Good Cleric Turned VERY bad

[WanderinCourier]

Hello Everyone, I'm a tad new to this site so if this is outta place please let me know and i'll correct it, But here we go. This is my first campain in D&D our group is a mix of experienced players and noobs like me. We are playing a good campain, trying to purge the world of an evil source, called THE FIRST. Well One of my friends in the group was playing the role of a Good Cleric. During one of our sesions he had to choose between his friends or his god, and well he chose us. The DM than stated that his Allignment fell towards nuertal, and as player knowledge he would either have to do an act of rightousness to redeem himself or an act of evil to fall further. The moment finally came when a child possesed by The First attacked us. The cleric was the only one who was able to act. The only options he saw was to spare the "Innocent" child but let the evil continue hurting us, or kill the innocent and delay the evil (Since killing a possesed person doesn't kill the thing possesing it, so far...). He chose to attack the child, actually got a critical hit with a great sword, and choped the kid in half. Doing so Corrrupted him, and his Allignment fell completly Evil. So than comes my question, whats the best way for him to recover and play on. His allignment no longer coordinated with his god, but the DM will be talking to him later about choosing a new god since he had been hearing the voice in his head prior to this incident. What advice can you give us for him?

[Nettlekid]

I think you should describe the situation that caused him to choose between friends and his god, because there is like NO situation in like any story ever where choosing true (also good) friends is a non-good thing to do. Oftentimes the hero defies his god or master, and it's the righteous thing to do. Also, dropping to Neutral for one transgression? Iffy.

And I'm not sure if killing the child is truly evil either. Maybe neutral, but the whole "greater good" thing could be argued too. If, by possessing the child, the great evil could kill a thousand children, then killing the one (who would likely be killed and discarded anyway when the evil was done with it) increases the chance to save the others. And also, from a D&D alignment stance where Good is basically defined as that which is bad for Evil, to hinder Evil can only be Good.

But then again, if it's the first evil in all the world and it corrupts even good souls, that's justifiable. Then it's more like a nega-Emissary of Barachiel.

If he's going Evil, then yeah, choose a new Evil god. One that's power-hungry, like Vecna, who wouldn't want the first evil encroaching on territory.

[Stormageddon]

Sounds like your DM wanted this to happen and so it did by way of DM fait. Well at least the way you describe it. I'm not sure either of those things required a alignment change.

[Zanos]

I think you should describe the situation that caused him to choose between friends and his god, because there is like NO situation in like any story ever where choosing true (also good) friends is a non-good thing to do. Oftentimes the hero defies his god or master, and it's the righteous thing to do. Also, dropping to Neutral for one transgression? Iffy.

And I'm not sure if killing the child is truly evil either. Maybe neutral, but the whole "greater good" thing could be argued too. If, by possessing the child, the great evil could kill a thousand children, then killing the one (who would likely be killed and discarded anyway when the evil was done with it) increases the chance to save the others. And also, from a D&D alignment stance where Good is basically defined as that which is bad for Evil, to hinder Evil can only be Good.
Agreed on both points. Choosing your friends over your god is against church dogma, but definitely neutral and perhaps even good.

Killing someone who is trying to kill your is self-defense, even if possessed. It's definitely neutral.

Neither of those acts are enough to make you drop an alignment bracket. Dropping a whole step takes some pretty vile or consistent behavior.

[theIrkin]

I take exception to the DM saying the character became evil from a single act. I have always agreed with the opinion that you slowly fall, by steps and little bits instead of any single act defining the paradigm that you use to make ethical choices. That said, if the DM wants the character to have fallen (as if he had a code like a Paladin and broke with it), then the character should either have to perform an act of contrition, or commit an act which has greater moral significance than the act of killing an innocent child. If he does not have to perform an act, an atonement spell should be the go to answer for getting right with his god. That is the mechanical action, and often will come with a quest of some sort. The DM can also restrict or withhold the power to use spells and turn/rebuke undead until he has righted himself in the eyes of his god.

[Zanos]

An alternate to getting a new deity is finding someone to hit your cleric with an atonement (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Atonement).

[Crake]

I came into this thread expecting a cleric consorting with demons and devils. None of that stuff would even register on my evil radar, but then, when I get evil, I get down-right diabolical.

