| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 18 Nov 2008 : 14:18:06
Context: I'm working on an adaptation of the seropaenes for the FR. It's an organization presented in Tome of magic regrouping followers of lawful gods against the threat that is the binders. The members put aside their different dogma to unite against a common foe which threathen the very existence of gods. It's an interesting organization where paladin of Heironeous work together with Vecna's necromancers.
In my adaptation, the gods included in this union are: Bane, Helm, Azuth, Tyr, Torm and Kelemvor. Long-story-short, the leader is a former paladin of Helm* who grew tired of protecting the unworthy and is now a blackguard who devote his life to help those who help themselves. The point is, he is still a follower of the same god, Helm. Can he still be considered a "fallen" paladin? How would he be viewed by the other members of his clergy? Or by Helm himself?
He does not "oppose" goodness, he is a champion of law with an iron hand, more akin to Bane's philosophy than Torm's. Tell me what you think
* The leader's name is Sir Micheal Ambrose and the background I present differs from the one in the book.
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 19 Dec 2008 : 05:58:42
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
That's my kind of story. Any idea about which gods would be worshipped by both? Or what would that threat be? Please tell us before it becomes NDA 
I appreciate the enthusiasm, but no such luck--it's entirely possible the story will come back around at some point and I'll end up writing it after all: whether for the Realms or outside.
Cheers |
| Ghost King |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 23:19:25
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
quote:
Originally posted by ranger_of_the_unicorn_run
Now, you do bring up a good point about mind-shielding, but unless they have the ability to actually disguise their alignment, rather than simply blocking it from being determined, I think this would make a paladin suspicious.
Sorry, but you are wrong. If a paladin cast detect evil and an evil character is protected with mind shielding (spell or magic item), the paladin will simply sense no EVIL aura. It will only mean that everyone in the spell range is either good or neutral, so he will have no reasons to be suspicious (unless he has some clue that the character might be evil, like if he's killing a puppy or sumthing  ). Beside, Undetectable Alignment is of even lower than non-detection, since Undetectable alignment hide only your alignment and non-detection protects you from almost ALL divination spells. Anyway, that's off-topic, sorry (I make off-topic posts in my own scroll, sigh).
Who better to go off topic then the orginal poster.
You answered exactly how I would have, Kilvan. But as for paladins not associating with neutral aligned I think they would for the possibility of bringing to the side of good. Remember a Paladin is a Champion of Good and will not shy away from people of questionable behavior in order to show them that being good is its own reward. Now you are right, ranger, in saying they won't associate knowingly with evil characters. That's how they stay "pure" so to speak because evil insults not only their code of conduct, but everything that is consider good which they represent.
Now let's say a neutral person repeatably insults his code of conduct, then the paladin, after giving many warnings to stop, would leave or if they did an evil or illegal act arrest them and have justice deal with them.
Ranger, I do see how you could see paladins the way you do, in a way I share that point-of-view of them. But as you said we both differ on our opinion of what a paladin would do or act. Which is comforting if you ask me, otherwise what a bore that would be if every paladin was a card board cut-out of good and no differing personality or perspective.
~Ghost King~ |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 22:53:43
quote:
Originally posted by ranger_of_the_unicorn_run
Now, you do bring up a good point about mind-shielding, but unless they have the ability to actually disguise their alignment, rather than simply blocking it from being determined, I think this would make a paladin suspicious.
