Classes, Deities, and their Meaning

[ethinos]

Being accepted to the clergy of Ezra means you need to manifest that litl' shield.

As far as I remember right, that is.

I don't think any of the other clergies have a similar requirement, and besides, I am talking either of an informal priest or one that doesn't sweat about not being able to cast spells. Because spreading the gospel/dogma/salvation is their only true motivation. I once mentioned in another thread, if clerics weren't given powers/spells, how many players would still play a priest? Some would. A mundane priest is still a relevent character concept.

[Exordium]

Being accepted to the clergy of Ezra means you need to manifest that litl' shield.

As far as I remember right, that is.

I don't think any of the other clergies have a similar requirement, and besides, I am talking either of an informal priest or one that doesn't sweat about not being able to cast spells. Because spreading the gospel/dogma/salvation is their only true motivation. I once mentioned in another thread, if clerics weren't given powers/spells, how many players would still play a priest? Some would. A mundane priest is still a relevent character concept.

Steers a bit off topic but:

The priests are called anchorites, and they are always clerics by class, at least to a degree. Certainly a lay member can spread Ezra's word, but would not be officially recognized within the clerical hierarchy, and thus would lack influence within. The priests are part of clergy, and all members of Ezra's clergy are clerics by class; Else, they can not show they are in favor of Ezra and will not be included to the hierarchy.

[Emomina]

I read this thread, and personally I consider Geiger to be a good player with great posts most of the time, but in this case I think you're a bit off, man. Hear me out.

The thing is, if you want to play the "Religious extremist"  there is a class for all alignments.  For LG there is paladin, for NG,CG,LN,N,CN there is the divine champion, and for LE,NE,CG there is blackguard.  A lot of people seem to think you have to worship evil outsiders like devils and demons for BG, but an evil Deity fits the requirement too.

In this way, you are never restricted by the alignment, but if your looking for a rigid gamestyle, then Paladin is the way to go because there is no wavering in their alignment. They can get by with patrons of LG, LN and NG but they themself have to be LG.  I don't know about how PotM treats cases like Sune Firehair (a CG deity with Paladins amongst her followers) or other exceptions to the rules.   Nearly every religious fanatic concept can be made. With cleric, blackguard, divine champion, and paladin and all the multiclassed combinations. You are not restricted one bit for any concept, just need to think about it.  (I just wish we had favored soul, how I love that class)

[Thoraion]

I read this thread, and personally I consider Geiger to be a good player with great posts most of the time, but in this case I think you're a bit off, man. Hear me out.

The thing is, if you want to play the "Religious extremist"  there is a class for all alignments.  For LG there is paladin, for NG,CG,LN,N,CN there is the divine champion, and for LE,NE,CG there is blackguard.  A lot of people seem to think you have to worship evil outsiders like devils and demons for BG, but an evil Deity fits the requirement too.

Just how i see it myself.
And UA really is no argument here - it is a set of rule modifications, many of those can not used at the same time (though, i am a great fan f UA - but it modifies the rules beyond the limits of DnD)

I don't know about how PotM treats cases like Sune Firehair (a CG deity with Paladins amongst her followers) or other exceptions to the rules. 

Huh? That is possible? In every source i have available, there is an alignment limitation for divine spellcasters of a deity - namely a deviation of just one step on the two axis from the deities alignment. So in case of Sune divine spellcasters can be: NG, CG, CN, NN ... did i miss anything? Though, that may be altogether wrong... But if it is correct, paladins of Sune are not possible (see for example "faiths and pantheons")

A discussion based on novels is also quite difficult, since those usually emphasize the EXCEPTION (since those are... "cool"). I am very sceptic about using exceptions to justify ... anything (see Drizzt).
If you seek for a legendary, good example for a paladin, have a closer look on Joan of Arc.
The best example from a dnd novel that i know (not so many...) is from a setting that does not even know paladins.... Yes, dragonlance. And no, not Sturm, though he is a good example (like any non corrupt solamnic) for adherance to a code. Mina. And yes, i know where her powers come from, and i am aware that she is in fact a complete ripoff of Joan of Arc - and the whole concept, including the dark circumstances make her an even better inspiration for paladins in the lands of the mist. Mind, not how any paladin is supposed to be...

