What -would- a Good Aligned Cleric (or similar) say to Vaarsuvius?

[INoKnowNames]

This is a question I've long since had in my head for a while, and while it's not exactly a topical question, nor one that's safe from catching flames, I'm not sure if there's anywhere else that's better to present it, and the longer I wait to do so the less topical it may become.

Vaarsuvius performed several acts that would alone probably count as a Moral Event Horizon from a Religious Character's point of view (assuming Good alignment, mind):
-Consorting with the lowest Fiends to exist;
-Shackling multiple damned spirits to his own soul;
-The above two coming at the -cost- of his soul;
-Evil Magic, particularly Evil Epic Level Magic;
-As per the above, Murder, including of innocents, on a Global scale;
-And with Roy, many of his other actions and comments made during the Soul-Splice period were not particularly healthy ("Disintegrate was the spell you requested, was it not? Besides, I wanted you to feel the pain your son felt as I shredded him into a trillion lifeless specks of ash.")

What does an Agent of Good say to him? Is there anything that -can- be said to him? I tried imagining this sort of thing from the point of view from one of my own characters, and I honestly don't think I -could- respond to Vaarsuvius. Horror and stunned shock is about the only thing I can think of. His actions weren't a mistake. He may have been mislead about what he could have done to save his family (I -think- I remember reading that the alternate plan that was presented to him wouldn't actually have worked), but he choose to take his revenge as far as he did. Even if the former could have been pitied for noble intentions, and -maybe- he might be redeemable, the Hitler-Spell would be damn near impossible to justify.

Any suggestions on what a Good Aligned Cleric, Paladin, or similar would say to Vaarsuvius? Any words of comfort possible at all?

[hamishspence]

I don't think "comfort" is what Vaarsuvius needs.

Teal'c said it best in Stargate:


You will never forgive yourself. Accept it. You hurt others - many others. That cannot be undone. You will never find personal retribution. But your life does not have to end. That which is right, just, and true can still prevail. If you do not fight for what you believe in, all may be lost for everyone else. But do not fight for yourself. Fight for others, others that may be saved through your effort. That is the least you can do.

[Darth Paul]

"You screwed up. You really have no excuse. Do better from now on."

Not much else to say, really.

[Reathin]

That would depend on the nature of the religious person and their patron deity (separately, to be clear. One worshiper of, say, Pelor likely has a very different take on certain subjects than others, even if Pelor himself likely has a pretty consistent opinion). That sounds like a cop-out, but it's relevant. Some people take the idea of being Good to different extremes in different scenarios (even ignoring the Law-Chaos axis). Some might consider the idea of being redeemed in this case an INSULT to the nature of universal Good, as it would open the door for people to do more acts of spectacular evil with the idea that they could "get better" later.

The average person devoted actively to the concept of Good, particularly religious type, who are more likely to pay attention to high level moral concepts and the divine beings who embody/uphold them, is likely to be horrified. There's no getting around it: mass slaughter of sapient beings whose only crime is sharing a bloodline is despicable.

But the idea that redemption cannot be earned is also dangerous.

Redemption is perhaps Good's ultimate tool, the single most powerful thing in its arsenal against Evil. It is emphatically NOT "I'm forgiven, no more worries, I'm off the hook", which is why people sometimes don't respect it. It doesn't mean what you did doesn't matter, because actions have consequences and somebody, possibly you, will have to deal with them. Instead, redemption is the idea that anyone, no matter their sins, can climb out of the abyss (perhaps even literally, in the OOTS universe), and it's incredibly important. Drawing a line, any line, and saying "after this, there's no coming back, period" damages Good. A monster who wants to be redeemed, to change their ways, will likely give up if that comes into play. Even if they've only committed lesser sins. The nature of guilt is a double edged sword. It drives people to want to change, but also tries to convince them that they don't deserve it. If there exists a point of no return, a guilt-ridden individual is likely to try to stretch that line so that they've crossed it, or come "too close" to crossing it, thinking to do otherwise is unjust.

