Cleric / Paladin of St. Cuthbert [Archive] - Wizards Community

Cleric / Paladin of St. Cuthbert [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Cayn
10-02-07, 08:59 PM Firstly, is it possible to even play as a paladin who worships St. Cuthbert?

If so, how would a cleric/paladin of St. Cuthbert act? I'm a little unsure of how to play it.
jradd777
10-02-07, 09:14 PM I'm almost afraid that I've overlooked some very obvious point but it doesn't seem to me that there should be any difficulty playing a Paladin that worships St. Cuthbert. I would they that he/she would be very vengeful though, and take a private personal pleasure in punishing wrong-doers, maybe even as cruelly as any form (or a lowest form) of honor could allow.

PHB 3.5 says Cuthbert is LN but enforces law so strongly that he favors the good, even though he isn't. "He exacts revenge and just punishment." And mentions that his Clerics can't be evil.

What makes you unsure of how to do it?

I'm genuinely interested in helping figure this out if there really is some sort of inconsistency, I played a Paladin that worked for Kelemvor once, it was awesome!
Cayn
10-02-07, 09:29 PM Thanks for the response.

The problem was, I had the mindset that St. Cuthbert sort of has the attitude that 'the means justify the ends' even if it would go against what would be considered 'good', and even the moral code of the paladin.
zeratulcraft
10-02-07, 09:34 PM Go Grey Guard from Scoundrel. Makes it easier.
The_Shaman
10-02-07, 09:39 PM A deity's dogma usually offers some room for interpretation or grey areas. This is why even clerics, who have to be a lot closer to their deity than paladins, can be 1 alignment step away. So while imo the average paladin of St. Cuthbert might appear more legalistic or stern than the average paladin of Pelor, s/he will still be a paladin. In his/her faith, they will probably be true to a more benevolent interpretation of St.Cuthbert's dogma than most clerics and worshippers, as well.

Besides, as long as a paladin adheres to a LG code of morality in their dealings with friend and foe alike, vengeance and just punishment are not incomparable with their status. As a rule of thumb, if a deity allows LG clerics, it can act as a paladin patron unless other important aspects of its dogma (i.e. reliance on nonviolence) interferes with the class' abilites or function.
The_Shaman
10-02-07, 09:41 PM Double-post, sorry
jradd777
10-02-07, 09:52 PM Yeah, I agree with The_Shaman and I understand the bit of confusion to some extent. LG isn't as restrictive in my eyes as most people think... it's about the things that you do, not the way that you think or too much of your personality.

I think it's possible to truly be an evil Paladin, following the rules and doing good deeds but in your heart wanting to rip people's faces off, ha ha.

But seriously, if you ever want to emphasize your deity's personality, I say go for it. There's nothing wrong with a Paladin being GLAD to (legally and for good reasons) spill some blood. RP that stuff cuz it's so much fun!

Kelemvor's Paladin that I played crushed undead face and laughed about it for days. As a matter of fact, he ran with CN people and didn't lecture them too often, since he was in good graces with the god who would judge them later anyway, he let the little fish go.
Jaxgaret
10-03-07, 01:34 AM You could skip the whole argument and play a Lawful Good Crusader of St. Cuthbert.

I'm actually playing one in one of my campaigns. I love that character.
bkdubs123
10-03-07, 01:52 AM Or a Chaotic Neutral Fighter of no deity named Rufus Mallory. They say he killed a town guard in broad daylight.

uh...

What?
Jaxgaret
10-03-07, 07:34 PM Or a Chaotic Neutral Fighter of no deity named Rufus Mallory. They say he killed a town guard in broad daylight.

I'm guessing this was a dig at my post?

I happen to think that "play a Crusader instead, choose your own CoC" is a good suggestion.
Nephlite
10-03-07, 08:18 PM Thanks for the response.

The problem was, I had the mindset that St. Cuthbert sort of has the attitude that 'the means justify the ends' even if it would go against what would be considered 'good', and even the moral code of the paladin.

