Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kae'Yoss" data-source="post: 1029744" data-attributes="member: 4134">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* <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />). 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)</blockquote>

Verification