Why All D&D Religions & Clerics Should Be Lawful (Ep.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- Episode #175. Professor Dungeonmaster on why all religions and clerics should be lawful. A smattering of D&D, real world history, philosophy, and blather.
DungeonCraft Patreon: / dungeoncraftyoutube
Dungeoncraft Facebook : / 1620296361377654
"Fury of the Dragon's Breath" by Peter Crowley
Bandcamp : petercrowley.ba... - เกม
I was at Summerfest many years ago. It was Britain's biggest LARP gathering. The biggest group there was The Chaos Guild. It had a spokesperson. They didn't seem to see the irony nor the contradiction.
Hahahaha that's great
They should be fighting for that position even during the speech. But in the GW world the chaos factions seems very hierarchical and orderfull monsters.
When you watch a dungeoncraft video and suddenly BASED lindybeige appears. One of the most valuable lessons I learned from your videos is having the confidence to order six pairs of the same comfy shoe.
Reminds me of a political movement I made up for a game ones (loosely based on an actual political party) that caused problems for the republic our game was set in. It was called the Paradoxical Anarchists.
Reminds me of the Anarchist Bowling League.
"systems are orderly"
As a former social worker, I respectfully challenge that statement re: most burocracies
Beware of social workers who can't spell bureaucracies.
@@briansmith1633 social workers are notoriously creative spellers
As someone living in THE land of bureaucracy (germany) I agree.
Orderly does not mean efficient. Bureaucracies have structure and order but are usually inefficient. You need form x form filed by Y date and signed off on by Z person with a certain title in order to do the thing you are trying to do. If you do not get that then you will need to do X Y Z again to get it done. That is orderly. Even if it is highly inefficient and the people involved are dumb as a sack of rocks, there is still an order you go thru to get what you need done. Same with the military. You go through a chain of command if you want anything done. You talk to your superior and they talk to theirs and so on till it gets to where it needs to go. It is orderly but not always efficient.
Presently in the military. Can confirm, pretty much any system of beaurocracy is a chaotic labyrinth of lies and countermeasures perfectly crafted to confuse. It's all so nonsensical and is a great example of orderly chaos.
In the case of institutional “second estate” religions in service to a lawful deity? Absolutely. In Buddhism, Tanzan is a monk who “transcends” the precepts, but he could be called an exception that proves the rule.
In fantasy worlds where deities themselves are often chaotic, this idea breaks down before you can say “Roll initiative.” Even historically (and in the early history of the medieval church), folk religions, cults, and sects are decentralized, often holding to their beliefs and practices on so local a level that people who live a hundred miles away might fail to recognize them at all.
Wether is on the whole continent, within a kingdom or city by city there is a version of a structure to follow. Rites, holidays, prayers for X or Y situations, all of that makes up a structure, regardless of its scale. That is why larger religions many times have factions within them, each with a distinct structure, they agree on the "what" but disagree on the "how".
@@EdensukoV Like wars fought over whether you pray in Latin or French...
@@EdensukoV i mean structure and order aren't contingent on number of followers...organized religion is just that...organized. once it's larger than 1...and it needs structure applied to it...there you go lawful.
Thank you! Yes. This works I.R.L, but not in fantacy. and demanding that all religions be lawfull, probly angers every chaotic God in the outer planes, and some netral ones too!
@fire lord huh? i'm not following. i was talking about organized religion. just the fact that it is 'organized' means it has structure
A thieves guild would definitely fund a temple dedicated to trickery. Think of Skyrim's Nocturnal and how this goddess gives luck to members of the thieves guild.
"The Human Fund- Money For People." ;)
I thought the same. And it also confirms the fact that clerics must be Lawful. The Nightingales receive favors from Nocturnal, but they must always protect her temple and never double cross her. A chaotic character, like Mercer Frey, would only bring ruin to all thieves.
Absolutely. Thieves Guilds need a place/time/circumstance where all thievery is off limits and order is abided by otherwise it would just be a room full of 'that guy'
If the priesthood of a deity of THIEVES can't fund their own temple, then they're not very good at what they do.
@@daviddamasceno6063 Then what would you make of worshippers of the Mad God, Sheogorath? He might not have an organized religion dedicated to him, but there are those that worship him in their own way. The only "law" Sheogarath would order would probably be something along the lines of "Don't be boring. "
To quote Old School: In 1st Edition Deities and Demigods it specifically states that Clerics must share the alignment of their God. If you worshipped Baldur for instance, you were expected to be Neutral Good. I would interpret that as: Baldur has rules and teachings but he's willing to let you slide on some of them if it were "the right thing" to do. Wheras, a Lawful Good deity would be more strict. Alignments have been severely abused in every edition since 1st. Its not a set of limitations. Its how your character views morality, chaos and order. Sure, a Chaotic Good God has a structure, tenants, rules, devotions etc. But a Chaotic Good God isn't as strict that his followers "stick to them." I think of it like the difference between Methodists and Baptists. Methodists tend to be far more relaxed (CG) where Baptists are strict about scripture (LG) but they both supposedly worship the same God.
Methodist are far from relaxed about rules. Method is literally in the name. As is, everything has a method, a right way to do things.
If Methodists have planned services and church picnics, I'd say they're lawful. And you HAVE to be be lawful to run a Sunday school The kids can't
run it themselves.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Methodist - someone who practices a method. Sounds pretty lawful.
The thing is no person or character is able to be lawful all the time. Thats why alignment is a limiting factor. Your character can't act like a normal person that some times follow the rules and other times don't. You are always expected to play in that way independent of the situation
@@diegorodrigues9528 if I were running a campaign, the way I'd see it is that even a Lawful Good character would not allow a great evil to do its work if it meant breaking the law to stop it, but a LG character's first objective is to uphold the law and work *with* the law to enact justice.
A LG character is allowed to jaywalk to stop a purse-snatcher, but a LG character would not break into someone's house on a mere hunch that they were the culprit to a crime.
Saint Col Sanders sacrifice during the Great Chicken War will never be forgotten.
Good one.
It adds a whole now meaning to Church's Chicken
@@eave01 +100xp for that joke.
There were DEFINITELY chaotic clerics historically: there were called hermits in Christendom, Sufis in the Dar-al-Islam, and Daoists in China, and gymnosophists or ascetics in India. They all explicitly rejected hierarchy as an artificial barrier between themselves and the divine. A chaotic cleric makes perfect sense so long as the DM doesn't let them off the hook devotion-wise--because chaotic clerics were the MOST devoted.
Good point. Chaotic doesn't have to necessarily mean crazy and haphazard. It can simply mean a rejection of all hierarchy and authority.
@@huehuecoyotl2 What the lawful/chaotic axis really meant was what does one value more: societal laws (lawful) or individual rights (chaotic), as defined by TSR.
Would be fun to play a Leo Tolstoy or Martin Luthor type at odds with a corrupt church.
Bonus point's if I am the first real Cleric in decades, and the Church is full of Warlocks faking their divine powers.
This argument might work in the world where Gods are not intervening and communing with its followers. But in the world of D&D, the Gods are able to communicate directly (and often) what they want. So a "cleric" that rejects tenets that were communicated directly by the god would not be cleric anymore. If they are following the tenets outside of the hierarchy (if that's allowed by the god) then they are still lawful. Eccentric but lawful.
@@chadrobert116 Except that is not what lawful means or how alignment system works in D&D, something many seem not to comprehend this game mechanic. Following the tenets of one's faith is the same as following one's own moral code, it doesn't make you lawful because you follow either. That is like saying a person who is chaotic doesn't have morals or follows their own code of conduct, both of which are not true just like this fallacy.
Lawful in D&D, as stated by the game designers, means only that one values society and its laws as being more important than the individual and personal freedom, that is all it means. To try and shoehorn the lawful alignment to mean that if one follows any set of tenets, codes, or morale values makes one lawful, then almost every thinking creature would be lawful as almost every creature has its own moral values. Clearly, this is not what it means and for those of you who think it does, you might want to take a refresher on the alignment mechanic in D&D.
As further evidence of such, all paladins have code of conduct, rules/tenets they must follow, for whatever type of paladin they are. To break these rules/tenets, is to fall as a paladin, yet they can be almost any alignment provided they are following these rules/tenets.
Alignment debates can be troublesome. I think you've made a strong argument for your case, but I very much disagree. I think your interpretations of Law and Chaos are too extreme, and the existence of rulers, traditions, and taboos do not necessarily make a person (or group) of Lawful alignment. They are indications of culture more than anything else... It's like saying "You can't be a member of an Anarchist group! Anarchists can't have structure!" That mode of thinking may score you chuckles in an internet debate, but that group of anarchists are still chaotic, and claims otherwise boil down to whataboutism and fortune cookie wisdom about hypocrisy.
I find anarchist groups to be ironic. Most of them probably have drivers' licenses and bank cards.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 someone can support an ideology and fight for it while also using assets from the system they are currently entrenched in. For some people, a driver's license is necessary for living in their society. They can have one while also not enjoying the system of government they participate in.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 sure. and then they drive all over the road, speed , cut you off in traffic... all so they can rob the bank their money is in!
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 I recommend reading some books on anarchism by anarchists, it sounds like you've had the political theory misrepresented to you :)
All of the most notable ones are free on the internet, such as this one creatively titled 'Anarchy' by Ericco Malatesta. Do I just like him because we have the same name? I'll never tell ;)
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Yes... because driver`s licenses are enforced by law and you will be fined or go to jail if you don`t have one. And if you think banks and financial institutions are a symbol of lawfulness... boy have i news for you :-)
I understand this before I even watch. I'm still totally gonna watch though
Thanks!
In a fantasy world with actual gods that grant power to their priests, wouldn't one of the Chicken factions of Skykos be proven wrong immediately when Skykos decided to not grant them spells for their heretical behavior?
They probably would. And if they weren’t, if Skykos probably doesn’t actually care. Which, logically, would imply that he’s not as concerned as the video seems to imply all deities must be. After all, if you worship a trickster god, why the hell would that god care if you do anything except, well.. be tricksy?
Yeah, that's ultimately always the problem with a god giving out spells, because it's pretty obvious if the deity approves of something or not. Different religious factions really don't make sense in a game where deities are an active thing. They only make sense when deities are mysterious entities where no one knows their true wishes.
@@taragnor 100%. The main problem is that the original DnD model was based off of European abrahamic religions, and didn’t take into account any other form of religion, like the more freeform pagan and Wiccan faiths. Hell, they didn’t even conceive of religions without deities, like a lot of the eastern religions. Buddhism is a great example of a religion that makes no sense under his preconceptions.
Great questions. BOTH sides can cast spell as long as the worshipper BELIEVES they are right. Which opens the question: does Skykos exist?
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 one side gets spells from the real Skylos while the other one gets spells from a fake Skylos trying to usurp followers. Each faction thinks they are worshiping the real one.