Cuthbert is backwards: he believes ends justify means. What the ends are justify the way you get there.

Means justify ends: means how you treat them justifies the end. Thus you need to treat them how you wish to be treated.
This is a good view. Most people forget the meaning of the phrase.

People say: ends justify means to allow torture.
But a Good person who believes means justify ends could not justify through torture any good gained from information: why? the means.
The_Shaman
10-03-07, 09:17 PM Regarding Cayn's post:

Actually, I'm not so sure St. Cuthbert is so much end-oriented myself. To say that the end justifies the means is to say that no matter what you do and how you do it, it's going to be okay if you complete your goal. That, actually, strikes me as a rather chaotic (alignmentwise) message: it means that things such as rules, morals, institutions aren't as important as long as you get the job done.

On the other hand, saying that the means justify the end - or at least that the end doesn't justify the means - means that you don't just have to do the right thing, but you have to do it in the right way. This strikes me as a more legalistic and dogmatic approach. For a deity like St. Cuthbert, whose dogma is "law" for the believers and which ranks honesty, truthfulness, and plain speech among the highest virtues (according to Deities and Demigods) such a message would be much more in line with the faith.

Certainly, the creed also dictates sensibility and practicality; therefore, achieving one's goals is also important. Therefore, I would consider it thus: St. Cuthbert expects devotion and success, but not if it comes at the cost of swaying from his teachings. Some means to an end are acceptable, but not all. Dishonest and false behavior, for example, are likely to be incompatible with St. Cuthbert's creed, in the name of any cause. How can you do show your fealty to a deity when in the course of your "help" you have trampled all it holds dear? It is like striving to achieve honor through infamy.

The situation gets a bit more complex when the paladin class is added to the mix. I think it would work if we consider the different alignments to be typical interpretations of the dogma by different groups in the clergy. For example, s/he may be exceedingly honorable, and considers it a duty as one who is strong to protect and, if necessarily, avenge all who are weak.
jradd777
10-04-07, 08:29 AM Dishonest and false behavior, for example, are likely to be incompatible with St. Cuthbert's creed.

I thought the first part of this was VERY well explained, this particular line though, begs the difference between Law and Goodness. Lying can be considered in the Law alignment and Good, Law only, or Good only. Personally, I'd only consider it in the goodness whereas, perjury would be law.

But you're right that goodness is more compatible with Cuthbert than any evil, whether legal or not. It might be fun to let him have one renegade Paladin that exercises evil when necessary but stays within the bounds of law, tho, yeah?
jradd777
10-04-07, 08:37 AM I'm guessing this was a dig at my post?

I happen to think that "play a Crusader instead, choose your own CoC" is a good suggestion.

Ha ha, actually, it may not have been, I know that guy, he might just have been being crazy for the moment. If he was making fun at all, he might have just been carelessly pointing out the pointlessness of bypassing that particular part of the original question considering that it's kinda the key thing. Without it, there really isn't a question in the first place. Of course, that may not have been his aim and he was just aimlessly commenting for the fun of sharing Rufus Mallory with the world... I heard he killed that guard and then ran off to some other city...
Jaxgaret
10-04-07, 11:18 AM Ha ha, actually, it may not have been, I know that guy, he might just have been being crazy for the moment.

Alrighty.

If he was making fun at all, he might have just been carelessly pointing out the pointlessness of bypassing that particular part of the original question considering that it's kinda the key thing. Without it, there really isn't a question in the first place.

I don't think it's a pointless contribution to the thread. If you're not sure exactly how to play a Paladin of St. Cuthbert, there is an alternative - play a Crusader of St. Cuthbert.

If you're hell-bent on playing a Paladin of St. Cuthbert, simply ignore my advice. But if the OP hadn't really thought of it before and likes that alternate character path, then hey, my advice was useful.
jradd777
10-04-07, 03:31 PM I don't think it's a pointless contribution to the thread. If you're not sure exactly how to play a Paladin of St. Cuthbert, there is an alternative - play a Crusader of St. Cuthbert.

