Deities, Clerics, Alignment, 2E, and 3E [Archive] - Wizards Community

Deities, Clerics, Alignment, 2E, and 3E [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Wizardman
06-26-07, 08:11 AM I've recently gotten my hands on Faiths and Avatars and Demihuman Deities. Reading them, I discovered that, at least as far as FR is concerned, the "one-step" rule in regards to clerics did not always apply. For example (and these are only some of many): Eilistraee, Corellon Larethian and Torm each had their clerics be LG, NG, and CG; Eldath and Labelas Enoreth had clerics of all non-evil alignments; Bane and Urdlen had LE, NE, and CE clerics; Helm's clerics were LN, LG, and N; clerics of Berronar Truesilver and Fenmarel Mestarine could only be LG and CN, respectively; and Tempus allowed clerics of all alignments except N.

My question to the board is: how do you reconcile these differences with the one-step rule? I suppose that every poster would have a different answer. My personal view is to favour the 2E alignments except where 3E makes more sense (such as cases where regular clerics could only be one alignment, or having evil clerics of neutral deities). Even then, I would not be opposed to mixing and matching the two, leaving in those alignments that make sense to me and ditching the ones that do not.
Zémobiel
06-26-07, 11:50 AM I remember of one exception that suposed to be the only one, is that Sune have some Paladin Lawful Good like it said in the Campaing setting
TomCosta
06-26-07, 05:42 PM Officially, we should use the 3E rules as set out in the PH, FRCS, and Faiths and Pantheons, which allow for only a couple exceptions to the one step rule, which I think are simplified to work across settings.

Personally, I see no reason why Realms deities (or any settings' deities) have to be bound by the one step rule, particularly if the deities portfolio is not particularly aligned. For example. Chauntea is a NG goddess of agriculture, but I see no reason why agriculture is a good and not a neutral thing or even in some eyes an evil thing. More importanly, even evil beings need food, making her a fairly omnipresent goddess. Ditto for Mystra. The same is obviously not true for a god like Tyr or Cyric. All that to say, I'd have no problem using the more liberal and/or complex 2E alignment rules.
Faraer
06-26-07, 09:09 PM The 'one-step rule' is merely a rule-of-thumb to simplify working out what gods clerics can worship, for play convenience. The actual situation in the Realms is better described by the Faiths & Avatars books. Even so, most clerics are of the same alignment as their gods.

Why don't you think evil clerics of neutral deities make sense? 'Evil' just means they're over the line into the evil third of the alignment grid, not necessarily that they're significantly and actively evil.
MerrikCale
06-26-07, 09:40 PM I remember of one exception that suposed to be the only one, is that Sune have some Paladin Lawful Good like it said in the Campaing setting

It is apparantly no longer the only one as Champions of Valor discusses Paladins of Selune
Zémobiel
06-26-07, 09:48 PM It is apparantly no longer the only one as Champions of Valor discusses Paladins of Selune

Possible i dont own champion of valor, i have cheaked him a bit and dont like how they came out wih a tons of PrC only to fight Shadow weave user
MerrikCale
06-26-07, 09:59 PM Possible i dont own champion of valor, i have cheaked him a bit and dont like how they came out wih a tons of PrC only to fight Shadow weave user

actually the paladin of selune in CoV has nothing to do with Shar
Wizardman
06-27-07, 12:03 AM Why don't you think evil clerics of neutral deities make sense? 'Evil' just means they're over the line into the evil third of the alignment grid, not necessarily that they're significantly and actively evil.

Actually, I think that evil clerics of neutal deities make sense. In 2E a number of neutral gods allowed good clerics but not evil ones. That's what doesn't make sense to me, so I think it's something that 3E got right.
Zémobiel
06-27-07, 09:52 AM actually the paladin of selune in CoV has nothing to do with Shar

Possible... it's just that after have looked at Champion of Valor i had the felling that Shadow Weave was no longer usefull and find stupid that so many way to conter it emerge so fastly
MerrikCale
06-27-07, 10:00 AM Possible... it's just that after have looked at Champion of Valor i had the felling that Shadow Weave was no longer usefull and find stupid that so many way to conter it emerge so fastly

I'm not a big fan of the shadow weave myself. But I do love the Selune/Shar rivalry.