Perhaps it’s a trickster deity trying to take power away from a ‘ligit’ god. It would explain how tricksters can be powerful gods while not actually having huge amounts or worshippers, temples, organized religions, etc.
I've dedicated myself to orderly practice of feeding the algorithm god...
Ramen!
These are some very good points. And for the typical D&D religion, with a temple, and all that, you're spot-on.
But you miss a vital point, I think, regarding what constitutes "chaotic" in the worlds of D&D. Hierarchy, in and of itself, is not inherently lawful. How that hierarchy is established is what makes the difference. As an example, let's imagine two religions. One lawful, and one chaotic. They both have leadership, but the way they pick who sits in the fancy chair is different.
When the Pope of the lawful church dies, the council of cardinals gets together and votes one of their number into office. It's all very orderly and peaceful.
But when the primarch of the chaotic church dies, it's generally at the hands of the new primarch, who is proving their right to lead the church by virtue of defeating the previous leader. Clearly, the deity favors them, and not the weak fool over there bleeding out.
As another example, canon Drow society is _extremely_ hierarchical. But that doesn't make it lawful. The laws, in Menzoberanzan, only have any weight _if you get caught in the act_ . War between the houses is strictly forbidden by (holy) law. But the primary way to advance is to wipe out the house that is above yours in the hierarchy. As long as you leave no witnesses, your crime didn't happen. Drow society is the perfect place for a trickery domain cleric. Because every house will want to have the Goddess on their side, and She values skulduggery.
TL;DR: Lawful clerics follow the rules because they're the rules. Chaotic clerics do what they're told because if they don't, they get a _sacred flame_ to the face.
All good points. Thanks for taking the time to share.
How would you show a chaotic good hierarchy?
@@juliuscaesar5397 well, let's say you have a barbarian tribe. The leader is the strongest fighter. The position can be challenged for at any time. But the wisdom of past leaders is important, so the fights are rarely to the death. Or perhaps they have some other selection criteria. Depends on what they value in a leader.
another take might be on how the chaotic religion handles situations. e.g. the lawful clerics find a town with plague and fight to cure all those infected. while the chaotic clerics choose to burn the houses and the bodies of the dead to prevent further spread. an extreme decision certainly but done in the pursuit of the greater good
@@lanestone1 I think you might have those backwards, actually. Since burning the infection out sacrifices the few for the good of the many, a very lawful thing to do, while trying to cure everyone virtually ensures that more will be infected before it's all over, risking the group for the good of the individuals, a decidedly chaotic action.
Agree. Lawful is not the same as "goodie", it just means they follow a structure.
This us what many miss. It's about a code either personal, one imposed by a diety, or a set of laws in a province.
@@m_d1905 yes, which works completely for other PC, but is slightly different for clerics. In this case, the PC has subordinated themselves as a divine agent in service to a hierarchy. On their own, they can behave per their alignment. But when the time comes to serve the temple or fulfill religious obligations, it's time to be lawful in that framework. That's how I see it.
Im going to disagree the cleic is the same as any pontif or priest in any cult (religions are little more than massive socially acceptable cults) being lawful is wholly unnecessary as per the dictates of said diety
I agree with you there. Law is all too often conflaited with Good.
...
Law can be a means to the ends of good or evil, or more often a mix of both.
@@doelbaughman1924 What if your more about the spirit of the law, rather than the letter?
My brother ran a great short campaign where there we two contradictory religious beliefs about magic, both based on an old text that basically said "magic does not exist": one group felt that it was an abberation to be rooted out; the other felt that anything which seemed magical was clearly just "the way the world works" ("science", as yet unexplained). That made for some interesting dynamics within the party.
The real problem here is reductive definitions of Law/Chaos. I mean if having any principles, rules, or organization at all makes you Lawful, then the Neutral/Chaotic alignments basically just don't exist outside of actually insane people. Is Robin Hood Lawful because he only steals from the rich? Are pirates Lawful because they have a captain?
By all means, Chaotic religions should work differently than Lawful ones, but Chaotics are still completely capable of organizing without being in contradiction with their alignment. And they're perfectly capable of following a set of rules or principles, as long as they're Chaotic principles.
Like, say, "Never let any authority go unquestioned." That's a rule, but it stands in complete opposition to Lawful principles, which would rather you just shut up and do as you're told. It would make perfect sense in a Chaotic-aligned religion, or simply as an internal principle of a Chaotic-aligned character. And they're not Lawful because they have that rule.
I would disagree, the definition of Chaotic is the absence of any rule. If we see chaotic and lawful as obeying or not the king's rules, you are right. But, form me, Tendencies are much more your place in a Cosmological battle, a eternal and absolute one. If someone chaotic can follow a rule, he may disagree with the actual government, but if the laws of it thieves guild, let's say, gain the power, he would follow them. In this case, since he follows the government rule now, he would be lawful? Deities and philosophies are eternal, and can't be changed each 100 years. The concepts of the Tendencies must be absolute, if you are lawful, you follow rules, if you are chaotic, you follow no rules. You can say that your lawful character doesn't follow the actual king's rules, but he follows his own, or of his thieves guild, or the pirates one; let's remember that Robin Wood wasn't against the monarchy, he was against a corrupt king, but obeyed the last one that was good. For me, Robin Wood is a lawful good, or at least a neutral good, that follows some rules, but not all.
Well, at least this is how I handle it in my tables. You obviously can handle how you want in yours
@@koorssgamer By that definition a chaotic couldn't follow simple rules of what to eat and not. He wouldn't be able to learn not to touch the hot plate because the moment he gets hurt he can't make the rule 'don't touch hot things'. He couldn't learn how to read, because to read you have to follow the rules of the language. Hell, he couldn't speak.
True Chaos can't exist long enough to form a human (or whatever) being. You couldn't have children... certainly couldn't get them to live to adulthood. So chaotic as a tendency within a living system has to have some bowing to rules. Some ability to learn from those who come before (great grand uncle chuck ate the berries and died, we don't eat the berries). A god who was true chaos under your definition couldn't even have a name.
Don't mean to sound harsh, just trying to wrap my head around the idea of absolute chaos vs absolute order. I read a book a long time ago called To Reign in Hell. Can't remember the author. Christian God and his angles against the eternal chaos. Some angels rebel to creating the earth as a permanent haven from the chaos because the cost in dead angels would be too high. The rebel angels still fight against the chaos, but I wouldn't call them lawful.
Each table is different, just thinking how that would work with Chaos as an unformable thing that can't even follow enough rules to be recognized for what it is.
Robin Hood is Lawful because his goal is overthrowing a Chaotic usurper and reinstating the lawful king. Method barely matters. But breaking laws that spread chaos through the land is a Lawful act.
It's way more useful to look at the whole character and the sum total of their actions to determine if they're Lawful or Chaotic. Simple example: a member of the Joker's gang. On the whole, they're Chaotic because they break laws and societal norms. Defining them as Lawful because they have a leader (the Joker) and some "Joker Gang Code" is bonkers. Is Lancelot Chaotic because he gave into temptation one time? Is Obi Wan evil because he misled Luke? Absolutes don't exist on the Prime Material Plane. Everyone and Everything is an amalgam of Good and Evil, Lawful and Chaotic. It's the proportions that matter.
@@stevebruns1833 totally agree. I was not trying to say that a character from a Alignment must be it's absolute. Only a sith deal with absolutes. For me Tendencies are not the definition of your character, but a part of the universe that strongly affects them. A chaotic person is pushed toward absolute caos, it is spiritually influenced by something called the "Pandemonium", but will not be absolute caos. A lawful person is pushed to absolute order, it is spiritually influenced by Mechanus, but won't be absolute order. No mortal is a modron or a demon. People are complex, personality changes constantly, values too. Sometimes we act in a way, other times in the opposite way. The alignment is absolute, the person isn't. But let's take your Joker gang example. The joker is totally chaotic, what is the chance that his gang has strict rules, a hierarchy, burocracy and alike? Zero. Probably the only rule would be, obey the Joker. But a true chaotic person wouldn't even be pleased with that and would fastly want to leave and be his own boss. Maybe a not that chaotic would stay, because it still gives them plenty of freedom. There is a range there, but, independently, a chaotic person would ever had the ideal that less rules is better.
There you go, touching the alignment button, PDM. This is why we can't have nice things.
I just finished watching an RPG series, where the cleric, Granny, said: "I'm not a priest, I'm just a cook in the church!" And she had a blessed rolling-pin as a weapon.
THAT's a cool character!
Very count duckula, love it.
@San Shinobi It's not in English and not even in D&D system, but if you're interested, it's "Prokletá Lhota" series from "skoro-Hrdinové - stolní RPG hry" channel.
th-cam.com/play/PLLG_9bfpHNB5QiqA0h6BtBm1KQSdXJFJo.html
In the German RPG The Dark Eye, there is a pantheon of 12 gods, and one of them is Phex, god of merchants, trickery and subterfuge. In this game not only clerics are religious, everybody is in one way or another, so players say something like "Phex be with you in this endeavour" during roleplay. He was always my favourite God. Basically you would pray to him every time you would have to trick somebody to survive (which happens a lot as an adventurer), when you needed to be stealthy to evade people trying to kill you, when you were gambling for something, or when you needed to be clever. He isn't an evil God at all, he's more of a God for the weak to protect them from the strong, which makes really more sense than having a God for criminals (a concept which I think is really nonsensical and kind of stupid)
Long story short: I think this is a more natural way to construct a religion for the trickery domain.
A god of merchants AND trickery? Why does anyone trust the merchants?
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 why would you trust merchants anyway? Aren’t they always cheating their customers with rigged scales, shoddy goods and high prices?
The Dark Eye does good world building!
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Well in the case of merchants (or when the party wants to sell or buy something), he helps you see good deals and make a profit :D and not become a victim of trickery yourself. As I've said, he's actually a benevolent god. There is an arch demon opposed to him, Tasfarelel, who stands for everything that he doesn't stand for, namely greed, envy, and riches gained through violence, pain and exploitation of others.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1
You don't, but you can't exactly not use merchants.
How do you identify a heretic of Skykos? By a great fowlness, ye shall know them.
In a determined universe, this episode was made expressly for the insertion of your pun...
By the grease stains on their tunic possibly?
I was a religious studies major, and this underscores exactly why "alignment" has never made any sense to me. As C.S. Lewis pointed out in Mere Christianity, "evil" as an end in itself doesn't really exist; it's just spoiled goodness. That is, the evil person is after something that is good TO THEM, and doesn't care about its impact on others. Even a serial killer pursues murder because they find something pleasant about it--the same pleasant thing that other people get from puzzles or athletics; there's an understandable impulse behind it, even if the "good" it pursues comes at a terrible cost.
In the same way, "chaos" as an organizing concept, by definition, has never made any sense at all, and the idea of a "chaotic evil" character--someone who is genuinely committed to the concept of randomly betraying people for no reason--is beyond idiotic. It's an insult to human intelligence and moral sense to suggest that there could ever be a society where that's even a thing.
