Forgotten Realms: Tyr and the head-on-a-spike

[JiffyPopTart]

So, in our "trying to roleplay more" campaign we have two players who are both playing clerics of Tyr. After being ambushed by goblins and not falling in their spiked-pit-in-the-road gambit we came to the post-battle cleanup.

My character (a wild elven feral druid) decided the best course of action would be to lop of their heads and place then on sharpened sticks placed around the pit in order to warn travellers of the pit, as well as warn goblins not to mess with people on the roads.

At this point Cleric of Tyr A jumped in and said it wasn't kosher to do that to the bodies. Cleric of Tyr B retorted that it was just retribution for the crime the goblins were going to do to innocent travellers. A 30 minute real-time discussion took place on the ethos of Tyr.

It was interesting that we have two apparent cookie cutter characters that because of this small issue have begun splintering their religion into two different sects (the eye for an eye reasonable or the 20 eyes for an eye hardcore).

My question to you is....what do you think Tyr would think of using goblin-heads-on-a-pike as a warning to future goblins?

DS

PS The discussion ended with a compromise of sorts....the wild elves pitched the goblins into their own pit and impaled them on their own spikes while Cleric of Tyr A sulked at being outvoted. It was a fun evening....and i'm not being sarcastic. We need serious shots of character in our games.

 

[EditorBFG]

While I don't have a strong opinion myself, I wanted to note that the ethical debate on whether it is wrong for a lawful good cleric or paladin to do things like that to dead bodies has somehow bubbled up several times in the 15 or so years I have been playing.

On one level, it seems really wrong, but on another, a dead body in D&D is just an empty shell, and no one is hurt by cutting parts of it off or whatever.

Nothing is better in an RPG than a real moral dilemma. So long as there are not uninvolved players sitting around bored, the resolution of these situations is often much more satisfying than killing orcs or whatever.

 

[bolen]

sounds like a good dilemma

 

[Henry]

In my view, heck YES Tyr would approve of using the heads of GOBLIN RAIDERS to warn travelers and Goblins alike. They were not innocent by any means, and justice in a fantasy setting, especially the Realms, tends to be a little harsh. It fits the purposes of Law (the goblins were punished for their crimes) and the purposes of Good (future travellers might well be saved by this drastic warning). Now, the heads of goblin elderly and children would be a different story, but the very heads of the raiders who dug the pit? The home priest might hear this story, smile slightly, offer a swift pat on the back, and tell his clerics to get back to work...

Also, congrats on an excellent character moment. Those are the kinds of things that get talked about by the group for years to come.

 

[freyar]

Generally, I think I'd agree with Henry, unless this happened in a civilized area that has some specific laws about this. But I also have to say that there probably some within Tyr's church that might not like posting heads on stakes, given his alliance with Ilmater.

 

[Rhun]

Hard to say. While Retribution is one of Tyr's domains, the entry in the FRCS goes out of its way to indicate that Tyr's clerics would never enforce an unjust law. But, punishing the guilty is central to Tyr-worship.

So the real question is:

Is it just to hack off the heads of vile goblin marauders and post them on pikes so that all may see what come to such evil doers?

I too agree with Henry. I believe that this is a valid "medieval" form of punishment for the guilty, evil goblins.

 

[Henry]

...there [are] probably some within Tyr's church that might not like posting heads on stakes, given his alliance with Ilmater.

I'm not seeing the connection with undue suffering, or suffering on others' behalf - since the goblin raiders are already dead by that point, I'm not seeing the connection. Now, if it were the still-living raiders impaled on spikes to die slow deaths as travelers walked by (the classic Roman torture for the rebellious gladiators of Spartacus, for example) that's probably be way out of line for a Lawful Good god, regardless of portfolio.

For Helm? Maybe. For St. Cuthbert of Oerth? Possibly. For Bane? Hell, it's in the training manual under "examples."

 

[freyar]

I'm not seeing the connection with undue suffering, or suffering on others' behalf - since the goblin raiders are already dead by that point, I'm not seeing the connection. Now, if it were the still-living raiders impaled on spikes to die slow deaths as travelers walked by (the classic Roman torture for the rebellious gladiators of Spartacus, for example) that's probably be way out of line for a Lawful Good god, regardless of portfolio.

For Helm? Maybe. For St. Cuthbert of Oerth? Possibly. For Bane? Hell, it's in the training manual under "examples."

Yeah, that's true. I guess this is sort of where I see the distinction between the Triad and Helm; Tyr et al. show mercy when there can be redemption and retribution when not, while Helm is "all justice, no mercy" (I forget which FR sourcebook has that quote).

 

[Rhun]

I guess the point I was trying to make (and I know I didn't do such a great job...I'll blame it on the wine I've been drinking ) is that the goblins are already dead at this point. By the edicts of Tyr's religion, it is perfectly logical to think that placing their severed heads upon pikes might discourage further such behavior. Thus, the cause of justice (and retribution) are served.


Edit: Also remember, Tyr was originally a Norse god stolen from that pantheon and fitted into the FR pantheon. The Norse gods were nothing if not violent and bloody.

 

[marune]

First, I have to say that I think that "moral dilemma" isn't something D&D is made to handle. I could talk lengthy about why, but that's not the point I want to make here.

So let's say you want to handle it anyway :

1) Both the DM and the players should have a good understanding of Tyr's dogma.
2) Both players should have already stated how their personal worship differs from the dogma.
3) The players should agree on a metagame level, that the discussion will be short and that one of them will let the other win "this battle, not the war" before the other players are all sleeping on the table.

Not following those steps could lead to wasted hours of boring "in-game" arguing mixed with some metagame confusion about the "right" dogma of the faith.

An alternative is an RPG with rules to handle this kind of fight, such as The Burning Wheel "Duel of wits".