| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| RIMV |
Posted - 31 Oct 2007 : 21:21:08
So last game session the players in my group captured two Orcs that were in a raiding group that attacked them in the middle of the night. One of the Orcs was successfuly knocked out by Drakar, the would be assassin from Athkatla, the other was near death but brought back to health by Braccas, the Favored Soul of Mystra (for some reason my player can’t even answer-one is enough!).
The purpose of the capture of these two Orcs was to seek information on the whereabouts of their keep/den/hole in side of mountain.
Drakar decided it was necessary to torture one of the Orcs by tying him to a tree and asking him questions, when the Orc would not answer he took it upon himself to remove the fingernails and toenails from said captured Orc. The Orc being stubborn and fearing the retaliation of his tribe/chieftain thought it in his best interest to keep his mouth shut on the subject and just spit at Drakar instead. Drakar didn't like this so he proceeded to torture the Orc even more. When Drakar realized that there was no way he would garner any information from this Orc, he cut its throat and left the body to rot, still tied to the tree.
Not that I personally have anything wrong with the methods in which Drakar handled the situation (the player was acting well within his NE alignment and his desired PrC of Assassin), but Claudia, the party's NPC Cleric of Lathander was vehemently against the torture and blatant murder of this Orc, even though she knows that it just attacked her and her friends. She was considering leaving the party, but has decided to give Drakar a second chance by giving him a stern talking to.
I let two of the players know (outside of game) that she was thinking about leaving the group or at the least giving the stern talking to. The player of Braccas disagreed with me on the methods and stated that even though she is a Cleric of Lathander she would have understood the necessity of the torture (because of their mission and it was an evil Humanoid, not even a person).
My question is multi-tiered: Am I out of bounds (in game) by even having her try to reason with Drakar on his "methods of information gathering"? Would the Clergy of Lathander grant an "evil" humanoid reprieve or a chance to redeem itself (even if it wouldn't have)? What would Lathander's personal thoughts on this be? Would it be more a long the lines for a Cleric of Lathander to physically stop Drakar from torturing and murdering known evil beings?
Any thoughts are greatly appreciated as this has been on my mind for a few days now and would like a few more opinions before next session (Sunday game day). Thanks in advance!
Here's the link to the scroll detailing my party.
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7883&whichpage=4 |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Brynweir |
Posted - 06 Nov 2007 : 14:40:13
I think the idea of trying to reform the character is a great reason for her to stay. However, you'd have to be careful about how much the cleric would tolerate. Just being around evil and allowing it to happen has to effect her alignment. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 02 Nov 2007 : 16:12:23
Right, there's no reason why each cleric of Lathander would feel exactly the same way on any single issue. In the end, the DM is the one playing this cleric, so it's his (her?) call. |
| Ergdusch |
Posted - 02 Nov 2007 : 09:47:02
@ sayntfuu: Your quotations are great to stress your point of view. Hwoever, you need to keep in mind that those might represent only general guidelines and might not reflect the personal dogma of each and every lathandrite!
- A peaceloving and caring cleric might fight undead and evil creatures with all of his/her abilities but refreign from using methods like torture simply because e.g. it would set her on one level with the evil she is fighting.
- Or she/he might refreign from useing such methods as she/he is physically/mentally just not capable of doing such a veil act. (after all I could imagine pulling out fingernails of a living person must be... I cannot imagine actually!  ).
- Or She/he might not have had any bad experience with orcs so far, growing up in a protected city that had little trouble with humanoids in her lifetime.
- There are so many individual background influences that shape a character in individual way that it is nearly impossible to agrue against the behavior of a character.
- And lastly, the 'End-of-discussion'-argument: The DM sais so!  |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 02 Nov 2007 : 02:25:31
quote:
Braccas does not think that torturing this particular orc to find the location of the missing scouts or to learn the intentions of this army is evil. These orcs attacked him and his friends. Braccas believes there are lives at risk; his life, his friends life, the lives of the scouts, and the lives of the townsfolk in the path of this orc army.
No one's disputing whether or not have justification for choosing to do what you're doing, Sayntfuu. However; I would argue that you've made some severe misjudgements about what exactly the context of Good, Neutrality, and Evil are in the Realms. This is an issue for your DM to describe rather than me though since it varies from table to table.
