So in my last gaming session a Chaotic good Cleric of IImater, hog-tied and repeatedly dunked a Zhentarim captain in a fountain to extract information regarding a kidnapped NPC. The question came up if this was within his alignment bounds and as Chaotic good, it was justified to the DM that he could do such an act. BUT...the action the cleric performed would be counter to his diety description.
The DM is thinking the cleric went too far with his action and is favoring the Deity description over the alignment (which did not feel like it was Chaotic good) and may 'shut-down' the cleric spells for a session or until the cleric makes amends for his action and possibly have the alignment shift.
Side Note: The neutral Monk cut off one of the captain's fingers to help influence the intimidation.
So that got me thinking is Alignment the only guiding line for a clerics' action or should the Deity also influence their decisions?
Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good
Ilmater is the god of suffering, martyrdom, and perseverance, renowned for his compassion and endurance. It is he who offers succor and calming words to those who are in pain, victimized, or in great need. He is the willing sufferer, the one who takes the place of another to heft the other’s burden, to take the other’s pain. He is the god of the oppressed and the unjustly treated.
Alignment is obviously going to direct someone's actions, since it is part of your personality, but unless the cleric isn't particularly devout, it would be assumed that they would follow their god's tenants. If they are purposefully not doing so, then that is going directly against the thing that gives them power, and they would be punished according to the god's temperament. Since there is no Oathbreaker equivalent for clerics, either threatening to take away powers or actually doing so seems like the right option if the PC was knowingly going against their god's code.
Alignment is obviously going to direct someone's actions, since it is part of your personality, but unless the cleric isn't particularly devout, it would be assumed that they would follow their god's tenants. If they are purposefully not doing so, then that is going directly against the thing that gives them power, and they would be punished according to the god's temperament. Since there is no Oathbreaker equivalent for clerics, either threatening to take away powers or actually doing so seems like the right option if the PC was knowingly going against their god's code.
Actually it should be the opposite. Your actions direct what your alignment is. If you go around doing evil deeds your alignment would be evil, even if you yourself is convinced that you are 'good'.
I totally agree with the part of taking away powers if you go against your god's tenants. That could open up for an interest scenario where another god tries to win you over by offering your powers back...
I would have been more annoyed at the monk to be honest, because he is supposed to be all good and because the finger cutting is permanent and probably not a very good way to make someone talk but I was not there...
Yeah, that Chaotic Good description comes straight from the PHB and it does give you some flexibility in interpretation.
After reading your post and the comment about Loviatar I like the idea of somehow her trying to influence the cleric trying to pull him to her side. Something like that ties in well with a recent downtime complication (the cleric was performing Religious Service for three weeks) and pulled "You have offended a priest through your words or actions." which could have been Loviatar messing around.
I have a similar issue where the neutral good cleric made a deal and ended up having to pull a card from the deck of many things. He pulled the balance card and is now neutral evil. I don't know what to do with this but he hasn't done anything evil "yet"
I have a similar issue where the neutral good cleric made a deal and ended up having to pull a card from the deck of many things. He pulled the balance card and is now neutral evil. I don't know what to do with this but he hasn't done anything evil "yet"
If I'm reading this right maybe have a counter and for the number of times, the character performs Neutral Good actions. He gets a "star" for each action and after a certain amount of "stars", he can move back to Neutral Good but if he does some Neutral Evil aspect his attained Good would be reduced by one. This gives you the ability to say ok, the cleric has been focused to get back to the good side and he's obligated the neutral good alignment and its deity. You will at least have a benchmark for how many times the character is doing good.
Of course, if the cleric likes being Evil, and wants to play in its water long term maybe a side quest for the player to pick a new deity more inline with the new alignment and "recruit" the cleric.
So in my last gaming session a Chaotic good Cleric of IImater, hog-tied and repeatedly dunked a Zhentarim captain in a fountain to extract information regarding a kidnapped NPC. The question came up if this was within his alignment bounds and as Chaotic good, it was justified to the DM that he could do such an act. BUT...the action the cleric performed would be counter to his diety description.
The DM is thinking the cleric went too far with his action and is favoring the Deity description over the alignment (which did not feel like it was Chaotic good) and may 'shut-down' the cleric spells for a session or until the cleric makes amends for his action and possibly have the alignment shift.