Sorry, but you are wrong. If a paladin cast detect evil and an evil character is protected with mind shielding (spell or magic item), the paladin will simply sense no EVIL aura. It will only mean that everyone in the spell range is either good or neutral, so he will have no reasons to be suspicious (unless he has some clue that the character might be evil, like if he's killing a puppy or sumthing ). Beside, Undetectable Alignment is of even lower than non-detection, since Undetectable alignment hide only your alignment and non-detection protects you from almost ALL divination spells. Anyway, that's off-topic, sorry (I make off-topic posts in my own scroll, sigh). |
| ranger_of_the_unicorn_run |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 22:20:21
In my opinion, a paladin would be very likely to detect evil on people that they think may be anything less that pure, shining good. This is because they are supposed to be the most upright examples of good, and even associating with neutral characters may diminish their reputation. This is part of the reason why many people find paladins annoying: they are slow to trust others and they are very much holier-than-thou. Now, you do bring up a good point about mind-shielding, but unless they have the ability to actually disguise their alignment, rather than simply blocking it from being determined, I think this would make a paladin suspicious. This is just my interpretation of paladins, however, and I don't believe this has anything to do with real-world politics and morals. |
| Ghost King |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 22:05:29
quote:
Originally posted by ranger_of_the_unicorn_run
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost King
Long story short, unless people have some super ability to tell what alignment someone is, anybody can work with anybody else.
Well, there is detect evil...
I know I was just stating that most Faerun citizens, or real life for that matter, are not capable of such spells so they could work with someone of opposing views be whatever that is. Even if people have the spell persay, like a paladin, to find evil they probably don't have that ability active continously and probably don't detect evil frequently unless they suspect something.
Also, just my opinion mind you, I think people would be rather offended if you casted a spell to figure out what "side" they are on whether they be any alignment. What if you got casted detect evil on you and were just minding your own business to see if you were evil due to the fact you just didn't like the person for whatever reason? While the spells certainly help identify someone's core beliefs it could be used to imprison someone for crimes that they may have never commited. Just cause you found an evil person in the room doesn't mean they are scheming or doing anything wrong.
This is the reason why in the real world most countries now have innocent until proven guilty legal systems. This was not always the case and it is a huge leap from what previous legal systems were in the past. People were literally killed just being accused of guilt without even a trial, and even if they did get one judgment was already decided in some cases. Heck, in the dark and medevil ages people sometimes never got a trial and were imprisoned for decades and died in their cells from hunger, sickness or both before they even saw a trial.
Also, just one quick thing, even though the Realms has a great amount of magic to discover truths about peoples motives and thoughts, there are just as many spells that prevent such intrusions to detect them. While a paladin might be able detect evil in a ballroom to find the evil bandit king in disguise, for example, but never find him through those means for two reaons: 1) He might have mind shielding and nondetection casted on himself or through a magic item and 2) There could be more evil people then just himself there that might not have anything to do with the bandit king's plots or followers.
Fact is the paladin has to have knowledge and a degree of evidence in order of an actual crime before he can arrest them or smite them if the person refuses to surrender to him/her. Different story all together if you're someone without such qualms of morality and ethics on your mind.
Interesting thought though, perhaps Helm or any deity that's neutral with paladins and blackguards in their service, could prevent their detect spells from picking up evil or good nature clergy so that they may work together. Cause after all it is the deity in question that grants both their powers and can decide whether or not it works as intended. That's just an idea you could explore if you want to make either side clueless to the other.
Anyways, just thought I'd clarify my statement to avoid any confusion. This discussion is definiately helping come up with some good ideas for future campaigns. My group will probably not thank you though. [Insert evil laughter]
~Ghost King~
|
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 21:47:05
Couldn't the same be said then of lawful evil blackguards? |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 20:47:20
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
How can a neutral god empower paragons of virtue?
Because their domain/teachings is or represents something a "paragon of virtue" might be willing to uphold, even if the actual god isn't good-aligned. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 20:44:45
quote:
Originally posted by Ionik Knight
Earth style spelling of names is rare but not unheard of. Gareth, Christine, and Sylvia of the Bloodstone lands come to my mind immediately; and Earth names with alternate spellings are fairly common.
I'm with Faraer on this one. The "Bloodstone names" are pretty atypical and I wouldn't say they are representative of names in the Realms.
That said, you can still name your character whatever you want. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 17:26:26
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
P.S. Pardon the self-indulgent moment, but this whole discussion reminds me of a Realms novel I cooked up but never wrote (at least not yet), involving a paladin and a blackguard forced to work together to defeat a greater threat . . . and the blossoming romance between them. The story was more about their raw chemistry, whose philosophy would triumph, and who would change (or both?), rather than the many duels between them.