Side note: neutrality in traditional D&D also makes no damn sense; a druid who is passive in the face of evil and suffering is, by any sensible definition, evil. There's no "balance" between good things and horrors; no one would ever worry about there being too much genuine happiness in the world! All religions are seeking happiness; they just conceive of it differently.
The way I've always conceived of it, "law" and "chaos" is a choice in striking the balance between "duty to others" and "duty to self." It's not about organization; thank god. Otherwise "chaotic" alignments wouldn't even be able to cook food or set an alarm. It's about whether laws exist to preserve individual freedom, or whether personal freedom is a threat to greater happiness. The existence of laws is as inevitable as language and society; the trick is to use them for freedom instead of uniformity.
I am a member of possibly the most chaotic religion ever devised: Quakerism. Quakers were founded in 1580 on two primary values: pacifism and radical equality. (No difference between men and women, no recognition of social strata; they've been on the winning side of most of history's moral fights, from slavery to feminism to prison reform.) Quakers don't have a strict religious text; they have a book of "Advice and Suggestions" that gets revised every ten years. They have almost no creed to speak of, and what traditions they do have--such as not smoking or not observing holidays--are all optional and trusted to the individual's conscience. It is very definitely a religion! But what it lacks in organization it also lacks in numbers, power, and money. (And, for that matter, entertainment, since the services are 95% sitting in silence.) For Quakers, the freedom is worth it.
It's interesting that you mentioned Loki, because if you read the (absolutely amazing) book Trickster Makes This World by Lewis Hyde, you learn that most tricksters are sort of in-and-out of the local pantheon; they show up at parties but don't stay for the group photo. So they are gods without temples, but with many devoted followers who carry holy symbols and toss coins to mendicant priests. They tend to show up in places where things are less defined: Hermes was the god of travel and had wayside shrines at crossroads and borders. They also tend to be gods of creativity and wisdom (Coyote stole fire just like Prometheus), and of music and art. Even when they're folkloric figures like Africa's Anansi or the Lakota's Iktomi (both spider gods; weaving and telling stories are very trickstery things), they are associated with wisdom or trickiness that is at least equal to the gods.
So rather than saying all clerics should be lawful, I'd say all WELL-FUNDED RELIGIONS are lawful; but chaotic deities and priests will have rules of their own designed to cement their freedom--vows of poverty, refusal to take oaths (Quakers don't take oaths, by the way!), and other policies (perhaps radical giving-to-the-poor) that guarantee that they'll never be rich or popular.That's because the most effective way of not getting trapped by the rules is avoiding playing any game at all.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I really enjoyed reading it. Good point about druids--I would have said that but I had no time. TH-cam analytics says no one watches my videos past 10 minutes! God bless the Society of Friends.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 I’d watch an hour long video if you ever felt inclined to do something that crazy! I’m sure I’m not alone in that
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 The more I learn about analytics, the more I realize how nonnormative I am. I watch Seth Skorkowsky's 25-minute videos all the time. Anyway, you deliver a solid ten worth every week, so thanks.
The entire point of chaos is that it doesn't make sense. You might be tempted to think these people crazy because they don't fit your social norms. But, first you have to define "normal". In a society of cannibals YOU would be the abnormal one.
@@lukedesmith would the cannibals be lawful?
Trickery Domain?
Also, You are missing a very important difference here: In D&D the gods are real and actually have powers that they can use against those, who try to overthrow them.
In our world, dominant religions are organised and all that because in a world were religions are build on nothing but blind faith and no didvine power to back it up, those will eventually outlive or just destroy the others.
In a world where the gods literally walk the earth sometimes, that wouldnt be the case. A laid back god, who literally has no rules but likes a few people following them would just as well be able to bring forth clerics as a big religion, because, again, the gods are actually present and give people powers.
This is an interesting point to me because I would argue that a trickster cleric could still be considered Lawful if they are consistently and predictably tricky, but also the nature of a trickster is to be unpredictable and chaotic.
@@noshavenohaircuts In my eyes, a Trickster who follows rules is no Trickster. Part of it is exactly that a TRickster is not preictable becuase they just do what they feel like doing right now.
Then you have those in the beyond... Who are not affected by any God, in regard to their soul and afterlife, since they predate the state of creation 5e takes place in.
LE: a code of law laying out who you should and should not betray/decieve. You trick X for the purpose of Y, everything outside of this is immoral or beyond your god's concern, therefore god would not help you to be chaotic stupid to lie at a card table.
@@ttprophet I think this comes down to a point where you have to ask up to what point do you considers a character that has anything like a routine lawfull...
You could argue that the pyromaniac who burns every building is lawful, because he follows his code to burn every building. The Murderhobo Rogue that kills everyone not giving him what he wants? Well, doesnt he have a code to kill everyone who doenst do what he wants? So? Lawful too? You kill Shopkeepers for the purpose of getting Stuff for free.
I can get behind this as a play style, but not as a universal rule. I feel like the premise that D&D has to be hard fast medieval in every aspect is a valid but not required thing. There are plenty of canon D&D settings that aren’t medieval such as Eberron. And I feel like adding aspects that aren’t medieval or even characteristic of any time period can add an element to the world that feels fantastical, which doesn’t seem to run counter to the fantasy genre.
True, but then you have to consider whether clerics have *any* place in Eberron-like settings. They're basically magic-based field doctors. Medicine graduall became secular in Europe after the Black Death showed up and the priesthood were powerless to stop it.
They did not yet understand the germ theory of disease, but they came up with rules like staying 6 feet apart from each other, one person from each household going out to get shopping and of course those beaky plague masks we so love. Although they are supposed to be moral, doctors have a very different role in our society today compared to the clergy. And their healing power can't be turned off like a light switch if their deity gets pissed at them...
@@TroySpace I think clerics in Eberron have more in common with real religions in certain aspects than something like the Forgotten Realms. Eberron has fiercely devoted clerics, but they can’t prove their gods exist. Unlike characters in the Forgotten Realms, these clerics can logically fight a war over a stupid heresy or artifact and their god can’t really give his two cents as far as we know, cause they never communicate. I’ve always thought clerics in Eberron were interesting because of that, and I think they definitely have a place in that setting.
I love the Skykos example. I thought it would be great for there to be stories about how the chickens betrayed their God and carried messages to some other earth dwelling enemy and had their gift of flight taken. Other birds lost this ability as well for similar grievances and had their gift of flight taken like the Ostrichs, Emus, Penguins, Turkeys and the Cassowary.
Similarly they could have decided to honor a specific mammal with flight for aiding them like the Bat. This sounds like a great religion and a great divide in the Order. I hope their ceremonial gowns are layered with feathers and the faith presents their outstretched robes as if they were wings when the bow to one another.
My son would love this. He loves birds and would get a kick out of this. I can only imagine how the Kenku would be viewed by this religion.
Lloth is supposedly a demon-god of Chaos, but Menzoberranzan has stricter laws than North Korea
Yes, and no.
The Matriarchs rule absolutely and each Matriarch has a House who's loyalty is to her. However, each Drow city has dozens of houses each with a Matriarch... and they rule the city collectively... However, if there are no witnesses, was there a crime? No.
Drow Society is chaotic as most individuals rely on themselves, and a few allies, to prosper... and at any time those allies will stab them in the back for their own self-gain.
That's the difference between North Korea and Drow. North Korea is united behind a single individual... whereas the Drow are splintered into cities, further divided into Houses, and each house can be divided into factions based on which heir the individuals within support, all for their self interest.
actually, while the Drow have many laws, the only one they really enforce is the unwritten law... don't get caught.
@@aralornwolf3140 how do you know the power structures of north korea aren't like this?
@@jnever9768 ,
Because it's a dictatorship headed by the Kim family with the backing of the military.
@@aralornwolf3140 i get that but what makes it seem like there aren't families or powerful oligarchs within that structure? like literally your sentence "whereas the Drow are splintered into cities, further divided into Houses, and each house can be divided into factions based on which heir the individuals within support, all for their self interest." can apply to any society
I don’t consider myself particularly “old school.” But one house rule I do have is that Paladins and Clerics lose some of their abilities if they commit a fundamentally loathsome act in relation to their chosen deity.
That rule makes a lot more sense than saying everyone is the same alignment. Tie the actions to the deity, make it fit :)
Another brilliant video by the professor. Really got a lot out of it and I believe it will enrich my sessions.
Thanks. This one did not perform that well. Glad you found it useful. There's one I just wrapped on a particularly deadly classic module. Watch for it. You'll dig it.
Example of a chaotic religion: Scientology. Read about the life of L Ron Hubbard. He just made up stuff as he went along, punished arbitrarily, put teenage girls in charge, etc. The structure was just avoiding disagreeing with whatever madness he was doing at the moment.
Couldn't your cleric be a zealot of a non lawful cult? The chicken schism is excellent by the way.
most cults or lawful and orderly. Cults have cult leaders. also warlock
@@erispapps9929 Orc Tribes have leaders. Orc Tribes are lawful? This is not a strong argument.
@@Reaver34567 lawful doesn't mean good it means they have a way to run things and a set of rules that everyone follow. Orc as your example have a leader and therefore are lawful because they will follow the leader. Now they might also have a rule that you can become leader if you are able to kill the current leader in hand to hand combat. This is what he means when he says lawful. This is also why their is "lawful" good and evil... vs chaotic, where you have a everyone killing everything for no reason other then they think it is fun.
@@jeffreyarmour6792 Orcs are lawful, because they follow a leader? How about chimpanzees? Certainly they're lawful, too. And so would be dogs... But when the dog eats it's own poop out of the back yard, it becomes chaotic again for just a split second.
@fire lord All beings that live in groups are orderly or are at least expected to be), don't get it twisted troll.
I've been playing with a cleric for 2 years and not once has he communicated with his patron or rollplayed someone religious.
Would you like it if he did?
Your not a cleric your a prophet or an avatar.
@@Nubbletech yeah i think it would be cool if he rollplayed someone that beleived a god.
@@inappropriateperson6947 yeah he could roleplay it like that but he doesnt. At least not yet.
What does he say when the gods talk to him? If they don't, why should he talk to people he doesn't think will talk back?
One of the best videos yet! So much game wisdom.
Well, i like the idea, it would explain why people become warlocks or wizards, to gain power without having to follow any norms or traditions.
And . . . i hope that vest is made of adamantine professor.
You get +5 thumb ups
Man, so many warlocks are going to be in for such a rude awakening.
Wizards get a different type of magic, and they're also lawful by definition since they get their powers from meticulous studies, unlike sorcerer. But no one chooses to become sorcerers, they get power from birth.