By the way, I love Quebec City.
Zémobiel
06-27-07, 11:13 AM I'm not a big fan of the shadow weave myself. But I do love the Selune/Shar rivalry.

By the way, I love Quebec City.

I love Shadow Weave, but thats not the point of it. I would have not said a world if they added one PrC of Shadow Weave coonter, but they like added five. what dont make any sense, they cant have find this many way to fight it in so few times and developed them in some organisation of their own.

me too i love Selune/Shar rivelry... but thats go beyound that.

Cool, yeah Québec city is a fine city... We will celebrate it's 400 years of fondation in 2008
Faraer
06-27-07, 11:13 AM Actually, I think that evil clerics of neutal deities make sense. In 2E a number of neutral gods allowed good clerics but not evil ones. That's what doesn't make sense to me, so I think it's something that 3E got right.Yeah, I misread you. Which neutral gods are you thinking of?
MerrikCale
06-27-07, 11:24 PM me too i love Selune/Shar rivelry... but thats go beyound that.

Cool, yeah Québec city is a fine city... We will celebrate it's 400 years of fondation in 2008

I would like to see a Selune PrC designed to counter the Dark Moon Monks. I was contemplating an order or crusaders or bringing back Paladins
Wizardman
06-28-07, 01:42 AM Yeah, I misread you. Which neutral gods are you thinking of?

Let's see... for the full list: Dumathoin, Vergadain, Erevan Ilsere, Shevarash, Calladuran Smoothands, Brandobaris, Sheela Peryroyl, Urogalan, Helm, Kelemvor (allowed LE and NE clerics but: only if they were converted Myrkulites; and only then if they shifted alignment within three years of joining the faith), Shaundakul, and Silvanus (didn't allow clerics of any G or E alignment, but did permit LN and CN). Strangely enough, most of these are racial gods. The other N gods either allowed evil clerics or only allowed their clerics to match their own alignments.

I would like to see a Selune PrC designed to counter the Dark Moon Monks. I was contemplating an order or crusaders or bringing back Paladins

There is one, only it isn't specifically Selûnite. The class is the Sun Soul monk, and it allows worshipers of Selûne, Sune, and Lathander to join up. I think that one could make a case that Selûne is slowly reintroducing her paladins. She had an order back in Netheril, when she was a greater god, and her faith is seemingly on the rise again (she's only one DR away from being a greater god).
Zanan
06-28-07, 08:26 AM ...
Personally, I see no reason why Realms deities (or any settings' deities) have to be bound by the one step rule, particularly if the deities portfolio is not particularly aligned. For example. Chauntea is a NG goddess of agriculture, but I see no reason why agriculture is a good and not a neutral thing or even in some eyes an evil thing. More importanly, even evil beings need food, making her a fairly omnipresent goddess. Ditto for Mystra. The same is obviously not true for a god like Tyr or Cyric. All that to say, I'd have no problem using the more liberal and/or complex 2E alignment rules.