We'll see if that novel ever comes to fruition.
That's my kind of story. Any idea about which gods would be worshipped by both? Or what would that threat be? Please tell us before it becomes NDA |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 17:01:49
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
quote:
Originally posted by see
So. Given the pre-existing lore from 2e (mentioned in my previous post), and given the precedent of St. Cuthbert directly in the core rules, I'd have limited the alignment choices of Helm's clerics in 3.x FR to LG and LN only. I think it was a mistake that it wasn't, and a bigger mistake that no errata was ever issued to change it.
While I agree that many would prefer it that way, I think it would be wrong to assume that it was a mistake on their part. As it has been shown in previous posts, mostly by Mr de Bie, LE clerics of Helm COULD find their place in this church, but are significantly in fewer number than the LN or LG. If you disagree, and you are certainly allowed to, that's fine, but I don't suggest that you wait for an errata (mostly because Helm died in 4th ed  )
quote:
Originally posted by see
Yeah, if I were going to hold my breath for errata, I'd be awfully blue by now. But whether they allowed LE clerics of Helm intentionally or accidentally, it was still a mistake/an error/wrong/whatever.
Precedent and pre-existing lore is a good argument. It should be noted, however, that faiths change and evolve as time passes, for precisely the same reason worlds must--to stay alive.
Here's a potential explanation for why they made the change:
If Faerun-proper were hearing about the Maztica debacle (as noted in Faiths and Pantheons), and (again mentioned) Helm's actions in the ToT lowered his reputation (as it were), it shouldn't come as a surprise that he and his church might have grown a little more desperate for followers. A deity's power is tied to the number of folks who believe in him/her, and maybe Helm was unable to be quite as selective as before?
Also, a deity always hopes that his/her followers will grow and "see the light" (as it were), whether that means changing alignment, or philosophy, or whatever. The best servants are made, not born. To draw an example, Mask took a great interest in Erevis Cale (from Kemp's books), who wasn't priestly or particularly evil-aligned at all (granted, this is debatable, as books aren't sourcebooks, but if you read the two Cale series, I've no doubt you'll come to the conclusion that he is HARDLY your standard evil character), and turned him into one of his best (and least tethered) servants.
So I don't think it's too controversial to have evil Helmites--and in 3e, not 2e, since the rule of “divine power tied to faith” has been in place longer, allowing Helm’s stiff stance on admitting only non-evil worshippers to cost him power, and a number of things have happened to diminish Helm's selectivity.
quote:
I understand and appreciate arguments in favor of LE Helmites. I just think they misjudge Helm's personal character (with the 2e lore being used to bolster my opinion of Helm's character).
Oh totally--no question, there. They misunderstand Helm's character and twist his dogma to suit their own ends (in a sense, so do good-aligned worshippers of Helm, but at least they're closer).
My point is that Helm just accepts their worship because, well, he has to. I’m sure he’d prefer otherwise (good alignments tend to be more in keeping with “guardian” and “protection”), but lots of faiths do bad things in the name of keeping themselves afloat.
Excellent analysis, by the way, of how Helm is a neutral deity who opposes evil deities and “prefers the company” of good deities/followers. “Prefers the company of good” comes straight from the 2e druid’s handbook in describing the True Neutral alignment: how one can prefer to have a noble knightly kingdom next door that keeps the region stable (within reason), rather than a murderous, anarchic orc kingdom that loots and burns one’s forest, without that being a conflict of alignment.
quote:
Helm, I feel, would consider characters who crossed the line into a full-blown evil alignments too much of a risk. In reaction, Helm would cut off their spells and send a vision to inform both the Hemite and his superior(s) in that he had done so. Of course, an evil god might continue to supply spells, and send a vision claiming the first vision was the deceptive act of an evil god. This would be especially likely in the case of Mask or Cyric.
As I suggested, it's also entirely possible that Helm accepts these LE worshippers in the hopes that they will one day change: “see the light” and become, well, not-evil.
Or perhaps it’s just about keeping them in his personal paddock, rather than letting them flock to another, eviler deity. (Is eviler a word? meh!)
