Lords of Order Clerics and Paladins Optional Rule

24 posts / 0 new
Last post
Charles Phipps's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-11-14
Lords of Order Clerics and Paladins Optional Rule

Actually, I'm curious if we shouldn't make an outright Paladin Substitute as opposed to just making these minor changes.

Lord of Order Clerics and Paladins

To reflect the ambiguous nature of morality on Ortho, the Lords of Order have elements of faith that are very similar to the EberronTM setting. These elements help illustrate why the Harmonium is able to justify much of what they do religiously, despite the occasional evil nature of their choices. DMs are free to disregard this element if its too complex.

First, The Lords of Order can be worshiped by any Lawful aligned priest. The usual 'one step' rules do not apply. Thus, there can be evil priests of Didairdin and Lawful Good clerics of Saeduenical. The reverse, presumably, applies to priests in the service of the Lords of Chaos.

Likewise, Paladins and Blackguards of the Lords of Order exist side by side in the service of the gods with the option of replacing Detect Good/Evil and Smite Good/Evil replaced with Detect Chaos and Smite/Chaos. Furthermore, both evil Priests and Blackguards will maintain auras of Good to those detecting them so long as they are faithful in their service to the Lords of Order.

This effect does not apply to Ortho priests of different faiths than the Lords of Order and is one of the reasons that the worship of gods like Hextor or Saint Cuthbert are so at odds with the faith. Both of these religions continue to judge the Lords of Order's followers by their own standards and have more traditional champions.

Clueless's picture
Offline
Webmonkey
Joined: 2008-06-30
Lords of Order Clerics and Paladins Optional Rule

All of the above s ound excellent.

Though I have comments on this:

Quote:
Furthermore, both evil Priests and Blackguards will maintain auras of Good to those detecting them so long as they are faithful in their service to the Lords of Order.

I wouldn't say there's any need to add the modifier to the good/evil aura bits. Keeping in mind - it's simply not a crime to be evil. If we remove that though we may need to add a sidebar regarding the use of the spell and attitudes of the society about the good/evil axis vs the law/chaos one. I suspect that the spell's use may have fallen out of favor for a number of reasons:

"He's evil! He's chaotic!"
"... uh. Yes sir, we're well aware of that. Have you evidence to present to this court that he has committed any *crime*?"
"Uh... no?"
"Well then. He's free to go now isn't he?"
"Oh."
"You on the other hand - are charged with making false accusations and wasting this court's time. Please see the bailiff on the way out to pay your fine."

Also the question rises of evidence in terms of confirmation by the judge. A cleric doesn't have to tell the truth on what he says he senses.

And lastly - since there's G as well as E in the mix here - there's a question of personal privacy that may come up in some of the more progressive provinces.

So, I can see many reasons that the spell's use or ability to stand in court falls into question. And once it falls out of favor as a validation of your own actions towards another (which really, is what it seems to be used in most games) - then it becomes almost a parlor trick mostly useful to make sure your wine-merchant isn't watering down the wine he sells you.

On this topic though - your mileage may vary. Heck, Ina may have something to say on the matter even and cloak them under secrecy deliberately - in which case I would suggest that all clerics register as Neutral not as Good. It all depends on the direction we want to go with it.

Charles Phipps's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-11-14
Lords of Order Clerics and Paladins Optional Rule

I think it complicates matters though. At heart, the Lawful Evil Clerics and Blackguards should not be MARGINALIZED because they register as evil. In a government that fosters Lawful and Good as the ultimate ideal then you're not going to want scarilly brutal Lawful Evil types as your pontiff. However, they're clearly there and one of the major portions of the Realms.

I think, thematically, it reinforces how blind the Harmonium has become to its own corruption.

Clueless's picture
Offline
Webmonkey
Joined: 2008-06-30
Lords of Order Clerics and Paladins Optional Rule

Thematically certainly does. I has a question though - were you in favor of the hidden clerical alignments or opposed? I can't quite tell.

Charles Phipps's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-11-14
Lords of Order Clerics and Paladins Optional Rule

'Clueless' wrote:
Thematically certainly does. I has a question though - were you in favor of the hidden clerical alignments or opposed? I can't quite tell.

I'm in favor of all servants of the Lords of Order registering as "good" despite the fact that they're probably LN or LE. This just helps reinforce the sense of moral superiority that it has.

And has been done before in Eberron.

Charles Phipps's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-11-14
Lords of Order Clerics and Paladins Optional Rule

Actually, Eberron handled it quite easilly. The Aura of a God of Good always triumphs over Detect Alignment spells and always registers them as a follower of good.

Like an Outsider with the Good and Evil subtype always registers as such.

But seriously, I think it's a nice flavor piece.

Armoury99's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-08-30
Lords of Order Clerics and Paladins Optional Rule

I certainly agree that the Lords of Order have an Alignment that's best described as 'LH' - Lawful Harmonium. What's important to them is Lawful behaviour and commitment to the cause. Most 'evil' people in the Harmonium are so because of the methods they use rather than their actual ideology (Saeduenical herself is a good example of this), and to the Gods (as with many members of Orthorian society) this is less important than your commitment to the cause. So, I'm definitely with you on the issue of acceptable cleric alignment.

However... as to messing with the spells, no.