[Another_Poet]

I think you should describe the situation that caused him to choose between friends and his god, because there is like NO situation in like any story ever where choosing true (also good) friends is a non-good thing to do.

Unless it's a test of faith. Had the cleric truly trusted in his faith, he would have chosen his god, who would then have rewarded his faith by intervening and saving his friends... or giving him the power to do so.

(That's assuming a lot, but it could be what the GM was going for, since this seems to be a really really really Lawful type god we have here.)

WanderingCourier: I would refuse to choose a new god.

A cleric isn't just a working professional who has a contract with a certain Outsider; he is a devout and sincere believer in what the deity stands for. He has built up a lifetime of emotional connection with this being. Saying "choose a new deity" is like saying "choose a new father" after your dad disowns you. It's not a normal reaction.

If I were the player I would go with one of the following:

A. Absolute faith. He weeps that he broke his deity's trust, but he refuses to give up on his god. Every morning he rises and says his prayers to that god, he chants his name in battle, he reads his scripture and quietly commends the life it extols. He knows he will never be in his deity's good graces again, but like a heartbroken lover he does not move on. Eventually he will die in battle without his spells and healing, and he accepts that as the price he paid.

There are few people in any universe who have this kind of devotion, but when they exist they become the stuff of legends. Odysseus had this kind of devotion to his wife.

B. Redemption. Doing the above may actually get him redeemed, but the point of (A) is that no redemption is expected. In (B), he should make it his stated mission to find a way to be worthy of his god again. He should perform special, intense devotionals every night and morning. He should not rest until he is redeemed--not through some spell or ritual, but through his deeds.

C. Reformation. The cleric must believe strongly in his god's message, but he must not believe in all of it 100% or he wouldn't have acted against his god's teachings twice. Perhaps he believes that the traditional teachings are flawed somehow, and he sets out to reform the sect. For example, if the deity's name is Pelor, perhaps he founds the Order of Merciful Pelorites or the Church of Pelor the Gentle. He presents a new spin on the religion or the deity, intending to act as a fully functioning cleric of this new, kinder and improved take on the tradition. (This will only work with GM collaboration, because it depends on how the GM interprets the source of a Cleric's powers.)

Out of all of these I like (A) the most. It would be a powerful character with lots of plot hooks. And if the GM is a bit of a railroader, it sends a strong message about effing with player's character concepts.

Good luck.

[Nettlekid]

Unless it's a test of faith. Had the cleric truly trusted in his faith, he would have chosen his god, who would then have rewarded his faith by intervening and saving his friends... or giving him the power to do so.


I don't know if that would still be non-good not to follow. It's a bit like the story of Abraham and Isaac in the Bible, where God's like "Abraham, kill your eldest son in my name to prove your faith" and Abraham's about to do it and God says "No no, that's okay, just wanted to make sure you would." See, I don't think refusing to kill his son would have been a non-Good thing to do. By D&D terms, I think it would have been a non-LAWFUL thing to do, as you are not following the code and demands of the figure to which you have pledged yourself.

[prufock]

I take exception to the DM saying the character became evil from a single act. I have always agreed with the opinion that you slowly fall, by steps and little bits instead of any single act defining the paradigm that you use to make ethical choices.
I disagree. Minor infractions might not make you evil, but a single senseless killing or torturing of an innocent person sure should.


Unless it's a test of faith. Had the cleric truly trusted in his faith, he would have chosen his god, who would then have rewarded his faith by intervening and saving his friends... or giving him the power to do so.

(That's assuming a lot, but it could be what the GM was going for, since this seems to be a really really really Lawful type god we have here.)
My opinion is that neither a good nor a lawful god would present such a test of faith. It's a test based on deception, to cause strife between friends for no good reason where, presumably, none exists.

[WanderinCourier]

Sorry I didn't think I would get so many replies so quickly.

To answer some questions the situation that he had to choose his friends over his god was in a shared dream scenario. We were at a point where there was a wall of fire that was black and white. A voice spoke to us and said we had to leave all our ties behind before walking through the wall. The cleric had to either trust his god to get him out of the dream world or to abandon him to walk through. To which afterward a new voice other than his God started speaking to him, so we was being pulled between the light and darkness.

