PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying FR Gods - Cruel an Unfair punishment?



acemcjack
2014-05-07, 07:04 AM
Hello fellow role-players,

I'd like your opinion on a situation I have with my DM.

We're playing a home brew system loosely based on 3.5 ed. and I play a LN cleric who's sort of a Judge Dredd type - meaning, he sees himself as the law and ruthlessly fights those who would bring chaos to society. Recently we switched between campaign worlds from a Pathfinder campaign to a Forgotten Realms campaign, but our characters remained basically the same.

Whereas my cleric used to worship the god Abadar in the PF setting, I now had to choose a new god, and since we're playing a post Spell-Plague campaign, a lot of the LN gods who might have fit my character type are either gone or have changed sides. I eventually chose to be a cleric of Torm (mainly for the aspects of Helm).

Now, a few sessions ago, our party had raided a compound of some evil guild in Waterdeep,where we have set our new home, and attacked this evil cleric who, according to our information, had kidnapped the daughter of some wizard. After a brutal battle, she tried to flee, at which point I blocked her path using a wall of fire. She surrendered, and we tied her up to question her. I was working under the assumption that time was of essence, and gave her the option to either cooperate or die by the time I count to 5. She, in turn, told me I had 5 seconds to release her or else.

I counted to 5, and when she didn't comply, I coup de graced her. We then found out that she had some sort of spell connecting the kidnapped child's life essence to hers, and when she died, the child who was held somewhere in the compound started dying as well.

Eventually, we managed to find the girl and save her on time, but later that night, my character had a dream in which Torm himself appeared before him, and told him he had sinned. I had, according to the DM, dealt punishment without proper judgement. That I had not told the captured cleric what she was being accused of, and that she is being punished in the name of Torm (though there was no doubt that she was, in fact, guilty of the crimes she was being punished for).

My punishment was this: For an indeterminate amount of time, whenever my cleric casts a spell, he will have to make a faith check vs. a DC of 10 + 1/2 the spell level of the spell (the roll is 1d20 + WIS bonus only). That means that I needed a roll of 8 or higher for a 0 level spell, or 11 or higher for a 7th level spell. The numbers aren't the real issue, the point is, I had 40%+ chance of failure every time I cast a spell.

I thought this punishment was too cruel, especially since my character is pretty under powered compared to the rest of the party, who like to MIN-MAX a lot.

I had tried to explain to my DM that this punishment is roughly equivalent to a 'Bestow Curse' spell, and all that for what? for executing someone without saying the proper words before? His answer was that the gods of FR are that cruel, and that if it's too difficult for me, he's willing to make it easier for me during the coming battles, and make sure I don't die. I don't want him to. I don't want special treatment, I just want him to be fair. Am I wrong in this? does such a punishment sound right to you?

Rhynn
2014-05-07, 07:39 AM
I had tried to explain to my DM that this punishment is roughly equivalent to a 'Bestow Curse' spell

So by your own estimation, the punishment is no worse than a 3rd-level spell?


Am I wrong in this?

Probably.


does such a punishment sound right to you?

Yes.


The circumstances are irrelevant; it's your DM's settings. I run FR differently, and so does everyone else. (FWIW, my opinion: for a worshipper of Torm of all gods, you really screwed up. Fortunately, Torm is also the god of cleaning up your messes...)

Marnath
2014-05-07, 07:47 AM
I had tried to explain to my DM that this punishment is roughly equivalent to a 'Bestow Curse' spell, and all that for what? for executing someone without saying the proper words before? His answer was that the gods of FR are that cruel, and that if it's too difficult for me, he's willing to make it easier for me during the coming battles, and make sure I don't die. I don't want him to. I don't want special treatment, I just want him to be fair. Am I wrong in this? does such a punishment sound right to you?

Torm's entire shtick is "Do what your boss tells you, exactly as he tells you. No matter how you feel about it or how stupid it is." So yeah, if you were supposed to read her her rights, so to speak, you needed to do that first.

acemcjack
2014-05-07, 07:48 AM
So by your own estimation, the punishment is no worse than a 3rd-level spell?

It's a 3rd level spell that has no save or resistance. Missing almost half your actions in battle seems to me like one hell of a punishment. In a game where action economy is one of the most important things in battle, it seems pretty strong to me.



Probably.
Care to elaborate?



Yes.
Why?



The circumstances are irrelevant; it's your DM's settings. I run FR differently, and so does everyone else. (FWIW, my opinion: for a worshipper of Torm of all gods, you really screwed up. Fortunately, Torm is also the god of cleaning up your messes...)
Of course its his setting. I'm asking whether you'd do the same thing in this case.

acemcjack
2014-05-07, 07:50 AM
Torm's entire shtick is "Do what your boss tells you, exactly as he tells you. No matter how you feel about it or how stupid it is." So yeah, if you were supposed to read her her rights, so to speak, you needed to do that first.

Then perhaps I should have chosen a different god. What do you think of Hoar?

Sidmen
2014-05-07, 07:51 AM
My very first reaction was to try and resolve this in-game. If I were that cleric, who had already been shifted from one universe to another, and didn't have a strong faith in Torm to begin with, I'd drop that sucker and preach against his form of "justice". See if you can't find another patron, maybe one that simply hates Torm and would support you only because you bad mouth him.

Clearly Torm was not the god you thought he was, nor was he what your character thought he was. The tenets of his faith are incompatible with your character - so don't stick with the faith.

acemcjack
2014-05-07, 07:54 AM
My very first reaction was to try and resolve this in-game. If I were that cleric, who had already been shifted from one universe to another, and didn't have a strong faith in Torm to begin with, I'd drop that sucker and preach against his form of "justice". See if you can't find another patron, maybe one that simply hates Torm and would support you only because you bad mouth him.