The pursuit of the "Greater Good" can be done by Neutral or Evil characters. Take for instance a bunch of Townsfolk who proceed to eliminate all Children of Orcs and their females to eliminate the Orc Presence in an area. It's a decidedly evil act but they'd certainly argue that it's necessary for the greater good.
Furthermore, if you define Greater Good as "No More Orcs in the area" then you're right. However, if you believe for a second that the good churches would approve of the act then you're wrong. They'd consider the individuals to be monsters and to be put down.
Likewise, Neutral characters are (in my games) those whom are more flexible about busting heads for the betterment of the world. Neutral characters; as a last resort, largely are the ones who tolerate doing terrible things in order to make the world a better place.
The moment a Good Person is free to kill, torture, and do other acts in the pursuit of the "Greater Good" then is the moment there's no real distinction between good and evil. Fzoul Chembyrl believes he's building a better future for the people of Zhentil Keep and Obould Many Arrows does the same for his Orcs.
So, yes, she can forgive and maybe keep Lathander's light but this is definitely something where condoning the act should shift her alignment to neutral.
No one's saying it's WRONG in the game. However, moral issues by the gods are a different story.
|
| sayntfuu |
Posted - 02 Nov 2007 : 02:10:24
*thought this posted once, I must have botched*
Hi, Braccas here.
I just wanted to add some items:
1) We were hired to find missing scouts, locate the army, and learn the army's intentions by the guard force in a nearby town.
2) These orcs attacked us without preamble from hiding. Our first clue there was a problem was a javelin sticking out of our mage.
3) After the capture but before the torture of this orc some of his friends rose from the dead as Zombies. No one in our party managed a spellcraft check to determine how this was done.
Braccas does not think that torturing this particular orc to find the location of the missing scouts or to learn the intentions of this army is evil. These orcs attacked him and his friends. Braccas believes there are lives at risk; his life, his friends life, the lives of the scouts, and the lives of the townsfolk in the path of this orc army.
My interpretation of Neutral Good means Braccas also believes that concepts such as "The Greater Good" can be compelling enough to permit another to commit an evil act. Much as Mystra allows her clerics to be Lawful Evil. Mystra is Neutral Good but is represented by evil clergy including the head of her Church in Waterdeep. She obviously does not withhold divine magic from these individuals who presumably commit evil acts now and again.
Lathander may not even judge this act of torture to be evil. I think these quotes from the Lathander entry in Faiths & Pantheons pertain to this discussion.
"Strive always to aid, to foster new hope, new ideas, and new prosperity for all humankind and its allies." These orcs were not the allies of humankind.
"With the return of Bane, many progressive deities believe that direct action must be taken to destroy evil once and for all, and that no unintended consequences of Lathander's plans could be as threatening to the world as simply standing by and doing nothing." It seems that Lathander and other gods in Faerun feel that evil is pretty serious business. Even to the point of not caring what else may happen as long as evil is destroyed which seems at the very least to be reckless, perhaps even evil.
"Militant followers stand at the vanguard of efforts to clear civilized lands of harmful beasts or purge the taint of undead from the world." Rampaging orc war parties should count as harmful beasts. 
Anyway, just thought I would drop in and clarify why I told RIMV that Claudia would not be all that upset.
Happy hunting. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 02 Nov 2007 : 01:08:04
quote:
Originally posted by RIMV
I will also be asking Ed his opinions on the subject when he returns (any idea's when, ladies and gents?).
THO said he was gone till at least next Wendes, the 7th. |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 02 Nov 2007 : 00:14:32
I look at it this way.
60% of all elves are Chaotic Good.
So just like with Orcs having Eldrath Followers, we have the EV.
So I figure somewhere out there is a Kymil Nemsin of Orcs who wants to make all the Orcs peaceful.
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 23:51:45
quote:
Originally posted by RIMV
She would definitely be the type of person to try to help Drakar become a better person as she sees glory not as monetary values or number of kills behind oneself, but genuine helping of people. But this is definitely an issue that, in her eyes, cannot and will not be taken lightly
That's a great roleplaying reason to have the character stay...although of course there must be a limit to how much evil she'll tolerate. This NE character may resist her attempts to get him to reform. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 23:50:02
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
In general, I always like to point out that Orc alignment means that about 60% are Chaotic Evil.