I like it when Professor DM answers his own question about the Trickster God. For more information, see the Gentlemen Bastards trilogy. Also, I'm a part of an international anarchist (reputedly) organization called Zen Buddhism. But when we get together, all we can talk about is vows, purity, and offering aid to our wandering brothers and sisters. Primary topic of any conversation relates back to ordering the mind. If we're anarchist, we're really bad at it.
Like the Scott Lynch shout out- Yes, the Crooked Warden shineth in dark places...
Okay so I finally finished the video, and I think I disagree almost entirely. Perhaps you could interpret that all Religions and Clerics to be inherently lawful by following a code or ethics of conduct according to your religion. But that's excluding deities that are themselves chaotic. There are no cathedrals or orders (loosely speaking) of certain gods. (Such as with your example of Loki). Because those gods resent such things, order in itself in any capacity is the complete opposite for what they stand for. (Trickster deities for example, aka the epitome of chaotic deities). With your example of secret cults, secret handshakes, etc. Being lawful to some extent. Would you consider all thieves guild/organized crime to be lawful? I surely wouldn't, while some members might be lawful in some capacity believing in the traditional ways, newer members might disregard the old ways entirely. Thus being Chaotic. This too would connect to Clerics of those Deities, iirc the older rules of d&d required you to be of one step away or of the same alignment of your deity. So while yes, your lawful good god of the sky would most likely have entirely lawful clerics...Your chaotic neutral god of deception and lies...Probably wouldn't.
For what it’s worth: At least back in the 2e days when I started, organized crime *was* considered lawful in alignment.
A chaotic god would not have followers as that would imply rules and order which is lawful by nature. Lawful evil yes, but not chaotic. A chaos god is far more likely to simply mess with the established order, tempt and subvert those who follow a system whether it is good or evil. A theives guild is lawful not chaotic. Look at organized crime today. It has rules, they are evil and selfish but there are still established heirarcies and practices. Of course power struggles, deceipt and backstabbing occur but they do in all lawful societies. Lawful does not equal a state sanctioned order, it simply means order.
@@stixywixy Exacty, the thieve's guilds had rules that the members had to follow or get booted or killed.
@@adrianwebster6923 And while some are more ordered than others, some are simply rag-tag groups in the sewers who have few rules. Just because some are lawful, does not mean all are lawful. Just because the group has standards such as "don't kill your fellow members" does not automatically mean that the group then becomes lawful. Chaotic groups don't just stab eachother in the back whenever it fits them because "lol so random". (Chaotic Stupid is not an alignment). And yes, a chaotic god does have followers, look at nearly every setting in dnd lol. (If you need a solid example, look up Umberlee and her followers). Selfish and chaotic, yet still having followers out of fear and necessity.
I think the point is that to have a religion, there have to be a set of rules and by following those rules you are lawful. The god itself would be chaotic, but the followers wouldn't be as they aren't worshiping the alignment.
It is discussions like this one and the comments they engender that keep me waiting for your next videos. You frequently make me rethink how to run my game and how to make it more immersive for my players. Looking forward to the next one.
::Looks at Dungeon Craft::
::Looks at my homebrew setting, caught between a Pantheon of Law and a Pantheon of Chaos::
::Looks back at Dungeon Craft::
::eyes narrow::
Damn that vest.
What is a Pantheon of chaos anyway? Is that just Millennials howling at the moon?
Pantheon's of chaos actually are deeply rooted in D&D's history, originally coming from the writings of Michael Moorcock. Granted it never made much sense even back then because in Moorcock's Elric saga, there were empires devoted to chaos, which is completely against what chaos is supposed to represent. Empires require a ton of organization and order to function.
@@taragnor Well I think Chaotic empires can exist. In these, the dedication to law and order are merely a facade draped over a society which only values strength and cunning, where people only appear to rise in their social hierarchies through merit or contribution when in fact they are rising up through nepotism or treachery, where law only matters to the weak.
Chaos with a thin gauze of Law draped over it to hide the ugly stains.
Like Menzoberranzan.
@@AuntieHauntieGames : Well the problem is more in openly announcing you're a chaotic empire. Thing is that real world governments, even ridiculously corrupt ones, don't announce they're evil. Even North Korea calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea."
The thing is that even while an individual may believe that treachery and rule-breaking is a great way to rise to the top, you still want everyone else to follow the rules, so you'd never advertise yourself as being aligned to chaos. Having an army that's all a bunch of self-serving back-stabbers just isn't going to work. Chaos is an individual strategy, but it's never a strategy you want to spread around a group (at least unless you want that group to fall apart). And it makes it easier to rise when your neighbors are following the rules and you're the only one breaking them. If everyone doesn't follow orders, it's probably going to be a recipe for disaster. Chaos can be good for people rising to power, but bad for people at the top, which makes it unlikely anyone wants to base their empire on it. No king wants the official succession law to be "whoever murders the king first."
inappropriateperson69 Come visit Fairfax, CA, and you can find out... They howl at the moon every night at 8 there...
Hi there. I teach (among other subjects) World Religions in a high school. As I am very fond of telling my students: religions are prescriptive, not descriptive. Religions may prescribe that their followers live their lives in a certain way, worship in a certain way, adhere to rituals and traditions in a certain way. This does not mean however that the worshippers will do that, even if (sometimes especially if!) they genuinely believe that they are still being faithful. A religion may be a system (full of contradictions, inconsistencies, dogmatic squabbles, and other problems that may interfere with it being Lawful), but its followers (even its priests) are still people and may not be as orderly and lawful as their religion prescribes them to be. This is why I like the approach to religion in Eberron, where gods are unknowable, clerics are not limited to their gods' alignments, and do not necessarily derive their spells from their gods, so evil clerics of a good deity are entirely possible and mentioned in the setting (and same goes for lawful and chaotic too).
Making a statement like that has more to do with not understanding what the alignments actually mean, something most get absolutely wrong these days. That is not what lawful means or how the alignment system actually works.
What it means to be lawful is that one values society (law) over the individual (chaos). If one was chaotic, it means they value the individual (chaos) over society (law). This was better defined during AD&D 2nd edition with a few chapters dedicated to alignment and what they mean and is still the system used by the current edition. This does not mean, as incorrectly stated, that priests must be lawful, for the act of following a religion does make one lawful. It is what one values more: societal laws or individual rights, that is what the law/chaos axis actually means.
As soon as I saw the title of the video I understood and appreciated your argument. During the video you raise the issue of Trickster Domain clerics in a lawful religious setting. I already have a scenario that squares this circle: In my 'Secret Princes of Saltmarsh' campaign plan, the PCs are hired by the Royal Navy of Keoland to establish a counterespionage operation in Saltmarsh. The Town Council is the primary target. The cleric of the party, and advance man of the spy ring, is to be a cleric of the Mercury- Wotan cult, normally associated with travelers and sea captains. He is however a member of a secretive order within the Mercury-Wotan cult. One that deals in deception. The higher priests may raise an eyebrow but do recognize this as a legitimate branch of their religion and will conspire to maintain it's secrecy. His mission is to arrive in Saltmarsh and start organizing a public shrine to Mercury near the docks and a pension house for retired sailors. These will serve as a front operation for the counterespionage ring. The other PCs could even pose as the Cleric's retinue. Nothing about this is incompatible with a Lawful Good Alignment.
I want to point out that this follows a contradictory theme in history. Travelers, especially navigators, need good "True " information. This is why navies invest in math and science. Travelers in a dangerous waters may use deception or trickery to avoid or deter enemies. This is why navies build espionage capacity. Knowing the relative position of your ships and let's say, pirate ships, can be priceless. The contradiction shows up in historical religious figures like Mercury. And my man Odin! A Merchant desires security and sometimes that comes from wielding the truth. Sometimes that comes from wielding deception. Kings and war leaders need to obtain secrets and keep them. Defeat lies and deploy them. In conclusion I support the firm direction you offer in your video but would remind your viewers that religions can contain contradictory ideas and even sub organizations while they try to make a more lawful good world.
You’ve described your setting in detail before, including its adherence to medievalist tropes, and it sounds well thought out and developed, but I find it interesting that in a world full of magic and monsters, you have difficulty imagining a society that doesn’t conform to medieval Europe. It’s as though the fantasy is limited to adventurers and adventures only and not governments, religions and culture in general. Certainly yours is a legitimate way to play, but to argue against other styles seems at odds with the fundamental goals of an escapist fantasy game.
Totally agree. It seems so strange to me that he imagines a world where one can bring people back to life, throw fireballs, and call forth beings from other dimensions, but a cleric who worships a chaotic god with a single tenet of “Bring Chaos” is too much for him to include in the world?
I mentioned Eastern religions and showed photographs of Mosques and Buddhist Temples. Religions are more similar than different to me.
My above statements are inclusive of but not limited to religion, and I would not deny that you mentioned features of Islam and Buddhism, but I think briefly referencing two or three other religions doesn’t really cover the breadth of experiences that religion can be. Additionally, I don’t think it addresses my point about prescribing a very specific cultural landscape to those playing fantasy games. I absolutely believe it’s one legitimate way to play the game, but I do not agree it is the only legitimate way.
Separately, I would like to make clear that I am a fan of your content and respect your opinions. I mention this, as I feel you may interpret statements such as mine as simply dismissals of your ideas. To me, you don’t need your +1 vest to protect you from this conversation.
Great points. But if you consider DnD from its origins I think it was always a more grounded or medieval world vs random fantasy world. A derivative of our like Conan or most other pulp fiction.
@@Sirwilliamf I agree; the roots of Dungeons & Dragons were based in a medieval European style setting. That said, one of the features of this channel that I greatly respect is the admission these games we play, where we roll dice to resolve adventurers’ attempts to overcome obstacles, are not homogeneous. From early on, official publications have been adapting and reimagining the game to settings such as Ravenloft, Kara-Tur, Maztica, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, etc. If we adopted a purist attitude that limited us to only, say, the Blackmoor campaign setting, we would miss out on much of what this game has to offer.
I enjoyed this video way more than i thought i would. Thumbs up!
I would encourage you to watch Vikings from the History Channel, I think it will reshape your perspective on ‘organized religion’ and the role of pagan (Norse) religion in the eras you cite in your initial thesis.
Watch that fantasy? Yeah no
He is objectively right so I don't see that it would, polytheism was a decentralized system but it still had order, though because of this the exact form this order took varied slightly from region to region. Taboos, holy days, hierarchy, a similar cosmogeny were all present.
There is an odd modern idea that polytheists didn't take their world view seriously and that it was just chaotic bullshit. If that were the case and it really had provided no stability to people's lives it wouldn't have stuck around for as long as it did, there wouldn't have been philosophical debates as to the merits of each religion, there wouldn't have been wars over it.
@@Julian_The_Apostate the thing is, the wars over religions were mostly(if not all) over highly heirarchal Abrahamic religions. The pagan religions mostly kept to themselves, because those of that faith had no organization to wage war with. While I agree that the War domain clerics should probably be lawful, something like trickery domain makes no sense at all if you try to constrain it to an organized church.