Clearly Torm was not the god you thought he was, nor was he what your character thought he was. The tenets of his faith are incompatible with your character - so don't stick with the faith.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking of doing too. So that brings up the question of what god. I was thinking of Hoar, but seeing how he's now an exarch of Bane might pose a problem for the rest of the party, though his dogma sounds spot on for my character.

Sidmen
2014-05-07, 08:06 AM
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking of doing too. So that brings up the question of what god. I was thinking of Hoar, but seeing how he's now an exarch of Bane might pose a problem for the rest of the party, though his dogma sounds spot on for my character.

Don't pay too close of attention to Bane, just look at and follow Hoar's teachings. Granted, maybe I don't understand what an Exarch is, but as a mortal you probably don't have to listen to your god's superiors.

Uphold true and fitting justice and maintain the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Fitting recompense will always accrue for one's actions. Violence will meet violence and evil pay back evil, but good will also come to those who do good. Walk the line of the Doombringer's teachings, seeking retribution, but do not fall into the trap of pursuing evil acts for evil's sake, for that way is seductive and leads only to one's downfall. Vengeance must be sought for all injustices, and all punishments must fit the crime. Revenge is sweetest when it is sharpened with irony. All attacks must be avenged. Those who do not respond to attacks against their person or that which they hold dear only invite further attacks.

Krazzman
2014-05-07, 08:07 AM
I wouldn't have made it that direct.

I would switch some of your spells out for Dispel Magic or similar in following situations. Giving you hints that you did something wrong. Maybe talked OOC with you that the feeling of connections isn't always right. Then maybe give you a few days without any contact altogether and unless you repent/atone or whatever I see fitting I would let a new power tickle in and start to speak with you. And then have one of the dead gods slowly return with you as his primary vessel.

But then again I am always far too nice to my players and even myself feel like playing with savetygloves on.

acemcjack
2014-05-07, 08:07 AM
I'd say a more reasonable punishment is "no more new spells for you (or possibly only 1st level spells) until you fix what you broke", or do some equivalent action where directly fixing is impossible.
Which would basically take away my ability to fix what I broke. I'm level 13, mind you (I can cast 7th level spells), and the enemies we come across are anywhere between level 13-18. I wouldn't be able to follow my current duties, and bring down the guild we're trying fight. If anything, this punishment sounds even worse.

Could anyone explain to me why what I did warrants such extreme punishment, besides the fact that Torm seems to be one petty little deity?

acemcjack
2014-05-07, 08:13 AM
I wouldn't have made it that direct.

I would switch some of your spells out for Dispel Magic or similar in following situations. Giving you hints that you did something wrong. Maybe talked OOC with you that the feeling of connections isn't always right. Then maybe give you a few days without any contact altogether and unless you repent/atone or whatever I see fitting I would let a new power tickle in and start to speak with you. And then have one of the dead gods slowly return with you as his primary vessel.

But then again I am always far too nice to my players and even myself feel like playing with savetygloves on.

My DM's usually not that harsh, to tell the truth, so it came as a huge surprise to me when he decided on this particular punishment.

I do like the idea of having one of the dead gods return with me. I'll try this idea with him, thanks! :)

Krazzman
2014-05-07, 08:16 AM
Which would basically take away my ability to fix what I broke. I'm level 13, mind you (I can cast 7th level spells), and the enemies we come across are anywhere between level 13-18. I wouldn't be able to follow my current duties, and bring down the guild we're trying fight. If anything, this punishment sounds even worse.

Could anyone explain to me why what I did warrants such extreme punishment, besides the fact that Torm seems to be one petty little deity?

My guess would be that you failed to do your duty (rescue the girl) and thus also stroke against one thing he is really heavy about (Family).

Although I believe that your DM is just too cruel in this. Maybe he thought you didn't show enough respect for her death or similar.

I see no other possible "violation" in your doing as he also says:


Strike quickly and forcefully against rot in the hearts of mortals. Bring painful, quick death to traitors.

acemcjack
2014-05-07, 08:24 AM
My guess would be that you failed to do your duty (rescue the girl) and thus also stroke against one thing he is really heavy about (Family).

Although I believe that your DM is just too cruel in this. Maybe he thought you didn't show enough respect for her death or similar.

I see no other possible "violation" in your doing as he also says:

I may not have explained what happened well enough. We did, in fact, manage to save the girl on time. I managed to dispel the spell she was under, before she died, and returned her safely to her mother, the wizard.

The only issue my DM, as Torm, had with my actions, was that I did not follow the proper protocol for dispensing punishment. Instead of saying to the evil cleric who had captured the little girl, "I judge thee for this and this crime, and find you guilty in the name of Torm etc. etc.", and only then proceed to kill her, I just killed her on the spot when she refused to cooperate with me and tell me where the girl was being held. As I said, at the time, I had been operating under the assumption that any time wasted would risk the girl's life even more, and hadn't considered there was a spell tying the two, the evil cleric and the girl, together. But as I said, again, I did manage to save the girl in the end.

So if I failed my duty, I don't know which duty was that. To follow protocol?

Marnath
2014-05-07, 08:45 AM
Then perhaps I should have chosen a different god. What do you think of Hoar?

How does your character feel about walking up to random people, asking about their grievances, and then coming up with an appropriate(possibly ironic) punishment for the perpetrator who is almost certainly someone you've never heard of and have no reason to hate personally? Because that's pretty much all he's gonna have you doing.

acemcjack
2014-05-07, 08:50 AM
That would be somewhat out of character for him, I admit.

My character wants to bring order to the world, but understands that he can't always play by the rules to achieve this goal. He needs a god that favors order, but isn't all bent on protocol and bringing people to justice in a court of law. I can't have the god sitting on my shoulder and telling me this or that isn't proper, even though it IS just.

