Unaligned Clerics

[Chris_Nightwing]

So I was reading the rules on Clerics and deities. Got an alignment? You have to worship a god with that alignment, sure. Unaligned gods? Any alignment Cleric, again, sure, I can see this. You're Unaligned? Worship any god. That's right. Derive power from Bahamut for being a bit wishy-washy when it comes to upholding justice and honour. He doesn't mind!

I just don't get it. Can anyone help with the roleplaying side of this?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I'd view it like this, you worship Bahamut, and you want to see his influence grow and expand, yadda, yadda.

However, you do not strictly follow his tenants in how to approach this. So a Unaligned Cleric may be fine with cheating out a organization for a good cause, or not approaching evil head on and instead working with it, to meld it to a new path, etc.

 

[Squidibus]

There are a couple of ways to handle this. One is result-based powers; the Cleric adheres to behavior that pleases Bahamut even though he doesn't do it out heartfelt goodness, and so Olde Platinum Dragon grants him powers.

Problem: Well, why couldn't an Evil person do the same?


Another is potential for conversion: Bahamut wants people to be good; Evil people have already demonstrated that they definitely won't change on their own, so they need more active persuasion. Unaligned people, on the other hand, are relatively blank slates; perhaps by granting them the ability to change things for the better they will! And if they abuse the power to the point of being Evil...they'll lose it anyway.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Ah but then, why can't you be Good? Why must you be either unaligned or Lawful Good? I just don't get it.

Edit: Blank slates might just about cover it, yes, but I still see Good people as capable of becoming Lawful Good. I'm starting to think the rule is just nonsensical and should be removed..

 

[Squidibus]

I think that not allowing Good clerics to follow Lawful Good deities is silly if Unaligned are acceptable. Unless one takes being Good but not Lawful Good an active rejection of Law, which doesn't seem to be the intent as written.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I think that not allowing Good clerics to follow Lawful Good deities is silly if Unaligned are acceptable. Unless one takes being Good but not Lawful Good an active rejection of Law, which doesn't seem to be the intent as written.

The way the allignments are defined are actually:

Lawful Good
(Chaotic) Good
Unalligned
(Lawful) Evil
Chaotic Evil

The definition of "Good" and "Evil" are very similar to the old definitions of CG and LE. The reason for the different names is that CG and LG have more in common than CG and CE ... ditto with the lawful allignments. The "main" fight is between good and evil ... the lawful/chaotic issue is one that either side has in terms of "methods" for good or evil.

(Chaotic) Good and Lawful Good will team up ... but in terms of worship there is a fundamental difference of philosophy that would cause problems [either the God rejecting the Cleric or vice versa]

Good: Freedom and Kindness
Lawful Good: Civilization and Order

Evil: Tyranny and Hatred
Chaotic Evil: Entropy and Destruction

Freedom and Civilization are in opposition, to an extent. Similarly Tyranny and Entropy are in opposition. [Since Freedom and Entropy are the "good and evil sides" of the same coin ... ditto Civilization and Tyranny].

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

The forum is at full speed tonight.. I've given it further thought and I just don't get it. It doesn't fit with the alignment system at all, unless it's not 'linear' as first presented - but then why not call LG just Lawful, Lawful Good implies also Good in some way.

I declare unaligned devotees of thoroughly aligned gods to be the single silliest rule in the game. CHALLENGE ME I DARE YOU.

 

[Byronic]

As dubious as I think the rule is, I believe that it might have to do with the following.

It is not the deity that rejects the cleric, but rather the cleric that does not wish to devote themselves to the deity. You see, a Lawful Good cleric might want to serve Bahamut because they like the values behind it. However he might think Pelor is just missing something. It's a conflict between the concepts of the deity and the personality of the Cleric. The Good Cleric thinks that Bahamut doesn't care *enough* for the little guy but Pelor fits quite perfectly.

Instead of thinking of the Clerics as Unaligned think of them as Neutral for a moment. The Lawful Neutral might just worship Bahamut because of the whole order thing. He likes it. The Chaotic or True Neutral cleric might be able to devote himself to Bahamut mechanically but he just wouldn't. You may assume that all Unaligned Clerics who worship Bahamut would have leaned towards Lawful Neutral in the former system.

While I believe my explanation to be quite plausible (and probably close to the original idea) I still think that the rule is rather stupid and in the eyes of an astute newcomer to DnD as arbitrary.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Freedom and Civilization are in opposition, to an extent. Similarly Tyranny and Entropy are in opposition. [Since Freedom and Entropy are the "good and evil sides" of the same coin ... ditto Civilization and Tyranny].

And yet Erathis can have (Chaotic) Good Clerics

Really though, if this is the case then I think calling the alignment Lawful Good is slightly confusing. I really like your 'Civilisation, Freedom, Meh, Tyranny, Entropy' scale though - that's a nice primer for explaining the alignment system.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Unalligned is a wide area ... effectively undecided. A cleric of Bahamat that is unalligned may agree with the teachings ... but not be LG in that he doesn't want to go out LOOKING to put himself into danger. Those NPC clerics that are willing to heal up the adventurers back in town, but aren't going on the mission themselves? There is a chance they are unalligned. They believe in the cause ... but not to the extent where they will put themselves at risk.

The Good/LG system basically eliminated Neutral Good [as well as Neutral evil].