There exists powerful evil creatures who changed. It's not common, because that road isn't easy, but the fact that it can happen breads hope. Nothing gets better in the world without hope. If you think redemption can be earned by anyone, guilt starts to crack and hope leaks in. And that stuff's infectious, man. You think you've got no chance, you've done too much wrong...but hold on a tick: that BALOR redeemed itself? A living, breathing, fiery incarnation of suffering and brutality saw the error of its ways and took the long, hard path back? Wait a moment, was that a mind flayer that rose above it's society and, to an extent, biology? A succubus turned paladin?! The moment you see "irredeemable" things capable of change, the word looses any real meaning and you can resolve to follow the same path. It's often difficult. And long. And not even necessarily a guaranteed success. You might fail, either temporarily or completely. Redemption IS a rare and precious thing, after all. But after all is said and done, after all the challenges and trials, every initial reaction examined and instinct questioned, after those first, unstable steps where you're certain it's not going to work, that nobody will trust you (and they may not, but you press on regardless)...After all that, no matter who or what you WERE, you can be a good person NOW.

And it's absolutely worth it.

[Keltest]

I'm with Teal'c. He shouldn't forget, he won't forgive himself, but it's in the past. Do what's right going forward, and never give up on yourself.

[KorvinStarmast]

Do what's right going forward, and never give up on yourself. That's one key.

Redemption is perhaps Good's ultimate tool, the single most powerful thing in its arsenal against Evil.
It is indeed. (Diversion into RL religious discussion not embarked upon).

It is emphatically NOT "I'm forgiven, no more worries, I'm off the hook", which is why people sometimes don't respect it.
Well put.

It doesn't mean what you did doesn't matter, because actions have consequences and somebody, possibly you, will have to deal with them. Instead, redemption is the idea that anyone, no matter their sins, can climb out of the abyss (perhaps even literally, in the OOTS universe), and it's incredibly important. Drawing a line, any line, and saying "after this, there's no coming back, period" damages Good. I wish that more people IRL understood this. Bravo your post. Two Thumbs Up.

[MReav]

This is a question I've long since had in my head for a while, and while it's not exactly a topical question, nor one that's safe from catching flames, I'm not sure if there's anywhere else that's better to present it, and the longer I wait to do so the less topical it may become.

Vaarsuvius performed several acts that would alone probably count as a Moral Event Horizon from a Religious Character's point of view (assuming Good alignment, mind):
-Consorting with the lowest Fiends to exist;
-Shackling multiple damned spirits to his own soul;
-The above two coming at the -cost- of his soul;
-Evil Magic, particularly Evil Epic Level Magic;
-As per the above, Murder, including of innocents, on a Global scale;
-And with Roy, many of his other actions and comments made during the Soul-Splice period were not particularly healthy ("Disintegrate was the spell you requested, was it not? Besides, I wanted you to feel the pain your son felt as I shredded him into a trillion lifeless specks of ash.")

What does an Agent of Good say to him? Is there anything that -can- be said to him? I tried imagining this sort of thing from the point of view from one of my own characters, and I honestly don't think I -could- respond to Vaarsuvius. Horror and stunned shock is about the only thing I can think of. His actions weren't a mistake. He may have been mislead about what he could have done to save his family (I -think- I remember reading that the alternate plan that was presented to him wouldn't actually have worked), but he choose to take his revenge as far as he did. Even if the former could have been pitied for noble intentions, and -maybe- he might be redeemable, the Hitler-Spell would be damn near impossible to justify.

Any suggestions on what a Good Aligned Cleric, Paladin, or similar would say to Vaarsuvius? Any words of comfort possible at all?

Call me a cynic, but OOTSverse seems to treat Good as more of a faction rather than a way of life. Lawful Good Paladins engage in wanton slaughter without any issue [ edit:from their gods/literal forces of good edit2: from their perspective], so I'm left to believe that there would be a number of Good clerics that would cheer at Vaarsuvius' elimination of a massive number of evil creatures, and then upon realizing the human cost, would try to kill Varsuuvius as a murderer.

[Ruck]

Lawful Good Paladins engage in wanton slaughter without any issue
[citation needed]

[Kish]

It would be more accurate to say that On the Origins of PCs, and nothing that's come out since, treats "good" as something someone can officially be without doing anything to earn it.

After How the Paladin Got His Scar, I'm genuinely wondering if Rich would leave the "murderous paladins" in at all if he was starting the story from the beginning now. In any event while the comic as it stands has depicted paladins engaging in wanton slaughter it is certainly hugely inaccurate to say that they have ever done so without lots of issues or, indeed, without those issues being the point.

