had to die before he could maybe possibly interfere a little or maybe possibly try to harm us though I have little to base that suspicion on and no real proof of it whatsoever, not even so much as a Detect Evil scan with the powers Heironeous blessed me with for the sake of Justice...." is no way for a clergyman of Heironeous to act.

Heironeous is not all about "the greater good", he's about acting honorably, chivalrously, and valorously, which in and of itself should serve the greater good well enough. Killing someone at impulse on a vague and baseless suspicion is not valorous or honorable at all, it's cowardly, impulsive, and vicious. It's certainly not Just.


From Deities & Demigods: Heironeous: Skills: Sense Motive +45. No mere mortal fools Heironeous when trying to justify their unjust actions.

From Dragon Magazine, issue 354, April 2007, in the Core Beliefs: Heironeous article written by Sean K. Reynolds:

"The Archpaladin is the champion of rightful combat and chivalrous deeds. He is the patron of those who fight for honor, justice, and the fair and good order of things."

"Vigilance is important, but not to the extent that it causes good to mistakenly turn on its own in suspicion (that is the nature of evil, not good). One must act honorably at all times, as the ends do not justify the means, but honor does not dictate foolishness - a lone knight against a powerful demon is not barred from using stealth to find the best position from which to attack. Trickery and outright deception, though, is always unacceptable. His faithful uphold the virtues of justice and chivalry and strike down those who pervert and destroy these ideals. They face danger with certainty and calm so as to set an example for others."

Such is the way of Heironeous and his clergy. Killing people just because of a vague suspicion is a serious violation of good and honorable conduct.


For your reference though, from Dictionary.com:

*verb: feel remorse for; feel sorry for; be contrite about
*verb: turn away from sin or do penitence

Repeating a sin is not turning away from it or doing penitence for it.

 

[Bladesong]

?

That "or" there makes me think that they aren't part of the same recipe at all, unless you are going to say that you can make cakes with eggs or flour.

You are a stubborn one...take it as you wish, but acknowledge that your player's definition is just as valid. I only was pointing out that it is there and you were choosing to ignore it. Common to ignore...I pointed that out already as well.

There are a lot of great ideas here...just don't let your battle become with the player and try to come to an agreement as far as the character goes.

Happy gaming...

 

[CruelSummerLord]

So, let me get this straight, based on Egres's replies and elaborations:

-The guy who was killed was just an average Joe NPC, who probably had a family, and wasn't posing any sort of threat to the cleric at all.

-The cleric is ready and willing to do an act like this again. He won't apologize.

-He refused to resurrect the NPC he killed.

This is nothing less than cold-blooded murder of an innocent bystander. There's no guarantee that this guy posed any threat whatsoever, and the cleric refused to resurrect him.

Exactly why won't the cleric bring him back?

IMO, Hieroneous would interpret this as a very grave sin. Normally, such a cowardly, reprehensible act, made all the worse by refusing to resurrect an innocent person, would result in being cast out of the faith, but it could be mitigated by his past good service.

I would have Hieroneous immediately strip him of all his divine benefits, and leave him unable to regain even the most basic powers until he atoned for his sin. Hieroneous would give him a chance to redeem himself, but if he refuses, the divine paladin would cast him out. If the cleric wants to join another faith, he can, but he will never be able to return.

Like Wolfwood and others have suggested, it's important to let the player know that you're not passing judgement on him personally, just interpreting Hieroneous's dogma. But this is something I too would refuse to budge on-I'm role-playing Hieroneous, and if the god and the priest obviously clash with one another, then they'd be better off going their separate ways. I'd let the player know that he could find another god to worship, one more in tune with his beliefs. A neutral god sounds like an ideal fit for this guy.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I'd agree with the earlier post that simply crossed off all damaging spells and replaced them with something else.

Obviously the cleric can't be trusted with those (in the eyes of big H, who takes dimly to ends justify the means). If the player complains, send an angel for a stern talking to. If that fails, I'm sure another god would be more than willing to provide those spells he desires.

 

[Sol.Dragonheart]

I would remove his powers and have him approached by a representative of a church more sympathetic to his chosen method of operation. The race seems to have been a very public affair from what you have said, so his actions should be known and appreciated/criticized by those who concern themselves with such issues.

This is a good opportunity to allow a character to develop outside of their original design, as long as what occurs is presented as an opportunity or a choice, rather than as a punishment.