That’s one of my favorite lines from Heroes season 3, from Mrs. Petrelli to Noah Bennett (to paraphrase): “Whether you work with him or not, I’m putting [him] in play—all you need to decide is whether that’s under your supervision.”
At least if LE priests/knights/etc follow Helm, he has a chance to fix or at least restrain them. If he rejects them, not only does he lose the divine power from their worship, but also he potentially looses enemies of good into the world.
Cheers
P.S. Pardon the self-indulgent moment, but this whole discussion reminds me of a Realms novel I cooked up but never wrote (at least not yet), involving a paladin and a blackguard forced to work together to defeat a greater threat . . . and the blossoming romance between them. The story was more about their raw chemistry, whose philosophy would triumph, and who would change (or both?), rather than the many duels between them.
We'll see if that novel ever comes to fruition.
|
| ranger_of_the_unicorn_run |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 16:49:01
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost King
Long story short, unless people have some super ability to tell what alignment someone is, anybody can work with anybody else.
Well, there is detect evil... |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 14:00:36
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost King
Long story short, unless people have some super ability to tell what alignment someone is, anybody can work with anybody else. They might not like one another and very well might hate one another, but if they have a common goal, agenda, belief, etc, people of differing philosphies of a cause can work together. The key word is that there has to be something in common in order to do that though. Without that they probably wouldn't bother to associate outside of people that share their views.
Right. I hate a handful of my co-workers, I still have to work with them to get the job done . |
| Ghost King |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 14:00:07
Oops! *Chuckles* You posted again since your last one, Kilvan. Forgive my impatience. Hmm, I was not aware of that, been a while since I skimmed my older books. As I said far be it of me to tell you how to play Blackguards and Paladins. And yes I over-dramatized the rivaly a little, but the dinner table discussion would be rather quiet, me thinks? (Cold-stares across the table and gritting teeth, sounds like family dinner night! J/K!)
But your idea is intriguing and I suppose possible in extreme circumstances for say Blackguards and Paladins to join forces to fight enemies of Helm, but I don't think either would give any thanks to the other and would just part ways as quickly as possible after the job was done. (Which by your example you gave, has already been done and I thank you for teaching me something new). |
| Ghost King |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 13:42:53
Well, if you're just talking about LG and LE without classes such as Paladin and Blackguard in the mix, then yes they could. Just that Paladins are dedicated to vanquishing evil in all its forms and Blackguards are the opposing force there to corrupt or destroy all that is good.
As for law/chaos, Helm would be opposed to chaos just as much as good/evil. He does want a lawful world with Order. Having both good and evil in the ranks assures he is keeping such order by beating chaos to the punch, in a matter of speaking. If you have LE and NE people working with you to keep order against the chaos of the world, then you are one step ahead. Chaos on the other hand is by definition unpredictable, and in the case of CE highly destructive. While necessarily not bad it isn't good for civilization to have constant change and lack of stability, but on the flip side it isn't good to become stale and inflexible.
With your example about CG and LG vs LG and LE, I would say you do have a point. However, evil has the same problem with LE, CE, CN and LN. Each would conflict differently due to their good/neutral/evil axis. But regardless, if they share at least one element in common, there is common ground to forgive or compromise the opposing person's wild or rigid behavior. But conflict is always there to be sure and many times such people don't regularly consort with one another. That doesn't mean though they can't work with one another or get along.
Long story short, unless people have some super ability to tell what alignment someone is, anybody can work with anybody else. They might not like one another and very well might hate one another, but if they have a common goal, agenda, belief, etc, people of differing philosphies of a cause can work together. The key word is that there has to be something in common in order to do that though. Without that they probably wouldn't bother to associate outside of people that share their views.
~Ghost King~ |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 13:11:43
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost King
However, I'm sure a good chunk of people both good and evil do worship the Watcher god because of his dogma and it appeals to them. Dare I say he is probably the most fair lawfully? He was the only god Ao didn't slap down and actually had Helm defend the Throne of the Gods from the gods of Faerun in the Time of Troubles. (Might be wrong heard that second hand. I haven't gotten to read that series just yet, just sourcebooks on the history of that time.)
