PDA

View Full Version : Cleric moral dilemma



Cainam
2012-05-07, 08:54 AM
I'm playing in a 1st/2nd edition game, and the players have gotten into a bit of an arguement over the actions of the cleric. I'd like to find out what a larger group thinks about the situation:

The party found an abandoned church. The church was dedicated to an undetermined, but good aligned god. The reason the church was abandoned is that all the priests were killed several years ago, and even though the building is a bit tun down and dusty, it was never defiled. The reason we know that the church was not defiled is that the undead on the outside can't get in through an open door (so we have that going for us, at least.)

The arguement started when our cleric decided that, since the building is empty, it is now a church of Thor (his god.) He started blessing the alter, drawing hammers on the walls, and throwing holy water all over everything. The rest of the party were pretty annoyed about the whole thing, becaue again, the church was never defiled, and it still belongs to the original god. It got to the point that our magic user cast sleep on the cleric, tied him up, and started cleaning up the mess that he made.

My thought is this: Although Thor would probably like to see his followers and places of worship increase, he is a good aligned god who is not at war or even on bad terms with the church's current god. Taking the church over like this would be like having a thief steal someone's underwear for you to wear.

One of the other players compared it to going on vacation - you leave, and someone breaks into your house while you are gone. That doesn't give some 3rd person the right to move in before you get back, does it?

Now the cleric is annoyed at the party, and furious at the magic user for putting him to sleep. My big question after all this is simply "Did the cleric do the right thing, and should the rest of the party have left him alone?"

DefKab
2012-05-07, 09:15 AM
To me, it depends on how you, the DM, plays out the Gods.
In one case, its not theft. The former god isnt losing worshippers or a place in the world, he left a five dollar bill behind, and knowingly didnt go back to recover it for several years. Can he be mad when its not there when he gets back? Yes, of course, Gods can be quite petty.
But is Thor going to be angry about finding that five dollar bill? No, and he might even argue about giving it back, though I think he'd rather share the temple. Thor is a pantheanic god, meaning he should be used to sharing the spotlight.
You should come up with a response to the cleric from Thor. Either understanding disappointment, or a good-natured teaching would be my two options.

However the Gods justify the clerics actions brings nothing to solve the Party interaction. I'm positive the party doesnt care if Thor thinks its ok, so you have to resolve that another way. I would encourage something non-combat, maybe pushing towards sharing the alter?

Fatebreaker
2012-05-07, 09:54 AM
-story-

#1) Should the party have left the cleric alone?
Well, first off, I'd question the wisdom of the mage casting sleep on a cleric while surrounded by undead.

This, of course, presumes that PvP has not been an issue prior to now, but if I were the cleric, of course I would be mad. If intraparty conflict is suddenly on the table, now the cleric should view his teammates as potentially hostile. Anyone else would be wise to do the same.

If your teammates are willing to render you helpless while surrounded by undead because you were trying to save them... well, when won't they backstab you?

If PvP has been on the table before, or at least always been an option, then it behooves the cleric to seek consensus before pissing off the rest of the group.

#2) Did the cleric do the right thing?
Without knowing who the original god was, there's no clear answer.

However...


Thor is a pantheanic god, meaning he should be used to sharing the spotlight.

This is a point which deserves to be highlighted and emphasized. Unless your DM has made some odd changes to Thor, then worship is not an exclusive idea, and putting up symbols of Thor does not inherently negate or overwrite another god's claim. To a Thorian priest, maybe it's not a big deal to set up shop in an abandoned place, especially if "setting up shop" involves actions which would stymie the undead.

If the unknown god is also a pantheistic deity, then hitching his wagon to Thor might not be such a bad thing. Heck, if these adventurers clear out the undead, his original worshipers might come back. It certainly can't be any worse than an empty shack surrounded by lifeless abominations.

Basically, what it comes down to is whether the unaligned god is exclusive or inclusive. Either way, from your cleric's point of view, it's probably not wrong, since his god plays well with others.