[MReav]

[citation needed]

Start of Darkness (Redcloak's hometown massacre and others mentioned by Redcloak), How the Paladin Got His Scar (the hobgoblin settlement that got wiped out by the Guard), On the Origin of PCs (Roy's first party leader who wanted to slaughter a bunch of nonaggressive orcs and ideally get Durkon killed in the process), and Rich's commentary next to 541 with the gods giving tacit support to the massacre of numerous goblinoid settlements.


It would be more accurate to say that On the Origins of PCs, and nothing that's come out since, treats "good" as something someone can officially be without doing anything to earn it.

After How the Paladin Got His Scar, I'm genuinely wondering if Rich would leave the "murderous paladins" in at all if he was starting the story from the beginning now. In any event while the comic as it stands has depicted paladins engaging in wanton slaughter it is certainly hugely inaccurate to say that they have ever done so without lots of issues or, indeed, without those issues being the point.

I was referring to the deities who are supposed to oversee their actions. People might be upset and karma might bite them in the ass, but the gods actually doing something like saying "Bad paladin, no biscuit!" *Swats nose with newspaper* when they go and massacre a settlement of goblinoids won't happen.

[Kish]

Okay, so?

Your edit seems to have taken your post from inaccurate to irrelevant. Rich does not treat the gods as moral authorities; he writes them as selfish, petty, squabbling children as best. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the OP of this thread, unless you assume that callous and petty gods definitionally mean callous and petty clerics, which I don't believe the comic's writing would support you in.

Similarly, your citations support what you apparently meant ("without expressed on-panel disapproval directly from the gods") but come nowhere near supporting what you'd said ("without issue"); in every case you name, the fact that there is very much an issue is the entire point of the depiction.

[MReav]

Okay, so?

Your edit seems to have taken your post from inaccurate to irrelevant. Rich does not treat the gods as moral authorities; he writes them as selfish, petty, squabbling children as best. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the OP of this thread, unless you assume that callous and petty gods definitionally mean callous and petty clerics, which I don't believe the comic's writing would support you in.

Similarly, your citations support what you apparently meant ("without expressed disapproval from the gods") but come nowhere near supporting what you'd said ("without issue").

Let me try to explain better: there seems to be two primary levels on which the comic exists, the standard narrative, and the meta-narrative [Edit: (three if we want to count the joke level, but we're ignoring it as we are discussing serious narrative)]. The standard narrative is the universe in which the characters exist in, and the meta-narrative exists on the level that Rich exists in. The characters in-universe are only aware of the standard narrative. With the exception of bards [edit: and the Oracle] the characters are largely unaware of the meta-narrative. Because the characters almost exclusively exist on the standard narrative, when a Good character engages in an act of wanton slaughter without sanction from the gods, they don't see anything wrong with it, while Rich is condemning these characters as hypocritical murderers.

However, because these characters exist in the comic-verse and lack access to the script, since the gods don't do the "Bad Paladin! No biscuit!" routine, they don't see anything wrong with what they're doing, and because we've seen a number of cases of wanton slaughter by characters with Good alignment pre-requisites for their classes, I would argue that if that sort of thing exists in-universe, then it would breed "Good"-aligned characters with that [edit: horrific] mentality.

Edit: Sure, it would be used as an example to the readers on how NOT to play these characters, but they're on some level allowed to get away with it because they've been able to get to be that way.

[Jasdoif]

However, because these characters exist in the comic-verse and lack access to the script, since the gods don't do the "Bad Paladin! No biscuit!" routine, they don't see anything wrong with what they're doing, and because we've seen a number of cases of wanton slaughter by characters with Good alignment pre-requisites for their classes, I would argue that if that sort of thing exists in-universe, then it would breed "Good"-aligned characters with that [edit: horrific] mentality.That sounds more like an effect of the alignment system allowing the likes of Haley and Elan to share the same alignment, than anything to do with the gods not being exemplars of their own alignments.


....but they're on some level allowed to get away with it because they've been able to get to be that way.Why do you say that? Xykon's been able to get to be a nation-destroying villainous lich; are you saying he's "on some level allowed to get away with it"?