IIRC it was Ao's way to punish Helm. He made it clear that ALL deities were responsible for their fall. Tyr tried the injustice flag, cost the poor fella his eyes 
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost King
Now I'm sure I'm going to get ripped a new one for saying "Too much good can be a bad thing" but here me out. When the Crusades started it was started with the ideal to do good by both sides, as they saw it. Sure they wanted land, power, wealth, glory and smiting the evil guy with the false faith, but many of them truly believed they were doing "good".
Attaboy Ghost King, that's exactly it. The crusades are probably the best example of being "too good". For faerunian, dawn cataclysm is perfect too to illustrate this. Lathander tried to shape the pantheon to his image and to get rid of all evil, he ended up doing more "bad" things. Helm lost his consort in this conflict, that should remind him that good can be as dangerous than evil. Rumors are that Lathander is preparing for a second attempt, who do you think is gonna be in the front line to stop him?
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost King
Side-note to orginal poster: I personally think a Blackguard wouldn't be involved in Helm's heirarchy due to the fact they are considered the most foul evil of all mortal beings, I do not think Helm would knowingly allow them in his clergy or church. Blackguards to me are just people that finally got fed up with their humanity seeing it as a hinderance and give it away freely to sow evil for whatever reason. If an ex-paladin goes this route it is literally the metaphorical slap-in-the-face that is good and just in the world. They know better and they willing just say "F' YOU!" to everything they used to stand for. The ultimate betrayal so to speak.
You are right, but as I said earlier, this character will be a blackguard more Lawful than evil. My interpretation of blackguards tend to be less evil than the PrC description, I always try to avoid the ultimate-evil-for-no-particular-reasons at all cost, at least for religious characters (or npc).
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost King
And while I agree it would be interesting to see two exact opposites worshiping the same god in the same room, it just isn't realistic. Paladins would know they are evil with a blinding headache and vice versa. They would want to just kill the other just for the pure offense of the matter of them being in their prescence. Paladins will not knowing associate with evil people, now Blackguards will associate with anyone, but since they really would see Paladins (if they're ex-paladins) as weak and a slap in the face to see others succeed where they failed. Pride would give way to them wanting to kill, corrupt their rivals, cause them to fall from their paladinhood, or maybe a combination of all three.
Keep it mind, (though at this point it's not even part of this thread, and it's quite allright) that the organization he's leading puts all religious beliefs aside to work on a common goal, kill the heretics (binders). If a priest of Bane can ally with a priest of Tyr or Torm, then a blaguard of Helm can do the same with a paladin of Helm. Check it out in the Tome of magic (3.X ed), it's the order of Seropaenes. In a different situation, then I guess it would be case by case, I do not think that we can assume that ALL blackguards would attack the paladins on-sight, or vice-versa. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 12:42:38
quote:
Originally posted by Arion Elenim
I couldn't imagine NOT have a crisis of faith if I was suddenly staring into the eyes of someone completely opposed to my every moral belief, and who didn't just claim to worship my own god, but who was even empowered by them!
Good stuff. :)
I see your point, but that's the core of this awkward situation: Their beliefs are NOT completely opposed. They are both dedicated to protection, only that their "definition" of protection is different.
At the end of the day, the both want Faerun to be a safer place. (or should I say, a lawful place)
Look at it that way, why can't we consider LG working hand in hand with LE, but we have no trouble with say LG and CG? The law/chaos axis is as different/powerful than good/evil. It is easier to punish an evil act over a chaotic act (in rl), maybe we should not think that way in a fantasy world (considering that we live in a lawful society, but let's not get into that please). |
| Ghost King |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 10:46:16
Helm, as I understand him, is about Protecting Toril. Period. He doesn't care about "good" or "evil" he cares about making sure Toril stays in existence. Now being a LN god as it is, more then half would probably share his alignment and even a good chunk would just be neutral aligned including the random followers, if you want to go by the typical leadership rules in 3.X. Now if it were the real world, people more rational in nature would be drawn to him as their god. What's not to like about a god that says everybody deserves protection that can't defend themselves?
