Does this qualify as an "extraordinary sacrifice" for Saint-hood?

[Jowgen]

One of the requirements to acquiring the Saint template (BoED) is:


Must make an extraordinary sacrifice (not necessarily his or her life) for the good of another

My character has met the other requirements, and has recently done something that I think may qualify enough for me to argue for it with the DM, but I wanted to get some opinions on this.

The story:

During the last quest, we set out and succeeded in finding the missing King of a large city, rescuing him from some Dragons. We discovered that a high-ranking guard NPC we'd been dealing with was responsible for the King's disappearance, having tricked him into getting captured by said dragons. This guard, as we discovered, had been pressured into doing this by the city's criminal elements, whom he owed lots of money. In addition to loot, the quest reward was a considerable measure of law-enforcing authority/autonomy within the city. The current quest deals with smoking out said criminal element.

The guard was set to be publicly executed for high treason as a sort of strong message spectacle. My exalted character went into the prison to talk to him, having to leave his Kaorti Resin Spiked Chain and two +1 Footspikes at the door. In talking to the condemned guard, my character verified the following:

- The Guard regretted his actions (alignment verified as either chaotic or true neutral)
- The mob-bosses who gave his orders were intent on skipping town
- The mob-bosses planned to take advantage of his execution spectacle as a distraction to move some of their operation out of town
- The Guard would prefer to die immediately, as a means to deny the mob to use his execution to their advantage and thus gain a measure of redemption for his actions

Breaking the guard out was not possilbe, so, using his natural weapon, my character overcame the 4 other guards (not injuring them), killed the condemned guard as per his wishes, and busted out of prison. My character is now considered a disappointment, but also the target of a manhunt by the city's authorities. Also, his weapons are gone.

So for the good of this regretful condemned former enemy, my character sacrificed an exceedingly rare weapon, 2 reasonably valuable weapons, and his status as a respected special law-enforcer, becoming a very wanted criminal in the public eye instead.

If you were DMing this scenario, would you consider this scenario to constitute the required "extraordinary sacrifice for the good of another"?

[Bronk]

So, your character sort of sacrificed his equipment, but did it to kill a good guy? That doesn't sound very saint-like to me.

The sacrifice bit is the kind of thing you should talk to your DM about beforehand, since they have to OK the template.

Edit: On the other hand, that's a great redemption for the guard! Try to do something like that, but without the murder.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I don't know, I find the whole mercy (?) killing a bit questionable. An atonement spell, followed by a conversion of the punishment to exile, would make more sense. Naturally, the guard then betrays your trust and runs (not out of evil, but there are other reasons, such as lynch mobs on country roads), and you take his punishment in his stead. After torture and getting your head cut off, you rise as a saint, and the crowd goes wild.

It does depend on how your deity looks at honourable death. If what you did is roughly equivalent to ritual suicide, and indeed a good way for the guard to regain honour, you're probably okay.

[Khatoblepas]

This sounds like a pretty ordinary sacrifice to me, something that players do in the natural course of their playing. You haven't lost these weapons forever - they're just in the hands of the city guard, and you lost face with a vengeful community, but these don't really count as an extraordinary sacrifice.

An extraordinary sacrifice would involve something with more pomp and circumstance. If you went to the gallows in his place, without resistance, with humility and dignity even as they make a spectacle of you instead, that might qualify for Sainthood - if the Guard was truly Good at the end and this death truly was poignant and tragic enough.

What you made was a decision - there is still time to get your weapons back, you haven't sacrificed anything substantial. In order to be Sainted, you need to suffer a great deal more for Good.

[Bronk]

Actually, now that I think about it, you might want to check with your DM to make sure you're still Exalted, and maybe that you're still good aligned too. Hopefully you didn't just invalidate all your exalted feats.

[Jowgen]

Some points in no particular order.