As for "objective good and evil" in DnD and Ravenloft in particular... that is usually quite hypocritical. Good and evil are much harder to define than law and chaos - and after i read the book of vile evil (of which the first chapters are in fact the best i know on that topic), the book of exalted deeds is a sorry joke. And again yes - i know that those are not even published by Wotc, but the concepts of good and evil are quite poorly defined in Wotc publications (and Sword and Sorcery as well). What makes things worse is the introduction of modern humanism in a (late) medival setting.

[HellsPanda]

Sune is a CG char, so NN would be two steps. So under normal circumstances divine spellcasters of Sune have to be CG, NG or CN. But there is apparantly a Paladin order of LG sunites

[Budly]

We did have a Paladin of Sune around the server some years ago. Some players from India played her. Remember anyone?

[Bluebomber4evr]

As for "objective good and evil" in DnD and Ravenloft in particular... that is usually quite hypocritical. Good and evil are much harder to define than law and chaos - and after i read the book of vile evil (of which the first chapters are in fact the best i know on that topic), the book of exalted deeds is a sorry joke. And again yes - i know that those are not even published by Wotc, but the concepts of good and evil are quite poorly defined in Wotc publications (and Sword and Sorcery as well). What makes things worse is the introduction of modern humanism in a (late) medival setting.

Not really. D&D defines evil as having no respect for life or the lives of others. And "respect" is the key word there. It's not "good characters don't kill" but that a good character feels regret for any life he/she takes while an evil character either does not care or takes joy in it. That's something that can be quantifiable and thus used as an objective standpoint. It's not hypocritical either, because it's not about the actions but the motivations behind those actions.

[Thoraion]

Not really. D&D defines evil as having no respect for life or the lives of others. And "respect" is the key word there. It's not "good characters don't kill" but that a good character feels regret for any life he/she takes while an evil character either does not care or takes joy in it. That's something that can be quantifiable and thus used as an objective standpoint. It's not hypocritical either, because it's not about the actions but the motivations behind those actions.

A small disclaimer in advance... resources on good and evil are quite meager - at MonteCook, Wotc and Sword and Sorcery all alike, though the Book of vile darkness IS a good source for the evil part and SoS has a few neat approaches as well, though they all leave quite a few questions open to individual judgement (the usual source for excessive discussions - and those get emotional when a personal opinion is considered "objective").

So - why did i write "hypocratical"? The attitude to killing is something where confusion gains the upper hand. Your interpretation is from my point of view a quite solid one - though it leaves me thinking whether a frenzied berserker would qualify as evil... or a jaded soldier who separates his deeds on the battlefield (see a common state of mind in combat action where killing becomes something rather mechanical) from any other aspect of his life. Well, theoretical.
The real hypocrisy is quite well reflected in the book of exalted deeds. I'm aware that it is not binding, but it DOES influence quite a many players as far as i understand. And what do i find there? The suggestion to make use of the more sophisticated magical options available through magic to keep a caught villain from doing more harm. Death penalties are already considered as something clearly evil there (questionable... you see it differently - as do i) - but the suggested alternative is even worse: Mind control. I can not even count the settings where such is considered magic as black as necromancy, since a free will is considered to be at the very least as valueable as life itself.

As for your argument about motivations being the relevant part in making the difference between good or evil - i am with you there. But this negates the idea of an objective good or evil (which is supposed to exist in Ravenloft according to a few sources - including several DMs on the server).
Well, the saying is that the path to hell is paved with good intentions - fitting for Ravenloft.
However, good intentions did not save me from alignment shifts in the past. So the measure among DMs seems not to be the same there.

[HellsPanda]

Doing evil acts despite the good motivation behind it, will lead you towards a darker path. [Meaning, you get evil points]
Same goes for doing good, lawfull and chaotic acts.

[Dread]

Doing evil acts despite the good motivation behind it, will lead you towards a darker path. [Meaning, you get evil points]
Same goes for doing good, lawfull and chaotic acts.

Indeed. There's a reason why wrath is one of the seven deadly sins.

[Ternce]

As a side note, I like the idea of characters being religious fanatics without actually getting super powers from their deity.

