Game advice / Cleric of Tyr behavior quandry (long)

olethros

First Post
My story and then the question. My party is(11th level):
Dwarf fighter
Human druid
Human psionic warrior
Gnome sorcerer
Human cleric of Tyr

So, my intrepid adventuring party has set out in search of the remnants of ogrish mercenaries from an earlier adventure. Following the trail in the form of eagles (thanks to druidic magic) our party came across an empty village. In the center of the village, there were several orcs and half-orcs wearing no armor and bearing no weapons. The had constructed a barricade in the center of town. Scouting by the group indicated that the town was empty and in normal condition, no signs of struggle or battle. While still in bird form, the psionic warrior drew the attention of one of the half-orcs who shot a few magic missles at the bird. The psionic warrior took the damage and flew behind a building leaving the confused half-orc to follow him. At this point the fighter promptly charged into battle and most of the half-orc/orc force was destroyed in the ensuing carnage with the exception of one lone orc who got away.

Scouting in wild shape led the druid to discover a large encampment full of an army of orcs and half-orcs. In the center of the camp was a large group of humans, unharmed standing and sitting around a bonfire. The humans were talking to the orcs and half-orcs around them. Several other humans were seated around a large bonfire in nice chairs with what looked like the leaders of the orc/half-orc army. The druid, wild shaped into a bird, promptly failed several listen checks that would allow her to discern the conversations.

Returning to the party, the druid and the others proceeded to discuss how to destroy an army using magic and might. They noticed several scouts hiding in the trees and promptly hid and sort of ambushed the scouts, destroying all but one.

The humans were returning to the village surrounded by a ring of orcs and half-orcs, so the party promptly started planning on how to kill the soldiers. A emissary bearing a white flag was sent ahead by the orcs/half-orcs to contact the party. It turns out that the orc/half-orc army was from a peaceful nation state to the north and was in transit to the southern lands to retrieve a sacred magical item for the city leaders. They were negotiating with the human town elders to buy grain/foodstuffs for the army and had just finished throwing a party/dinner in the honor of the humans. Upon hearing that the village had been attacked, the army leaders had returned with the humans in hopes of protecting them from the interlopers. Our intrepid adventurers argued that they were in the right (including our lawful good cleric of the god of justice). In the end, the party managed to convince the half-orc general that they were attacked first so they were not at fault. The half-orc general released them but vowed to send an emissary to the cleric's church to protest.

Here's the question, is the cleric being just and acting on his LG principles in denying any wrongdoing and would Tyr accept the outcome?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I would call no foul on the cleric's behavior. He acted according to the tenets of his faith in a situation that lacked clarity.

Assumption 1: Orcs are normally evil. Unless proven otherwise, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, I am inclined to say it is a duck. The orcs in the village did not act in a fashion to say they were not evil. They did attack the psionic warrior. The village was empty and the orcs had an defensive emplacement in the village (that implies a level of hostility) - which means they were not there to play canasta.

If this happened in my game, all of my players would draw the same conclusion - the orcs somehow overwhelmed the village and carted off the inhabitants as slaves or forced labor. Why? - because that is what 'normal' orcs usually do. The village is empty and it takes no small leap of assumption to assume the orcs are responsible. The orcs have shown themselves to be hostile (they fired first) - therefore, it takes no small leap of assumption to conclude you are dealing with your run of the mill evil orcs.

Assumption 2 - Evil creatures can misrepresent, mislead and make a situation not what is seems. While the situation becomes clearer later (when the orc leaders and party finally talk), the cleric has every right to be suspicious and not take the words of some orcs leaders (remember assumption 1 - orcs are normally evil) at face value. The humans can be charmed, dominated or simply so frightened for their lives that they are backing the story of the orc leaders. In short - is this situation really what it is or is it a clever ploy by the orcs to have their army move unimpeded through the area in pursuit of some evil agenda.

Therefore, the cleric acted within reason given the circumstances and can claim that he acted in the best interests of justice given the information at hand.

No foul, IMHO.

Edit: Of course, if orcs in your campaign are normally peaceful, good, law abiding types, the cleric's actions are on shaky ground, since assumption 1 and 2 are no longer true.
 
Last edited:

But the cleric did participate in a lie: they were not attacked first (unless you count the bird that was magic-missiled, which I don't, since the orc didn't know the eagle was more than a simple eagle, and maybe the orc was hungry or needed feathers for his arrows).

IMO, the cleric should have tried to make amends and reveal that he had wronged.

AR
 

Remove ads

Top