@@nickromanthefencer a lot of later ones after Europe was primarily Christian yes. The Northern crusades started by Charlemagne against the Northern tribes and then resurrected against the Slavs by the Christian Scandinavians were Pagan v. Christian. I don't really believe it was the prime reason personally but some scholars think the major reason for how much the existing raiding culture picked up during the Viking Age was as retaliation against Charlemagnes crusades. Keep in mind the Baltic people's continued to harass the Scandinavians long after they themselves had settled down from raiding. So to whatever extent religion played a part in this pagans didn't really keep to themselves entirely, they were happy to war against anyone and everyone.
Personally I think trickster domain isn't a great idea anyways, so I don't see a problem excluding it. As far as I know trickster gods were given offerings to placate the forces they represented but they really didn't have an organized long term cult based around them. It was just something that was part of the wider religious culture.
@@nickromanthefencer I suppose I should have clarified in my original comment, but the perpetrator of the conflict is irrelevant in my opinion. The pagans actively fought against Christianity in most cases because they saw it as an attack on the order that was built by them and their ancestors in the model the gods had showed them. There are always myths of Gods showing men how to organize their society for a reason, because order in their minds derived from the Gods themselves.
In an old campaign of mine most of the religions were hierarchical, whether LG or CE or anything in between. I even had a religion for sentient undead.
There was one exception, "Dom the Everchanging" who was a lesser deity who used powerful spells to simulate the powers of greater gods, and built his religion from a core group of three adventurers into a second-tier religion in the continent's holy city. He chose "Dom the Everchanging" to cast a wide net and increase his field of potential candidates.
-
His biggest trick was the spell power he granted worshippers each day was actually borrowed from what they would have the next day, and the next day's spell power was borrowed from the day after that.
There was always a chance that a worshipper would get as much as a 50% variance in spell power each day, plus or minus, randomly determined every morning. Any unused spell power would revert back to the deity's general pool when the next day's power was granted, letting Dom build up a HUGE pool of banked spell power to use to strengthen himself or trade for higher status in the pantheon.
Basically, the whole religion was a time-magic Ponzi scheme that would fall apart without careful management and a whole lot of flim-flammery.
In the vast majority of campaign worlds the existence of the gods is a literal, verifiable fact and most of them are fully capable of directly physically interacting with the physical world. By ignoring this distinction, and the ramifications it would have for religious structures he undermines his own argument as he makes it. Even in game worlds where the gods are more remote such as Eberron the fact that divine magical power is granted in their name in a regular, predictable manner means that a worshipper of the Silver Flame would have a completely different mindset than an IRL Christian or Muslim.
Additionally he applies common attributes of monotheistic state-sponsored IRL religions to fantasy religions which have very little in common, while also ignoring IRL religious movements that were, at least at one point in their existence, seen as antithetical to the order and power of the state. Take the Cult of Dionysus, which was always kept at arms length by the state when not outlawed entirely, yet it persisted all through ancient Greece and Rome until some time after Constantine. Or early Christianity itself, which was viewed as a deadly threat to Roman order. While Christianity was able to eventually merge with state power that process might have been somewhat complicated if Jesus was still perfectly capable of descending from heaven and going upside his worshiper's heads, an option open to most of the gods in D&D. Given that fantasy deities can grant tremendous power, perform miracles in their own right, and maintain their own doctrine without the aid of any state apparatus there's no reason to believe that every fantasy religion would need state sponsorship.
Further, his claim that fantasy worlds essentially mimic the medieval European world of the twelfth through fourteenth centuries is also wrong. Prior to the plagues of the late medieval period and early Renaissance practically every inch of Europe had been settled. With only a few exceptions the oldest forests in Europe date to the period after the plagues, when suddenly depopulated areas returned to the wilderness and the borders of civilization receded precipitously. Most fantasy settings are more akin to the ancient world, when political borders were nominal at best and vast tracts of land were essentially uncontrolled. It's much easier for anti-state religions to flourish when there's plenty of wilderness for them to flourish in, and even within the borders of nominally settled lands a ruler's power doesn't always extend particularly far beyond the borders of their actual settlements.
I thank you for stepping up your video by displaying gaming text and a variety of pictures/art to awaken my gray matter and tickle my eye. May the god of algorithm be pleased.
Your argument is fundamentally tautological: lawful religions behave in lawful ways. When you cherry pick your supporting evidence to only include lawful religions, it will seem internally consistent.
But D&D isn't the monotheistic European middle ages. The first thing you did was dismiss polytheism, which is exactly the deific configuration of most of our settings. For that matter, I doubt anybody would claim that paganism is lawful, and it's certainly a religion with non-trivial amounts of worshippers.
100% agree. I think he likes the idea of a lawful cleric, and seems to be ‘pushing’ that narrative to limit what types of characters get to be clerics.
I would argue paganism is lawful. It has rituals, rules and followers all hallmarks of a lawful group. There are even splinter groups within pagan societies. Polytheism is still lawful at its core.
@@adrianwebster6923 polytheism maybe, but what of religions who’s tenets are by definition anti-hierarchy? He mentions Loki but seems to dismiss it, instead of noting that a cleric of Loki would absolutely be a chaotic cleric. Tenets do not always need a system or a church. They only need a deity.
@@nickromanthefencer like I said in my full comment, the historical Jesus (and other wandering prophet types) are unquestionably Neutral. But only because they don’t participate in the religious structure.
You are utterly wrong and here is why:
1 - A pagan priestly adventurer would be a Druid rather than a Cleric
2 - Pagan religions were lawful. They had strict rituals, ceremonies and rules of behaviour. They had priests and affronts to their gods would be often dealt with executions as well. I recommend you research the Northern Crusades.
3 - Cleric's powers come from the God they worship. If you do not behave to the rules, you do not get the powers.
Outstanding! I love how you handle this. Also, excellent tie.
And THAT is why my Therizdun Cleric is Chaotic Lawful.
That's an oxymoron
You just won at RPG
You demonstrate perfectly why edge lords are something to be avoided.
True un-Neutral...Untrue Neutral...False...nevermind
You can always trust him... to break the rules :)
Perfects observations!
I really love professor DM point of View and his realism. I Think that introduce realism is not a limitation to our games but it gives us a lot vantages. The world that the players walks is a living world and for the DM will be much easier to characterize every regions that the pg will visit during their journeys.
Also is always interesting to discover corruption into an holy order and maybe see the reaction of the cleric to this discovery.
That's why in christianity and other religions we have differents orders that prays the same god!
Gods are not clear in their wishes, they sends signals that the clerics tries to interpretate. This can open discussion between members of the same religions.
I totally agree a Cleric got to be lawfull or maybe He is not a Cleric but just a predicator and we can create an homebrew for this class. But He is not a member of the order so He can not have the same vantages. He Will not be recived, He Will not have the help of the temple and maybe someone can see him like an eretic and in consequence a menace!
I feel like you're starting at a conclusion and working backwards. You're also taking an extremely hardline, old-school view on alignment. You might as well say that ALL civilized people are lawful, unless they're insane or something. These days, people don't consider being "chaotic" in alignment to mean that they don't prescribe to ANY organized behavior of any kind.
Indeed. I'm even considering replacing the words law/chaos with order/freedom in my games. You'd immediately get a more sensible and intuitive alignment chart to understand what a character or faction's priorities are.
@@Rodrigo_Vega Order and Chaos are the archetypes. Freedom is related but independent. You can be tyranized by access order or chaos.
@@michaelstronghold3550 my point is that they are confusing, unconstructive words. What _is_ chaos? (I'm asking rhetorically, I really don't quite care about any given rule-books arbitrary definition of "chaos")
who does things for chaos' sake? More often than not it conjures (in newer players, but also in mature players like this expert video) the idea of characters breaking laws left and right, doing things "for the lols" and at random. It's... it's terrible. It doesn't really fit any real interesting archetypes. Having Freedom replace Chaos instantly conjures Robin Hoods and William Wallace-type characters, "rebels without a cause" if they are neutral or self-indulgent assholes if they are evil. Immediately giving a player a template for the kind of thing they'd do and why.
@@Rodrigo_Vega I get it. I thought about freedom/authority scale or replacing lawful with "order" as it makes more sense to me. That being said "order good" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
@@Rodrigo_Vega Sigh... this is why I hate Alignment systems; seen too many flames wars over it.
I liked the idea that Scott Lynch used in the Lies of Locke Lamora, where they were priests of the Liar God, but hid under the guise of different religions. They each learned the rules and doctrines in order to fool people into thinking they were part of the other religions.
That IS a cool idea. I read that book but forgot about that part.
Please read the following in the voice you'd give to Loki in a role playing setting
"Well I coul empower clerics to do my bidding on earth, but the rules said I can't so I guess I'll get just sit here and be the patron saint of apples instaid. It's not like the trickster god is a Jungian archetype or anything!"
@@EricDMMiller I disagree with assertion that no one in history called themselves a Priest of Loki. That's quite hard to believe.
@@EricDMMiller As you are making the assertion that something never existed, please provide the evidence to prove it. It's called a Black Swan fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The historical Jesus is a Neutral Good cleric.
My outlook is the same as yours: Lawful alignment is perceiving the world in terms of systems and structures. It’s damn refreshing to hear someone else say it, given the amount of grief I’ve gotten from my players.
Nevertheless, one key difference between the real world and the game - if gods can affect the world directly without the purely nominal actions of their worshippers, strong organizational bias (like your point about the Temple of Artemis) is not necessary for the survival of the faith.
In my own game, the overwhelming majority of clerics (and all priests) are Lawful, but there will always be those few spiritual figures who
shun institutional structure. My mind jumps to prophets and humble teachers, especially the historical Jesus.
That doesn’t make it commonplace, however, and I love that you call out Cults as lawful. Of course they are! Even a rebel group trying to dismantle a system is still an organized group fighting for a higher, system-level purpose!
Great video.
I think that you are conflating two different issues.
1) You are correct when you say that religious doctrine is lawful in nature.
2) You then attempt to extrapolate religious doctrine being lawful to mean that all clerics are lawful. Your logic is that if you are part of a formal religious institution, you have to follow those religious teachings. That is true.
However, that excludes the possibility for a less formal, more spiritual person to be a cleric. Which is to my mind difficult to justify, given that the highest stat for clerics is Wisdom, which is about awareness, intuition, instinct, empathy, etc.
It also excludes the possibility of having people with different temperaments being inducted into a religious order. Not everyone in a religious order was inducted into that order from birth. By using the same logic you use above, all military officers are lawful because they are expected to follow the orders of their superiors, but in practice that is not always the case, there is also a place for people who have the capacity for taking the initiative and bending the rules.