Any other options?

Marnath
2014-05-07, 09:03 AM
That would be somewhat out of character for him, I admit.

My character wants to bring order to the world, but understands that he can't always play by the rules to achieve this goal. He needs a god that favors order, but isn't all bent on protocol and bringing people to justice in a court of law. I can't have the god sitting on my shoulder and telling me this or that isn't proper, even though it IS just.

Any other options?

It honestly sounds like with a little push here and there you could fall to evil and serve Bane. A little torture here, a little show of force to make someone do what you feel is the right thing and bam, you have the revelation that the only effective way to bring order to the world is to put your boot on the necks of everyone who just can't play nice without someone stronger cracking the metaphorical whip to teach them their place. That isn't really justice, but "justice" is a concept which is easily perverted.

That probably isn't what you want, but it isn't far to fall down the slippery slope of "I'll just take matters into my own hands."

acemcjack
2014-05-07, 09:20 AM
That is always the risk: Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Seeing as how my character is more inclined to the side of Good, I don't believe he would abuse this power or sense of righteousness so easily. But to me it does make a more interesting conflict than having to follow the letter of the law just so I can do justice.

The question is, is it Just Torm who's being petty in this case, or would I just run into a similar problem with my DM with a god like Hoar if I, for instance, didn't drop all I was doing at the moment to avenge a minor matter, when I have other, more important things to do.

I'm beginning to think maybe I should drop the cleric altogether and play an arcane caster as well, since he isn't subject to any deity's whims.

Rhynn
2014-05-07, 09:30 AM
Then perhaps I should have chosen a different god. What do you think of Hoar?

Hoar is one of my favorite FR deities (insofar that I like the pantheon expanded beyond the original boxed set anymore...), and definitely sounds appropriate: retribution and vengeance for wrongdoing.

I don't know anything about 4E changes to the pantheon, though.

acemcjack
2014-05-07, 09:33 AM
It seems that in 4e they made him evil.-Probably, in part, because of the changes made to the alignment system (no more lawful neutral, as I understand).

That's a real bummer IMO. I don't like the fact that he is now aligned with Bane.

Rhynn
2014-05-07, 12:13 PM
It seems that in 4e they made him evil.-Probably, in part, because of the changes made to the alignment system (no more lawful neutral, as I understand).

He was always pretty Lawful Evil to me, anyway. What's wrong with that? You just do you, and if that means your alignment is evil, big deal!

Sartharina
2014-05-07, 01:30 PM
That would be somewhat out of character for him, I admit.

My character wants to bring order to the world, but understands that he can't always play by the rules to achieve this goal. He needs a god that favors order, but isn't all bent on protocol and bringing people to justice in a court of law. I can't have the god sitting on my shoulder and telling me this or that isn't proper, even though it IS just.

Any other options?
You can't establish order if you try to arbitrarily enforce it without a form of due process. Otherwise, you're just a self-motivated thug trying to force the world to adapt to the viewpoint of a single person, without any clue how.

Garimeth
2014-05-07, 01:38 PM
IDK OP, to me it sounds like you just didn't have enough knowledge of the deity. I think the DM should have either warned you OOC, or had Torm warn you IC, and then if you did something like it again have him punish you. I would also say that in the event of the punishment taking place, it should not be for an indeterminate amount of time, but should have clear guidance on what will make it go away. I.E. It will last two weeks. or it will last until you accomplish X task or see Y highpriest for penance.

I agree that the punishment, for a first offense in a new setting, is a bit harsh. Side note, some of the IC suggestions people have given are pretty cool.

acemcjack
2014-05-08, 01:15 AM
I really had no idea he was that petty, and it was a first offense, as far as I know. But yeah, I'll try some of the suggestions people have given me here.

Thanks guys!

Brookshw
2014-05-08, 07:02 AM
Given that the setting has the wall of the faithless its not completely without merit to think of and rp the FR gods as cruel or merciless. That's not to say I'd make the same ruling as your dm but I can at least sort of understand the basis of the thought.

brainface
2014-05-08, 10:12 AM
Revenge is sweetest when it is sharpened with irony.

Switch to this god immediately. That's the best dogma I've ever read.

Also, it just seems to me your dm is irritated that you didn't do what he thought you were going to do, and instead did what you thought your character should do. Maybe I've just had worse dms though, and this is how FR rolls?

acemcjack
2014-05-08, 10:46 AM
I got that feeling from him as well. As if I had killed an NPC he didn't intend for me to kill (though he could have stopped it at any time before I did).

That's why I'm having trouble with this punishment. If this is how my god reacts because of a mere breach of protocol, I don't want to find out what'll happen if I really screw things up.

It's a shame Helm is dead. I think he would've fit my character better.

jedipotter
2014-05-08, 01:24 PM
I had tried to explain to my DM that this punishment is roughly equivalent to a 'Bestow Curse' spell, and all that for what? for executing someone without saying the proper words before? His answer was that the gods of FR are that cruel, and that if it's too difficult for me, he's willing to make it easier for me during the coming battles, and make sure I don't die. I don't want him to. I don't want special treatment, I just want him to be fair. Am I wrong in this? does such a punishment sound right to you?

I would not say FR gods are 'cruel', and sure not Torm. Or did they make Torm evil in 4E?


I do love the Gods Rules, but I'm not of the same mind as your DM:

1. First off, I make it clear to the player what the rules are.....even going as far as to write them down. You god says this and that, wants this, expects you to do this, demands you do this, and so on.

2. I'm all for the tiny warnings. Like a tiny gold shield with the symbol of Torm on it appearing just before you attacked. Just enough to have you stop and think.

3. Even if you break a rule.....you still get a warning, the first time or two.

acemcjack
2014-05-08, 01:31 PM
Well, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this course of action is a bit harsh. If only I could make him understand how extreme his reaction was...