Kol Korran
2012-05-07, 11:48 AM
there are 2 issues:
1- was it ok for the cleric to "convert" the temple for his god?
2- if so, was the party ok to act to stop the cleric by casting sleep and tying him up?

whether this was ok or not depends mostly on the religious sensibilities of the people in the group. however, most religious people (as are most fantasy people) would consider interrupting on another god's domain not a good act. the fact that the place still repelled undead implied that the god's power was still in place.

as to sharing patronage of the place with another god- shouldn't the other god be asked about this? this can be dealt in a roleplay way between cleric and god/s (DM) or through simple spells such a as augury and the like. i'd say that lacking any potent proof/ sign that the other god permits this, the place is off limits in terms of changing object of worship.

BUT... your group handled it poorly in my opinion. here was a great chance to roleplay a debate/ argument/ discussion/ whatever between the characters, and resolve this as adults in a tight situation, perhaps with some "feelings hurt" (in play, i think it would be lovely out of play if you're the right gamers), but with no "over the limit" hostility.

casting sleep on a party member? tying him up? while you're in a dire situation? that is over the line. really. there were simpler ways of handling this. this feels like a rushed attack and hostility.

my humble usggestion, if you take it. explain to the player that you think he was wrong, but your reaction got out of hand for whatever reason. play it in game between the characters as having panicked due to the undead, or perhaps fearing godly retribution (playing overly religious at times of need) or something of that sort.

use this to reconcile (partly) the anger, but if you're up for it, use it as an opportunity for a little ROLEPLAY inter-party conflict later on.

just my thoughts, hope this helps.

Bit Fiend
2012-05-07, 11:57 AM
I honestly neither see a mistake in the cleric's nor in the party's action. Clerics are still people and although divinely guided are still left to their own judgements.

Considering he is a follower of Thor and Thor is usually depicted as CG, straightforward and quick to act, I think it's not out of character that his cleric would claim a temple which followers of the other god failed to defend but Thor's might and servant claimed from the grip of the undead.

On the other hand the rest of the party might have different ethical opinions and found that action disrespectful. It's a simple difference of views in my book.

Cainam
2012-05-07, 01:22 PM
I should have been more clear. The DM (not me) decided that the best time to send in the undead was right after the cleric was tied up. . . We untied him, then woke him up after the army of skeletons arrived.

IN character, he doesn't know why he fell asleep for a few minutes (we didn't tell him yet. Not planning on hiding it, but, you know, skeletons. . .

OUT of character, the player is mad at the group for interfering with his character. . .

Roland St. Jude
2012-05-07, 03:50 PM
...OUT of character, the player is mad at the group for interfering with his character. . .Then a discussion, out of character, seems like the most likely way to resolve this issue. I recommend against trying to sort out who did what that was right or wrong and instead focusing a discussion on under what circumstances you'll all agree that PvP is acceptable. Is it only when a character poses a mortal threat to another character? Is it anytime a character wants to thwart the will or stop the action of another character (as seems to have been the case here)? Or something in-between.

I suspect that trying to hash out the values of the characters (and the gods) as well as who knew what in-character and out at what time will be a fruitless and unpleasant exercise. Better to address what's really bothering the player, the sense of betrayal and loss of control of his character, and set up some understandings so people can be happy in the future.

Deepbluediver
2012-05-07, 04:38 PM
IMO, the potential problems with a vengful god who was upset that his temple was taken over is a perfectly valid excuse for the party to at least try and find out more information before converting the buliding to another use. If the cleric took initiative all on his own, without consulting other party members, then I don't really see a problem with stopping him with non-lethal force. The party hasn't really stopped the cleric, they've just delayed him a bit while they deal with more immediate concerns.
If the cleric had a role as the groups leader, then I could understand it being interpreted as a rebelion, but otherwise it's just an attempt to be somewhat cautious.

I definitely don't think that players should get OOC upset if another player interferes with their character; some of the major fun from D&D comes from inter-personality conflict. In my experience, games that let some or all of the characters run wild and unrestrained don't last long. (they can be fun, admittedly, but usually things fall apart after more than a session or two)

One of the biggest advantages that I think good-aligned dieties (and by extension their followers) have is understanding and empathy. If the group was well-intentioned, whatever god used to be worshipped here shouldn't attempt to kill or harras them outright, though he may request/encourage them to undertake a quest to restore his (or her) rightful priesthood. By the same token, even if a major tenent of Thor's faith is to spread his influence, taking the time to make sure you're not treading on another god's toes seems like a smart decision, unless you WANT a reputation as a conquerer.