That means about 40% aren't.
Lol. But what portion of that 40% are NE or LE?  Or CN (the "do whatever the hell you want" alignment) for that matter?
I agree. Most of the other 40% would be close to CE in alignmnt. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 23:42:54
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
In general, I always like to point out that Orc alignment means that about 60% are Chaotic Evil.
That means about 40% aren't.
Lol. But what portion of that 40% are NE or LE? Or CN (the "do whatever the hell you want" alignment) for that matter? |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 23:28:51
In general, I always like to point out that Orc alignment means that about 60% are Chaotic Evil.
That means about 40% aren't.
|
| RIMV |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 22:48:00
Sorry, I don't have the time to reply back to everyone at this moment, but I do appreciate all the excellent feedback that has been given thus far. Like I said previously, you all have given me much to think about in the next 2 1/2 days. I've actually emailed this scroll to a couple of my players to take a look at. I will also be asking Ed his opinions on the subject when he returns (any idea's when, ladies and gents?).
Just to clarify real quick, it was not Drakar (the NE Assassin) who was questioning Claudia's reaction to the torture, it was the player of Braccas (NG Favored Soul of Mystra/Warmage) who was questioning it due to some plot twists that I was unable to get into in my first post. Also, none of the characters have any knowledge of Drakar's alignment in game and he hasn't shown any outward signs of being evil besides this one instance.
A little back story: Before the torture happened and just a couple hours after the battle that they got into with the Orc, about 5 of the Orc bodies started to animate. Now I can't get into this here and now because my players will be reading this, but Braccas believes that a necromancer may be working with or using the Orcs to attack the Moonsea proper, in which case his point is that Claudia would want to get information about this sort of problem right away and by any means necessary.
I do believe he (Braccas' player) might be stopping in these forums to voice some of his opinions on the subject, so I'll try to refrain from putting too many words in his mouth.
What I have given a lot of thought about today is Claudia not actually leaving the group, but giving her more reason to stay. She is an extremely caring person and this was the only time Drakar has ever shown this much malevolency since he joined our group (Claudia was in the group since day one, Drakar joined after a few sessions). He has been a stalwart companion to the group, risking life and limb almost every battle they come across (nearly dying a few times in the process - Wraiths anyone?), he even sided with Claudia when another player decided to steal a couple gems from the group and was caught in a lie about it.
She would definitely be the type of person to try to help Drakar become a better person as she sees glory not as monetary values or number of kills behind oneself, but genuine helping of people. But this is definitely an issue that, in her eyes, cannot and will not be taken lightly.
Again, thank you all for you help and opinions! Keep 'em coming! :)
EDIT: Some clarification.
|
| Aravine |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 16:58:29
This could so easily become a philisophical debate... |
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 16:23:52
So true, so true. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 16:14:05
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I think the OP mentioned this party in a different thread, and said that this NPC didn't know that the evil character was evil when she joined the party.
Ah, well if the NPC didn't know the character was evil, she sure does now. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 16:02:41
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
It might not be something most people condone but if the church of Lathander doesn't condone it, or if Lathander himself doesn't condone it, then it isn't evil for that church.
You mean if Lathander doesn't condemn it, I think. :)
I agree that "orcs are people too" is usually nonsense, see my comments in the Book Club about that.
As far as this particular NPC goes--it comes down to what makes sense for the character to do. It's certainly possible that it's time for her to leave (even if that makes things for difficult for the party). I think the OP mentioned this party in a different thread, and said that this NPC didn't know that the evil character was evil when she joined the party. |
| Aravine |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 15:54:55
isn't the inquisitor just a nice name for a torturer? he doen't look like he's playing nice. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 15:52:17
That's the issue we have here, how do we know that Lathander's church, or even Lathander, for that matter, says that torture is a evil act?
By the rules of the game, it is, but as Ed said in his post in 2005, if the gods say it isn't then it isn't an evil act. So, without further information from Ed on how Lathander, or his church, would react, all of us are just giving different opinions.