Seto
2014-05-08, 03:57 PM
You could also be a non-theistic cleric serving Justice. (If that works in FR)

DeltaEmil
2014-05-08, 04:49 PM
You could also be a non-theistic cleric serving Justice. (If that works in FR)In the 3rd edition of the Forgotten Realms, that explicitly doesn't work, and you must worship a deity and make that deity your patron deity which grants you your spells if you're a divine spellcaster.

However, the OP said that their Pathfinder game is situated in the Forgotten Realms after the Spellplague happened, so perhaps the character of the OP can be a non-theistic cleric.

@acemcjack: As for the topic itself, would your character actually know that he had to tell the bad girl about her crimes and that she is going to be executed in the name of Torm? A knowledge religion check might have been in order for such a thing.

Sartharina
2014-05-08, 05:44 PM
That's why I'm having trouble with this punishment. If this is how my god reacts because of a mere breach of protocol, I don't want to find out what'll happen if I really screw things up.The lawful alignment isn't for you. Maybe you should try Chaotic Evil instead? There's no such thing as a 'mere' "breach of protocol" to a Lawful God. Protocol is established for a reason - to negate and eliminate chance of human error, and ensure transparency and precedent for handling situations. No lawful god worth his or her alignment would tolerate someone going around killing people willy-nilly without establishing guilt and reason through due processes, regardless of who they are. In order for there to be law, justice, and order, you need precedent, transparency, and consistency. Vigilantism gives none of that. Helm is no more tolerant than Torm in this regard.


When it comes to the current situation, there are a number of questions that all need an affirmative answer to remain in the good graces of Law:
1. Did she know her crimes warranted her execution?
2. Did everyone else know that she was guilty of crimes warranting execution?
3. Was her execution carried out because of her guilt?

If the answer to 1 is "No", it destroys faith and validity of law by making it seem arbitrary, capricious, and chaotic. If the answer to 2 is negative, then faith in law is destroyed for similar reasons to the first - if the populace cannot verify that law is impartial and consistent, then there is no Law at all. And if 3 is negative, it means you're a thug and murderer, not arbiter and conduit of justice.

As for what will happen if you really screw things up? The pathfinder SRD has the answer:
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds.

jedipotter
2014-05-08, 06:54 PM
Well, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this course of action is a bit harsh. If only I could make him understand how extreme his reaction was...

I would never have Torm say something like ''you must read the bad guy thier rights''. That is Tyr or Helm. Torm is more ''die, evil!''

But in my top ten Torm rules I would also have ''you must never kill a helpless foe. Ever.'' So that you could not catch a bad guy, tie them up, and then kill them. No coup for Tormites, ever. A Tormite must slay foes in honorable battle. But that is just my view.

You might want to ask your DM for a set of rules. It is not fair if he says ''you must follow the rules'', but then keeps the rules secret. And if there is a rule you don't like...pick another god.

Rhynn
2014-05-09, 12:05 AM
The lawful alignment isn't for you. Maybe you should try Chaotic Evil instead? There's no such thing as a 'mere' "breach of protocol" to a Lawful God. Protocol is established for a reason - to negate and eliminate chance of human error, and ensure transparency and precedent for handling situations. No lawful god worth his or her alignment would tolerate someone going around killing people willy-nilly without establishing guilt and reason through due processes, regardless of who they are. In order for there to be law, justice, and order, you need precedent, transparency, and consistency. Vigilantism gives none of that. Helm is no more tolerant than Torm in this regard.

This is nonsense. Torm, Tyr, or Ilmater don't expect a paladin to drag an evil necromancer out of his dungeon to a city somewhere to be brought to court and charged and then imprisoned; killing villains like that is perfectly all right.

However, murdering a surrendered enemy, for no other reason than to carry out a threat - which is what the OP did - is definitely not okay for Lawful Good gods. That's definitely breach of dogma stuff right there.

Kalmageddon
2014-05-09, 05:55 AM
This is why I hate alignments.
Let's be honest, there is no clear way to handle the situation the OP described in a lawful manner. It all depends on how extreme and petty you want to be.

Maybe the right thing to do was telling her of her crimes before killing her.
Or maybe the right thing to do was taking her alive to the local authorities to face trial.
Maybe the right thing to do was setting up a trial then and there, ask another PC to act as defense attorney and others as jury and take however long to be absolutely sure that protocol was followed.

These are all Lawful behaviour and they are all complete nonsense.
In the first case, and also in the situation described in the OP, the woman was clearly guilty, she obviously knew she was guilty, she was not repenting or asking for mercy, there was no point in letting her know or letting her live if she wasn't willing to cooperate.

DeltaEmil
2014-05-09, 06:26 AM
I think the punishment wasn't simply for execution without due process, but more importantly, because the character's actions directly led to the death of the person who he was tasked with saving.The person didn't die. Which is why the punishment seems to be only because the cleric didn't follow protocol.

The question should be if the cleric character of acemcjack knew that he has to follow that specific protocol in that situation while under such a circumstance or not.

Sartharina
2014-05-09, 12:32 PM
I figure he'd have problems not because of killing the person, but because of an improper attempt at plea-bargaining.

Garimeth
2014-05-09, 12:46 PM
I think you guys are just trying to justify things at this point.

The punishment happened because his DM made a bad call. Full stop, end of discussion. Even if all of the various justifications flying around work to explain Torm's actions, the DM's implementation was bad. OP needs to talk to the DM out of game about a better way to understand what the DM is expecting from him, be it through a written code of conduct, cutting him some slack this time, and/or choosing another deity. DMs make bad calls all the time, it happens.

Just my 2cp.

Kalmageddon
2014-05-09, 02:11 PM
I think you guys are just trying to justify things at this point.

