PretzelCoatl
2022-09-29, 04:37 AM
Hi, all.
I'm looking for some advice with the atonement spell, and adjudicating the loss of class abilities for a cleric.
The party decided to make a contract with a devil (ill-advised), then when trying to get out of it triggered a breach of contract clause they were unaware of that damned them all to hell. I had a scene set up where the party would negotiate with the god of devils (homebrew, but very Asmodeus-ish), and he would try to offer them a terrible contract where they went to retrieve a treasure for him that would involve the slaying of *numerous* angels. The goal here, from the point of view of the god in question, was to corrupt as many of them as possible, thereby seeding the world with more of his influence.
I expected the party to balk at this, refusing to commit practical genocide on the ranks of heaven, and was prepared with some alternative and less soul-damning options they could settle on. However, they did not even try to negotiate, and instead immediately took the deal.
They went to heaven and killed a BUNCH of angels, quite gleefully, I might add, some while even shouting their(?) new god's name. They had virtually zero issues with doing this.
With the contract concluded, I am definitely ruling them all evil as a result of not just what they did but how they did it. This isn't really a big issue for 84% of the party, since they aren't religious, but one member of the party is a cleric of the LG Crusader god (again, homebrew, sorry) who opposes the evil forces of the world, most specifically demons, devils, and the undead. It is worth noting that this god also has redemption in his portfolio.
Players FUBARed some contracts and ended up getting them in a situation where they killed a bunch of angels. I'm going to rule them as evil through their actions. One member of the party is a cleric of the LG Crusader god (homebrew) who opposes the evil forces of the world, most specifically demons, devils, and the undead. It is worth noting that this god also has redemption in his portfolio.
So my questions for this are as follows:
1) Should I immediately revoke the cleric's clerichood?
This proposes some serious issues, because the player in character is a big time powergamer and this will make him very upset, possibly to the point where it will cause an at-table incident. By the same token, however, I definitely feel that the actions warrant this. Without a doubt, if the player weren't a problem player willing to cause a scene every time something bad happens to his character, if this were a player that enjoyed roleplay or was willing to take responsibility for their actions, I wouldn't hesitate, but
2) Is it worth it to stick to these kinds of roleplay punishments at the cost of a smooth gaming experience?
3) Considering the redemption angle, should I instead perhaps to a "soft" revocation of the class/spells/abilities, limiting what spells he is allowed to use until he atones?
4) Speaking of atonement, how do I handle this?
I personally feel that simply casting a spell to undo..... angelic genocide is...cheap. I will admit that I am a little bit of a grognard in this situation. I just don't feel like it's good roleplay to go on a slaughtering rampage and just wave it all away with a single spell. However, I am fairly certain I am biased in this regard, so would like additional insight and perspectives. After all, the point is fun, not torture.
5) In regards to atonement, and this is a more crunch question than fluff, but how do I adjudicate this spell use?
1) Reverse Magical Alignment Change: If a creature has had its alignment magically changed, atonement returns its alignment to its original status at no additional cost.
2) Restore Class: A paladin, or other class, who has lost her class features due to violating the alignment restrictions of her class may have her class features restored by this spell.
3) Restore Cleric or Druid Spell Powers: A cleric or druid who has lost the ability to cast spells by incurring the anger of her deity may regain that ability by seeking atonement from another cleric of the same deity or another druid. If the transgression was intentional, the casting cleric must expend 2,500 gp in rare incense and offerings for her god’s intercession.
4) Redemption or Temptation: You may cast this spell upon a creature of an opposing alignment in order to offer it a chance to change its alignment to match yours. The prospective subject must be present for the entire casting process. Upon completion of the spell, the subject freely chooses whether it retains its original alignment or acquiesces to your offer and changes to your alignment. No duress, compulsion, or magical influence can force the subject to take advantage of the opportunity offered if it is unwilling to abandon its old alignment. This use of the spell does not work on outsiders or any creature incapable of changing its alignment naturally.
Depending on reading, the cleric in question has had their alignment magically altered (because they are being given the evil subtype and infused with some infernal corruption as a result of this clusterrbuck, non-magically altered due to their actions, and may (depending on the opinions of those here) lose both class and spells. That would mean they need all four options.
So do they need to cast this spell four times?
Thank you in advance to everyone for the advice and insight. I very much appreciate your time.
P.S. Fun fact, took a sneak peek at the cleric's spell list and they totally prepared atonement for today, so I think they know at least some of this is coming.