However, I'm sure a good chunk of people both good and evil do worship the Watcher god because of his dogma and it appeals to them. Dare I say he is probably the most fair lawfully? He was the only god Ao didn't slap down and actually had Helm defend the Throne of the Gods from the gods of Faerun in the Time of Troubles. (Might be wrong heard that second hand. I haven't gotten to read that series just yet, just sourcebooks on the history of that time.)
Now as for having evil clerics and giving them spells, yes, but let me explain it further. Helm is a calculating deity that guards against evil as well as overzealous good, which isn't necessarily a bad thing except when it goes out of control and ventures into evil. Now I'm sure I'm going to get ripped a new one for saying "Too much good can be a bad thing" but here me out. When the Crusades started it was started with the ideal to do good by both sides, as they saw it. Sure they wanted land, power, wealth, glory and smiting the evil guy with the false faith, but many of them truly believed they were doing "good".
Now, lets change history up and add in a neutral contender just as powerful as the two other factions. Busts in and smacks both around and protects the innocent people caught in this little difference of opinion. Let's venture even further that this faction accepts all faiths as equals and they even work together to protect others regardless of race, creed or nationality. That's Helm in a nut shell.
He doesn't want two crazy-nuts, known as "good" and "evil", to knock around the people that get caught in the middle. Now does Helm want to consort with good gods more then evil gods, of course. Helm hates Bane for a good reason, Bane wants to enslave EVERYTHING, including other gods and planes, to his will or destroys that what defies him. Same with every other evil deity, you can't trust them; they lie to you, they tell lies about you, they'll betray you, and they'll kill you when you show any weakness or they have no more use for you. Interestingly enough, while good deities don't practice such things they do try to manipulate things to their agenda and will pretty much do whatever it takes to further their agenda like an evil deity, they just try to avoid killing if it is possible, and lock away or recruit their fellow deity.
Helm just thinks both are full-of-you-know-what; he still prefers the company of good dieties, because unlike evil deities they can be trusted to not always be scheming your demise. Of course, only as long as you don't offend their dogma or sphere of influence, which Helm would never do until provoked. So as Helm being a god of planning, guarding, and lawful in deed and action, has nothing to fear from good deities unless they try to harm Toril, him or his followers in some way.
Now as for clergy being evil, Helm being a calculator as he is, uses them for his own means. He is known as the Watcher for a reason, and probably uses such clerics to spy and blend into his rivals clergy or to use them as bait to see if Cyric or Bane tries to turn them. Or as was stated before, he wants to just keep them in the church to see if they can be bent closer to his point-of-view. Another possibility could be he just sees them as a chess piece needed for certain tasks, even if it is undesirable to have them do it. Heck, really nobody knows Helm except Helm, and why he does what he does. It even says in the Pantheon sourcebook that all the gods, good and evil, have no clue what he thinks or is up to or why he does what he does. And that's why neither side can stand Helm, but the part about not losing this divinity in the Time of Troubles is really what hurts all the other gods' pride. And gods do not like to be shown up, especially from one of their own.
Whew, I didn't mean to write this much! My bad folks, I usually try to keep my posts as short as possible, just got on a writing kick. Anyways, that's just my opinion on the matter.
~Ghost King~
Side-note to orginal poster: I personally think a Blackguard wouldn't be involved in Helm's heirarchy due to the fact they are considered the most foul evil of all mortal beings, I do not think Helm would knowingly allow them in his clergy or church. Blackguards to me are just people that finally got fed up with their humanity seeing it as a hinderance and give it away freely to sow evil for whatever reason. If an ex-paladin goes this route it is literally the metaphorical slap-in-the-face that is good and just in the world. They know better and they willing just say "F' YOU!" to everything they used to stand for. The ultimate betrayal so to speak.