1) First and foremost, we're now straying into the alignment rules. Long years of experience have taught me that there are as many views and DM-specific systems for Alignment as there are actual players of the game. Most people however will either stick to the book-system, make a minor tweak as suits their style or campaign, or homebrew their own rules with much more detail and personal taste than we could do for them. Therefore I think we're best sticking with the core rules - because anyone who wants to really roll their sleaves up and get into the nitty gritty of alignment will do their own work anyway*

2) Alignment in D&D is objective, not subjective. Its a basic and fundamental premise of the game. If you don't like that and want to you use your own system that's fine, but see point 1.

3) This is the Prime Material Plane, and although I don't want to disrupt Ortho's flavour just to stick with the rest of the multiverse, there should be a compelling in-game reason why it works this way on Ortho and not anywhere else. Simply 'belief' and 'power of the gods' aren't acceptable reasons.

You're actually on the verge of opening a can of worms here: such as (just off the top of my head) does it only work on Ortho? On her colonies? What about Eallia, which isn't exactly fanatical about Harmony? Does it only affect spells cast by Harmonium members? Worshipers of a Lord of Order? What about worshippers of interloper deities? What about Harmonium worshippers of deities that aren't part of the 'Pantheon of Harmony'? What about non-divine versions of these spells and abilities? What about non-believers? What about chaotic individuals who do believe that basically the Harmonium/OCA is a good thing? And the biggie - if it works that way on Ortho, why doesn't it work that way in the Planes where belief is all the more powerful than on the prime.

4) Primers just aren't as concerned with alignment as their counterparts on the Outer Planes. The concept of philosphy and philosphical differences are probably confined to, well, philosphers on the prime. The average person is probably more concerned with "are you a good person (to me)?" which isn't exactly the same thing.

5) The Harmonium as a whole, much though it generally tries to be good, also isn't as interested in your Good/Evil axis as it is in your Harmonium membership and commitment. Now they might be very interested in your Chaos/Law axis - but Orthorian law specifically doesn't care about your intent and motivations, only that you broke the law. I just don't think its a big deal for most NPCs.

6) The whole "I killed him because he's evil and now I'm up for murder" scenario is just too nice to eliminate by messing with the spells.

7) Because being Evil isn't a crime. Actually, even being Chaotic isn't a crime either. Both have social stigma and prejudice attached (as does Good in some places), but all are equal in the eyes of the law.

8 ) Detect Evil and its counterparts are integral to the Paladin and Blackguard. Being in the Harmonium doesn't change your commitment to Good (/evil), just your methods. Paladins should remain paragons of virtue and smiters of evil. Blackguards... well, blackguards are probably marginalised socially because they're champions of evil - and who want's to be friends with that guy? There's no rule in the Harmonium that says you can't advance however - although pledging your soul to someone other than the Lords of Order would be seriously frowned upon (and pledging it to a Demon Prince or Devil Lord is almost certainly against the law of exemplar worship).

*...although a sidebar on subjective alignment is a different matter entirely.

Clueless's picture
Offline
Webmonkey
Joined: 2008-06-30
Lords of Order Clerics and Paladins Optional Rule

Aye. Hm - And I just realized it's in as an *optional* rule, I was giving it the hairy eyeball as a standard rule and only found fault in one spot. So as an optional it holds up really well, at this point I think. Now when it goes in it'll go in with all the implications of what that sort of rule means that we've beaten out. Smiling

Spiteful Crow's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-10-10
Lords of Order Clerics and Paladins Optional Rule

I always interpreted the "deific alignment shroud" in Eberron as being meant to deter players from whipping out Detect Evils and then investigating whoever doesn't pass the test, not to make society "work".

Charles Phipps's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-11-14
Lords of Order Clerics and Paladins Optional Rule

'Spiteful Crow' wrote:
I always interpreted the "deific alignment shroud" in Eberron as being meant to deter players from whipping out Detect Evils and then investigating whoever doesn't pass the test, not to make society "work".

???

I'm talking about making Ortho a place where the moral ambiguity is more prominent. A way of reinforcing the feeling that the Harmonium considers itself righteous despite the fact it performs such monstrous acts.

Clueless's picture
Offline
Webmonkey
Joined: 2008-06-30
Lords of Order Clerics and Paladins Optional Rule

I think the mechanical change involved can actually be spun either way, as an aid to PC believability or to overall moral ambiguity. Being, at it's core, a purely mechanical change it's subject to interpretation. So, it may be wisest to bring it up as an optional rule and allow a DM to make that spin in presentation, while providing our insight and reason for why it may be of use and apply within society.

Duckluck's picture
Offline
Factor
Joined: 2006-10-10
Lords of Order Clerics and Paladins Optional Rule

We had a pretty lengthy discussion of Alignment here back in the day. It sort of fizzled when none of us could agree on anything. That said, we did get three potential feats out of it, and some good discussion. With this new discussion over alignment, some of our older arguments may be worth another look.

Armoury99's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-08-30
Lords of Order Clerics and Paladins Optional Rule

'Clueless' wrote:
I think the mechanical change involved can actually be spun either way, as an aid to PC believability or to overall moral ambiguity. Being, at it's core, a purely mechanical change it's subject to interpretation. So, it may be wisest to bring it up as an optional rule and allow a DM to make that spin in presentation, while providing our insight and reason for why it may be of use and apply within society.

Exactly.

Stay with Core, but slap a big 'optional' sign on anything that's likely to be open to major interpretation by individual groups, and let each DM decide for themselves (that's why I haven't gone into real detail and new rules about firearms and solarium on the equipment list, for example).

Planescape, Dungeons & Dragons, their logos, Wizards of the Coast, and the Wizards of the Coast logo are ©2008, Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro Inc. and used with permission.