- Guard wasn't a good guy, just a neutral guy who got wound up into committing high-treason.
- Getting him out was a complete non-option due to how the prison was set up.
- Killing him wasn't confirmed to be necessary for the quest to proceed. It may have bought us some time, but we weren't in dire need of it, and we might have been able to delay the execution through other means.
- The "Mercy Kill" was technically an assisted suicide, since what killed him was him choosing to fail his save against dying from massive damage.
- The DM's only response to clarifying the sacrifice aspect up front was that he was looking forward to me making role-play opportunities for that.
- The "good" that was done for the guard was a) allowing him to atone, hopefully allowing his soul entry into Elysium as opposed to the Outlands or even Baator b) preserving his dignity and free will by letting him die in a manner of his own choosing that didn't involve being killed for public propaganda.
- For the material sacrifice, there might admittedly be a chance of getting my equipment back, but not until after we solve the quest, meaning I'll be without it for a number of BBEG battles; so it's a reduction in my survival chances as well as a possible permanent loss.
- Additional note, the Kaorti Resin weapon had considerable personal value to my character, to the point that it was a key plot-element in his backstory. So it's not just wealth, but something emotionally significant that might be lost.
- For the non-material sacrifice, it isn't just that I've lost face, I went from having a position of power within the city (that of a special rank 1 guard, for hierarchy purposes), which gave me the right to more or less do as I please without the guards questioning me, to being treated as the same type of criminal the quest has us hunting.


Disclaimer: I can respect views suggesting that said sacrifices fall within the range of what constitutes "expected" sacrifices made as part of adventuring. I am looking for different takes on this thing, after all.

[Extra Anchovies]

Hm. That explanation makes things seem a bit more favorable. Were I DM, I'd let you qualify if you also restored the dead guard's reputation as a good man (I'm assuming that he was generally well-regarded before the whole high treason thing).

[KillianHawkeye]

Actually, now that I think about it, you might want to check with your DM to make sure you're still Exalted, and maybe that you're still good aligned too. Hopefully you didn't just invalidate all your exalted feats.

Yeah, I agree. While I personally might not rate the killing of somebody who allegedly wants to die as an Evil act per se, it's also not a Good act and definitely not "for the good of another."

In the OP's place, I would have tried finding some way to save the blackmailed guardsman, either by breaking him out of prison or by applying diplomacy/bribery/social pressure to have his punishment lessened, which would also have eliminated the possibility of the bad guys using the execution as a distraction to escape. In my view, what he did certainly involved a sacrifice of sorts, but it did not uphold the highest ideals that I would expect a saint (or any exalted good character, for that matter) to abide by. To me, it felt more like taking the neutral option; i.e., making the best of a bad situation, trying to do what's right when all the achievable options are wrong.


EDIT: (OP posted while I was posting)


- Guard wasn't a good guy, just a neutral guy who got wound up into committing high-treason.

That's entirely irrelevant.


- Getting him out was a complete non-option due to how the prison was set up.
- Killing him wasn't confirmed to be necessary for the quest to proceed. It may have bought us some time, but we weren't in dire need of it, and we might have been able to delay the execution through other means.

Given these two facts, I would certainly have gone for Option 2 as an exalted Good character. :smallconfused:


- The "Mercy Kill" was technically an assisted suicide, since what killed him was him choosing to fail his save against dying from massive damage.

Perhaps you could have convinced him that death wasn't his only choice? I can see that he believed that it was, and given that belief, he chose to try to end his life on his own terms. That's respectable, but I doubt that it's enough for atonement, or that helping him was necessarily for the greater good.


- The "good" that was done for the guard was a) allowing him to atone, hopefully allowing his soul entry into Elysium as opposed to the Outlands or even Baator b) preserving his dignity and free will by letting him die in a manner of his own choosing that didn't involve being killed for public propaganda.

a) See above.
b) I'll give you this, but again, I'd expect somebody going for sainthood to have done better than merely preserving one's dignity in death.