And when he killed the Possessed child he could have released the child from the possession another way that would've been allot harder (Though very possible) and the child would've been completely spared. The cleric claimed what he was doing was for the greater good, but he also new that the other route though harder would've saved the innocent.

Also to be noted the character has been slowly doing more morally questionable deeds prior to the child kiling deed. Just small things like gambling, drinking and kinda getting into a drunken brawl.

The DM was actually hoping he'd redeem himself by preforming the more difficult act, putting faith in his god to keep us alive and spare the child.

I Hope I Answered all the main questions about this. I'm not able to read in depth every post at the moment I'm slipping on here at work. You guys are alot more high speed than many other forums I've posted on.

[Pan151]

Your DM seems to have some very weird ideas about good and evil.

Nothing that you mentioned is sufficient to change the clerics alignment from good to neutral, let alone from good to evil. At most he'd change from Lawful Good to Neutral Good.

[Thrair]

I think the DMs railroading your Cleric a bit. One deed does not define a character's alignment. Atonement spells are there for a reason.

A good person occasionally screws up. Or does something that's morally wrong. Sometimes badly. What matters is how they respond, and what their motives are.

Look at Roy. Lawful Good to a T. Big time hero. Sacrificed his life to clean up someone else's mess. Also abandoned a friend to bandits because he was irritated with him. Doesn't make him evil. Just means he did something wrong.

And killing a possessed child to prevent greater destruction isn't evil. Ruthlessly pragmatic, yes. But not evil. Especially if the other methods are far more difficult and risky.

[Mauther]

I'd recommend the cleric player sit down with the DM and have a very polite, friendly conversation with the DM regarding how alignments are viewed by the DM, so their will be less confusion in the future. No mechanism causes more disagreement than the alignmnet system, especially the g/n/e axis.

If after that session the cleric wants to return to the good alignment/deity, atomement would be the appropriate mechanics both from an roleplay and rollplay view.

Oh, and for the love of all things holy, no one play a paladin.

[paddyfool]

And killing a possessed child to prevent greater destruction isn't evil. Ruthlessly pragmatic, yes. But not evil. Especially if the other methods are far more difficult and risky.

It seems here like the cleric leaped in to kill before exploring the alternatives, which would be an evil deed. But one such action does not make a character evil - if anything, this cleric seems thoroughly neutral.

To me, the first business of walking through the fire should have necessitated some stern chat by the PC's god, possibly a brief loss of power. The second one of killing the child might actually entail a downshift to neutral.

What god does this PC follow, and what are their main tenets / alignment, incidentally?

[WanderinCourier]

What god does this PC follow, and what are their main tenets / alignment, incidentally?

The god he followed is one the DM had created called The Lady of Light/ The White Lady. The Domains that they had followed was Lawful and Light I want to Believe.



I'm beginning to see that maybe the DM changing his Alignment to True Evil was a bit excessive... However he seems to be set on the decision, and the cleric himself isn’t completely against it.

What we ended with last was the group knocking the cleric out, He was almost killed by a very angry paladin (Unfortunently we do have one...). I managed to talk them out of killing him outright, but the entire group beside my character is fully turned against him. They believe that the deed was evil and as good characters would rather have perished than have a child sacrificed to save them. Well needless to say right now he is not trusted and tied up. I'm trying to help him decide what the best course of action/use of abilities will be.

[Slipperychicken]

The only options he saw was to spare the "Innocent" child but let the evil continue hurting us, or kill the innocent and delay the evil (Since killing a possesed person doesn't kill the thing possesing it, so far...). He chose to attack the child, actually got a critical hit with a great sword, and choped the kid in half.

Remind your Cleric that nonlethal damage is a thing. If he feels so conflicted about it, just use a sap, or at worst take a -4 to deal nonlethal damage.

[Firechanter]

A Sap is a Martial weapon, with which the Cleric won't be proficient, so this way or other he'd get a -4 forced down his throat.

But what I actually came here to say is:
the situations described sound bloody well like a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario to me. Is abandoning your friends any less Non-Good than refuting your god? If the friends are also Good, how can a Good deity ever demand to abandon them anyway?
Even more so in the second situation. Killing a child - that's a paddlin'. Allowing an Evil force to go unchecked - well you better believe that's a paddlin'!