Averis Vol
2012-05-07, 05:10 PM
i think it deserves note that while thor may be a good god, hes also a norse figure who doesn't share the same concepts of whats right and wrong as the other pantheons. it would be perfectly reasonable for the cleric of thor to think his god would want him to claim this sight, seeing as its previous occupants were either too much of cowards or too weak to hold it. the thing that needs to be remembered is that norse gods value strength and bravery, none of which were shown by abandoning your temple. just my 2 cents.

JoshuaZ
2012-05-07, 10:09 PM
Almost any response is reasonable here (whether gods would in general not mind this, whether they would mind, whether some would mind but Thor would want one to do this, etc.) What the rules are in general should be known by a very low DC knowledge check (say 10), and what the rules are for Thor should be known by default for any cleric of Thor. Unfortunately, rather than having people make the knowledge checks you are now stuck in this situation. So regardless of what you decide, this is going to be an awkward situation.

Edit: Just realized that the edition is 1st/2nd. I don't think there's a knowledge check equivalent there, so that part of my remark doesn't apply.

TheOOB
2012-05-08, 01:50 AM
I figured I'd weigh in with my 2cp.

As for the issue of coverting the temple, that's really a question for the world builder. What is the normal practice for situations like this. Once an area is claimed by one god, can it be converted without insult to the original. As noted above, Thor is a pantheistic god, and typically a widely worship god at that, so I doubt he is of great need of a new temple. Aside from that, I am sure there are many scholars who would love to study the temple, and perhaps resurrect worship to the old god(most settings have gods gaining power through worship, and having another good god is a good thing).

Further, an adventuring cleric is not a missionary. I imagine setting up a proper temple(and conversion), involves a number of priests who do that kind of thing, not traveling clerics who fight evil. Converting the temple may be appropriate, but I doubt it was appropriate for the cleric to decide to do so on their own.

As for the party's actions, normally I would harshly condemn such actions. What kind of inter party strife is acceptable varies a lot from group to group, but normally, taking hostile action agienst a party member(even a simple sleep spell), is a bad idea. Adventurers have to trust eachother with their lives, and they can't always do that if with that kind of baggage.

Thialfi
2012-05-08, 08:08 AM
Clerics are not walking healing potions. The point of a cleric is to spread his faith. If you are using his healing ability, you are going to have to put up with him talking about and spreading his faith. Were I playing the cleric, I would demand an apology from the mage before ever healing him again. I would also warn that preventing me from spreading the word risks being declared enemies of Thor. Clearly this temple had been abandoned and wasn't going to be used any time soon since you didn't even know which god it was dedicated to. Having it used by Thor is better than not having it used at all.

If the party would have found magic items in the temple would they have left them there in case the undertermined god wanted to send some followers to reclaim them?

Elemental
2012-05-08, 08:32 AM
Perhaps the other characters should suggest a compromise to the cleric.

It would not be good to risk offending another deity and making Thor look bad, and by some definitions, it is an act of sacrilege to merely appropriate consecrated objects for your own usage just because they appear abandoned.

If you think about it, there are also probably people buried beneath the temple and that could mean disturbing the final resting sites of the dead, a universally unacceptable idea.

In light of these points, it would probably be best to dedicate a small shrine within the temple to the worship of Thor and leave a record detailing your work against the undead there.
As such, if the followers of the god/goddess who the temple was dedicated toward can reclaim it (something they may be unable to do themselves due to lack of warriors because they're simple farming folk) without being utterly offended by what they may interpret as graffiti and wanton vandalism (they may, after all, know nothing of Thor), and instead, they would know that it was by the work of a courageous follower of Thor and end up worshipping both deities.

Who knows? The cleric in question might even end up revered as a saint?

Reluctance
2012-05-08, 08:33 AM
Am I the only one whose first thought is that trying to repurpose consecrated ground might not be the brightest idea when said consecration is the only thing keeping out unliving abominations?

As others have said, though, the PvP/loss of control over his character is the real issue. Apologize out of character. Debate or deal in-character, with a willingness to let things go on your end. I agree with you that it's tacky in-character, but shouldn't blow up into interparty conflict.

eepop
2012-05-08, 01:48 PM
The unknown deity apparently had more pressing concerns that giving one of his random clerics a message that they need to go restore the temple. That temple was doing nothing to bring more people to the side of good.