- For the material sacrifice, there might admittedly be a chance of getting my equipment back, but not until after we solve the quest, meaning I'll be without it for a number of BBEG battles; so it's a reduction in my survival chances as well as a possible permanent loss.
- Additional note, the Kaorti Resin weapon had considerable personal value to my character, to the point that it was a key plot-element in his backstory. So it's not just wealth, but something emotionally significant that might be lost.

Yeah, I wouldn't count this as any kind of sacrifice if there is some chance of getting the things back later, which there is. Even if the items are important to you, losing something as a result of doing something isn't a sacrifice, it's just an unfortunate result. One which can be made up for relatively easily.


- For the non-material sacrifice, it isn't just that I've lost face, I went from having a position of power within the city (that of a special rank 1 guard, for hierarchy purposes), which gave me the right to more or less do as I please without the guards questioning me, to being treated as the same type of criminal the quest has us hunting.

Here is where I consider that you actually made some kind of sacrifice by becoming a criminal and losing your power and status. It's possible that, even if you can earn some redemption in the eyes of the government, that they won't ever fully trust you again. That's a real loss, I'm just not sure if it would be enough to earn sainthood even if it had clearly been for a good cause, which is questionable.



I suppose I might just have a different idea of what ideals a saint or an exalted character should espouse. I certainly wouldn't expect a real person to live up to these expectations, but this is a fantasy game with magic and actual forces of Good and Evil and such.

[Jowgen]

I can certainly see the argument that it wasn't the "highest standard" choice, but rather the neutral "best of bad situation" choice. There were less then 12 hours before the public execution, and the idea of getting them to lessen/delay the sentence was the longest of long shots. To illustrate:

The entire government was completely set on the fact that he had to die in the way that they envisioned. This became really clear based on how much security they had on him, how much they advertised the upcoming execution, how much security they planned to have at the execution, and lastly how deeeeeeeeeeeply pissed of they all got at the fact that I caused him to die in a different manner. The city was plastered in wanted posters by dawn. They're actually having the local mages college build a special cage for me in case of capture. That'll cost more than covering up the death and trying to raise him from the dead for re-execution would have cost. I wonder whether even the King himself would have had enough political power to get them to delay or even stop the execution, considering that he'd have to go full dictator mode to over-rule literally everyone else.

To break him out, I would have had to break his restraints (which I could tell couldn't be broken by me), fought off the initial guards, fought every other guard in the maximally fortified prison while protecting him, handled whatever special back-up they'd send, gotten him out of the city and set him up with some means to escape a massive man-hunt. In the process, I would have had to at least incapacitate the vast majority of the prison's (if not the whole city's) forces, hurting a lot of innocents just doing their jobs and leaving a bloated prison full of dangerous people essentially unguarded in the process. Even if all of that had been possible, the final crux is that I don't think that saving the guy would have been the right thing to do.

The Condemned Guard was condemned for a reason, he consciously choose to commit a crime for which the punishment he was aware of, betraying all his codes and vows in the process; and was found guilty by his peers. Now true, an exalted good character should be inclined to offer mercy, and forgiveness in the face of repentance. Breaking him out and giving him a second chance would have been one way of doing that, but it would have involved committing the "lesser" evils described above, and would have done nothing for the state of the condemned guard's soul. Killing him, on the other hand, was at worst a neutral act that meant that no one else would get hurt, the prison's security would have been maintained, and the guard's soul could find true redemption. I personally think this is clearly the greater form of forgiveness and mercy, not to mention that redeeming another creature has been described as arguably the greatest act of good that can be committed.

Regarding the material sacrifice, I can certainly see that they are likely inconsequential, considering that they're not nessecarily gone for good. However, if they did end up being lost for good (i.e. relationship with the city doesn't get patched up), would they then change to something sacrificed?

For the non-material sacrifice, I hadn't actually considered the trust aspect. They trusted my character enough to let him see a highly important prisoner on the eve of his execution, and I completely and utterly broke that trust. Even if my character where to prevent the 2nd coming of Vecna in the heart of the city, there is no way in hell they'll ever trust my character to not go against them based on his own morals ever again. That's a door that's completely and utterly closed.