The punishment happened because his DM made a bad call. Full stop, end of discussion. Even if all of the various justifications flying around work to explain Torm's actions, the DM's implementation was bad. OP needs to talk to the DM out of game about a better way to understand what the DM is expecting from him, be it through a written code of conduct, cutting him some slack this time, and/or choosing another deity. DMs make bad calls all the time, it happens.

Just my 2cp.

Agreed. :smallamused:

Zale
2014-05-09, 08:49 PM
No lawful god worth his or her alignment would tolerate someone going around killing people willy-nilly without establishing guilt and reason through due processes, regardless of who they are.

But killing people willy-nilly without due process is kind of what adventurers do.

Vertharrad
2014-05-09, 10:55 PM
But killing people willy-nilly without due process is kind of what adventurers do.

Torms doesn't if the law is doing what it should be doing. If the law isn't they work to change the laws. Also Torms clerics, paladins, etc. don't kill captured, surrendered, helpless people. So yeah you are getting punished for a reason. During the Time of Troubles Torms church got out of hand, they were against any of non Torm faithful including other good deities and Torms own high priest tricked him. Since then his faith has included humility and humbleness...

Zale
2014-05-09, 11:43 PM
Torms doesn't if the law is doing what it should be doing. If the law isn't they work to change the laws. Also Torms clerics, paladins, etc. don't kill captured, surrendered, helpless people. So yeah you are getting punished for a reason. During the Time of Troubles Torms church got out of hand, they were against any of non Torm faithful including other good deities and Torms own high priest tricked him. Since then his faith has included humility and humbleness...

That must be incredibly tedious.

I suppose we should simply stop callously murdering things because they're trying to kill us. Let's take all the goblins to court and allow them to be tried properly for that massacre we saw them commit. No, no, I know we're chasing down a necromancer who wants to kill the world, but the law is more important.

da_chicken
2014-05-10, 12:06 AM
Hello fellow role-players,

I'd like your opinion on a situation I have with my DM.

We're playing a home brew system loosely based on 3.5 ed. and I play a LN cleric who's sort of a Judge Dredd type - meaning, he sees himself as the law and ruthlessly fights those who would bring chaos to society. Recently we switched between campaign worlds from a Pathfinder campaign to a Forgotten Realms campaign, but our characters remained basically the same.

Whereas my cleric used to worship the god Abadar in the PF setting, I now had to choose a new god, and since we're playing a post Spell-Plague campaign, a lot of the LN gods who might have fit my character type are either gone or have changed sides. I eventually chose to be a cleric of Torm (mainly for the aspects of Helm).

Now, a few sessions ago, our party had raided a compound of some evil guild in Waterdeep,where we have set our new home, and attacked this evil cleric who, according to our information, had kidnapped the daughter of some wizard. After a brutal battle, she tried to flee, at which point I blocked her path using a wall of fire. She surrendered, and we tied her up to question her. I was working under the assumption that time was of essence, and gave her the option to either cooperate or die by the time I count to 5. She, in turn, told me I had 5 seconds to release her or else.

I counted to 5, and when she didn't comply, I coup de graced her. We then found out that she had some sort of spell connecting the kidnapped child's life essence to hers, and when she died, the child who was held somewhere in the compound started dying as well.

Were you granted the authority to perform summary judgement and execution in Waterdeep?

If not, then this cleric -- evil, unlawful, or otherwise -- was protected by the law of Waterdeep. She had surrendered and she was helpless. She was not a threat to you or your person. Torm is a god of justice. Killing to stop someone who is evil and doing evil is acceptable, and arguably a trial by combat, but killing anyone who is helpless is not justice.

Also consider:
a) It's possible that the cleric had no idea of the current whereabouts of the child, in which case you would have killed a helpless person for no reason.
b) It's possible that the cleric was the only person who knew where the child was. In that case, you've lost the child as well unless you both have immediate access to speak with dead and the cleric fails her Will save.
c) It's possible that the cleric's life is magically tied to the child as a dead man's switch (as was the case here). Your actions would then be indirectly responsible for the death of the child.

Exactly what did you hope to gain by executing the cleric? Did destroying the only lead you had left (as presented in your post) somehow make it more likely that you'd find the child? Was there some reason that the cleric needed to die immediately instead of waiting for a trial? Whose needs are met by her death at that time? What purpose does it serve?

dps
2014-05-10, 12:27 AM
You might want to ask your DM for a set of rules. It is not fair if he says ''you must follow the rules'', but then keeps the rules secret.

IMO, this is the crux of the matter. If your character's god is going to be strict about following the rules, you have to know what the rules are. So if the DM had let you know that you were supposed to not execute someone without following the correct protocols, and you did so anyway, then punishment of some sort is entirely reasonable. OTOH, if you didn't know, the DM is just being a jackass about it--as someone else posted, he should have let you know OOC or had your god let you know IC before you executed the villian.

Sartharina
2014-05-10, 11:27 AM
That must be incredibly tedious.

I suppose we should simply stop callously murdering things because they're trying to kill us. Let's take all the goblins to court and allow them to be tried properly for that massacre we saw them commit. No, no, I know we're chasing down a necromancer who wants to kill the world, but the law is more important.Making murder inconvenient and tedious is better than taking life carelessly and indiscriminately, especially when operating under incomplete information.

How dare Due Process and Rule of Law get in the way of executing the treasonous Emperor, servant of the Forces of Chaos, who has subverted the courts, deceived his Paladin Guard, associates with brigands and murderers, and betrayed the city to a Lich and the encroaching army!

Zale
2014-05-10, 02:02 PM
Making murder inconvenient and tedious is better than taking life carelessly and indiscriminately, especially when operating under incomplete information.