Chaotic-aligned people are inclined to follow their gut over dogma where they have the choice, and Lawful-aligned people are inclined to follow dogma over their gut where they have the choice. Chaotic characters will resent or bemoan a restriction that they come up against, and Lawful characters will feel guilty for violating their principles. Neutral characters are somewhere in between, neither being overly instinctual, nor overly dogmatic, but rather a fairly balanced mixture of the two.
Dogma is a dirty word these days, but I am using it to describe a pre-established structure and worldview that people refer to for guidance and instruction, like a formal religion, like a military command structure, like a regional code of laws.
If your character consistently sides with established dogma over all other concerns, they are lawful.
If your character consistently bends the rules to follow their gut, they are chaotic.
And there are always exceptions to an established pattern of behaviour, because humans aren't robots, and are hypocritical, fallible, and under enough pressure and emotional stress can be pushed into acting against their normal state of being. A good character can do something evil if they are under enough pressure, and vice versa. What matters is the consistency, and that consistency can change over time.
So in conclusion, chaotic and neutral characters can operate within a lawful structure.
Most applicants to become clerics will be inclined towards being Lawful due to the structures and institutions that they are a part of, but not everyone has full control over their destiny, and not everyone worships in the same way, so to make it an ironclad rule seems needlessly limiting.
I would fully encourage people to take their character's religion seriously, though, and also discuss the way that they practice it, the customs that they follow, the ideals that they ascribe to and attempt to embody, etc.
Just don't strawman all chaotic people as angry rebellious teenagers who have never followed a rule in their lives, or lawful people as these infallible utterly obtuse and inflexible robots. There is more nuance to it than that.
Cults are another example of a less formal religious institution.
I see many of the points made here. I am one who likes to build a bit of realism with regards to religion in my campaigns and I see your point. It is realistic that any religion with a bit of organization tends towards lawful and this is an idea that I feel drawn towards.
I also see that in history, within highly organized religions there is the counterweight of the charismatic and anti-establishment movement that seeks to break out the religion out of its domesticated role and to adhere more truly to its radical beliefs.
For example, Christianity had monasticism, which was originally a protest movement against the role of the church as an ally of the state. There was John Chrysostom, who called out the empress for her luxurious living and told her to be humble and poor like other christians. He was force marched to death for his insolence but he was the highest cleric of the land. Maybe he was more neutral good than chaotic good though...
There were wondering prophets who obviously seemed to have divine power who were not in any official position in the church and this is what I think a chaotic good cleric would look like. So to add to your point about interfaith conflict I would add that not even the church of a lawful good deity would only have lawful followers.
I do have to agree that secret cults have to be lawful evil not to spill the secrets of their cult everywhere they happen to go... Maybe a chaotic evil religion does not have structure or even direct access to any deity's blessing, they just sort of ooze or become a conduit for the evil power of their deity. Or maybe chaotic evil deities can only have warlocks as their representatives on Earth... Although... Even a warlock has to make a pact with their deity so I guess that is too chaotic as well.
I have recently tried to think on how in a polytheistic world the deities influence people and give them blessings and power. Like if the players defend a town with the temple of a certain deity there who is the patron of heroes, maybe a representative of that deity will appear and bestow upon the heroes a special blessing as thanks for upholding the values of that deity.
I will admit to always having an issue with the concept of "the religious divide" in fantasy worlds where the gods are real entities whose influence is measurable through the magic they grant their followers. If the gods are real and they grant magic then, one presumes, they stop granting someone that magic once they are or their organization step outside the strictures expected by the particular god. Followers are also of value to gods, or at least to the Good gods, in any case.
So a disagreement over how to worship should be quickly settled because either one side loses their magic and is proven wrong OR neither side loses their magic and the argument is revealed to be unimportant to their god. If it is unimportant to their god and they persist in fighting, the Good (or Lawful) god would likely intervene to quash any conflict between its followers, so as to maintain its continued and expanding influence in the world.
Same thing with proselytizing. If a cleric of Lomadrio the Sun Prince (made him up) travels to an unexplored land where the clerics ALSO worship the Sun Prince but by a different name, they would likely recognize the worship of their god so long as (1) the Sun Prince makes the same demands of all his followers or (2) the above.
I think, in fantasy, we try a lot to replicate the conflicts we see in life between historic and modern churches but we forget that these conflicts (well the strictly theological ones) are due to the unprovable and subjective nature of divinity, whereas divinity is neither unprovable nor subjective in fantasy: it is provable and objective.
THANK YOU. The only reason heirarchal religions exist in the world is because of the unprovable nature of god in our universe! If all you had to do was worship a god, or follow it’s tenets, an organized religion is completely unnecessary to gain any of that god’s powers!
@@nickromanthefencer Well, gods of Law in fantasy settings (especially D&D worlds) may want their followers to observe hierarchical structures because it is in their nature to value and establish hierarchies in the mortal world. If a god's worship requires valuable materials or times (like vestments, incenses, the observation of specific holidays or feast days, etc) then an organized structure place may spring up to fulfill those obligations. Many hands make for light work, right.
But yeah. Religions should look like the god who leads them, for sure.
This is explained in Forgotten Realms by the Veil or somesuch, which limits gods to influence peddling. A warlock's patron can pester them at any point for any reason, but the D&D gods are usually not wandering around dictating orders. As in the chicken example, the Veil may actively prevent Skykos (if he were in FR) from showing up and saying that the chicken is Skykosher or not. Something like a chronological protection conjecture, to violate it would result in the god vanishing in a puff of logic.
As for the magic being turned off like an unpaid light bill, the vast majority of the priesthood have no magic. And *any* priestly spell can be copied by Bards, who likely end up leading their own cults.
Glorantha's Eurmal is another example of Trickery god.
D&D should probably just toss out the alignments anyways. Now that classes aren’t locked behind them anymore they have no real purpose other than RP. Heck, the spells that use to detect them no longer do that.
Yeah alignment is more or less purely for legacy purposes right now. There's very little that mechanically uses it.
Its funny. In a interview, Mike Mearls talked about how they tried to throw it out in the 5e play test, but there were so many complaints that they put alignment back in.
@@cameronmaas2644 : Yeah I can definitely believe that. After 4E, everyone was super wary about anything that looked like a major change and just wanted something nostalgic.
These are some really great points not only on alignment, but on the role of clerics in general. I've always seen clerics (and paladins) as followers of a cause. Even with the definitions of hierarchies and religions aside, a deity is likely only going to grant power to someone who will be a devout servant. Likewise they would likely strip that power away should the recipient prove offensive to the ideals of the deity. Maintaining that status of devout servant seems pretty lawful to me.
Then again, for all the debate surrounding alignments, I'm one of those DMs who has mostly abandoned them. They seem to do more to cause arguments rather than add to the game. My players have pretty much abandoned them in favor of the traits/ideals/bonds/flaws system. I like to have clerics write up an ethos (similar to a paladin's oath) and several "commandments" they must follow to remain in good standing with their deity.
For me there are really two kinds of clerics and paladins. The ones that are a part of the church and those that just agree with the gods view and because they live their life on the same tenets they can use divine power should they ever need to. Meaning that since a person trielt loves the forest a forest god grants them clerical powers and may even appear to them and tell them that because of their beliefs they have been granted powers. Provided they don’t go and start acting in opposition to the things that the god holds important
This is a very good take
@@ikxalenull7 I tend to favor the gods that fall between arbitrary and mostly insane from a mortal perspective. Imagine being a cleric of sheogorath from elder scrolls. There would be very few laws to follow but a lot of randomly changing pleasure and displeasure at what you did that day.
@@Ifrit8054 And the CHEESE!
I beg your pardon, I'm doing the fish stick. It's a delicate state of mind.
Two things come to my mind:
1. Faith and religion are two - sometimes very different - things. As I understand game lore, clerics in general gain their power from their inner faith, and not from their status or position in some hierarchy. Even a saint can live on the edge of society, and even the most corrupt person can reach high status, so its not personal position what makes a good cleric.
2. Lawful behaviour is a social phenomenon, meaning you follow social rules. Chaotic characters can be just unpredictable and random, but they could also follow their own moral codes, which are clear for themselves, but could result unlawful or chaotic acts as per D&D definition.
What I want to say with this is that non-lawful clerics seems quite appropriate for me, in fact in real life, most holy figures in most religions were against the current system and in fact disrupted the status quo. Clerics could lead a rebellion against a decadent system, or purge their enemies in "unorthodox" ways. Also, a hermit devoted to his god, living in some cave should consider laws secondary at best. I agree that clerics should follow the "commandments" of their faith, but these rules are always moral for me, hence it is relevant in regard the good-evil aspect of character alignment, not the in the lawful-chaotic one.
If you ask 10 people what Lawful and Chaotic means, you're probably going to get 10 completely different answers, so this whole discussion is pointless.
I forbid my players from ever filling the allignment section of their character sheets, and it's probably one of the best things I ever did.
No more useless discussion about what your character should or shouldn't do at the momment because he/she is lawful/chaotic, the characters just act accodingly to their personality, which ironically is what alignment should do.
Always worth hearing what the Professor has to say! Thank you for your videos!
Great points! I agree, but definitely a ‘Old School’ position.
It really is isn’t it? That’s too bad too, I would have thought the desire for verisimilitude was a timeless one, but it sure doesn’t seem to be.
@@brendanthegreek - People have scrapped realism in favor of playing furry, Mary-Sue edge lords, living in a world that looks like a Renaissance fair in downtown Portland.
@fire lord - Which has what to do with what I just said?
@fire lord - Are you high right now?
@fire lord - Which again, has exactly Jack and shit to do with my original statement.
I've liked your effort to spell Umberto Eco's name correctly, kudos
Much to Deathbringer's chagrin, I love this take on clerics. Sorry Deathbringer.
So, I want to play a chaotic evil trickery cleric in your world:
Falwell was the third son of a wealth noble and was his father favorite. Unfortunately, daddy died and his oldest brother despised him. So, he did the orthodox thing and went to become an acolyte of Skykos in hope of becoming a priest. Falwell was bright, ambitious and charismatic. He learned to read, write, and most importantly persuade people of all stations to tithe generously. But Skykos never favored him, and his prayers for Skykos to grant him spells were never answered. Without the true blessings of Skykos, his future within the church were limited. His search for a way to gain Skykos’s favor led him to seek out the most arcane and restricted texts. His charisma and talents as a scribe and scholar allowed him to pursue this path, where others would have failed. This search eventually exposed him to an ancient forgotten text deep within the most restricted sections of the temple's library. The text proved to be a treatise on the worship of a god of trickery of a now extinct culture. After almost a month of pondering the rites contained in the text and his own fruitless devotion to Skykos, Falwell secretly offered a prayer and a small sacrifice to the trickster deity. To his amazement, his prayers were answered immediately, the gifts and spells of a god long forgotten were his to command. Somehow, he knew that what his new patron wanted, more than anything else was for the faithful of Skykos to be exploited to the greatest possible degree.