[INoKnowNames]

I'd like to put a blade in the debate going on here: I'm not referring to the average "non-evil" character featured in the Oots. I'm not talking about good like Roy's old adventuring team, or Paladins going on a Crusade to slaughter any being of a certain race, or a Wizard who opposes the main adversary in the setting by any means necessary.

So far, in the Oots, the person who's opinion would be most relevant to this conversation would be the Astral Deva who was judging Roy. Maybe followed by Hinjo, and Durkon were he not under the weather. Roy did his best, mind.

I wasn't speaking on behalf of what just -anyone- good aligned in the Oots universe would say, quite frequently because of how much writing goes into distinguishing the different kinds of "good" from each other. I'm looking for motivation for the sake of my own ability to roleplay.

I'm not looking for Strawman Good, Good Because They Fight Evil, or Good because The Gods Above are Childish and lenient on whom worships them. I mean played-straight, Just to the hilt, cares for the wellbeing of others, Good.

And I'm very much aware that some deities and followers have different doctrines and viewpoints, which is part of my curiosity and request for advice. Trying to spread my perspective farther than I'd had it before. The answer in comic, echoed (with far more ephasis and depth with the room to do so by Reathin) is the closest thing that comes to mind, at least while trying to still wonder if redemption would even be possible in the end. And I was hoping to see what other good viewpoint I could might consider.

Quick Litmus-test: If the perspective being considered would think that the only downside for [casting an Epic Level Evil Spell that wantonly slaughters a potentially countless number of living beings for the crime of sharing blood with another] is [there might be some innocent beings related to one of the intended targets], even if used against an evil-doer, there's a good chance that's not a perspective intended here. Or at least definitely not one I'm too interested in roleplaying very much.

[mouser9169]

If you're playing it purely straight, it depends as much or more upon the deity as it does upon the cleric's version of "good".

A god like St. Cuthbert (originally lawful good), would want V smited. He was never big into 'redemption'. In fact, that's probably the axis that matters most: redemption vs. judgement. The absolute certainty of an alignment based afterlife sort of throws away everything we use in our world for ethics.

In any case, all that could be said is to go out and do better tomorrow, and try to shift the scales more in your favor every day. In the D&D system, characters are capable of great acts of Good as well as Evil, so to say there's no way to atone probably isn't technically accurate. It's just going to take a lot of work.

[thereaper]

A lot of how they'd react would depend on how well they know V. If they don't know V personally, then they would have no reason to believe that he isn't going to do it again tomorrow, and would therefore want him killed. If they were reasonably certain that he wouldn't do it again, then it becomes more complicated. An O'Chul type would likely be sympathetic, and preach the importance of seeking to atone, even if it is ultimately impossible. What would be really interesting is a Hinjo type, who would likely feel a responsibility to bring him before the law to answer for his crimes. How much faith do they have in their legal system to come to what they would believe to be the best conclusion?

[MReav]

That sounds more like an effect of the alignment system allowing the likes of Haley and Elan to share the same alignment, than anything to do with the gods not being exemplars of their own alignments.

Why do you say that? Xykon's been able to get to be a nation-destroying villainous lich; are you saying he's "on some level allowed to get away with it"?

Xykon doesn't have alignment requirements that are supposed to compel him to act a certain way. Becoming a Lich is supposed to be an act of unspeakable evil, and while I considered Xykon's transformation kinda tame, he makes up for it with his wanton slaughter.

Just to clarify, if you think I'm calling Rich a bad writer, please understand that no, I'm not, I understand the need to create different kinds of characters and having different sorts of dramatic conflict, but if you create a universe where these characters include Those Guys who do these sorts of things non-insignificant numbers, and then someone asks a question "What would these characters do", then a random selection of these character would have a decent chance of including Those Guys.

This is a moot point, since the OP has mentioned they weren't talking about the Straw man Good that gets criticized by the author in the meta-narrative.

[SilverCacaobean]

A lot of how they'd react would depend on how well they know V. If they don't know V personally, then they would have no reason to believe that he isn't going to do it again tomorrow, and would therefore want him killed. If they were reasonably certain that he wouldn't do it again, then it becomes more complicated. An O'Chul type would likely be sympathetic, and preach the importance of seeking to atone, even if it is ultimately impossible. What would be really interesting is a Hinjo type, who would likely feel a responsibility to bring him before the law to answer for his crimes. How much faith do they have in their legal system to come to what they would believe to be the best conclusion?