Ogre-sized thumbs up to that! While 3E is liberal in general, the one-step-rule is very restrictive - at least to those who want to play divine casters et al.
Faraer
06-28-07, 01:02 PM --
Faraer
06-28-07, 01:11 PM As Tom says, some gods are more fundamentally about a particular alignment (Tymora, Bane) than others (Tempus, Mystra). That's something the 'one-step rule' doesn't deal well with.Strangely enough, most of these are racial gods. The other N gods either allowed evil clerics or only allowed their clerics to match their own alignments.Well, looking at the Faerûnian pantheon, the ethoi of Helm and Shaundakul (who's good-leaning despite his nominal alignment) are such that it's hard to conceive of evil priests serving them, and I don't think there are any in Realmslore. I wouldn't rule out marginally evil Helmite or Shaundakun priests as impossibilities, but they'd be vanishingly rare. Similarly, Silvanus's nature focuses on a druidic balance that leaves little space for strong human good or evil. Kelemvor is different: there the alignment restriction reflects the former mortal's distaste for necromantic evil, which has lessened as he's come into his divine role.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Wizardman 06-26-07, 08:11 AM	I've recently gotten my hands on Faiths and Avatars and Demihuman Deities. Reading them, I discovered that, at least as far as FR is concerned, the "one-step" rule in regards to clerics did not always apply. For example (and these are only some of many): Eilistraee, Corellon Larethian and Torm each had their clerics be LG, NG, and CG; Eldath and Labelas Enoreth had clerics of all non-evil alignments; Bane and Urdlen had LE, NE, and CE clerics; Helm's clerics were LN, LG, and N; clerics of Berronar Truesilver and Fenmarel Mestarine could only be LG and CN, respectively; and Tempus allowed clerics of all alignments except N. My question to the board is: how do you reconcile these differences with the one-step rule? I suppose that every poster would have a different answer. My personal view is to favour the 2E alignments except where 3E makes more sense (such as cases where regular clerics could only be one alignment, or having evil clerics of neutral deities). Even then, I would not be opposed to mixing and matching the two, leaving in those alignments that make sense to me and ditching the ones that do not.
Zémobiel 06-26-07, 11:50 AM	I remember of one exception that suposed to be the only one, is that Sune have some Paladin Lawful Good like it said in the Campaing setting
TomCosta 06-26-07, 05:42 PM	Officially, we should use the 3E rules as set out in the PH, FRCS, and Faiths and Pantheons, which allow for only a couple exceptions to the one step rule, which I think are simplified to work across settings. Personally, I see no reason why Realms deities (or any settings' deities) have to be bound by the one step rule, particularly if the deities portfolio is not particularly aligned. For example. Chauntea is a NG goddess of agriculture, but I see no reason why agriculture is a good and not a neutral thing or even in some eyes an evil thing. More importanly, even evil beings need food, making her a fairly omnipresent goddess. Ditto for Mystra. The same is obviously not true for a god like Tyr or Cyric. All that to say, I'd have no problem using the more liberal and/or complex 2E alignment rules.
Faraer 06-26-07, 09:09 PM	The 'one-step rule' is merely a rule-of-thumb to simplify working out what gods clerics can worship, for play convenience. The actual situation in the Realms is better described by the Faiths & Avatars books. Even so, most clerics are of the same alignment as their gods. Why don't you think evil clerics of neutral deities make sense? 'Evil' just means they're over the line into the evil third of the alignment grid, not necessarily that they're significantly and actively evil.
MerrikCale 06-26-07, 09:40 PM	I remember of one exception that suposed to be the only one, is that Sune have some Paladin Lawful Good like it said in the Campaing setting It is apparantly no longer the only one as Champions of Valor discusses Paladins of Selune
Zémobiel 06-26-07, 09:48 PM	It is apparantly no longer the only one as Champions of Valor discusses Paladins of Selune Possible i dont own champion of valor, i have cheaked him a bit and dont like how they came out wih a tons of PrC only to fight Shadow weave user
MerrikCale 06-26-07, 09:59 PM	Possible i dont own champion of valor, i have cheaked him a bit and dont like how they came out wih a tons of PrC only to fight Shadow weave user actually the paladin of selune in CoV has nothing to do with Shar
Wizardman 06-27-07, 12:03 AM	Why don't you think evil clerics of neutral deities make sense? 'Evil' just means they're over the line into the evil third of the alignment grid, not necessarily that they're significantly and actively evil. Actually, I think that evil clerics of neutal deities make sense. In 2E a number of neutral gods allowed good clerics but not evil ones. That's what doesn't make sense to me, so I think it's something that 3E got right.