If you're hell-bent on playing a Paladin of St. Cuthbert, simply ignore my advice. But if the OP hadn't really thought of it before and likes that alternate character path, then hey, my advice was useful.

That's true, that's true, I hope you didn't take offense, I didn't mean any. I'm just more one to answer the question given, when it is specific, you think outside the box more with it, which can be very good. By the way, what book is Crusader in, I feel like I've heard of it but I can't remember if I've seen it... I think I saw something that was a PrC with a similar name?

Nvm, I remembered what Crusader was, ha ha, and feel a little dumb... Now I know why I didn't think of it at first. It is pretty close to the Paladin in many ways, I know many who would argue that it's better/more fun to play.
The_Shaman
10-04-07, 03:40 PM I personally see only one problem with St. Cuthbert's paladins: where most paladins have a stick, they will probably have an entire quarterstaff ;) .

@Jradd: I'm not sure if I understand you, but if I do, I am afraid you have misread my post. It is St Cuthbert's dogma (as per F&A), not LG aligment itself, that makes St. Cuthbert's paladins and clergy so opposed to dishonesty. Different paladins will have different degree of tolerance for that: a paladin of Bahamut or Garl Glittergold might be much more tolerant of subterfuge, as their deities do not shun low-profile action when it is called for.
jradd777
10-04-07, 04:30 PM @Jradd: I'm not sure if I understand you, but if I do, I am afraid you have misread my post. It is St Cuthbert's dogma (as per F&A), not LG aligment itself, that makes St. Cuthbert's paladins and clergy so opposed to dishonesty.

Right, I did misunderstand to an extent, sorry. I didn't realize where the dogma was coming from that you were talking about. I was generalizing for Paladins as a class.
Cayn
10-04-07, 07:44 PM Cuthbert is backwards: he believes ends justify means. What the ends are justify the way you get there.

Means justify ends: means how you treat them justifies the end. Thus you need to treat them how you wish to be treated.
This is a good view. Most people forget the meaning of the phrase.

People say: ends justify means to allow torture.
But a Good person who believes means justify ends could not justify through torture any good gained from information: why? the means.

Sorry, ends justify means was what I meant. It must have gotten mixed up typing it.
Cayn
10-04-07, 07:48 PM Regarding Cayn's post:

Actually, I'm not so sure St. Cuthbert is so much end-oriented myself. To say that the end justifies the means is to say that no matter what you do and how you do it, it's going to be okay if you complete your goal. That, actually, strikes me as a rather chaotic (alignmentwise) message: it means that things such as rules, morals, institutions aren't as important as long as you get the job done.

On the other hand, saying that the means justify the end - or at least that the end doesn't justify the means - means that you don't just have to do the right thing, but you have to do it in the right way. This strikes me as a more legalistic and dogmatic approach. For a deity like St. Cuthbert, whose dogma is "law" for the believers and which ranks honesty, truthfulness, and plain speech among the highest virtues (according to Deities and Demigods) such a message would be much more in line with the faith.

Certainly, the creed also dictates sensibility and practicality; therefore, achieving one's goals is also important. Therefore, I would consider it thus: St. Cuthbert expects devotion and success, but not if it comes at the cost of swaying from his teachings. Some means to an end are acceptable, but not all. Dishonest and false behavior, for example, are likely to be incompatible with St. Cuthbert's creed, in the name of any cause. How can you do show your fealty to a deity when in the course of your "help" you have trampled all it holds dear? It is like striving to achieve honor through infamy.

The situation gets a bit more complex when the paladin class is added to the mix. I think it would work if we consider the different alignments to be typical interpretations of the dogma by different groups in the clergy. For example, s/he may be exceedingly honorable, and considers it a duty as one who is strong to protect and, if necessarily, avenge all who are weak.