I agree with this. It's mostly a matter of trust. What's the point of punishment, revenge and vengeance to someone Good? I don't think there's one (to someone Good). I think all shades of good would consider true redemption (with action to back it up, naturally) to be optimal, so the most important question is, would they trust V with attempting it? That's a very difficult question, that depends entirely on how sure they are that V won't do that again.

So I think there are two things a Good Cleric would say, depending on the level of trust (this assuming that the possibility for incarceration is non existent, otherwise, there's probably going to be a trial, or something and I doubt that even the most chaotic cleric would deny society the right to judge someone who committed genocide, instead choosing to make this judgement for everyone else. Unless, said Cleric lives in a Lawful Evil place or something... Anyway. Complicated. So let's assume that V and the Cleric are going to have a talk and then go their separate ways).
If there's not enough trust, probably "It is unfortunate, but I'm going to have to smite you." :smalltongue: Now, if you're too smite-happy you ain't all that Good, but it's possible for someone Good to have no better options.
If there is, I suppose it will be something along the lines of not dwelling on the past and look to the future, not being paralysed by guilt etc. I suppose the cleric would not mince words either, making sure that V understands that it is a difficult road and there are no guarantees of success... Also maybe that V's regret should not come out of fear of ending up in the Nine Hells... So, yeah, try to convince V to atone and if V's already trying, encouraging him/her, though without downplaying the gravity of V's crime.

I think the most important thing for a Good character to remember during this, is that the fact that V was both manipulated by the fiends and fully responsible for his/her actions must be acknowledged in any judgement made. Forgetting either of them would result in skewed judgement. Maybe even tell V about that. This isn't either-or. Both these things are true.

[Ruck]

Start of Darkness (Redcloak's hometown massacre and others mentioned by Redcloak), How the Paladin Got His Scar (the hobgoblin settlement that got wiped out by the Guard), On the Origin of PCs (Roy's first party leader who wanted to slaughter a bunch of nonaggressive orcs and ideally get Durkon killed in the process), and Rich's commentary next to 541 with the gods giving tacit support to the massacre of numerous goblinoid settlements.
Rich has refuted the idea that the killings in Start of Darkness happened "without any issue." The fact that we don't see the consequences of the paladins' behavior in that or in On the Origin of PCs doesn't mean that there weren't any-- not every fall gets a Miko scene, because (Watsonian) not every fall is caused by such a flagrant violation as Miko's, and (Doylist) these characters aren't important enough to the story to spend that time with.

I haven't read the Kickstarter release yet, so I don't know what happens there. My first guess, however, is that this reasoning also applies. I don't have my books handy, so I can't look at the commentary on 541.

However, I think it still comes back to the fact that there are quotes from Rich which dispute the premise of your argument.

[oppyu]

I have two notions of Good I could see happening. One, which I'll call compassionate Good, I think Roy embodied pretty well. Vaarsuvius, in a moment of weakness (okay, several moments of weakness. A time period of weakness), committed uncountable atrocities upon an unknown number of victims spread across the OOTSverse. That is obviously awful, and there may be literally nothing V could to ever hope to atone for that. But Vaarsuvius wants to do Good, and the most Good thing ve can possibly do is try. So, the compassionate Good religious figure would condemn V for ver atrocities but compel her to keep trying to do Good, even if ver ledger is permanently slated to the dark side.

The other notion of Good I'll call Uncompromising Good. Possibly not even Good, honestly. This one sees Vaarsuvius, an admitted mass murderer and asks if ve can really be trusted never to do such a thing again. Maybe there's a Red Lantern vengeance thing as well. They don't really so much talk to V so much as attempt to bring V to justice.

There is another question of how V will go once ve's being judged before the gates of the True Neutral afterlife. That's... an interesting philosophical discussion. Action versus intent, exactly how much is excusable, whether actively working to save the world can make up for mass indiscriminate murder because you were on a power trip. I don't know how that would go, but I'd be curious to know what The Giant's thoughts on that are.

[Riftwolf]

I think the fallen paladins might come up some time soon. O-Chul and Lien are being kept in the main narrative, after all. I'm foreseeing a scene where Redcloak tells MitD why paladins are such hypocrites, then O-Chul explaining that those paladins fell. (I haven't read O-Chuls short, so don't know how that impacts my prediction)

[Kish]

O-Chul is unlikely to be aware of such details; he didn't join the Order until 22 years after the massacre of proto-Redcloak's village.