I've looked through my FR material and I don't see anything in Lathander's info that discusses how he feels about the use of torture. Of course, if it was my game, I'd say a little torture isn't that big of a deal after what he did to trigger the Dawn Cat. :) |
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 15:46:59
It was not questioned that the NE character acted well inside the bounds of his aligments, but this very NE character questioned the reaction of the good character on the torture she was forced to witness.
And here, I think, the NE character is utterly wrong. The priestess of Lathander acted very well to oppose the torture of the Orc. It is completely irrelevant if orcs are evil, neutral, or good; torturing is in itself an evil act, something, no good character must condone.
€dit: Corrected obvious mistakes. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 15:37:42
quote:
Originally posted by Kheris
The PC rogue/would-be assassin was acting well within his NE alignment, but torture is not something that most good people would condone, certainly not a cleric of Lathander. I feel it to be at best an evil act that may have repercussions on a <something>-Neutral character's alignment, but certainly not Drakar's.
Aye, about the RAS rational but I've seen this from gamers long before RAS's new book came out. These debates have raged every since D&D first came out 30 years ago. Hell, I was involved in the one in 2005 when Ed posted the reply I posted up above and that involved fiends and using spells on fiends to redeem them. People were going, "It's evil to redeem fiends!" I guess they feel that fiends are people to. :)
It might not be something most people condone but if the church of Lathander doesn't condone it, or if Lathander himself doesn't condone it, then it isn't evil for that church. Lathander isn't LG, he's NG, so if it was my game, I'd say, also based on his dogma, etc, that he wouldn't have that much of a issue with a little torture to get info from a orc.
But all of us could go back and forth about this and the man to answer this is Ed, except he's gone to another Con. However, as I posted above, there is a little info on how the church would react to a cleric who is having moral issues. Talk to a senior priest, who then talks to another senior priest, who then talks to Lathander himself, if no one can answer the question.
However, orcs have been raiding, killing, etc, in Faerun for centuries. I don't feel that that it's that hard of a question to get an answer to. Most orcs are evil, so doing what this character did doesn't seem that of a stretch to me. If the NPC, if she is a NPC, has issues with it, then she needs to find some new companions. |
| Kheris |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 15:30:30
quote:
As for my opinion, and I don't buy the "Orc are people to" rational, if they needed the info from a evil humanoid and the only way to get it was to torture, then so be it.
I'm not a fan of the "Orcs are ok, just forget that they've basically attacked everything in sight" path that RAS is taking them either, I'm just pointing out that there is a canon story positing that very notion.
The PC rogue/would-be assassin was acting well within his NE alignment, but torture is not something that most good people would condone, certainly not a cleric of Lathander. I feel it to be at best an evil act that may have repercussions on a <something>-Neutral character's alignment, but certainly not Drakar's. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 15:08:07
As for my opinion, and I don't buy the "Orc are people to" rational, if they needed the info from a evil humanoid and the only way to get it was to torture, then so be it.
Looking at the history of orcs in FR, except for current material, all they have done, mostly, is slaughter, kill, rape, destroy, etc. Except for the breed that were redeemed by Eldath but they hardly even exist any more due to the Zhentarim but orcs, in general, are not very well liked, for good reason.
I guess I run my games differently because I don't see anything wrong with what the character did, especially a NE character. If the cleric is only a NPC, then maybe she's not the character to be working with a group that doesn't mind a little pain and bloodshed.
And I wouldn't use the moral guidelines from the BOVD or the BOED, they might work for core but they, to me, don't work for FR.
Furthermore, I don't agree with Charles's stance that only demons are evil. There are tons more races/beings that are just as evil. Fiends just take it to another level. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 14:59:14
I dug up Ed's reply, which was from Sept 29th, 2005:
What's wrong in this entire discussion is that posters are using their own real-world views and understandings of alignments and "correct" alignment behaviour to decide what a character in the Realms would or should rightly do.
The correct way to decide on this is to decide the doctrine of the church of the character's principal faith on this matter.
After all, if the character wasn't sure what was right, they would turn to the nearest priest for advice. Veteran adventurers "generally already know" the general tenor of each faith's creed on adventuring-related matters, either from hearing such advice over the years, or from overhearing it, retold secondhand in taverns (even if inaccurately) as "what befell others."