This clears things up quite a bit, thanks.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Cayn 10-02-07, 08:59 PM	Firstly, is it possible to even play as a paladin who worships St. Cuthbert? If so, how would a cleric/paladin of St. Cuthbert act? I'm a little unsure of how to play it.
jradd777 10-02-07, 09:14 PM	I'm almost afraid that I've overlooked some very obvious point but it doesn't seem to me that there should be any difficulty playing a Paladin that worships St. Cuthbert. I would they that he/she would be very vengeful though, and take a private personal pleasure in punishing wrong-doers, maybe even as cruelly as any form (or a lowest form) of honor could allow. PHB 3.5 says Cuthbert is LN but enforces law so strongly that he favors the good, even though he isn't. "He exacts revenge and just punishment." And mentions that his Clerics can't be evil. What makes you unsure of how to do it? I'm genuinely interested in helping figure this out if there really is some sort of inconsistency, I played a Paladin that worked for Kelemvor once, it was awesome!
Cayn 10-02-07, 09:29 PM	Thanks for the response. The problem was, I had the mindset that St. Cuthbert sort of has the attitude that 'the means justify the ends' even if it would go against what would be considered 'good', and even the moral code of the paladin.
zeratulcraft 10-02-07, 09:34 PM	Go Grey Guard from Scoundrel. Makes it easier.
The_Shaman 10-02-07, 09:39 PM	A deity's dogma usually offers some room for interpretation or grey areas. This is why even clerics, who have to be a lot closer to their deity than paladins, can be 1 alignment step away. So while imo the average paladin of St. Cuthbert might appear more legalistic or stern than the average paladin of Pelor, s/he will still be a paladin. In his/her faith, they will probably be true to a more benevolent interpretation of St.Cuthbert's dogma than most clerics and worshippers, as well. Besides, as long as a paladin adheres to a LG code of morality in their dealings with friend and foe alike, vengeance and just punishment are not incomparable with their status. As a rule of thumb, if a deity allows LG clerics, it can act as a paladin patron unless other important aspects of its dogma (i.e. reliance on nonviolence) interferes with the class' abilites or function.
The_Shaman 10-02-07, 09:41 PM	Double-post, sorry
jradd777 10-02-07, 09:52 PM	Yeah, I agree with The_Shaman and I understand the bit of confusion to some extent. LG isn't as restrictive in my eyes as most people think... it's about the things that you do, not the way that you think or too much of your personality. I think it's possible to truly be an evil Paladin, following the rules and doing good deeds but in your heart wanting to rip people's faces off, ha ha. But seriously, if you ever want to emphasize your deity's personality, I say go for it. There's nothing wrong with a Paladin being GLAD to (legally and for good reasons) spill some blood. RP that stuff cuz it's so much fun! Kelemvor's Paladin that I played crushed undead face and laughed about it for days. As a matter of fact, he ran with CN people and didn't lecture them too often, since he was in good graces with the god who would judge them later anyway, he let the little fish go.
Jaxgaret 10-03-07, 01:34 AM	You could skip the whole argument and play a Lawful Good Crusader of St. Cuthbert. I'm actually playing one in one of my campaigns. I love that character.
bkdubs123 10-03-07, 01:52 AM	Or a Chaotic Neutral Fighter of no deity named Rufus Mallory. They say he killed a town guard in broad daylight. uh... What?
Jaxgaret 10-03-07, 07:34 PM	Or a Chaotic Neutral Fighter of no deity named Rufus Mallory. They say he killed a town guard in broad daylight. I'm guessing this was a dig at my post? I happen to think that "play a Crusader instead, choose your own CoC" is a good suggestion.
Nephlite 10-03-07, 08:18 PM	Thanks for the response. The problem was, I had the mindset that St. Cuthbert sort of has the attitude that 'the means justify the ends' even if it would go against what would be considered 'good', and even the moral code of the paladin. Cuthbert is backwards: he believes ends justify means. What the ends are justify the way you get there. Means justify ends: means how you treat them justifies the end. Thus you need to treat them how you wish to be treated. This is a good view. Most people forget the meaning of the phrase. People say: ends justify means to allow torture. But a Good person who believes means justify ends could not justify through torture any good gained from information: why? the means.