Zémobiel 06-27-07, 09:52 AM	actually the paladin of selune in CoV has nothing to do with Shar Possible... it's just that after have looked at Champion of Valor i had the felling that Shadow Weave was no longer usefull and find stupid that so many way to conter it emerge so fastly
MerrikCale 06-27-07, 10:00 AM	Possible... it's just that after have looked at Champion of Valor i had the felling that Shadow Weave was no longer usefull and find stupid that so many way to conter it emerge so fastly I'm not a big fan of the shadow weave myself. But I do love the Selune/Shar rivalry. By the way, I love Quebec City.
Zémobiel 06-27-07, 11:13 AM	I'm not a big fan of the shadow weave myself. But I do love the Selune/Shar rivalry. By the way, I love Quebec City. I love Shadow Weave, but thats not the point of it. I would have not said a world if they added one PrC of Shadow Weave coonter, but they like added five. what dont make any sense, they cant have find this many way to fight it in so few times and developed them in some organisation of their own. me too i love Selune/Shar rivelry... but thats go beyound that. Cool, yeah Québec city is a fine city... We will celebrate it's 400 years of fondation in 2008
Faraer 06-27-07, 11:13 AM	Actually, I think that evil clerics of neutal deities make sense. In 2E a number of neutral gods allowed good clerics but not evil ones. That's what doesn't make sense to me, so I think it's something that 3E got right.Yeah, I misread you. Which neutral gods are you thinking of?
MerrikCale 06-27-07, 11:24 PM	me too i love Selune/Shar rivelry... but thats go beyound that. Cool, yeah Québec city is a fine city... We will celebrate it's 400 years of fondation in 2008 I would like to see a Selune PrC designed to counter the Dark Moon Monks. I was contemplating an order or crusaders or bringing back Paladins
Wizardman 06-28-07, 01:42 AM	Yeah, I misread you. Which neutral gods are you thinking of? Let's see... for the full list: Dumathoin, Vergadain, Erevan Ilsere, Shevarash, Calladuran Smoothands, Brandobaris, Sheela Peryroyl, Urogalan, Helm, Kelemvor (allowed LE and NE clerics but: only if they were converted Myrkulites; and only then if they shifted alignment within three years of joining the faith), Shaundakul, and Silvanus (didn't allow clerics of any G or E alignment, but did permit LN and CN). Strangely enough, most of these are racial gods. The other N gods either allowed evil clerics or only allowed their clerics to match their own alignments. I would like to see a Selune PrC designed to counter the Dark Moon Monks. I was contemplating an order or crusaders or bringing back Paladins There is one, only it isn't specifically Selûnite. The class is the Sun Soul monk, and it allows worshipers of Selûne, Sune, and Lathander to join up. I think that one could make a case that Selûne is slowly reintroducing her paladins. She had an order back in Netheril, when she was a greater god, and her faith is seemingly on the rise again (she's only one DR away from being a greater god).
Zanan 06-28-07, 08:26 AM	... Personally, I see no reason why Realms deities (or any settings' deities) have to be bound by the one step rule, particularly if the deities portfolio is not particularly aligned. For example. Chauntea is a NG goddess of agriculture, but I see no reason why agriculture is a good and not a neutral thing or even in some eyes an evil thing. More importanly, even evil beings need food, making her a fairly omnipresent goddess. Ditto for Mystra. The same is obviously not true for a god like Tyr or Cyric. All that to say, I'd have no problem using the more liberal and/or complex 2E alignment rules. Ogre-sized thumbs up to that! While 3E is liberal in general, the one-step-rule is very restrictive - at least to those who want to play divine casters et al.
Faraer 06-28-07, 01:02 PM	--
Faraer 06-28-07, 01:11 PM	As Tom says, some gods are more fundamentally about a particular alignment (Tymora, Bane) than others (Tempus, Mystra). That's something the 'one-step rule' doesn't deal well with.Strangely enough, most of these are racial gods. The other N gods either allowed evil clerics or only allowed their clerics to match their own alignments.Well, looking at the Faerûnian pantheon, the ethoi of Helm and Shaundakul (who's good-leaning despite his nominal alignment) are such that it's hard to conceive of evil priests serving them, and I don't think there are any in Realmslore. I wouldn't rule out marginally evil Helmite or Shaundakun priests as impossibilities, but they'd be vanishingly rare. Similarly, Silvanus's nature focuses on a druidic balance that leaves little space for strong human good or evil. Kelemvor is different: there the alignment restriction reflects the former mortal's distaste for necromantic evil, which has lessened as he's come into his divine role.