In this case, the SPELL is deemed "good" in the rules. Therefore, if the spell is used and accepted by the primary faith to which Slime Lord's character belongs, then casting the spell is a good act in that faith, and therefore to that character. If the character isn't a priest or close worshipper of any one faith, but "caught between several," than the character must make a moral decision based on the moral codes (Faerûnian faiths, not real-world "absolutes" that gamers can obviously disagree over) he or she is familiar with.
Slime Lord's character is really facing the age-old "does the end justify the means?" question: can you morally do something evil or questionable to achieve a good result? Turning evil to good is good, in the clear-cut alignment system of the game. So whether or not the casting is an evil or questionable act, and whether or not its results outweigh whatever evil it may be deemed to have, is up to the tenets of the faith the character follows (read: direct advice of priests, who can consult with senior priests, who can consult with the god personally or with divine servant creatures who communicate directly with the god). |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 14:58:46
quote:
Originally posted by RIMV
She is an NPC which I DM. We ended session right after that scene, the cleric did not express her opinions on the subject yet.
Ah, OK.
quote:
He did not think I was playing her wrong, on the contrary, he thought she should have nothing wrong with the torture because it was only and Orc. He just thinks it would be over-reacting.
Well, as I explained above, I would disagree.
quote:
I think it just comes down to the fact that he doesn't want the cleric to leave over something he thinks doesn't deserve that drastic of a reaction. I was trying to stress the point that her upbringing, her faith and beliefs and her god would not like the act of torture and murder, no matter what the being is. After all, Lathander is the god of renewal.
I think stressing that point is a great idea. It also drives home the point that there are consequences to the actions of the PCs--if the evil character feels that he can do anything and then rationalize that it was "necessary", he's going to anger some people. That may cause the party to lose access to allies or help, or even drive other people to work against the party.
quote:
Thanks to all the replies so far. You've given me much to consider before game this weekend.
You're welcome. |
| Kheris |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 14:48:10
quote:
Originally posted by RIMV
<snip>
My question is multi-tiered: Am I out of bounds (in game) by even having her try to reason with Drakar on his "methods of information gathering"? Would the Clergy of Lathander grant an "evil" humanoid reprieve or a chance to redeem itself (even if it wouldn't have)? What would Lathander's personal thoughts on this be? Would it be more a long the lines for a Cleric of Lathander to physically stop Drakar from torturing and murdering known evil beings?
Obviously, each DM runs their deities differently, so your mileage may vary. Please note that any definites I use are to be read as "the way I view this..."
I've been playing a Morninglord, actually. He's NG, focused on the Renewal and Sun domains, basically geared as an undead hunter/primary healer. His view of Lathander is that evil cannot be allowed to flourish, and to bring the Light (yes, with a big L )to every dark corner of the world. In doing so, it means redeeming anyone, or anything, possible. You were completely justified in your decision to have her consider leaving, Lathanderites don't tolerate evil, especially not from people that they're traveling with and healing. Just because she worships the god of peace, love and rock n' roll, it doesn't mean that she'll ignore the wrongdoings of those close to her. Honestly, that would probably bother deeply, perhaps even causing her to feel that she failed to keep him from falling into darkness, depending on how long they've known one another.
Now that I'm done spouting off, on to your questions:
1:No, you're not out of bounds in the least. She has a strict code of morals regarding life and the possibility of redemption. Lathanderites are more apt to forgive than any other faith.
2:Yes! Unquestionably, yes! If a Lathanderite thought they could redeem a Pit Fiend, they'd waltz into the Hells with a huge grin on their face. (Obviously, I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea  ) Please note, love 'em or hate 'em, Orcs are sapient beings, capable of making moral and ethical choices outside the bounds of what we consider normal Orcish behavior. If raised by loving parents, and treated fairly, an Orc could very well live an upstanding life, every bit as virtuous as a human, dwarf, or elf. Mind you, it's extremely unlikely, but we see a slow progression towards this in R.A. Salvatore's The Orc King. So please, keep in mind, those Orcs can be redeemed, though it would be extremely difficult.