I'm looking for some advice with the atonement spell, and adjudicating the loss of class abilities for a cleric.
The party decided to make a contract with a devil (ill-advised), then when trying to get out of it triggered a breach of contract clause they were unaware of that damned them all to hell. I had a scene set up where the party would negotiate with the god of devils (homebrew, but very Asmodeus-ish), and he would try to offer them a terrible contract where they went to retrieve a treasure for him that would involve the slaying of *numerous* angels. The goal here, from the point of view of the god in question, was to corrupt as many of them as possible, thereby seeding the world with more of his influence.
I expected the party to balk at this, refusing to commit practical genocide on the ranks of heaven, and was prepared with some alternative and less soul-damning options they could settle on. However, they did not even try to negotiate, and instead immediately took the deal.
They went to heaven and killed a BUNCH of angels, quite gleefully, I might add, some while even shouting their(?) new god's name. They had virtually zero issues with doing this.
With the contract concluded, I am definitely ruling them all evil as a result of not just what they did but how they did it. This isn't really a big issue for 84% of the party, since they aren't religious, but one member of the party is a cleric of the LG Crusader god (again, homebrew, sorry) who opposes the evil forces of the world, most specifically demons, devils, and the undead. It is worth noting that this god also has redemption in his portfolio.
Players FUBARed some contracts and ended up getting them in a situation where they killed a bunch of angels. I'm going to rule them as evil through their actions. One member of the party is a cleric of the LG Crusader god (homebrew) who opposes the evil forces of the world, most specifically demons, devils, and the undead. It is worth noting that this god also has redemption in his portfolio.
So my questions for this are as follows:
1) Should I immediately revoke the cleric's clerichood?
This proposes some serious issues, because the player in character is a big time powergamer and this will make him very upset, possibly to the point where it will cause an at-table incident. By the same token, however, I definitely feel that the actions warrant this. Without a doubt, if the player weren't a problem player willing to cause a scene every time something bad happens to his character, if this were a player that enjoyed roleplay or was willing to take responsibility for their actions, I wouldn't hesitate, but
2) Is it worth it to stick to these kinds of roleplay punishments at the cost of a smooth gaming experience?
3) Considering the redemption angle, should I instead perhaps to a "soft" revocation of the class/spells/abilities, limiting what spells he is allowed to use until he atones?
4) Speaking of atonement, how do I handle this?
I personally feel that simply casting a spell to undo..... angelic genocide is...cheap. I will admit that I am a little bit of a grognard in this situation. I just don't feel like it's good roleplay to go on a slaughtering rampage and just wave it all away with a single spell. However, I am fairly certain I am biased in this regard, so would like additional insight and perspectives. After all, the point is fun, not torture.
5) In regards to atonement, and this is a more crunch question than fluff, but how do I adjudicate this spell use?
1) Reverse Magical Alignment Change: If a creature has had its alignment magically changed, atonement returns its alignment to its original status at no additional cost.
2) Restore Class: A paladin, or other class, who has lost her class features due to violating the alignment restrictions of her class may have her class features restored by this spell.
3) Restore Cleric or Druid Spell Powers: A cleric or druid who has lost the ability to cast spells by incurring the anger of her deity may regain that ability by seeking atonement from another cleric of the same deity or another druid. If the transgression was intentional, the casting cleric must expend 2,500 gp in rare incense and offerings for her god’s intercession.
4) Redemption or Temptation: You may cast this spell upon a creature of an opposing alignment in order to offer it a chance to change its alignment to match yours. The prospective subject must be present for the entire casting process. Upon completion of the spell, the subject freely chooses whether it retains its original alignment or acquiesces to your offer and changes to your alignment. No duress, compulsion, or magical influence can force the subject to take advantage of the opportunity offered if it is unwilling to abandon its old alignment. This use of the spell does not work on outsiders or any creature incapable of changing its alignment naturally.
Depending on reading, the cleric in question has had their alignment magically altered (because they are being given the evil subtype and infused with some infernal corruption as a result of this clusterrbuck, non-magically altered due to their actions, and may (depending on the opinions of those here) lose both class and spells. That would mean they need all four options.
So do they need to cast this spell four times?
Thank you in advance to everyone for the advice and insight. I very much appreciate your time.
P.S. Fun fact, took a sneak peek at the cleric's spell list and they totally prepared atonement for today, so I think they know at least some of this is coming.