And while I agree it would be interesting to see two exact opposites worshiping the same god in the same room, it just isn't realistic. Paladins would know they are evil with a blinding headache and vice versa. They would want to just kill the other just for the pure offense of the matter of them being in their prescence. Paladins will not knowing associate with evil people, now Blackguards will associate with anyone, but since they really would see Paladins (if they're ex-paladins) as weak and a slap in the face to see others succeed where they failed. Pride would give way to them wanting to kill, corrupt their rivals, cause them to fall from their paladinhood, or maybe a combination of all three.
But as its been said, it is your campaign you can change the concept to fit in your world as you see fit. As always, the point of playing a game is to have fun. Best of luck.
|
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 06:26:39
I may be getting overly-philosophical here, but "right" and "good" are not always the same thing (ie: it may be 'just' or 'right' to kill a murderer, but not 'good', etc), and a neutral god dedicated to nature, travel, or an element, could empower a being with positive energy and call them a paladin.
Tempus or Talos would be good examples - Talos as god of storms and thunder could philosophically have worshippers (or even paladins) dedicated to the power of thunder as a destroyer of the wicked or of a destroyer of...well everything, and not care how each act is done - just that the act is done at all. |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 02:16:54
Perhaps there's a complex system of favors involved... maybe Helm bargains with another Faerunian god of evil alignment or maybe some devil to be the source of blackguard empowerment, perhaps in exchange for a little of Helm's watchfulness over this or that for the other entity. I think the same should hold true for paladins. How can a neutral god empower paragons of virtue? |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 01:18:58
But if a god doesn't care about good or evil, how can he 'empower' a blackguard when that class specifically draws power from 'evil' sources?
I'm not trolling the class, just the opposite: pointing out that a DM and a PC have a GREAT opportunity to explore a deity's personality and interests in this situation. I couldn't imagine NOT have a crisis of faith if I was suddenly staring into the eyes of someone completely opposed to my every moral belief, and who didn't just claim to worship my own god, but who was even empowered by them!
Good stuff. :) |
| dwarvenranger |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 01:18:52
Yeah, some of the stuff that went on Maztica, has me thinking that Helm has evil followers too. |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 17 Dec 2008 : 22:20:29
quote:
Originally posted by Arion Elenim
By the way, I'm loving this premise. How can a god sanction both classes? It's a great way to add some drama into a campaign....
A god can do this because he doesn't care specifically for good or evil but focuses on law/order aspect of alignment. Law does not have to be good, and a lawful neutral god who denies evil worshippers should either switch to lawful good or accept that evil worshippers = more worshippers = more power.
The paladins and blackguards shouldn't be expected to work together, and probably wouldn't even be part of the same local church heirarchy. |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 17 Dec 2008 : 19:35:08
A quick fix of any Faerun name is to insert the letter 'y' somewhere. Steven becomes Styven, Michael to Myckel. :)
By the way, I'm loving this premise. How can a god sanction both classes? It's a great way to add some drama into a campaign.... |
| Faraer |
Posted - 17 Dec 2008 : 15:27:40
The fact that certain authors have been ignorant or uncaring of what Realms names are like, and certain editors messed up by letting them through, doesn't mean their mistakes are models to follow. |
| Ionik Knight |
Posted - 17 Dec 2008 : 13:31:50
I'ld say that after the Time of Troubles Helm has earned evil worshipers and clerics, but that's just me.
As far as the name Michael; Earth style spelling of names is rare but not unheard of. Gareth, Christine, and Sylvia of the Bloodstone lands come to my mind immediately; and Earth names with alternate spellings are fairly common. |
| Mouse |
Posted - 17 Dec 2008 : 11:26:47
I don't believe Blackguards actually have to have a patron deity at all.
They DO need to do that evil outsider pact thing, but that could be from a god, a servent outsider of a god, or just some random demon without alignment.
Scyulla Darkhope is a blackguard attached to a god, but nowhere does it say that ALL blackguards have to be that way.
I for one once played a blackguard who only worshipped Bane because it had benefits politically with the Zhents (to be fair, he WAS a Lawful Evil warrior who wanted to rule stuff), and really only fought for his own gain (he was kind of a anti-hero though....his Lawful traits came into play quite often).