Falwell knew his limitations. The church of Skykos controlled much of the society, and held some influence in most of what remained. But he had an advantage, the church still thought he was one of their own, and he intended to keep it that way. To get things rolling, he embarks evangelical jaunt. He travels across the preaching the word of Skykos, with only insignificant embellishments. Those necessary to motivate the faithful to offer the needed tithes. Some of it would even end up in the coffers of the church, enough to allay suspicion. Eventually, his travels would lead him to a band of adventures, a fine group of companions (meat shields) that would enable him to supplement his wealth and power in ways that the church would not be able to understand. By carefully navigating the expectations of the church and his new “friends” his potential for achievement would have few bounds. God of trickery willing, at some point in the future, his eldest brother would have to be exposed as the heretical pervert he truly is, so that those of the true faith may reap the rewards they deserve.
Clerics (at least those that are not leaders of cults) should appear lawful and good, but not all characters are what they appear.
"Remember to give generously. It is by the grace of Skykos that love enters the world, the fields prosper, and chickens fly. Praise Skykos!"
Cults and cultists would be the exception, right? Let us not forget great old ones like Cthulhu! Or Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, and Nurgle. What happened to the Old Gods in your campaign, Dan?
Cults are for warlocks
Cults are extremely lawful, they live on extreme versions of order and following commands from their cult leaders, often establish hierarchies of order, rituals, ceremonies, and very specific rules. The old gods themselves, may not be lawful, but if you have watched any of the Lovecraft Country series, look how orderly and lawful the secret order is.
those would be the warlock class.
@@brutusmaximumus I wouldn't point to that show as an example of anything except hijacking an artists name to promote cartoon racism.
@@erispapps9929
Technically, yes, but not really. It depends on the origin of power. In the case of Gods, what is Divinity? Do the Old Ones call this same power in another name or is Divinity the offspring of the Old One's power?
I think as a dungeon master when it comes to alignment one would be well to consider the ideals of those alignments and to share their interpretations with their players. Security vs Freedom, needs of society vs individual rights, what would they do with Plato's ring of Gyges? Would they act in consistency?
For me I would divide lawful and chaotic with the philosophical debate of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Both of them agreed we need government, but while Thomas Hobbes believed the power would need to be absolute since humans by nature are violent and impulsive, John Locke believed humans by nature are rational and though we disagree we are willing to work together to compromise and that compromise is where government comes from, not a monarch who enforces rules. Neither side is disorderly but both have issues of tyrannical rule or possible civil war. A Hobbesian Lawful Evil Character would see their actions despite how drastic to be necessary to keep Chaotic Evil from winning, even if it means being against Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral. The Lockesian Chaotic Good Character would disagree, maybe saying something along the lines of "if you execute everyone for the smallest violation of the law them soon you won't be ruling anyone." seeing the other view as needlessly tyrannical but it doesn't mean they necessarily break the rules.
With examples of drivers license they are issued by state and necessary by law. Being able to drive gives freedom but also being able to get someplace without getting in a crash because people aren't making U-turns on the freeway is security. Are those freedoms provided by the state or protected by it? Without the state would the population lose it's security?
So for the lawful cleric working with the monarchy to perhaps insure the security of the population which will provide the freedom to do what they want without fear, in contrast to a chaotic cleric believing if people want to be free they need to work together and compromise. After all isn't society just a collection of individuals?
It's a discussion that would be considerable to take during session zero IF the DM wants their campaign to follow the alignment of lawful and chaotic, in the very least sharing your interpretation of the alignment to be used at your table might stop players trying to argue how "stealing food isn't unlawful if they are hungry" or "chaos means being random and random means getting to do whatever I want free of consequences"
Your argument, by necessity, erases MANY characters concepts. In many ways, it reduces players ability to play unique and fully human characters. First, middle ages is not the only choice for DnD. But even in that context, being willing to take orders shouldn't be the SOLE definition of lawful. That's just living in a society. Many players might want to play clerics who have lost their way, who lose faith in their church or God. After all, that's what Martin Luther, who started the Protestant Reformation was like. Would that not be a Chaotic cleric? Or even just a cleric who isn't passionate or devoted to the church. They have other passions - cleric is just what they do to get by. Maybe during the campaign, they will find their faith! Or maybe they don't! There's no reason being a cleric needs to define EVERY aspect of their character.
Isn't all of this too reductive and simplistic? Would this reduce all clerics to a few shades of the same character? Why should we do that?
This comment has a very high quality!👆
Your argument that it removes players ability to play "human characters" is also flawed. Humans love to find purpose outside themselves and we have a vast history, even in modern day, of accepting beliefs, creeds, and fanaticism about everything from mundane things like boybands and popular celebrities to philosophies and religions.
Another thing to think about is; is your god in your setting really going to reward a player who rejects their ideals or instructions with otherworldly power? Cleric is conceptually about borrowing power directly from a diety, becoming a chosen avatar of a god. That avatar can't spit in *most* gods' face and still expect to receive their favor to insantly heal a dying ally's wounds from up to 60 feet away. Divine magic and wizardry are not thematically the same in D&D.
Yeah I think chaotic should be calculated relative to the person's role. A chaotic assassin might be more overtly chaotic, than a chaotic priest, who needs to abide by certain rules to be considered a priest. I think the issue is people place alignment above character class. Alignment should be dependant on role, not the other way
IDK if it erases any character concepts. After all you have LG, LN, and LE. I can't imagine how a Chaotic Cleric would work. Even as CG, that just means they will do whatever "they feel" is good. So say the god they follow is CG, they wouldn't go against that god as that god is already doing and telling you to do what is good in the gods view. So through the god the cleric worships you can take on any of the 9 alignments. However, the cleric would still have to adhere to the god they worship's teaching. Otherwise, why would they allow that cleric who follows their own path, away from what the god wants, to use his/her power.?
Perhaps you're too stuck on the Cleric as getting power from the divine rather then it being faith based magic? 5e heavily suggest that magic born of faith is not cosmological tied to deities as it was in previous editions. A system I'd point out doesn't invalidate the older model of Clerics in D&D but allows greater flexibility between settings and class.
We've long had Clerics of Philosophy and Clerics of Cause in D&D, all 5e has done is highlight the way we can make use of them.
Before watching the vid: I recall an article some time back making the same argumentation about angels/aasimon, since they are a hierarchy in service to the cause of a deity. Even a chaotic deity wants his/her orderlies to proceed to cause his/her chaos as he/she wills. So except for some truly chaotically inclined powers, like so chaotic they see even their own destruction as a worthy sacrifice for the cause, I accept your argument.
I’ve been to that temple. Did you know it was earthquake proof? As well as built on a swamp? Amazing feats of architecture indeed.
I just think you handle it perfect, Professor DM.
The key word in "medieval fantasy" is fantasy.
I agree that "fantasy" is a key component of the term "medieval fantasy", but so too is the "medieval" part. I believe they share roughly equal importance within the phrase.
@@holyordersol2668 I agree. It seems like the video is trying to make the fantasy part a little too realistic, and a lot less fun for someone who wants to be a cleric, but doesn’t want to have to report back to their high priest every week or something.
@@holyordersol2668 medieval is inspiration for setting, not the setting itself. Fantasy is the genre, setting and the very act of role playing itself. Within the hierarchy of the term, fantasy is on top.
I love this video. It makes you confront a lot of really interesting questions and ideas. The thought it encourages cleric players and dms to engage in is just great!
Personally I think it's actually not too unbelievable for there to be devout miracle workers who dedicate themselves to orders purely for the sake of enacting and/or propagating their deity's personal brand of chaos. Ideas of chaos can be incredibly varied as can the extent to which a deity will be in favor of it.
At the same time if an NPC in my game calls someone a cleric, they are in a somewhat high station of a priestly order and have some kind of services they perform regularly in relation to the church. However, priests can be anyone who dedicates themselves publicly to a spirit/deity. I know real life etymology doesnt follow that but you can only go so far before getting lost in the sauce.
There's also a lot of linguistic nuance to really dig into with this kind of thing, and only so much can be useful.
Also I know you're using 5e as the focus, but the forgotten realms clearly operates under different assumptions than you as to what law and chaos are. Back in 3.5 it was required for Druids to be chaotic or they would lose their powers, but they also preserved "the natural order" of the world and loathed the chaotic forces of undead and abberations even more than skirmishing humans. And I'm a bit torn on this kind of thing.
Mostly I think it comes from just a really horribly crude system to enforce some degree of player accountability by the rules. And on the other hand, there's still some interesting discussions to be had in regards to what the fuck law/order and chaos _actually_ mean. Order and chaos can't exist in a human/animal context without each other, and it's worth thinking about what lines deities draw in all that mess as to what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
Damn it all why did I have to watch this while I'm so tired and have no idea if I'm making any sense!
Great thoughts on Lawfulness. I guess it comes down to how you interpret 'order' vs 'Lawful'. I might be over thinking it, but Lawful seems more linked to specific rules where order might be more along principles. Ideas?
Correct. How see lawful is that lawful means order. Lawful follow rules, chaotic do not. Lawful deities disagree with each others witch rules should be followed, but all are lawful, because they follow one; the one of the nine hells or the ones of Celestia. For me, you can be lawful and doesn't follow a specific kingdom rule. The Fast and Furious crew is lawful, they are criminals, but they follow their own rules. At least this is how I see it, way more as cosmological thing, than about a specific region or government rule
Always great content!!!! So many TH-camrs put out garbage but DC never fails to deliver.
I am currently play a half elf cleric (of the grave) and worshiping The Raven Queen. He is true neutral and I think this the best RP and true to playing a neutral cleric I’ve ever experienced.
I wish you could have played and shared the experience with us to see. We are currently close to finishing The Curse of Strahd. I’ve taken over the church and promoting The RQ and now have followers. The DM has basically had to rewrite most of the adventure for our group, but we have the over all original story.
Hi DungeonCraft, I have one very serious question. Are you planning to upgrade your vest of protection from +1 to +2?
PS Great video as always!
Lol. No need. I knew this episode would generate heat so I was prepared. I'm really enjoying reading these comments.
The chicken example is hilarious and sad at the same time.🤣
damn there's a lot of people with low ac in these comments :)
any religion should be lawful but not all faiths should be.
if you look at old pagan beliefs, they often have distinct similarities, however the actual specifics would vary from town to town, household to household, even person to person.
they were not organized religions, but disorganized faiths. they also happen to be making a resurgence as of late. they would be a perfect candidate to chaotic practices. you just need to be a good enough writer to describe them in a way that works for the mechanics.
Absolutely. What the video seems to ignore is that not all clerics are from organized religions, and forcing them to be can severely limit the potential of the class.
Paganism was organised...
@@nickromanthefencer the argument was Moreso that clerics are an inherently religious class. Pagan styled gods would be more fitting for warlocks in my opinion, and i agree wholeheartedly with the video about organized religions needing to be lawful. If i were to implement this style of religion i would reflavour my non- lawful clerics as being more like warlocks
@@ikxalenull7 Pagan styled gods are perfectly fitting for priests. The textbook example for "Tempest Domain" is Thor. Pagan faiths were religions, they had authority figures, rules, often sacred texts and rites.