[Pan151]

Except you're not killing the child. If it was trully possessed by an evil force, you're doing it a service by ending its misery and letting it rest in peace. It may not the optimal solution, but it's still a Lawful Good action.

Or isn't that the same logic used by every anti-undead/demon/etc god ever?

[Dead_Jester]

Except you're not killing the child. If it was trully possessed by an evil force, you're doing it a service by ending its misery and letting it rest in peace. It may not the optimal solution, but it's still a Lawful Good action.

Or isn't that the same logic used by every anti-undead/demon/etc god ever?

Indeed; at worst, it's Lawful Neutral, because you are committing something wrong in the name of the good of the majority. There might have been a been a way to solve it in a more "Good" way (without killing the kid), but that would have been placing a greater risk on everything else. It's like comparing Utilitarian and Kantian ethics; one deals in consequences, the other in absolutes; whether or not the Deity in question favors one or the other makes the difference between the action being Good or Neutral in his eye, but it should never be Evil, since Good was accomplished overall and not acting when possible to stop Evil is definitely not Good.

[Spore]

a) Not abiding to your dogma is chaotic, not evil.

b) Killing a kid to safe your - more capable and durable - friends is evil.

My literal 2 cents.

[Slipperychicken]

A Sap is a Martial weapon, with which the Cleric won't be proficient, so this way or other he'd get a -4 forced down his throat.

So are greatswords, which this Cleric was using.

Also, if you would rather cut an innocent child in half than take a -4 on attack rolls to subdue it, that's pretty much the definition of evil.

[Scow2]

So are greatswords, which this Cleric was using.That's probably because the Greatsword is the deity's favored weapon. Most clerics end up having one martial weapon proficiency. That weapon is NEVER the sap.


Also, if you would rather cut an innocent child in half than take a -4 on attack rolls to subdue it, that's pretty much the definition of evil.No it's not. A "-4 to attack" isn't a risk of personal loss - it's a chance of failing to stop evil. Given that the kid was possessed, it's possible that while the body was fragile, the thing inside it was capable of much more damage - why couldn't anyone else have acted?

[Red Fel]

Okay. Here's the information as I've read it.

First test: The Cleric is in some sort of dream, and hears the voice of his deity beckoning, and saying to abandon his friends. Then another voice tells him otherwise. He listens to the other voice.

My verdict: Not Evil. Definitely heterodox; disobeying a direct command of your deity is not in keeping with your faith; but it's not Evil to say no. It might, however, cause some class-related penalties, e.g. the deity decides not to grant all of your spells when you ask for them. But no, no alignment penalty.

Second test: The Cleric is confronting a possessed child. He can either take the easy route and kill the child, or the hard route and perform an exorcism. He knows of both options, and kills the child.

My verdict: Moderately Evil. Not instant-fall super-Evil, but moderately Evil. Why? Because Good is about two things - making the hard choices, and Things We Must Never Do. With regard to the former, a thoroughly Good (or Exalted) character would make every effort to achieve the best outcome - here sparing the child's live - even if it's harder. With regard to the latter, slaying an innocent is rarely acceptable for a Good character. Very rarely. Particularly when there are other options on the table - as here, where there was a "harder option." So, yeah. If he could have done without killing the kid, it was Evil.

Side note: Various character failings, drinking, gambling, etc.

Verdict: Not Evil. Unless your deity explicitly points these out to be vices, these are merely acts of self-indulgence; self-indulgence isn't Evil, it's Neutral. Self-indulgence at the expense of others is also often Neutral. It's only when you indulge yourself with the specified goal of harming others that you wander into Evil territory. However, these minor moral quibbles, taken with the other acts, suggest a case for a mild alignment shift.

Overall: I say the Cleric has become Neutral at worst, not Evil. At no point were his actions motivated by any of the classical Evil aims - revenge, malice, cruelty, bloodthirst, etc. He was trying for positive goals. I acknowledge that killing the kid when there were other options was a no-no, but that alone doesn't justify a drop from Good to Evil. A drop from Good to Evil, or even Good-bordering-on-Neutral to Evil, requires either a substantial Evil act, like small-scale genocide, or a pattern of Evil acts, like the habitual execution of unarmed and helpless prisoners. Rarely do you drop that far that fast without magical intervention.