Isn't that a defining trait of a really evil person like a blackguard is supposed to be?
No matter whom you're serving, you really only serve yourself. |
| see |
Posted - 07 Dec 2008 : 20:41:18
Yeah, if I were going to hold my breath for errata, I'd be awfully blue by now. But whether they allowed LE clerics of Helm intentionally or accidentally, it was still a mistake/an error/wrong/whatever.
I understand and appreciate arguments in favor of LE Helmites. I just think they misjudge Helm's personal character (with the 2e lore being used to bolster my opinion of Helm's character). Helm, I feel, would consider characters who crossed the line into a full-blown evil alignments too much of a risk. In reaction, Helm would cut off their spells and send a vision to inform both the Hemite and his superior(s) in that he had done so. Of course, an evil god might continue to supply spells, and send a vision claiming the first vision was the deceptive act of an evil god. This would be especially likely in the case of Mask or Cyric. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 07 Dec 2008 : 14:54:42
quote:
Originally posted by see
So. Given the pre-existing lore from 2e (mentioned in my previous post), and given the precedent of St. Cuthbert directly in the core rules, I'd have limited the alignment choices of Helm's clerics in 3.x FR to LG and LN only. I think it was a mistake that it wasn't, and a bigger mistake that no errata was ever issued to change it.
While I agree that many would prefer it that way, I think it would be wrong to assume that it was a mistake on their part. As it has been shown in previous posts, mostly by Mr de Bie, LE clerics of Helm COULD find their place in this church, but are significantly in fewer number than the LN or LG. If you disagree, and you are certainly allowed to, that's fine, but I don't suggest that you wait for an errata (mostly because Helm died in 4th ed ) |
| see |
Posted - 07 Dec 2008 : 07:56:44
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I'm unclear: are you saying Helm should be Lawful Good in alignment, rather than LN? Or are you saying the LN label should stick, but his clerics should be prohibited from being LE?
The latter. Helm is clearly neutral, not good. But, the lore shows him (uniquely among the seven LN deities of Faerun, living and dead) as not allowing evil clergy. Thus the analogy with St. Cuthbert; to quote the 3rd editon PHB (p.29-30, emphasis added):
quote:
Typically, a cleric is the same alignment as his deity, though some clerics are "one step" away from their respective deities. For example, most clerics of of Heironeous, god of valor (who is lawful good) are lawful good themselves, but some are lawful neutral or neutral good. Additionally, a cleric may not be neutral unless his deity is neutral. Exceptions are the clerics of St. Cuthbert (a lawful neutral deity), who may only be lawful good or lawful neutral.
So. Given the pre-existing lore from 2e (mentioned in my previous post), and given the precedent of St. Cuthbert directly in the core rules, I'd have limited the alignment choices of Helm's clerics in 3.x FR to LG and LN only. I think it was a mistake that it wasn't, and a bigger mistake that no errata was ever issued to change it. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 06 Dec 2008 : 22:25:03
I'm unclear: are you saying Helm should be Lawful Good in alignment, rather than LN? Or are you saying the LN label should stick, but his clerics should be prohibited from being LE?
This may be an instance where the mechanics (be within one step of your deity's alignment) conflict with the previous lore. And really, I'm fine with the LN Helm having evil clerics--they're just clearly not the majority. (See my previous notes about uses for an "evil" guardian.)
I think Helm's leaning toward goodness was more of a church-wide initiative than a function of his personal alignment. As a deity, he is strictly lawful neutral in alignment, and we see that trumps his commitments to good or evil allies (as in the Time of Troubles, when he honors his appointed duty rather than his friendship/alliance with Mystra). But just because he's neutral doesn't mean he doesn't *prefer* good allies over evil ones, and most of his conflicts in the past have been with evil deities.
If it were all about alignment, Bane and Helm would be the best of friends, really. But they are bitter enemies: not because of an alignment conflict, but for reasons of motivation and action.
Alignment is only one aspect of a D&D conflict, and there's no reason evil clerics couldn't completely support Helm's cause while at the same time being evil.
Cheers |
|
|