The_Shaman 10-03-07, 09:17 PM	Regarding Cayn's post: Actually, I'm not so sure St. Cuthbert is so much end-oriented myself. To say that the end justifies the means is to say that no matter what you do and how you do it, it's going to be okay if you complete your goal. That, actually, strikes me as a rather chaotic (alignmentwise) message: it means that things such as rules, morals, institutions aren't as important as long as you get the job done. On the other hand, saying that the means justify the end - or at least that the end doesn't justify the means - means that you don't just have to do the right thing, but you have to do it in the right way. This strikes me as a more legalistic and dogmatic approach. For a deity like St. Cuthbert, whose dogma is "law" for the believers and which ranks honesty, truthfulness, and plain speech among the highest virtues (according to Deities and Demigods) such a message would be much more in line with the faith. Certainly, the creed also dictates sensibility and practicality; therefore, achieving one's goals is also important. Therefore, I would consider it thus: St. Cuthbert expects devotion and success, but not if it comes at the cost of swaying from his teachings. Some means to an end are acceptable, but not all. Dishonest and false behavior, for example, are likely to be incompatible with St. Cuthbert's creed, in the name of any cause. How can you do show your fealty to a deity when in the course of your "help" you have trampled all it holds dear? It is like striving to achieve honor through infamy. The situation gets a bit more complex when the paladin class is added to the mix. I think it would work if we consider the different alignments to be typical interpretations of the dogma by different groups in the clergy. For example, s/he may be exceedingly honorable, and considers it a duty as one who is strong to protect and, if necessarily, avenge all who are weak.
jradd777 10-04-07, 08:29 AM	Dishonest and false behavior, for example, are likely to be incompatible with St. Cuthbert's creed. I thought the first part of this was VERY well explained, this particular line though, begs the difference between Law and Goodness. Lying can be considered in the Law alignment and Good, Law only, or Good only. Personally, I'd only consider it in the goodness whereas, perjury would be law. But you're right that goodness is more compatible with Cuthbert than any evil, whether legal or not. It might be fun to let him have one renegade Paladin that exercises evil when necessary but stays within the bounds of law, tho, yeah?
jradd777 10-04-07, 08:37 AM	I'm guessing this was a dig at my post? I happen to think that "play a Crusader instead, choose your own CoC" is a good suggestion. Ha ha, actually, it may not have been, I know that guy, he might just have been being crazy for the moment. If he was making fun at all, he might have just been carelessly pointing out the pointlessness of bypassing that particular part of the original question considering that it's kinda the key thing. Without it, there really isn't a question in the first place. Of course, that may not have been his aim and he was just aimlessly commenting for the fun of sharing Rufus Mallory with the world... I heard he killed that guard and then ran off to some other city...
Jaxgaret 10-04-07, 11:18 AM	Ha ha, actually, it may not have been, I know that guy, he might just have been being crazy for the moment. Alrighty. If he was making fun at all, he might have just been carelessly pointing out the pointlessness of bypassing that particular part of the original question considering that it's kinda the key thing. Without it, there really isn't a question in the first place. I don't think it's a pointless contribution to the thread. If you're not sure exactly how to play a Paladin of St. Cuthbert, there is an alternative - play a Crusader of St. Cuthbert. If you're hell-bent on playing a Paladin of St. Cuthbert, simply ignore my advice. But if the OP hadn't really thought of it before and likes that alternate character path, then hey, my advice was useful.