To me the sticky point comes in when we ask what the cleric is going to do with that temple tomorrow. If he wants to return it to the glory of promoting the cause of good, I don't know that any good deity could be all that mad about it. If he's just claiming it for Thor and then leaving it abandoned again, that would be looked down upon.

TheOOB
2012-05-08, 08:27 PM
The point of a cleric is to spread his faith.

That is the point of a missionary. The point of a cleric is to serve as a conduit of divine power on the material plane, that is to enforce their god's will. Cleric's can be missionaries, but most adventuring clerics are not. They are usually more concerned with fighting evil and learning the mysteries of the world.

Starting and maintaining a temple takes a lot of time and resources, and is best left up to the religious organization as a whole. An adventuring cleric who converts a temple without talking to his superiors, then leave it to go adventure isn't spreading their religion, they giving their own god an abandoned temple and possibly making their god enemies with another god.

Jay R
2012-05-08, 11:18 PM
If this group of characters came upon a dead body, would they loot it, or bury it with all its possessions?

If they would loot the dead body, then the fact that nobody is around right now to claim an asset means it's fair game, and the cleric is doing the equivalent. If the group of characters would not loot the body, then, and only then, can they claim that the cleric should not claim the currently unclaimed church.

But that's the secondary issue. There's no point in trying to decide what the "party" should do when this group of characters cannot be legitimately graced with the name of "party". The cleric will make decisions without consulting the other characters; one of the other characters will attack the cleric.

Before you can decide what to do about the church, you have to decide what to do about the PvP situation started by the cleric and escalated by the magic-user. If these players want to act as a party, they have to decide what that means, and make an agreement that they all believe in.

FIRST form a party.
THEN make party decisions.

Ashtagon
2012-05-09, 12:34 AM
Thor may be a pantheistic god, but he is all about HIS pantheon, not anyone else's. He'd share a temple with other Norse deities, but not with Slavic, Greek, Celtic, Babylonian, Egyptian, or any other gods. Most other pantheistic gods have a similar attitude.

RL pantheistic religions colonised other temples by saying that the foreign deity was an aspect of the conquering nation's deity, not by saying "let's share temples". That doesn't appear to be the case here. Suppose the previous deity was Aphrodite (also CG in Deities and Demigods). There's no way she could be considered an aspect of Thor, and being a Roman goddess, she'd be just as unhappy about sharing temples with Thor as Thor would.

I'd rule that, no matter how well intentioned, the cleric's actions amounted to desecration, and the anti-undead protections would falter unless and until the full consecration ritual was completed, which should not take a trivial amount of time.

At best, there'll be a lot of fast-talking in the outer planes to clear things up, almost certainly resulting in a mighty quest on behalf of the former deity of that temple. At worst, the cleric has made another god very angry.

crazyhedgewizrd
2012-05-09, 01:13 AM
It got to the point that our magic user cast sleep on the cleric, tied him up, and started cleaning up the mess that he made.


I like it how they stop he cleric in the middle of a ritual and erased the symbols that were drawn. This the same as a wizard summoning a creature from the outer planes and someone knocks him out and removes the binding symbols.

TheOOB
2012-05-09, 02:35 AM
Suppose the previous deity was Aphrodite (also CG in Deities and Demigods). There's no way she could be considered an aspect of Thor, and being a Roman goddess, she'd be just as unhappy about sharing temples with Thor as Thor would.

I agree with most of what you are saying, but just a small nitpick, Aphrodite was a Greek goddess, Venus is the equivalent Roman goddess.

mcv
2012-05-09, 06:50 AM
One nit to pick: it's polytheism, not pantheism. That's something completely different.

As for whether the cleric did the right thing or the wrong thing, there are plenty of arguments for both sides. The wizard casting a sleep spell instead of discussing it with a cleric is a lot more questionable.

But most importantly, I think the best way to take advantage of this situation is not to simply force some absolute outside worldview where some characters apparently did something very much out of character because of a misunderstanding by their players, instead, assume what everything did was not unreasonable, and use this as an opportunity to role-play this out, have the characters discuss the sides, and have the players figure out how this sort of thing really works in the world. Perhaps the people objecting worship non-Norse gods? Perhaps the cleric believes it is well within Thor's right to claim any site that may be of use to him.

It seems the cleric isn't the only one with strong religious beliefs here. Turn that into something good. Have the characters grow from this.