How dare Due Process and Rule of Law get in the way of executing the treasonous Emperor, servant of the Forces of Chaos, who has subverted the courts, deceived his Paladin Guard, associates with brigands and murderers, and betrayed the city to a Lich and the encroaching army!


I agree with you in general and very much disapprove of anyone trying to take the law into their own hands in real life, but here's the point I'm trying to make.

D&D is fundamentally a game about violence. Generally, violence is the go-to answer for solving problems. Violence and murder without any hint of respect to local laws is something that many D&D players do. I don't imagine most people, upon facing a group of bandits, will stop to attempt to capture them without killing them.

Unless I'm very mistaken and every group that plays pauses to ponder the moral implications of murdering scores of enemies.

da_chicken
2014-05-10, 02:30 PM
I agree with you in general and very much disapprove of anyone trying to take the law into their own hands in real life, but here's the point I'm trying to make.

D&D is fundamentally a game about violence. Generally, violence is the go-to answer for solving problems. Violence and murder without any hint of respect to local laws is something that many D&D players do. I don't imagine most people, upon facing a group of bandits, will stop to attempt to capture them without killing them.

Unless I'm very mistaken and every group that plays pauses to ponder the moral implications of murdering scores of enemies.

I agree that that's the idea of the game, but every game I've ever played in has drawn a line between combat and non-combat deaths (which is largely a metagame distinction, but there it is nevertheless). Killing someone when they're helpless and after they've surrendered to you? That's probably an evil act. A LN cleric probably doesn't mind, but his LG deity probably does.

If we decide not to use modern morals and ethics, breaking a flag of surrender is even more unconscionable; unconditional surrender is a modern concept.

Aedilred
2014-05-10, 02:31 PM
I agree with you in general and very much disapprove of anyone trying to take the law into their own hands in real life, but here's the point I'm trying to make.

D&D is fundamentally a game about violence. Generally, violence is the go-to answer for solving problems. Violence and murder without any hint of respect to local laws is something that many D&D players do. I don't imagine most people, upon facing a group of bandits, will stop to attempt to capture them without killing them.

Unless I'm very mistaken and every group that plays pauses to ponder the moral implications of murdering scores of enemies.
I don't think anyone's saying that killing people in actual combat is not generally ok (depending on the usual factors, obviously) in a D&D game. But summary execution of prisoners, as happened here, is a completely different kettle of fish.

Zale
2014-05-10, 02:56 PM
I don't think anyone's saying that killing people in actual combat is not generally ok (depending on the usual factors, obviously) in a D&D game. But summary execution of prisoners, as happened here, is a completely different kettle of fish.

I'm not arguing that you should kill prisoners.

I'm saying that if you expect your players to drag every sapient being to court after they finish fighting them, then they're probably going to stop fighting things. Which while nice in a societal context, can be rather annoying if that is not what they were expecting from the game.

Sartharina
2014-05-10, 03:18 PM
I'm not arguing that you should kill prisoners.

I'm saying that if you expect your players to drag every sapient being to court after they finish fighting them, then they're probably going to stop fighting things. Which while nice in a societal context, can be rather annoying if that is not what they were expecting from the game.

Generally, there shouldn't be people alive when you're done fighting them. Even then, most adventurers are given provisional judicial authority as a perk of the job. However, executing someone for their crimes, and killing someone simply because they refuse to cooperate with you are two different things entirely. (Even Miko had the sense to declare the sentence before executing Shojo. She just happened to misread the judge's verdict)

tomandtish
2014-05-10, 08:05 PM
Acemcjack, a clarification (if you don’t mind). In reading your posts in this thread, did you as a player know that your character was supposed to “tell the captured cleric what she was being accused of, and that she is being punished in the name of Torm”.

I ask because in reading your posts I never actually see you say that you didn’t know that you were violating protocol, and any advice you are given needs to be based on whether or not you knew this. The closest we get is (I bolded for emphasis)


The only issue my DM, as Torm, had with my actions, was that I did not follow the proper protocol for dispensing punishment. Instead of saying to the evil cleric who had captured the little girl, "I judge thee for this and this crime, and find you guilty in the name of Torm etc. etc.", and only then proceed to kill her, I just killed her on the spot when she refused to cooperate with me and tell me where the girl was being held. As I said, at the time, I had been operating under the assumption that any time wasted would risk the girl's life even more, and hadn't considered there was a spell tying the two, the evil cleric and the girl, together. But as I said, again, I did manage to save the girl in the end.

So if I failed my duty, I don't know which duty was that. To follow protocol?

Since I’ve seen several people state that the DM needs to have made sure the rules are clear, this is important. Because while I absolutely agree the rules should be clear, I can’t tell from your statements that they weren’t. It reads more like you knew you were breaking the protocol and chose to anyway. But all I can tell for certain is that when you broke one, you were hit with a much harsher punishment then you feel you deserve.

If you didn’t know about the requirement in the first place, then there’s absolutely a problem here. Any player who plays a character with a code of conduct needs to have it clearly defined so there are no surprises.

However, if you did know then that’s a little different. For my 2 cents, I generally will tell a playerwhen we create the code that certain code violations are minor, serious, or critical. I then develop penalties for code violations in line with those rankings. But the player is not automatically entitled to know what the penalty is.

So looking at your example, it would have clearly been in your code ahead of time that you must do this every time when dispensing justice, and failure to do so is a serious violation. But you would not know what the actual penalty is.

Gildedragon
2014-05-10, 08:19 PM
So the problem is in the ultimatum and subsequent execution.
A couple things are to be taken into account:

The execution was merely to satisfy the cleric's pride. The ultimatum need not be so harsh to begin with, nor need it have been followed through. The prisoner dead and the prisoner thinking you are a wuss both have the same information result; except one has a dead prisoner. The prisoner was not killed because of their evil deeds, they were killed because they did not bend to the ultimatum.

