[alignment] How long is the "step" for a Cleric?

[Storm Raven]

Re: I say...

OK...being evil here is gona be tough.

That's because the description given for Helm's dogma doesn't actually support the notion that he is LN. I've noticed that a lot of FR religions, groups, and races have descriptions radically at odds with their official "alignments".

 

[Knight Otu]

From the SRD:

"... A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral."

Yep, that's what I meant. Thanks.

 

[Krinkle]

Re: Re: I say...

Intelligence won't serve you when you have to guard some room for 8 hours straight. It won't help you if you're to obay your superiours every order (some of these orders might come from an evil cleric of helm). .

I think I am reasonably intelligent and have spent 8 hours guarding a room plenty of times. I have also obeyed the orders of my superiors. For a cleric of Helm the drudery of their daily responsibilities are the price they pay for the sense of pride and honor they get by doing their duty.

 

[Wippit Guud]

Helm Paladins would all be Judge Dredd.
And that's a scary thought

 

[iwatt]

Yeah, I'd play Helm paladins with a code different from Torm or Tyr paladins.

Helm Paldins have to believe that absolute obedience to the law is for the greater good. Kinda of like: Yeah I know that in this case you're getting screwed, but for most people this law is a good thing. As a DM I'd have to force him to follow the laws and orders all the way, all the time. Not following orders is the way to loose your paladin powers. Besides, you're too dumb to delve deeply into the spirit of the laws, if it's an unfair law the apropriate authorities will change it. Your the ultimate Enforcer.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Re: Re: Re: I say...

This still doesn't change the fact that Helm holds his paladin to a higher moral standard than he holds himself. Or, if you prefer, a different moral standard.

It's really the nature of the paladin that holds him to that moral standard.

Presumably, Helm thinks that neutrality is better than goodness or else he would be LG. So why would he require, under pain of having all abilities removed, his holy champions to follow what is logically, from his point of view, an inferior moral code ?

Again, it's their paladin-ness that holds them to that. Paladins have to be lawful good, and the patron deity doesn't change that (some even adapt to that: Sune accepts Paladins even though she is chaotic good).

If we follow your logic to its end, KaeYoss, nothing would prevent a paladin from following an evil or chaotic god. Why would Helm grant power to the champions of order and good if he isn't good himself, mmh ?

Why would he grant spells to a lawful good cleric?
It's because of the one-step rule. All helm really cares about is law. As long as his worshippers are lawful, he accepts them, not caring if they are good or evil. He's not for any of those concepts, but he's not really against it.
A chaotic good god, on the other side, actually is against law, and therefore woudln't accept paladins (except Sune, who has them. I think she was jealous of all those dashing boys and girls not worshipping her. You know how spurned lovers can be. And a spurned love goddess......). Corellon Larethian, for example, wouldn't want to force his subjects to obay such a harsh code of conduct. It's not right for elves, and he has to know. So he doesn't have Paladins. He does have divine champions (who can be of any alignment), and for elves, bladesingers are the thing anyway.

 

[Camarath]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I say...

Again, it's their paladin-ness that holds them to that. Paladins have to be lawful good, and the patron deity doesn't change that (some even adapt to that: Sune accepts Paladins even though she is chaotic good).

Helm can't change that but the DM can.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I say...

Helm can't change that but the DM can.

If you allow paladins with different alignment, (I have seen varaints of any good alignments. Also, you could go for LG, NG, LN) you can of course have the exact alignment as your deity. Note that your code of conduct would change then.

But still, you could be a LG paladin then. Helm has LG clerics, after all. As long as the one-step rule is in place, it should apply to paladins as well (and I do like the one-step rule. You don't have to copy the deity, sometimes it's just some of his aspects, some of his domains or parts of his portfolio that make him the ideal patron deity for you. As long as you don't oppose his principles, the god or goddess in question will accept you).

 

[HeavyG]

But KaeYoss, all your reasons come down to "because the PHB says paladins are LG". Well, fair enough, but I'm trying to see Helm's point of view in all this.

He is the one granting his paladins his abilities. Why would he withhold those abilities if his champions act Lawful Neutral ? That makes no sense at all except in a metagaming sense. Helm accepts his LG and LE followers, sure, even clerics. But he won't stop granting a LG cleric spells if he turns LN. That is one big difference, IMO.

Now, in another game world, where clerics and paladins can get their powers from abstract principles like goodness and order, then Helm might have to make do with LG paladins because he is not the one to grant them powers so it's either LG paladins or nothing. But in the FR, a cleric or paladin's powers stem directly from his deity's favor, so I don't get why deities would punish their paladins for acting "better" (still from their POV).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

But KaeYoss, all your reasons come down to "because the PHB says paladins are LG". Well, fair enough, but I'm trying to see Helm's point of view in all this.

He is the one granting his paladins his abilities. Why would he withhold those abilities if his champions act Lawful Neutral ? That makes no sense at all except in a metagaming sense. Helm accepts his LG and LE followers, sure, even clerics. But he won't stop granting a LG cleric spells if he turns LN. That is one big difference, IMO.

Now, in another game world, where clerics and paladins can get their powers from abstract principles like goodness and order, then Helm might have to make do with LG paladins because he is not the one to grant them powers so it's either LG paladins or nothing. But in the FR, a cleric or paladin's powers stem directly from his deity's favor, so I don't get why deities would punish their paladins for acting "better" (still from their POV).

I have already said that if you dispense of the alignment restriction, you can have LN clerics. It is a "metagame" thing, a rules thing, that Paladinsn must be LG. It's a good house rule to change that (but IMO they have to remain within one step of LG. This actually means that Bane could have LN Paladins), and I would allow it if you came to me asking to be a LN Paladin of Kelemvor (not Helm though, the temptation to kill that PC would be to great* ). But it's still a house rule, and they won't change it in canon FR.



*(I hate Helm. The least favourite of all Faerûnian deities. I'm not a very good friend of Tyr either. Torm, on the other hand, seems OK. Don't know, I just like him somehow. It's probably cause of his presentation in the Avatar trilogy. But generally, I don't like the "actively" lawful alignment, except maybe LE. The passive lawful characters are OK though. The one that keep strict discipline, but won't annoy the others with their "get back to the right path" attitude. For example, I like Kelemvor, despite his LN alignment. He's one of those "professionals", he had the insight that he has to be LN on his job. He won't expect everyone to be lawful, though)