Killer Angel
2012-05-09, 06:55 AM
The wizard casting a sleep spell instead of discussing it with a cleric is a lot more questionable.


Maybe the wizard did it 'cause the discussion between the cleric and the other characters was degenerating. It prevented a fight!

Thialfi
2012-05-09, 08:18 AM
That is the point of a missionary. The point of a cleric is to serve as a conduit of divine power on the material plane, that is to enforce their god's will. Cleric's can be missionaries, but most adventuring clerics are not. They are usually more concerned with fighting evil and learning the mysteries of the world.

Starting and maintaining a temple takes a lot of time and resources, and is best left up to the religious organization as a whole. An adventuring cleric who converts a temple without talking to his superiors, then leave it to go adventure isn't spreading their religion, they giving their own god an abandoned temple and possibly making their god enemies with another god.

Adventure clerics are still representatives of their diety and should be expected to share their faith and spread it where possible. Admittedly, I have never done as this player has done and rededicated a temple to my diety during an adventure mainly because it always seemed impractical at the time. I have referred adventure locations to church administrators when I thought it was a good idea and even come back after an adventure and take over a site.

It really isn't the rest of the party's place to tell the cleric what his job is and how he should do it any more than it's the cleric's place to pick the spells for the mage. Now, if the mage is thinking that the old temple would make an awesome alchemy lab and library, then they can get into a discussion on how to share the space.

I think a lot of people are getting hung up thinking gods are concerned with real estate. If this random diety was so concerned with this site, it would have sent followers to reclaim it. A church is not defined by a building, it is defined by those that worship, so that temple is nothing more than a material possession just like a magic sword they could have found in the church and given to the fighter.

Ashtagon
2012-05-09, 08:41 AM
I think a lot of people are getting hung up thinking gods are concerned with real estate. If this random diety was so concerned with this site, it would have sent followers to reclaim it. A church is not defined by a building, it is defined by those that worship, so that temple is nothing more than a material possession just like a magic sword they could have found in the church and given to the fighter.

The previous deity was concerned enough about that temple to allow the consecration to continue for an apparently long period of time after the worshippers had left the area. That suggests he still had an interest in that piece of real estate.

Thialfi
2012-05-09, 10:12 AM
The previous deity was concerned enough about that temple to allow the consecration to continue for an apparently long period of time after the worshippers had left the area. That suggests he still had an interest in that piece of real estate.


If that is how you interpret consecration. I tend to think of it as something that lasts without effort until despoiled and I don't see it being despoiled by having the same piece of real estate consecrated to Thor unless said unnamed diety's portfolio clashes with Thor's and if it does clash, it would be the clerics duty to despoil it.

Ashtagon
2012-05-09, 10:25 AM
If that is how you interpret consecration. I tend to think of it as something that lasts without effort until despoiled and I don't see it being despoiled by having the same piece of real estate consecrated to Thor unless said unnamed diety's portfolio clashes with Thor's and if it does clash, it would be the clerics duty to despoil it.

My take on it is that deities only happily share a single site if they are allies in a pantheon. Since the party did not recognise the deity of that temple, it is reasonable to suppose that the unknown deity was not in Thor's pantheon, so they would not happily share temples. In such a case, I would rule that consecrating the site to Thor would automatically count as a desecration for whichever deity it was previously consecrated to.

I don't see a site's consecration as requiring any particular effort. However, I would rule that any deity is automatically aware if one of their sites has been desecrated.

Telonius
2012-05-09, 10:44 AM
So the Cleric converted a temple of (random god), with a total congregation of 0, into a temple of Thor, with a total congregation of 1...? As far as I'm aware, the gods aren't real estate agents. They're mainly after souls. Having a random building being blessed by one god instead of another doesn't do a single thing. It might be considered rude or one-upmanship among the clergy. But I'd think the god in question would be more concerned with whoever killed all the priests than with somebody using the building afterwards.

Besides, unless Cleric is planning on staying in the Temple and forming a congregation there, it's going to be in the exact same situation for whatever Cleric stumbles onto it next.

Ashtagon
2012-05-09, 10:50 AM
...As far as I'm aware, the gods aren't real estate agents. They're mainly after souls...

If the gods had no interest in real estate, they would never consecrate a temple in the first place.