This strikes me as the "rot in mortal hearts" Torm sends his clerics to fight.
When one also takes into account Torm takes his clerics' failures personally, as diminishing Him, withdrawing spells is not remiss.

Looking back one wonders why no mention of a diplomacy check or intimidate check was made.

Angelmaker
2014-05-11, 08:26 AM
At first I was about to side with the player's side of view. The punishment is really nerfing your character. But reading excellent posts on how Torm handles things, there is a REALLY strong point for your DM's side of view.

Overall i have to say that i think your DM handles things nicely. Punishing players is hard to do, mainly becuase it is frowned upon as a personal power trip. But in some cases like this one it might be justified to keep the context of the game.

If i were in your position i would bring bring this issue open to the game table, openly admitting that i might have made a mistake here and i'd ask for some slack cut since we had a conversion from another system and it was my first transgression. Not being absolutely clear about the tenets of one's divine patron is where skills like knowledge religion come in and I'd ask if i could use that skill in future to learn more about the consequences of my actions.

Overall, again, tough situation you are in because of the system conversion and patron change, but i can see Your DM having a strong point here. Ask for what i detailed above.

acemcjack
2014-05-11, 09:35 AM
Acemcjack, a clarification (if you don’t mind). In reading your posts in this thread, did you as a player know that your character was supposed to “tell the captured cleric what she was being accused of, and that she is being punished in the name of Torm”.

I ask because in reading your posts I never actually see you say that you didn’t know that you were violating protocol, and any advice you are given needs to be based on whether or not you knew this. The closest we get is (I bolded for emphasis)


I did not, in fact, know that I was supposed to follow that protocol. Though my DM would probably argue that I should have known better.

I admit my actions might have been harsh. I probably could have settled for severing one of her hands instead of her head, to try and make her cooperate.

But there are 2 things to consider:
1. The evil cleric's response to me, when I threatened to kill her on the count of 5 was that I had 5 seconds to release her or else... She was a high level cleric - probably level 15 or so (whereas I am only level 13), so even though she was subdued, I really didn't know whether or not she had some trick up her sleeve to reverse the situation.
2. As I said, I was under the assumption that the time factor was critical. Dragging the evil cleric to court for due process (or dragging her around with us while we search for the girl) seemed like a waste of precious time. That's why I did not bother with protocol.

I was asked whether anyone granted me the authority to perform summary judgement and execution in Waterdeep.

The answer is no. But if so, why does the DM expect me to use force to bring down the guild? That's the job for the local authorities, isn't it? He should be punishing me for breaking and entering too, and for looting the corpses, shouldn't he?
But he specifically said that the only reason I was punished was because I did not follow the protocol for executing someone on behalf of Torm.

Gildedragon
2014-05-11, 10:42 AM
What to do with a uncooperative spellcaster: Tie up, gag, blindfold, give a subdual damage KO (say a non-lethal CdG). You can leave her tied up there to her Or Else or stuff her in a bag of holding left somewhat open.

Talk to the DM, also note there is a spell for this; it is called atonement

For future: invest in anti magic shackles for when you next fight spellcasters

Also: Sense motive is a skill, use it
Also: don't go torturing your prisoners. That will prolly piss Torm off more than the kill. Maybe if you were a LN cleric... Or a grey guard...

Eric Tolle
2014-05-11, 03:53 PM
D&D is fundamentally a game about violence. Generally, violence is the go-to answer for solving problems.

Hardly. Original D&D was about getting the gold out of the dungeon alive. In that respect violence was very much an act of last resort, and was generally a bad idea. The same goes for most D&D games I'm in, including the 4E one, odd as that may seem. Violence as an excuse in and of itself is always a Chaotic act.

That said, there were two levels of screw ups in this game. The cleric killing the prisoner, no matter how it was justified, was doing a chaotic act, shading into evil. Requiring an act of contrition and atonement to regain spells would be appropriate. And gosh, those wimps at WOTC took all the hard work of atonement away by making it a spell.

On the GMs part, he screwed up by not making the expectations of the cleric clear. Communication between GMs and players is vital, especially so when playing a cleric or paladin. At the very least he should have required a low-difficulty Knowledge: Religion roll to understand the action should be something the good does not approve of. The good in question does not seem like one that would hide his rules from his worshippers, rather they should be posted in every temple in 144-point font.

As the player, at this point I would've annoying the GM by asking before doing anything whether this action meets the approval of the god. Because vengeance is not just the province of gods.

Aedilred
2014-05-11, 03:56 PM
I admit my actions might have been harsh. I probably could have settled for severing one of her hands instead of her head, to try and make her cooperate.

I'm still not really seeing the "it is essential that the prisoner be maimed or otherwise made to suffer" angle here.

Having enemies surrender is often a bit of an issue in this sort of game, because it's difficult to know what to do with them. However, killing them out of hand, torturing them, maiming them etc. is pretty much never the right answer, certainly not for a Good character or the follower of a Good god. Most Lawful characters and gods would probably have an issue with it too.

If you want an example, there's one in OOTS, as it happens, when Elan captures Kubota. Everyone knows Kubota is guilty and the likely sentence is death. He also explicitly states that his intention is to game the system, stall for time and generally abuse the leniency of his captors as much as possible. But Elan - and for that matter the paladins who later appear - are still keen to follow due process, because it's the right thing to do (and those characters are Good/Lawful Good). Killing him in battle would be one thing, but a defenceless prisoner is quite another. V's solution to the situation was certainly expedient and perhaps the ends could be argued to have justified the means, but that was also fairly explicitly the action of someone who'd lost their moral compass, was neither Good nor Lawful, and that's why Elan told such ridiculous lies to cover it up.

tomandtish
2014-05-11, 05:35 PM
I did not, in fact, know that I was supposed to follow that protocol. Though my DM would probably argue that I should have known better.