Side Note: The neutral Monk cut off one of the captain's fingers to help influence the intimidation.
So that got me thinking is Alignment the only guiding line for a clerics' action or should the Deity also influence their decisions?
Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good
Ilmater is the god of suffering, martyrdom, and perseverance, renowned for his compassion and endurance. It is he who offers succor and calming words to those who are in pain, victimized, or in great need. He is the willing sufferer, the one who takes the place of another to heft the other’s burden, to take the other’s pain. He is the god of the oppressed and the unjustly treated.
Okay, here's the thing about alignment in 5e: your alignment is informed by your actions, not the other way around. Alignment is not a scope of actions for which a PC must stay within the constraints; it is a reflection of the scope of actions which a PC actually does. Your actions = your alignment; your alignment =/= your actions.
Regarding Clerics & Deities, the Cleric is expected to act within the scope of their Deity's principles (not the same as the Deity's alignment, but there's usually a pretty strong correlation). It is not an ultimatum that they always act according to the Deity's principles, but there is a codified consequence for failing to abide by those principles. The Deity can, and will, revoke access to any spells & features granted to the PC until satisfactory penance is made. It's up to your DM to decide whether the Clerics actions are egregious enough to warrant that intervention.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
There is no one way that your DM and you "should" resolve this. Plenty of reasonable takes, depending on how your DM plays the pantheon, what signifigance they give the metaphysical concepts of alignment, what they're willing to allow for player fun and freedom insofar as it deviates from the ideal behavior they'd prefer, etc. etc.
I can see your point: Chaotic Good might mean "not afraid to do bad things for good reasons," and just because you worship a god doesn't mean you are that god, and able to live up to their perfect example. The real world is full of Christians that fall far short of the ideals of their savior, and how much of a crisis those failures create in their faith falls across a pretty wide spectrum depending on denomination and personal philosophies on grace. Some denominations (or at least, some common attitudes) hold that you don't even need to try to live in any particular way, you just have to have faith in the truth of your faith's teachings.
I can also see your DM's point: your spells are literally a power granted by your god, and if you displease him, there's nothing stopping him from withholding those gifts. The extent to which those gods may be forgiving, understanding of mortal limitations or exigency, or extremely strict in their expectations (especially of their anointed clerics and paladins) is firmly within the DMs purview.
Play it the way the DM tells you to play it. If he tells you that "Ilmater grants spells to his clerics only so far as they make good faith efforts to behave like Ilmater," then that's that. Maybe it means Cleric isn't for you. If you tell him "I may be a cleric, but I'm going to act in the way that my character deems best according to how I understand him and the situation," then that's that, the DM shouldn't tell you "you can't." Maybe it means the DM should think about in-game events he can use to test that attitude (such as wittholding spells or other special visions or encounters with celestials sent by Ilmater), or maybe it means that they should temper their expectations for requiring the players to roleplay in the way they expect.
At the end of the day, you need to have a discussion with your DM, not with the forums, but we can't arbitrate this disagreement.
No, it was my fault really I wrote it wrong which your response is 100% accurate if I was just the player. Your advice was well appreciated I especially liked the religious point of view of how not everyone is going to be perfect. So again, thanks for your previous feedback I do appreciate it. (Next time I'll be more clearer.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So in my last gaming session a Chaotic good Cleric of IImater, hog-tied and repeatedly dunked a Zhentarim captain in a fountain to extract information regarding a kidnapped NPC. The question came up if this was within his alignment bounds and as Chaotic good, it was justified to the DM that he could do such an act. BUT...the action the cleric performed would be counter to his diety description.
The DM is thinking the cleric went too far with his action and is favoring the Deity description over the alignment (which did not feel like it was Chaotic good) and may 'shut-down' the cleric spells for a session or until the cleric makes amends for his action and possibly have the alignment shift.
Side Note: The neutral Monk cut off one of the captain's fingers to help influence the intimidation.
So that got me thinking is Alignment the only guiding line for a clerics' action or should the Deity also influence their decisions?