I also think Redcloak would have the better argument in such a debate: :redcloak: "Oh, some of them fell? But others, who at best stood and watched the slaughter, did not? Were they punished further? Did the Lord of Azure City or the head of the Sapphire Guard offer reparations to surviving goblins? No? The ones who fell just got sent home without their magic? Oh. I see that my accusation of hypocrisy was clearly misguided; 'I can't summon a horse anymore!' is certainly all the retribution anyone could have wanted for butchering my five-year-old sister."

[Vinyadan]

Welcome to a Game of Guess the Character!

#1: "Die, Evildoer!" Slash slash slash
#2: "Mr Scruffy says that there is only one way for you to atone: you must investigate these gates for me."
#3: "Ach, lad, give me ma beer." (followed by incomprehensible dwarven preaching)
#4: "When gave up ambition and thirst for power, you saved my life. You learnt something that day: go and spend your life practising it. But, if you will again lapse into evil, I will make sure that there will be consequences."

[Keltest]

O-Chul is unlikely to be aware of such details; he didn't join the Order until 22 years after the massacre of proto-Redcloak's village.

I also think Redcloak would have the better argument in such a debate: :redcloak: "Oh, some of them fell? But others, who at best stood and watched the slaughter, did not? Were they punished further? Did the Lord of Azure City or the head of the Sapphire Guard offer reparations to surviving goblins? No? The ones who fell just got sent home without their magic? Oh. I see that my accusation of hypocrisy was clearly misguided; 'I can't summon a horse anymore!' is certainly all the retribution anyone could have wanted for butchering my five-year-old sister."

Given that Redcloak probably has more goblin blood on his hands at this point than the Sapphire Guard does (let alone the countless innocents that died in his attack on Azure City), I don't think he's really in a position to lecture anybody. The paladins have at least had some consequences to their actions. Redcloak, meanwhile... becomes supreme leader of a nation of his people.

[MReav]

Given that Redcloak probably has more goblin blood on his hands at this point than the Sapphire Guard does (let alone the countless innocents that died in his attack on Azure City), I don't think he's really in a position to lecture anybody. The paladins have at least had some consequences to their actions. Redcloak, meanwhile... becomes supreme leader of a nation of his people.

Redcloak is always willing to lecture other people in spite of his own failings. That scene where he lectures Miko regarding her lack of fear specifically gets called out by Rich in the commentary as hypocritical.

[B. Dandelion]

I think the fallen paladins might come up some time soon. O-Chul and Lien are being kept in the main narrative, after all. I'm foreseeing a scene where Redcloak tells MitD why paladins are such hypocrites, then O-Chul explaining that those paladins fell. (I haven't read O-Chuls short, so don't know how that impacts my prediction)

In the very post where the Giant said that some of the paladins may have fallen, he explained his reasoning for not showing that. Among the reasons was:


Dramatically, showing no-name paladins Falling at that point in the story would confuse the narrative by making it unclear whether or not Redcloak had already earned a form of retribution against them. To be clear, he had not: Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

Your post seems to suggest that by revealing that some of the paladins fell, O-Chul would undercut Redcloak's claims against them, but the reason falling wasn't shown in the first place was because the Giant wanted to AVOID sending that impression. He's not going to have O-Chul, basically the paragon of paladinhood, espouse the very opinion he meant to dissuade. If O-Chul does learn that bit of backstory, it's far more likely he'll express horror and unequivocally condemn the actions of his countrymen, even if he does then go on to say it's not an excuse for what Redcloak did in retribution, and that he's done more to ensure more innocents will suffer just as he did than to put a stop to the cycle of suffering.

[Riftwolf]

I mightve picked my words badly. When i said O-Chul revealing the fallen paladin story to MitD, i didnt mean it as a complete justification and irrefutable end to Redcloaks grievances. I meant it more in an acknowledgement that the Sapphire Guard was culpable; a truth and reconciliation point. Whether the paladins fell (and other punishments, like exile from the Guard/execution) isn't enough to stop the cycle, and its unlikely Redcloak will be interested in anything that does. MitD is another matter, as he's not invested heavily in the Dark Ones masterplan.