Then as mentioned before, this is where clarification upfront between DM and player is needed. I do agree that it is concerning to punish a player for not having their character do something that they were never told was a requirement for their character to do. I suggest a calm sitdown with your DM and ask for a written code of conduct for priests of Torm, as well as reconsideration of the punishment considering you were never told about this requirement.


I admit my actions might have been harsh. I probably could have settled for severing one of her hands instead of her head, to try and make her cooperate.

Killing her may or may not be justified depending on your DM's interpretation of Torm, but I have a hard time coming up with any interpretation of him that would allow this action. Execution is one thing. Torture/intentional maining ia another. :smalleek:

Sartharina
2014-05-12, 01:13 PM
Actually - with her own threat to you, killing her should have been perfectly acceptable. After all - 5 seconds is 1 Free Action short of a round.

Gildedragon
2014-05-12, 01:18 PM
Actually - with her own threat to you, killing her should have been perfectly acceptable. After all - 5 seconds is 1 Free Action short of a round.

Actually the "or else" seems to have aluded to the deadman switch not a treat but a fact. Release me in 5 or else [i will die and with me the girl]

SoC175
2014-05-12, 02:06 PM
That must be incredibly tedious. That's why being evil is so tempting. Being good is not about your comfort

I suppose we should simply stop callously murdering things because they're trying to kill us. Let's take all the goblins to court and allow them to be tried properly for that massacre we saw them commit. No, no, I know we're chasing down a necromancer who wants to kill the world, but the law is more important.If you kill them during fending off their attempt to kill them that's one thing. If you defeat them without killing them and then kill them as your prisoners, expect a few words from your good deity

Devils_Advocate
2014-05-13, 04:30 AM
I'm not entirely clear on the situation. Did your cleric have to begin worshiping a new god due to traveling to a plane of existence where his former deity has no power, or is this a new character heavily based on an old one? It seems plausible for your character to be ignorant about his god's particular requirements if and only if he was never properly indoctrinated. If this was something your character would know, then your DM is at fault for failing to provide the character knowledge necessary to roleplay your character properly.

Unless it isn't doctrine at all, and Torm is just punishing your cleric based on his weirdly specific personal opinion of exactly how the situation should have been handled. In which case he's a caricature based on the ridiculous stereotype that all Realms gods are capricious pricks, even to their own followers, even the ostensibly just ones.

On the other hand, while your cleric may not be at fault here, his attitude does seem potentially problematic. Being Lawful means that you follow the rules. I think that that much is pretty clear, even if what exactly constitutes "the rules" is phenomenally vague.


My character wants to bring order to the world, but understands that he can't always play by the rules to achieve this goal. He needs a god that favors order, but isn't all bent on protocol and bringing people to justice in a court of law. I can't have the god sitting on my shoulder and telling me this or that isn't proper, even though it IS just.
So he feels that he needs to be able to act however he sees fit in order to prevent people from running around acting however they see fit?

No, cleric, you are the chaos.

Maybe you could suggest Planescape as the next setting for your group to try. Your character would probably fit right in with the Mercykillers. Has he considered dressing like a winged mammal of some sort? I hear that criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot...

acemcjack
2014-05-13, 05:55 AM
My cleric did indeed start worshiping Torm after our group was transferred to the Forgotten Realms. He was not indoctrinated properly, or at least, we did not role play this part in any way.

As for Lawful following the rules always, this isn't always the case. Lawful characters might follow a personal code, not necessarily the rules of every locality they visit.

If, as a lawful character, I must follow the rules of Waterdeep to the letter, I shouldn't have taken upon myself to raid the guild's hideout to save the little girl, but rather send the local authorities to deal with the situation. But my DM does expect me to do that, and doesn't punish me for it.

Aedilred
2014-05-13, 09:25 AM
If, as a lawful character, I must follow the rules of Waterdeep to the letter, I shouldn't have taken upon myself to raid the guild's hideout to save the little girl, but rather send the local authorities to deal with the situation. But my DM does expect me to do that, and doesn't punish me for it.
There's a difference between taking the law into your own hands, and just breaking the law, though, even if it's a fine distinction. The former is pretty much expected for many Lawful characters. But that doesn't mean that once you've crossed a couple of procedural lines regarding whether you have authority to perform this rescue or bring the perpetrators of a crime to justice, you have carte blanche to do whatever - specifically, murder whoever - you like in disregard of all normal laws, customs regarding treatment of prisoners, etc. just because you find it easier. That's Neutral, if not Chaotic.

Sure, you might have a personal code (even if clerics are expected to align this with their god's to an extent), but unless that code includes "anyone who doesn't do what I tell them immediately should be killed" or "if I make a threat I must follow it through even if it was a completely inappropriate threat" I'm not really seeing it here.

Sartharina
2014-05-14, 12:30 AM
Actually, it depends on the kind of personal code the person follow. However, they still need to make that code 'public knowledge' in order for it to be lawful, instead of arbitrary and chaotic (See - Superman and Post-WWII Captain America)

Gildedragon
2014-05-14, 12:49 AM
The difference between a Lawful personal code and a Chaotic one is in tightness
A lawful code has more rigid expectations. Chaotic codes allow leeway, nothing is set in stone (though some things might as well be: a cg character would not be remiss in saying "i will not harm my guests") and rules give way to circumstance and general notions of "properness" [sic].
Lawful codes are more about establishing constraints on behavior, and a lawful character will seldom deviate from these strictures, even if they are not commonly known. Codes in L characters maintain coherence with ideals of propriety, and tend to guide rather than suggest.

"I will not do such and such" or "only if this or that is the case then I will..." whereas a chaotic personal code is "I'll avoid doing this or that." or "in some situations I will not... unless I ought to"