Alignment is obviously going to direct someone's actions, since it is part of your personality, but unless the cleric isn't particularly devout, it would be assumed that they would follow their god's tenants. If they are purposefully not doing so, then that is going directly against the thing that gives them power, and they would be punished according to the god's temperament. Since there is no Oathbreaker equivalent for clerics, either threatening to take away powers or actually doing so seems like the right option if the PC was knowingly going against their god's code.
Guided by deity.
alignments change.
changing a deity, as a cleric, that’s like a paladin changing oath. It happens. But it’s a big big deal.
Watch me on twitch
The cleric played completely against all that his deity stands for, Divine retribution is definitely called for.
Actually it should be the opposite. Your actions direct what your alignment is. If you go around doing evil deeds your alignment would be evil, even if you yourself is convinced that you are 'good'.
I totally agree with the part of taking away powers if you go against your god's tenants. That could open up for an interest scenario where another god tries to win you over by offering your powers back...
The neutral monk is supposed to be all good? Why?
Yeah, that Chaotic Good description comes straight from the PHB and it does give you some flexibility in interpretation.
After reading your post and the comment about Loviatar I like the idea of somehow her trying to influence the cleric trying to pull him to her side. Something like that ties in well with a recent downtime complication (the cleric was performing Religious Service for three weeks) and pulled "You have offended a priest through your words or actions." which could have been Loviatar messing around.
I have a similar issue where the neutral good cleric made a deal and ended up having to pull a card from the deck of many things. He pulled the balance card and is now neutral evil. I don't know what to do with this but he hasn't done anything evil "yet"
If I'm reading this right maybe have a counter and for the number of times, the character performs Neutral Good actions. He gets a "star" for each action and after a certain amount of "stars", he can move back to Neutral Good but if he does some Neutral Evil aspect his attained Good would be reduced by one. This gives you the ability to say ok, the cleric has been focused to get back to the good side and he's obligated the neutral good alignment and its deity. You will at least have a benchmark for how many times the character is doing good.
Of course, if the cleric likes being Evil, and wants to play in its water long term maybe a side quest for the player to pick a new deity more inline with the new alignment and "recruit" the cleric.
Okay, here's the thing about alignment in 5e: your alignment is informed by your actions, not the other way around. Alignment is not a scope of actions for which a PC must stay within the constraints; it is a reflection of the scope of actions which a PC actually does. Your actions = your alignment; your alignment =/= your actions.
Regarding Clerics & Deities, the Cleric is expected to act within the scope of their Deity's principles (not the same as the Deity's alignment, but there's usually a pretty strong correlation). It is not an ultimatum that they always act according to the Deity's principles, but there is a codified consequence for failing to abide by those principles. The Deity can, and will, revoke access to any spells & features granted to the PC until satisfactory penance is made. It's up to your DM to decide whether the Clerics actions are egregious enough to warrant that intervention.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
There is no one way that your DM and you "should" resolve this. Plenty of reasonable takes, depending on how your DM plays the pantheon, what signifigance they give the metaphysical concepts of alignment, what they're willing to allow for player fun and freedom insofar as it deviates from the ideal behavior they'd prefer, etc. etc.
Play it the way the DM tells you to play it. If he tells you that "Ilmater grants spells to his clerics only so far as they make good faith efforts to behave like Ilmater," then that's that. Maybe it means Cleric isn't for you. If you tell him "I may be a cleric, but I'm going to act in the way that my character deems best according to how I understand him and the situation," then that's that, the DM shouldn't tell you "you can't." Maybe it means the DM should think about in-game events he can use to test that attitude (such as wittholding spells or other special visions or encounters with celestials sent by Ilmater), or maybe it means that they should temper their expectations for requiring the players to roleplay in the way they expect.
At the end of the day, you need to have a discussion with your DM, not with the forums, but we can't arbitrate this disagreement.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I am the DM. I just wanted to take it from a neutral point of view from a players and DM perspective.
Thank you for the feedback I appreciate it.
Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No, it was my fault really I wrote it wrong which your response is 100% accurate if I was just the player. Your advice was well appreciated I especially liked the religious point of view of how not everyone is going to be perfect. So again, thanks for your previous feedback I do appreciate it. (Next time I'll be more clearer.)