[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 13 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
30794895 No.30794895 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

How the hell does one justify this situation:

- have a cleric of a Good god

- cleric got brutally traumatized since his god cursed him because cleric did evil deeds. Cleric got transformed into a monster, killed a bunch of people

- penance is done, cleric saw the error of his ways ... but - HOW THE HELL IS GOD GOOD IF THE LESSON INVOLVES KILLING A BUNCH OF INNOCENTS?

How does one ... justify this concept?

Help me, teeg.

>> No.30794913

The innocents that were killed got tickets straight to appropriate heaven analogy for it.

>> No.30794924

The didn't follow the god. They were doomed anyway. Their sacrifice helped redeem one of the god's clerics though.

[spoilers]God are dicks.[/spoilers]

>> No.30794927

Divine intervention warps the very conceptual fabric of understandable alignment.

Or those Innocent's were Actually evil, or posed a threat to the god, in which it's a very smart deception on the deities part, killing two birds with one stone.

To be honest If I were a god I'd have Nai've paladins with hearts of gold to do my bidding, so they'll believe anything I tell them

>> No.30794929


You don't. That's stupid.

>> No.30794949

The god believes himself to be good, and therefore, so do his followers. He is not.

>> No.30794955 [SPOILER] 
File: 16 KB, 300x390, Shyamalan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>How does one ... justify this concept?
The god was Evil all along.

>> No.30794998

The same way people have for centuries: Faith.

>> No.30795031

Simple, in fact :
-if the people killed were innocent, they ascend to their god's respective heaven
-if the people killed were fuckers, TO HELL THEY GO.

Meanwhile, your cleric is an important tool to the god. His soul and deeds are more valuable, and, most of all, having a renegade priest is a precedent it cannot tolerate.

It's not about punishing the cleric, it's about teaching him not to stray away ever again, and to warn the others of the terrible fate that awaits them should they defy their master.

>> No.30795045

The god is good because he cares about people's souls, not their lives. The innocents went to heaven, the cleric's soul was saved. So far as the god is concerned, there is literally no down side.

>> No.30795123

Go to bed Miura you've got berserk to write.

>> No.30795138

The god didn't kill those people, the cleric did.

>> No.30795145

Oh, I remember this thread.

>> No.30795158

There's also the distinct possibility that those deaths could lead to good things in the future--imagine if three orphans from that event grew close, and then when they were adults defeated an ancient evil with the power of their friendship?

>> No.30795163

In mythology, innocent bystanders are never important, adhesion to a supernal concept of good and evil is.
The god got what he wanted by keeping a powerful servant in check through guilt. What's a few lives down the drain compared to that?
It's highly hypocritical, yes; welcome to every religion ever

>> No.30795180

I recall a storytime where a paladin renounced the worship of his god after the god tested him to see if he was worthy of being sent on a particularly important quest - all because the actual test endangered innocents (although none were harmed in the end).

The god was pissed but the paladin kept his powers since he gets his powers from the ideals of good and justice, not a god.

Clerics on the other hand are essentially slaves and just have to submit to their god's judgement even if they don't understand or it doesn't make sense.

>> No.30795205

Yeah well, fun fact, even if the good gods care only about their souls, wanton murder is still Evil:
if the victims were Evil, you denied them a chance to redeem themselves, be Good and save their souls;
if the victims were Good, you denied the world a force for Good
So yeah, the random monster punishment is really an Evil measure
If we are talking about D&D, though, suhc a measure would not be undertaken by a Good deity. The standard punishment for hubris or Evil deeds would be deprivation of cleric powers until the cleric performed an Atonement.

>> No.30795211

Also the group decided to do the holy quest anyway and the god tried intervening directly to stop them (via avatar) because they were not worthy.

The paladin told the avatar to fuck off and let them work with a nat 20 in diplomacy and it worked.

>> No.30795215

If a god makes you kill innocents or kills innocents as part of the test then he is an evil hypocritical monster who you should renounce immediately. And in a high enough level campaign you kill the false god and take his place.

>> No.30795230

Doing Evil things for good ends still makes you Neutral at best, certainly not Good.

>> No.30795267
File: 87 KB, 563x358, 1385883051752.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You can't, you have to lie.

>> No.30795281

The only misstep on the part of the paladin was telling the departing avatar that "Seems like I'm quite not as blind as you claimed" - the god had earlier said that the paladin was blind in denouncing him.

The avatar responded to the taunt by gouging out one of the paladin's eyes before planeshifting away.

>> No.30795285

Neutral is within one step of Good, so a Good god can do Neutral things while remaining Good

alignments a shit

>> No.30795312

Alignment works splendidly for D&D, because its original intent is still maintained: give you an in-setting convenient excuse for tomb looting and mass murder for profit while making you able to still claim yourself Good, because those dudes were Evil (or Neutral at best) so fuck them
And it's unthinkable that we could call our protagonists / player avatars Evil, no sir!

>> No.30795430


Alignments would be fine if they weren't used as a gameplay mechanic in 3.X/Pathfinder.

I mean, I have to be a lawful person to learn how to hit shit with my fists?

I have to be Neutral to become one with nature?

I have to LG to be a Paladin even though I could technically follow any god I want whose alignments could technically be anything?

Are you fucking kidding me.

>> No.30795444


>Are you fucking kidding me?

Damn Typos

>> No.30795546

Well yeah, they eventually became more than what they were useful for at start
>Paladin argument
Actually that bit is fluffed pretty good, a pladin is not a servant of the gods, but a servant of the supernal concepts of Law and Good. You could shit on religious figures in your spare time and no god would be able to take your powers away from you. The book Unearthed Arcana gives suggestions for paladins serving the other three non.Neutral alignments.
Always Lawful monks and always Neutral druids are retarded though.

>> No.30795553
File: 1.07 MB, 988x691, CoDZilla.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Monks aren't pugilists. They are ascetics who happen to be pugilists.

Pugilist fighters are what you want if its just "hit stuff with fists," genius.

Alignment is your char's ethos. Outlook-specific classes have specified outlooks. Deal with it.

The "holy warrior of a god rocking heavy weapons and armor" archetype you're thinking of is the cleric, the "holy warrior of good" archetype is paladin.

The more you know!

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.