Opposed-alignment cleric scrolls

[Vegepygmy]

I can think of one example strait away. A cleric of Pelor using an item of Vecna that commands an Undead army to stop the undead invasion. In my view a cleric of Pelor would (and should) even though the Pelorian needs to touch and use an item that is "anathama" to them (and THEN destroy said item).

Dross, thy name is Boromir.

 

[KarinsDad]

I can think of one example strait away. A cleric of Pelor using an item of Vecna that commands an Undead army to stop the undead invasion. In my view a cleric of Pelor would (and should) even though the Pelorian needs to touch and use an item that is "anathama" to them (and THEN destroy said item). Atonement method would be judged on the situation and reasons.

Extreme, yes, but that is what the situation needs to be. Simply using something to help remove a couple of mooks that can easily be defeated anyway is not a good reason and will be appropriately punished. How would you handle the above situation KD, or would you not place a player in that situation?

Giving your players moral decision points in a game is fine and can be a lot of fun.

However, I am reminded of the Survey in Dragon Magazine about 30 years ago that asked what kind of PC the players wanted to play and one of the choices was "In real life, I can trip over a garbage can. I want my dwarf to not have this type of thing happen to him.".

In other words, some people want to play heroes. Like real people, heroes are not infallible, however, some people want to play them as nearly infallible, larger than life. That's hard to do as a player since DND is not a novel. The author cannot just make it all work out in the end. If the DM presents a situation where the player has to decide between the PC's morals and the "greater good", it pretty much is a lose lose situation regardless of how the player decides. This is not always fun for all players.

 

[Dross]

Giving your players moral decision points in a game is fine and can be a lot of fun.

However, I am reminded of the Survey in Dragon Magazine about 30 years ago that asked what kind of PC the players wanted to play and one of the choices was "In real life, I can trip over a garbage can. I want my dwarf to not have this type of thing happen to him.".

In other words, some people want to play heroes. Like real people, heroes are not infallible, however, some people want to play them as nearly infallible, larger than life. That's hard to do as a player since DND is not a novel. The author cannot just make it all work out in the end. If the DM presents a situation where the player has to decide between the PC's morals and the "greater good", it pretty much is a lose lose situation regardless of how the player decides. This is not always fun for all players.

Which was why on a couple of accasions I said that it may not be for everybody. I also said may need atonement for their actions, which allows the possibility of no atonement being needed to having the cleric become an ex-cleric.

But it does not even need to be a loose loose situation. The Vecna/Pelor example could have the Pelorian cleric not need any atonement but be rewarded if the DM made the Vecna item the only available method of defeating the undead army (I myself wouldn't unless it was something the player wanted).

But as I said before it was an idea I came up in with a moment to show that it can easily make sense.

I do not disagree that the "casual" use of an opposed deity's item isn't something that a cleric (or any faithful) should do, but I can easily see a reason to do so. Stories are full of heros (and PCs) sarcificing themselves for the greater good.

Even the thought of touching an opposed alignment item should automatically be anathama to most Clerics. And, some high percentage of them should be more interested in destroying it than using it. It is the tool of an oppossing deity.

The thought of using it just does not make sense.

Does this mean that you have changed your mine that touching an opposed alignment does not make sense and now say that it not for all people?

:\ If it is not for you, it is not for you, I certainly haven't had this situation come up in any games I've played but I can see it being possible.