If the Cleric has become Neutral, check the deity's alignment. It's possible that the Cleric is still within one step, and therefore still entitled to his Cleric abilities and spells. Note, however, that if the deity is displeased with him, the Cleric might still find himself in the hole.

And as an additional aside, auto-fall scenarios are never cool. Now, it seems that your DM didn't intend this to be an auto-fall scenario; you suggest that the DM expected your Cleric to take the hard road. That said, if a DM gives a player two options, in essence "work your tail off" and "fall like a stone," it's close to an auto-fall scenario, if not precisely one. Be aware of that.

[Tiki Snakes]

Worth reminding your friend, and possibly the dm, but alignment does not dictate action. Alignment merely describes and categorizes personality.

So the correct answer to how should he now act? Is exactly as before, according to his personality.

Also, the rest of the team should remember this. Because this is a man who chose to forsake his god rather than them. They really should give him some slack. Sure, be angry about the choice he made with the kid, but be understanding too.

[monkey3]

Sounds like the problem is caused by the DM. Some DMs get a rise out of this kinds of crap. It reminds me of the old superhero trope:

Superguy is in the middle. On the right is a schoolbus of children falling to their death. On the left is his girl/friend/grandma. Superguy can only save one! Which will he save? Which will he let die?

Frankly this is a false choice. The killer in all cases is the villain, which as far as I am concerned is the writer/DM.

[Slipperychicken]

No it's not. A "-4 to attack" isn't a risk of personal loss - it's a chance of failing to stop evil. Given that the kid was possessed, it's possible that while the body was fragile, the thing inside it was capable of much more damage

That's a reasonable (albeit sketchy) choice for a normal person to make, given the circumstances (much like taking a shot at enemies who use human shields). However, I could see a Cleric falling if killing the kid incurred the anger of his deity.

Either way, he should be cool if he can get an Atonement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) spell.

[Dead_Jester]

b) Killing a kid to safe your - more capable and durable - friends is evil.

My literal 2 cents.

Except this wasn't about protecting his friends, it's about literally stopping a source of primordial evil. You can bet that thing isn't only after a few adventurers, and leaving it in some form of physical body on the Material Plane is most probably a very bad idea. Sadly enough, killing the host is a tried and true method of expeditious banishment whilst exorcism is usually a long, hazardous process that may or may not end up killing the host, all the while letting pure evil fester in the world. Unless your alignment is Stupid Exalted, you shouldn't gamble with those odds unless you know damn well that exorcism is possible and that, in the meantime, nothing worse is going to happen, particularly to the now possessed kid who probably won't get out of a serious possession without severe psychological or physical scars. Moreover, we have to consider the Cleric's intent behind this; did he kill the child because it was the fast and easy solution, or because it was the most definitive and most likely to work?

To put things into perspective, an Exalted character aims to embody pure Good (and therefore will avoid Evil at all cost), while a Good character, overall, does good most of the time, but not the point of ultimately favoring Evil. As the old saying goes, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

[iceman10058]

while your actions would probably make you lose any exalted feats you had for a little while, they are not evil enough to regester an alignment change to me. the one thing that is questionable for that is the innocent child, but without knowing if you could have purged if of the possesion i cannot say further

[Maginomicon]

...

.........

*groans*

One-screwup alignment changes in a gray area are always misguided unless the motives of the act match the new alignment, and even then it's very iffy.

I'd strongly recommend your GM take a look at Real Alignments (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283341), because seriously, one-screwup alignment changes in a gray area are a futz'd-up way to handle alignment. Maybe something in there can inspire his policies going forward.

[ChaoticDitz]

Let me think for a second...

1) I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure acting in reaction to something trying to kill your nearest and dearest friends counts as a compromised state of mind, and if the killing-babies thing only happened once, with that reasoning behind it to boot, there's hardly anything auto-alignment-shifty about that.