They are interested in both souls and real estate. The souls because that is what drives their power. The real estate because that's what inspires people to become their followers. When the party cleric changed the temple from unknown good deity (UGD) to Thor, it was a definite and noticeable slight to UGD, and one which UGD would have to discuss with Thor or risk losing standing among the divine community. There really should be consequences for this.

Thialfi
2012-05-09, 11:27 AM
My take on it is that deities only happily share a single site if they are allies in a pantheon. Since the party did not recognise the deity of that temple, it is reasonable to suppose that the unknown deity was not in Thor's pantheon, so they would not happily share temples. In such a case, I would rule that consecrating the site to Thor would automatically count as a desecration for whichever deity it was previously consecrated to.

I don't see a site's consecration as requiring any particular effort. However, I would rule that any deity is automatically aware if one of their sites has been desecrated.


That seems a fair take in a polytheistic culture. I might be influenced a bit too much by the fact the I still play 1e/2e. We use published specialty priests as our clerics and all of them would have the ability to easily identify the diety in question here so long as they were currently being worshipped, suggesting to me that this particular site has been out of service for a very long time. I am not sure this would be the case in 3e/4e.

The real world may also be intruding on my take of the situation. You can't wallk 5 feet in Jerusalem without tripping over something that is equally sacred to three religions. Polytheistic gods in a fantasy setting might more jealously guard an area or they might not, although I have to think that Thor would be rather aggressive and would very much approve of his cleric taking this action.

This would then boil down to the individual campaign world and a matter for the DM to state to the player of the cleric how his/her gods would react. Absent a ruling from the DM, religious matters are still better left to the player of the character with the religious profession and interfering with performing religious duties is something that a player of a cleric should take very seriously.

Starbuck_II
2012-05-09, 11:29 AM
If the gods had no interest in real estate, they would never consecrate a temple in the first place.

They are interested in both souls and real estate. The souls because that is what drives their power. The real estate because that's what inspires people to become their followers. When the party cleric changed the temple from unknown good deity (UGD) to Thor, it was a definite and noticeable slight to UGD, and one which UGD would have to discuss with Thor or risk losing standing among the divine community. There really should be consequences for this.

In D&D, Consecration is a spell, so it may be thay he left it there because he had no reason to remove it.

Ashtagon
2012-05-09, 11:56 AM
In D&D, Consecration is a spell, so it may be thay he left it there because he had no reason to remove it.

Consecrate is a spell with a duration measured in hours and no canon way to make it permanent. Since I doubt the temple was abandoned the day before, it seems reasonable to assume that the consecration in this specific situation is referring to the wider sociological concept (which in this campaign the GM has given a divine effect by excluding undead), and not to the spell effect.

Also, consecrate isn't a spell in 1e/2e, which is the rules set of the OP's campaign.

hamishspence
2012-05-09, 12:12 PM
The Permanency spell does say the DM "may allow other spells to be made permanent". I'm not sure if there's any adventures with permanently consecrated or desecrated areas though.

Ashtagon
2012-05-09, 12:22 PM
The Permanency spell does say the DM "may allow other spells to be made permanent". I'm not sure if there's any adventures with permanently consecrated or desecrated areas though.

Does the permanency spell allow you to make a spell permanent when that spell doesn't even exist in the rules set that the campaign is using?

hamishspence
2012-05-09, 12:24 PM
True. There's nothing like "make ground holy/unholy" in any 2nd ed book?

Ashtagon
2012-05-09, 12:37 PM
True. There's nothing like "make ground holy/unholy" in any 2nd ed book?

Counting PHB and ToM, all clerics have access to:

Bless/Curse (1st)
Combine* (1st)
Detect Evil/Detect Good (1st)
Purify Food 6 Drink/Putrefy Food
6 Drink (1st)
Sanctify/Defile* (2nd)
Focus' (4th)
Uplift* (4th)
Atonement (5th)


Of those, sanctify is the only one of note for this discussion. It grants a small fear save bonus and turn undead bonus. It has a default duration measured in rounds. When augmented by the focus spell, the duration can increase to one year, but only as long as a congregation of at least 100 worshippers remains (lay monks count as two, priests count as ten).

In 2e, permanency costs the wizard one point of Constitution, so it won't be cast casually. There is still no "non rule zero" way to make sanctify (or any cleric spell) permanent with this spell.