And many D&D deities do not have an organized religion around them. By your logic, someone wishing to play a Priest of Vecna should be playing a Warlock instead ?
@@FrancoisMarchant If you'd describe the acolytes of a god as Cultists of X instead of the Church of X, then I'd say warlocks are more aesthetically appropriate. So I'd probably go with a warlock over a priest of vecna. Although vecna specifically probably just uses wizards for priests.
"Actual underground temple"... that's my basement!
I think you missed an opportunity to look deeper into what constitutes lawfulness. The laws of the general population do not necessarily dictate the laws and codes of lesser deities, thieves guilds, etc. A lawful Trickster domain cleric will still adhere to a code of behavior despite the generally unlawful behavior. Paladins are an excellent, if not better, example of a class that must be lawful to a code set forth by their oath.
Based on this premise, should all Druids be lawful as well?
Well that's actually part of his point. Clerics have to be lawful because all of them would have a code of behavior that they strictly follow. I mean, if you don't, then you'd effectively have a cleric that thinks his holy book is mostly bunk, which begs the question of why this guy is getting spells?
As for druids, it really kind of depends on how druids are set up. The druids of early editions which were specifically part of some universal druidic order would definitely be lawful (you even had to displace an existing high level druid to level up in AD&D). The loner druid that just lives in the wilds would probably be more chaotic.
I agree that it depends on the setting. Yes, the DM has final say over their campaign. One way to ensure you are building a character within setting boundaries is to ask up front if there are any class, race, alignment, etc. restrictions before creating a character. I do that as a player. However, my preference is to keep options open as long as it's kept under control. There are ways to manage that too and still be fair IMHO.
In essence, all wizards and sorcerers would be chaotic?
I don't know, seems like a shoehorn take. I remember in 2e there was only one way to be a chaotic good paladin of following Kelemvor. If you say clerics, you have to say paladins and soon you have to pigeonhole every character into a box.
You were right, not a very hot take to make. But I still love your content!
I can see & understand you view. I think you make good points, but I understand Lawful as meaning you have a set of codes or rules you like by. & chaotic is the ends justify the means type of mind set.
Now I ask if your paladin took oaths to pledge themselves to their deity of chaos then wouldn’t that make them (the character) of lawful alignment?
Or maybe as far as religious thinking lawful would be they follow the teachings to the letter of the law where chaotic could be a more spirit of the law type thing.
The beauty of it is all are right b/c a: it’s just a game. b: we as players & GM’s have the freedom to pick & choose how we play. So enjoy the game
Wizard would have to tend lawful to have the discipline to study
What you are saying can be summed up in a single word: context. I am about your age and have a bunch of younger players and what I find hard to convey is the concept of context.
They tend to choose everything based on game mechanics and advantages they can get, without even considering if what they choose "fits in the campaign", I call it the "video game approach", but explaining and talking things over normally fixes the issue.
Great video, very on point and clear, I'll send the link to my players.
First, your definition of "Religion" is clearly cherry picked to fit your narrative as it is literally the second listing under Google search, the first being "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Note a clear lack of mentioning systems or organizations.
Second, following a set of beliefs or a moral code is not the same as being Lawful, by that logic all animals are Lawful because they follow their instincts.
Third, like attracts like, 5e has forgotten this, but 3.5 and earlier editions were far more strict on matching the Cleric's alignment to their Deity's, with 3.5 requiring you to be within one step of a single axis of your god, ie a LG God could have a LN or NG Cleric, while earlier editions were even more strict. Additionally it makes no sense that if your God dictated that you were not to have an organized system of worship, that you would develop them, that's basically begging to be smited.
Forth, unlike our own world with a distinct lack of direct divine favor, I mean I don't see anyone bringing back the dead on the regular or hordes of demons rampaging across the country side, DnD has gods who can literally interact with you directly and indirectly. So the worship of a God isn't going to decline because they are not going to allow it to, after all according to DnD Beyond it's possible for a God to impell you into service, ie force you.
Lastly, Alignment is often misused by those who don't understand that it is not a strict as they would like it to be, just like morality it is ever shifting and gray. For instance a Lawful Evil person seeks to abuse the word of law for their own personal benefit, ie a Manipulative and Greedy bastard, but they don't stop being LE just because they donate to the poor one day.
Exactly. I think people who complain about the alignment system not being complex enough don't understand the alignment system.
It shows how a character TENDS to act, nothing more.
"Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"
You are mistaking the lawful alignment for order. For example, take the Abyss, a plane that literally embodies both chaos and evil. The demons of this plane have hierarchies, and the leaders make rules. The lawful and chaotic alignments simply refer to how honorable and predictable an individual is. If a chaotic person actually worships an entity, they will follow what that entity says to do because they worship it and therefore believe it to be far wiser than they are.
I'd love to play in your game. You have a great take on DnD.
No young players of D&D care about verisimilitude
I agree with everything you said here. I tend to think of clerics as the divine counterpart to warlocks; both have entered into a contract with their patron which must be honoured in the agreed fashion to be valid.
While we're on the topic of faith, any setting with GODS is weak. Mystara has Immortals, which are way cooler and actually let me join the action. Dark Sun has no gods. Dragonlance's gods are literal celestial bodies, so it's passable. Gods are weak sauce. Immortals, moons/constellations, and lack of gods? That's the real sauce
"any setting with gods is weak"
Laughs in both elvish, and aelvish
Quite a lot of D&D deities started out as puny mortal level 1 adventurers. Usually played by the guy that wrote the campaign setting and his buddies.
I agreed from the opening statement, but the one thing that you pointed out that really struck home is the idea that 21st century players tend to have a fundamental disconnect from medieval reality.
I could not disagree with you more professor DM.
Having watched your video I can't help but feel you have made far to many assumptions. Both in relation to religions, hiarchys, and law (as a cosmic force.)
The biggest thing I am going to focus on is as you called it a religions order, and how a nonlawful organizations could exist. Because an organization does not always mean that it is innately lawful. What makes it lawful or not depends on the people who make it up. For example.
When a leader of the church (if there is one) is elected, chosen, or succeeds to his position. Do the other members of that faith/organization follow him mearly because he was elected by their rules? If so then they are lawful, but is the reason they are followed because they are the most powerful (politically, personally, or otherwise.) So that others dare not challenge them. If that is the case then they are chaotic.
Rules can be written in a book by anyone, but whether they are ever enforced, and how they actually come into play is a question of if the people are lawful or chaotic. In a lawful society someone can inherit, or acquire a title or position through lawful means even though they may not be the best for the job, and they can usually keep said position barring a lawful unseatment. However in a chaotic society no such person could exist. Only those with the personal power, competence, and or connections could hold positions of import.
There is much more to this argument and I confess I do not have the time to do so here, but I hope you found this at least somewhat interesting.
It really depends on how you define chaos. If you define it as a value system as much as Law is, it's easy to imagine religions and clerics that are chaotic. I define chaos as valuing freedom, change, disruption, diversity, self expression, etc. It doesn't mean they are incapable of participating in the opposite - just they *value* responding to change over following a plan, for example. There are plenty of real life groups that share those values.
I looked for a few minutes and didn't see this point being made: in DND you can just ask the God to tell you what he/she thinks of chickens. It breaks verisimilitude to ever have 2 factions disagree with what a God thinks when there is a real God to actually ask. Unless that God lies about how it wants its worshippers to worship.
To disagree about what a god thinks*
I think what you've got is a wonderful context for Your Game. Aside from the fact that I'm a nobody and am unsure we'd get along, I can see how playing with you as a DM would be an absolute blast. However, overall I have to find myself disagreeing a lot on this specific topic. Alignment is a toxic subject to begin with. Even trying to use it, which I still do when it comes to extraplanars and things like that, I find it just not engaging or robust enough to think "anyone who organizes in any way is lawful." For me one of the greatest Chaotic beings in "classic D&D lore" if that's a thing, would be Graz'zt and alongside him Iggwilv. They're both from my perspective objectively chaotic, locked in this abusive, viscous cycle of domination and subjugation, always cleverly gaining the upper hand then repeating the same mistakes over and over to flip the tables. Chaos doesn't mean incapable of holding a plan, it just means that there may be some aspect to them that is flawed or unpredictable or even in some cases going against the grain.
I think a lot of people consider Robin Hood to be the iconic representation of Chaotic Good, steals from the rich and breaks the laws to feed the poor. One could argue he's Lawful Good as in later representations he supports the true king. This is the inherent problem I have with such narrow definitions of alignment and why players in my campaign aren't allowed to use it. I care far more about who you are as a character than fitting into one of the Nine Sacred Squares of Determinism.
We can also argue that the Catholic Church was "Lawful" because of the order they brought in hospitals and libraries and in gaining numbers. I might flip that if we're insisting on trying to use alignment and call them one of the most chaotic forces, constantly changing their tune, completely fluid in what their on the ground beliefs are to try and convince as many people to worship their cult god until such a time as they were large enough to not be considered an absurd cult, then used their influence to destroy lives left and right. But even so, I concede that modern religion needs a large element of Law in order to keep people wrapped up in their nonsense.
This isn't true for all D&D campaigns, where the gods are all actually real. When a deity made of actual literal manifest chaos can personally speak to people and instruct them through fear or insanity, even if those people go on to build structures in their name or preach about them, they're acting for the benefit of "chaos." Not to mention the fact that the ideas of Clerics and Paladins have changed through the editions. Paladins used to be this bland boring "you belong to an order, you follow a specific code, enjoy your life" and now are this wonderful concept that I have always used them as, people of such strong conviction that they manifest divine magic. They can still lose that by losing what makes Them, Specifically a paladin. In my campaign there are still paladin orders, but they are systematically designed to take young children and indoctrinate and convince them over a lifetime that they will believe in these oaths so strongly that by the time they take them they're primed to be people for whom it will work. Likewise clerics in my campaign, also to use your own logic in the 5e player's handbook; "The gods don't grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling." Clerics of gods are chosen by gods, they don't have any need to be part of a religion, they can be chosen servants who get little to no say in it. But more than that, I use the classic D&D lore that Clerics aren't actually channeling the power of the gods, they're channeling the power of the Domains. Prayer and faith in a deity is just like calling an operator and asking to be put through, but if the connection is already there the mortal doesn't need the god anymore. I find this, overall, to be far more satisfying and open up far more compelling characterization. The kinds of religions and clerics you suggest can and probably should exist in every world, but restricting to them is such a loss.
Been arguing this for years. I think most people don't get alignment.
A quick scan through the comments indicates that vest of protection +1 is warranted. Great video, Prof!
Nah, I disagree.
Excellent use of the Blather skill. +10 XP