2) Plus, even if you assume a perfectly logical state of mind in this situation, there are a whole plethora of reasons why going forward with the killing is the best option: maybe the kid CAN'T be exorcised (he only seems to have realized this possibility after it was all said and done, after all); maybe the kid had too much offensive power thanks to whatever evil was controlling him to realistically capture him; maybe the exorcism would have horrible effects or even kill the kid, in which case this would be a mercy killing, which is non-Evil according to BoED. Or a number of other things.

3) The DM wants him to fall. Have him join the dark side, become an Ur-Priest, wreck the DM's campaign as punishment for being a douche. For extra laughs, he should start possessing kids.

4) ... Or, you could try talking to your DM out-of-game like a civilized gentleman. Mention why your friends actions were justified, give reasoning as to why his alignment shouldn't have been shifted anyway given what this thread has said, and tell him that, quite frankly, a scolding by his god is the worst he should get; if his god is truly Good, he might have to go on a quest or something while stripped of his magic and receive a message from his god afterwords because his god is trying to correct him before he *truly* falls, but this should not be perma-fall material unless he continues or the DM is a jerk.

[Ziegander]

What most all of you continue to miss is that, yes, the DM's fall plot was a total railroad, but the PLAYER also seems either to want to fall or doesn't mind falling. It doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to be how you would play it, it's that player's character, and ultimately they get to choose if they think falling is out of line.

The bigger issue here is not that the DM railroaded the Cleric into falling but that, through the cleric player's own actions, now the party distrusts him and at least one member has already tried to kill him. That's not going to solved by having a gentlemen's chat with the DM.

[ChaoticDitz]

What most all of you continue to miss is that, yes, the DM's fall plot was a total railroad, but the PLAYER also seems either to want to fall or doesn't mind falling. It doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to be how you would play it, it's that player's character, and ultimately they get to choose if they think falling is out of line.

The bigger issue here is not that the DM railroaded the Cleric into falling but that, through the cleric player's own actions, now the party distrusts him and at least one member has already tried to kill him. That's not going to solved by having a gentlemen's chat with the DM.

Okay, so in other words, the entire group needs to have a gentlepeoples' chat. Because a lot of that isn't cool, obviously.

[Pan151]

What most all of you continue to miss is that, yes, the DM's fall plot was a total railroad, but the PLAYER also seems either to want to fall or doesn't mind falling. It doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to be how you would play it, it's that player's character, and ultimately they get to choose if they think falling is out of line.

The bigger issue here is not that the DM railroaded the Cleric into falling but that, through the cleric player's own actions, now the party distrusts him and at least one member has already tried to kill him. That's not going to solved by having a gentlemen's chat with the DM.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with railroading. If it serves the general plot, and if the players have no problem with it, then it's all good. However, if you're gonna railroad someone into becoming evil, at least try to come up with a semi-proper reason. All the cleric did was a) care for his friends, and b) stop an elder evil from manifesting into the world. It could still be potentially enough to make the cleric fall from the grace of his god (though that's already stretching it) but there is nothing that would make the cleric's alignment change even a single inch towards evil.

The whole atonement quest thing could still work just as fine, but someone needs to explain to the DM what Evil actually means (and that the alignment change is not necessary for the cleric's fall anyway)

[Ziegander]

The whole atonement quest thing could still work just as fine, but someone needs to explain to the DM what Evil actually means (and that the alignment change is not necessary for the cleric's fall anyway)

You're not getting it. It doesn't matter. The entire group needs to learn what Evil means. The Cleric is fine with falling and the rest of the group's characters now hate and/or fear him because he's become so OMG evil. Atonement would only matter if the Cleric wanted to be redeemed, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Akolbi]

Agreed, the group as a whole needs to stop being so lawful stupid, and be willing to work with an "evil" person, especially if everything he did was for the right reasons, and out of his loyalty to them.

though, I may be a bad person for giving this advice, looking at my sig and my avatar

[LogosDragon]

I think the DM should make a custom class, first of all, that lets you trade over all those now-defunct Cleric levels. Unless that was already being handwaived. In which case, keep in mind that he's now Rebuking rather than Turning, so he might want to put a domain into increasing the variety of things he can rebuke.

Also, just because I saw an opportunity to make a joke about an older song~

Elder Evil: "I make the good clerics go ba~a~ad..."