jradd777 10-04-07, 03:31 PM	I don't think it's a pointless contribution to the thread. If you're not sure exactly how to play a Paladin of St. Cuthbert, there is an alternative - play a Crusader of St. Cuthbert. If you're hell-bent on playing a Paladin of St. Cuthbert, simply ignore my advice. But if the OP hadn't really thought of it before and likes that alternate character path, then hey, my advice was useful. That's true, that's true, I hope you didn't take offense, I didn't mean any. I'm just more one to answer the question given, when it is specific, you think outside the box more with it, which can be very good. By the way, what book is Crusader in, I feel like I've heard of it but I can't remember if I've seen it... I think I saw something that was a PrC with a similar name? Nvm, I remembered what Crusader was, ha ha, and feel a little dumb... Now I know why I didn't think of it at first. It is pretty close to the Paladin in many ways, I know many who would argue that it's better/more fun to play.
The_Shaman 10-04-07, 03:40 PM	I personally see only one problem with St. Cuthbert's paladins: where most paladins have a stick, they will probably have an entire quarterstaff ;) . @Jradd: I'm not sure if I understand you, but if I do, I am afraid you have misread my post. It is St Cuthbert's dogma (as per F&A), not LG aligment itself, that makes St. Cuthbert's paladins and clergy so opposed to dishonesty. Different paladins will have different degree of tolerance for that: a paladin of Bahamut or Garl Glittergold might be much more tolerant of subterfuge, as their deities do not shun low-profile action when it is called for.
jradd777 10-04-07, 04:30 PM	@Jradd: I'm not sure if I understand you, but if I do, I am afraid you have misread my post. It is St Cuthbert's dogma (as per F&A), not LG aligment itself, that makes St. Cuthbert's paladins and clergy so opposed to dishonesty. Right, I did misunderstand to an extent, sorry. I didn't realize where the dogma was coming from that you were talking about. I was generalizing for Paladins as a class.
Cayn 10-04-07, 07:44 PM	Cuthbert is backwards: he believes ends justify means. What the ends are justify the way you get there. Means justify ends: means how you treat them justifies the end. Thus you need to treat them how you wish to be treated. This is a good view. Most people forget the meaning of the phrase. People say: ends justify means to allow torture. But a Good person who believes means justify ends could not justify through torture any good gained from information: why? the means. Sorry, ends justify means was what I meant. It must have gotten mixed up typing it.
Cayn 10-04-07, 07:48 PM	Regarding Cayn's post: Actually, I'm not so sure St. Cuthbert is so much end-oriented myself. To say that the end justifies the means is to say that no matter what you do and how you do it, it's going to be okay if you complete your goal. That, actually, strikes me as a rather chaotic (alignmentwise) message: it means that things such as rules, morals, institutions aren't as important as long as you get the job done. On the other hand, saying that the means justify the end - or at least that the end doesn't justify the means - means that you don't just have to do the right thing, but you have to do it in the right way. This strikes me as a more legalistic and dogmatic approach. For a deity like St. Cuthbert, whose dogma is "law" for the believers and which ranks honesty, truthfulness, and plain speech among the highest virtues (according to Deities and Demigods) such a message would be much more in line with the faith. Certainly, the creed also dictates sensibility and practicality; therefore, achieving one's goals is also important. Therefore, I would consider it thus: St. Cuthbert expects devotion and success, but not if it comes at the cost of swaying from his teachings. Some means to an end are acceptable, but not all. Dishonest and false behavior, for example, are likely to be incompatible with St. Cuthbert's creed, in the name of any cause. How can you do show your fealty to a deity when in the course of your "help" you have trampled all it holds dear? It is like striving to achieve honor through infamy. The situation gets a bit more complex when the paladin class is added to the mix. I think it would work if we consider the different alignments to be typical interpretations of the dogma by different groups in the clergy. For example, s/he may be exceedingly honorable, and considers it a duty as one who is strong to protect and, if necessarily, avenge all who are weak. This clears things up quite a bit, thanks.