3:Ok, this is solely my own interpretation of Lathander (like any of this has been canon? Ha! ), but I would think that He would wish her to redeem Drakar, and failing that, leave his company. Of course, the length of time she has to do this really up to you an how Drakar responds.
4:Wow, that's a toughie... I would say that it's really based on the character themselves. You could explain it as the priestess being so shocked by what she saw that she didn't react until it was over (the "This can't be happening" syndrome) or that she didn't find out until later. Would my priest have tried to restrain Drakar? Yes, but he's a pretty big guy (16 Str and Con) and fights on the front line, if Claudia isn't, that could explain it right there. |
| sirreus |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 14:25:00
this discussion was debated by Cale, Riven, and Jack in the erevis cale trilogy. great debate there. |
| Ergdusch |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 11:46:07
On a side note: The Favoured Soul of Mystra should have a similar view towards such drastic torture measures. Mystra (at least the new Mystra, I don't want to start a Mystra discussion here, BTW) is of good alignment as well. For any semi-moralistic person, evil or not, seeing how such veil things are done to any humanoid being should turn their stummachs around and cause them nightmares for many many years to come!!!
To the Lathandrite - the reaction is totally fine, IMHO. I would have dmed alike. |
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 07:58:13
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
IIRC, the Book of Vile Darkness states that torture is evil, no matter what the ends are.
Voila! Couldn't say it clearer than that!
But of course, we can:
The Book of Exalted Deeds states that torturing another being, even an evil one, and even to achieve a greater good, is an evil thing unacceptable for a good character. On page 9, the chapter "Ends and Means" states:
quote:
Any good character shudders at the thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands of deaths is undeniably a virtous one, and a neutral character might easily consider the use of torture in such a circumstance. [...] [Is it right] that a very good end justifies a mildly evil means[? ] [...]
In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve.
Futher on in this chapter it is stated the sometimes a good character must cooperate with an evil one which is not evil in itself. But in this case the good character has to consider to what lenghts he has to bear the acts of the evil one. He may not turn a blind eye on the acts of the evil part, nor must (!) he tolerate any evil acts.
quote:
Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done.
(p. 10)
This sentence does not pertain to torture (!), but to acts of warfare or self-defence and the like: violence should have good intentions (invading orc territory for profit is not a good intention, but for stopping them raiding nearby villages is one).
In our case the goal to achieve is a quite minor one (there are no lifes at stake, and no evil deeds to hinder) - even a neutral character would not be tempted even to consider the use of torture, I think. So the good character is right in resisting the evil one, and the player of Drakar is utterly wrong in believing "she would have understood the necessity of the torture". Maybe she should have even been more active in hindering Drakar to torture the orc. I am neither sure if the priest of Lathander should give the assassin a second chance, because this torture and murder was an act of grave evil.
On a side note, Year of the Rogue Dragons II: The Rite gives a good example of a priest of Lathander cooperating with a Vampire Dragon and with ogres, helping them in times of need. |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 03:55:31
Yeah, it might freak out the players to find a bunch of Orcish farmers over the next hill.
They might be operating from the Tolkien "Orcs are creatures of Satan" view.
|
| RIMV |
Posted - 01 Nov 2007 : 03:28:38
quote:
Originally posted by Charles PhippsBecause, the Forgotten Realms are a place that while races are treated as evil, only Demons are innately so.
That is a fact I did not consider. Thanks for pointing that out.
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
However, Lathander would IMMEDIATELY exorciate her from her spells and mark her as a fallen priestess.
That would make for a good hook/twist (if she stays with the party)!
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Is he trying to say that the other player (of the Lathander cleric) was roleplaying her character wrong?
She is an NPC which I DM. We ended session right after that scene, the cleric did not express her opinions on the subject yet.
He did not think I was playing her wrong, on the contrary, he thought she should have nothing wrong with the torture because it was only and Orc. He just thinks it would be over-reacting.
I think it just comes down to the fact that he doesn't want the cleric to leave over something he thinks doesn't deserve that drastic of a reaction. I was trying to stress the point that her upbringing, her faith and beliefs and her god would not like the act of torture and murder, no matter what the being is. After all, Lathander is the god of renewal.
Thanks to all the replies so far. You've given me much to consider before game this weekend. |
|
|