[KillianHawkeye]

I guess I just don't see how letting him die with dignity helps to redeem his soul any more than facing his execution would have done. I mean, sure, preventing the bad guys from using the public execution as a distraction is a good thing, but now your character cannot help to stop them anymore. And from what you just said, it sounds more like the guards are more concerned with catching you than finding the "real" villains, so they might still be getting a distraction out of this. Seems to me that if anybody is making a sacrifice in this situation, it's the prisoner, and you're just helping.

I do think there might be some bad DMing going on if EVERY person in the city's government is in total agreement about anything, and if the King himself might not even have the authority to stop or delay an execution. That... doesn't sound like a situation I can relate to. Does this place have unusual cultural values (or at least ones that are atypical of the standard D&D setting)? Or could there be some kind of conspiracy or mind-control at work? How subtle is your DM with stuff like that?

Of course, everything I'm saying is based on my own opinions of morality. It's a very subjective topic. It's obvious that you made the best of a bad situation, but is it saint-worthy? In the end, only your DM can decide that, but I'm just not sold on it.

EDIT: I dunno, I hope this is helpful.... :smallsigh:

[Jowgen]

I guess I just don't see how letting him die with dignity helps to redeem his soul any more than facing his execution would have done. I mean, sure, preventing the bad guys from using the public execution as a distraction is a good thing, but now your character cannot help to stop them anymore.

The redemption is meant to stem from his choice. When asked if one wants to die now or later, he could have been a major selfish coward and begged to just bust him out, been a regular selfish coward wishing to prolong his life as much as possible, or as he did, decide to be brave and cut his life short for a good cause. He choose a good act of sacrifice, unknowing if it would actually benefit his afterlife. The thought of him maybe being able to help simply didn't occur, probably because busting out successfully was such an outlandish prospect.


And from what you just said, it sounds more like the guards are more concerned with catching you than finding the "real" villains, so they might still be getting a distraction out of this. Seems to me that if anybody is making a sacrifice in this situation, it's the prisoner, and you're just helping.

From what we gather, the benefit of the execution would have been that the attention of the guards and civilians would have been focused there. Now, instead of mega-guarding the prison or market-place, they're swarming all over; meaning a massive rise in boots on the ground. The guards might not be looking for the criminals, but if the criminals try anything even remotely big, they are not infinitely more likely to be noticed; and are thus much more likely to proceed slower and with caution. The guard certainly did make a sacrifice, but that's largely a sepperate issue.


I do think there might be some bad DMing going on if EVERY person in the city's government is in total agreement about anything, and if the King himself might not even have the authority to stop or delay an execution. That... doesn't sound like a situation I can relate to. Does this place have unusual cultural values (or at least ones that are atypical of the standard D&D setting)? Or could there be some kind of conspiracy or mind-control at work? How subtle is your DM with stuff like that?

The city has a King on top but he heavily relies on a council of advisors, which includes things like the head of the mages college, the King's brother and such. They ran the city in the King's absence. I'm not 100% clear on the finer points, but it seems to be a constitutional monarchy with some degree of power separation. In this particular case, I easily see how they're in agreement, as the condemned guard betrayed the system and was responsible for making all their lives a whole lot harder for an extended period of time. The death sentence was already inevitable by law, and the decision to make the execution a propaganda message probably came rather easily due to their feelings of anger and betrayed-ness. In terms of mind-control, we have a very paranoid beguiler in the party who quadruple-checks this kind of stuff for us, so that's not the case.


Of course, everything I'm saying is based on my own opinions of morality. It's a very subjective topic. It's obvious that you made the best of a bad situation, but is it saint-worthy? In the end, only your DM can decide that, but I'm just not sold on it.

EDIT: I dunno, I hope this is helpful.... :smallsigh:

It's cool, I get it, thank you very much for your contribution, it's very much helpfull :smallsmile:

[Anlashok]

This is a Chaotic choice and definitely not a Good choice.