[Thoraion]

Religious characters that are neither divine casters nor fanatics are rare as well.
As a matter of fact, i know no character with the usual faerunian mindset (one patron, but prays to whatever deity is appropriate for given circumstances)

Vengeful Seraphim/HellsPanda: You may notice a difference in your opinion here from Blues statement 

[Threefold]

Pfft. It's not faith if the God isn't proving their existence with orbital ion cannons and invincibility if you drop a prayer for them every so often.

[WildPirate13]

Heroic paladins make more sense to me as NG.. the description on NG is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)

Neutral Good
Neutral Good is known as the "Benefactor" alignment. A Neutral Good character is guided by his conscience and typically acts altruistically, without regard for or against Lawful precepts such as rules or tradition. A Neutral Good character has no problems with co-operating with lawful officials, but does not feel beholden to them. In the event that doing the right thing requires the bending or breaking of rules, they do not suffer the same inner conflict that a Lawful Good character would.

Think of modern media such as movies and books. Most of the characters in the end had issues with corruption that brought them in conflict with evil.

Now Classical Crusaders.. different story.

They fought they killed.. and did a lot worse in the name of their God and it was all peachy keen, go see the priest and be forgiven. Modern day perspective may indeed put them as an evil alignment.

Look at the religious fanatics in the world that think they are indeed on a misson from God.. to purge the unclean.

LG works as well it boxes in the "hero" however. Many times it ends up in Ravenloft costing him his pseudo divine connection.

[APorg]

Now Classical Crusaders.. different story.

They fought they killed.. and did a lot worse in the name of their God and it was all peachy keen, go see the priest and be forgiven. Modern day perspective may indeed put them as an evil alignment.

In the Arab cultures, the word "Crusade" has pretty much the same connotations as the word "Jihad" does in ours...

[ethinos]

Heroic paladins make more sense to me as NG.. the description on NG is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)

Neutral Good
Neutral Good is known as the "Benefactor" alignment. A Neutral Good character is guided by his conscience and typically acts altruistically, without regard for or against Lawful precepts such as rules or tradition. A Neutral Good character has no problems with co-operating with lawful officials, but does not feel beholden to them. In the event that doing the right thing requires the bending or breaking of rules, they do not suffer the same inner conflict that a Lawful Good character would.

Think of modern media such as movies and books. Most of the characters in the end had issues with corruption that brought them in conflict with evil.

Actually, I think a Champion of (fill in the blank) makes more sense as neutral/chaotic good, and is perfectly described by what you just wrote. Paladins are the martial backbone for their god, and their god's wishes are pretty much the law for the paladin. That's why deviating from the code/tenets/whatever of their god is a cause for falling out of favor. They need to stringently follow that code. That's where the need to be Lawful comes in. Anything less implies a moral core that's not firm and unwavering.

I made a Champion of Ezra, and specifically made him Neutral Good. I envisioned him as doing his goddess' work, but in his own way, in a manner that he hopes she'd approve of. I haven't played him in forever, but I've always envisioned him as a lone wolf type of crusader of good. He doesn't really buddy up to, and seek allies with the local Ezrites because he's on a personal mission that takes precedence and needs independence. It's hard to get things done when you've got religious duties and responsibilities in the way!

I honestly think folks confuse a paladin with a knight. A knight is typically a vassal of his lord, and fights for either money, property, glory, honor, or any combination of those. Being a knight is a job. A paladin is first and foremost a strong arm of their god to oversee the protection of their clergy, worshippers, and to carry out any duties as required of them. God comes first, for them. Not necessarily extremism, mind you, but duty. Being a paladin isn't just a job, but a way of life and a calling. A paladin fighting for money, property, glory, honor, etc., is one that's being selfish and putting himself before his duties.

The thing that bugs me about the rules for paladins and clerics is that clerics seem to possess greater favor with their deity, but the paladin is held to a much higher standard. Usually greater power comes with greater responsibility.

[WildPirate13]

LG works as well it boxes in the "hero" however. Many times it ends up in Ravenloft costing him his pseudo divine connection.

Both work well. Depending on faith and beliefs of the character.

[Emomina]

Paladins are Lawful primarily because of their code. A NG person without the code would take on the evil doer even if he is unprepared and unarmed. A Paladin would mosyt likely offer the bad guy his back up sword and give him a modicum of chance. Better to keep the code even if it increases the risk etc.