Whether it's neutral or evil is a little fuzzier. Potentially Neutral because he wanted to end his life and you helped him. Potentially Evil because you're killing a more or less defenseless individual in cold blood to advance your own agenda.


Unequivocally evil if you went in there knowing you couldn't bust him out and knowing that you couldn't allow the execution to happen, so you're more or less going in there with the intent of murdering him for your own ends. This is actually starting to be where I'm leaning right now.


been a regular selfish coward wishing to prolong his life as much as possible, or as he did, decide to be brave and cut his life short for a good cause.
I think you could flip that around pretty easily though: Choosing to face his punishment with dignity is the brave thing and choosing to take the quickest and easiest way out to spare himself the humiliation of a public execution is cowardly and selfish. Especially if he was also aware of how improbable escape or leniency actually was.

[Jowgen]

This is a Chaotic choice and definitely not a Good choice.

Whether it's neutral or evil is a little fuzzier. Potentially Neutral because he wanted to end his life and you helped him. Potentially Evil because you're killing a more or less defenseless individual in cold blood to advance your own agenda.


Unequivocally evil if you went in there knowing you couldn't bust him out and knowing that you couldn't allow the execution to happen, so you're more or less going in there with the intent of murdering him for your own ends. This is actually starting to be where I'm leaning right now.


I think you could flip that around pretty easily though: Choosing to face his punishment with dignity is the brave thing and choosing to take the quickest and easiest way out to spare himself the humiliation of a public execution is cowardly and selfish. Especially if he was also aware of how improbable escape or leniency actually was.

Granted on the chaotic thing. I don't think you could consider him defenseless, not only because of the guards he had, but because all he had to do to protect himself was to say "No, don't kill me.". The desired results of his death became his agenda as well when he consented.

Going in, the only intention was to see if he had anything else to say and offer some emotional/spiritual support. Preventing the execution only became a considered option when he himself declared how it would aid in combating the city's evil.

Choosing to go along with his decreed execution would certainly have been a brave lawful thing, but in no way a good thing. It probably would be classed as Lawful Evil, as he knew that in following the law, he'd be aiding the city's evil by using his death as a distraction. In a way, he'd have been an evil martyr to the city's mobs, which seems like a ticket straight to Baator.

[Bronk]

Whoa, there was a lot of good points by KillianHawkeye there!

It all comes down to your DM of course, but here's my simplified way of looking at it. If it was something Captain America or Superman would normally do with a clear conscience, it was a good, heroic act.

If it was something that they wouldn't do, but someone like the Wolverine would do, like killing a guy because it was more expedient than diplomacy, then it may have still been necessary, but anti-heroic.

[Jowgen]

Whoa, there was a lot of good points by KillianHawkeye there!

It all comes down to your DM of course, but here's my simplified way of looking at it. If it was something Captain America or Superman would normally do with a clear conscience, it was a good, heroic act.

If it was something that they wouldn't do, but someone like the Wolverine would do, like killing a guy because it was more expedient than diplomacy, then it may have still been necessary, but anti-heroic.

Cap is a pretty clear case in this.

Yeah, we compromised. Sometimes in ways that made us not sleep so well. But we did it so the people could be free.

In war, he almost certainly was in situations where lethally wounded allies asked him to give them a quick death, which certainly falls in the realm of what he'd do. If the Marvel Universe had the equivalent of becoming a Petitioner after death, and/or if listening to the death request were to do good, then that choice would have been much easier for him. Don't know any specific instances of something like this happening though.

Superman is a harder one. He's got a pretty solid no kill policy (lets ignore the latest movie on that...), and I don't know if he's ever been in a situation where someone asked him to be killed for a good cause. More of a Marvel guy myself.

Wolverine wouldn't have cared if the guy if wanted to die in the first place. If a bad guy was going to die shortly anyway, but killing him now helped things overall, Wolverine would not bat an eye.