So, by RAW, neutral deityless clerics are illegal?

[magicalmagicman]

A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of his deity’s (that is, it may be one step away on either the lawful-chaotic axis or the good-evil axis, but not both). A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral.

So... deityless clerics must be Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, or Lawful Evil only?

[Vaz]

Unless the deity has a Neutral aspect; LN, TN, CN, NE, NG, or the Cleric is a Cleric of an ideal, rather than a deity.

[TheBrassDuke]

They forgot to mention that clerics can worship specific alignments/ideals, or even elemental foundations, without having the name of any deity whatsoever pass between their lips in the morning.

In Eberron, at least. And from what I remember...

But no, a deity-less Cleric shouldn't be illegal, far as I can recall. Lemme investigate.

Edit:


[SNIP]

In Greyhawk (aka the Core setting*), you get to worhip ideals instead of gods, since gods aren't the only source of divine energy.

In Forgotten Realms, every divine spellcaster has to choose a diety. In fact, everyone needs to, since the setting punishes you for not doing so.

In Eberron, certain faiths allow you to worship an entire pantheon, and AFAIR, you get to pick your domains accordingly.

*[ b] [ u ] emphasis mine.

[magicalmagicman]

But no, a deity-less Cleric shouldn't be illegal, far as I can recall. Lemme investigate.

I wasn't asking whether deityless clerics are illegal. I was asking if NEUTRAL deityless clerics are illegal. I think Eberron allows deityless clerics, though a direct RAW quote for this would be nice :)


or the Cleric is a Cleric of an ideal, rather than a deity.

Could you clarify this part? Because some of the threads I've read said the advantage of clerics with a deity is that they can be neutral, and that clerics of an ideal cannot be neutral.

[Goaty14]

If you were the cleric of Obad-hai, you would have to be TN, or within one step of TN (CN, LN, NG, NE). If you were of a LG deity, then you could be LG or within 1 step (LN, NG)

For the matter of the question: Deityless clerics are illegal, period, unless they worship a pantheon.

[Florian]

So... deityless clerics must be Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, or Lawful Evil only?

"Neutral" in this case means "True Neutral", so double-N on the alignment chart. This does not exclude a deityless cleric from having an alignment with a neutral component in it (like NG).

Still, what you must do is define the "divine power source" and more or less stat it up as a regular deity, then you can apply the one-step-removed rule towards the cleric.

[magicalmagicman]

"Neutral" in this case means "True Neutral", so double-N on the alignment chart. This does not exclude a deityless cleric from having an alignment with a neutral component in it (like NG).

Do you have some form of RAW to support this claim? It would be really helpful, like seriously helpful.

[Pleh]

Looking at the SRD, I think RAW implies that neutral deityless clerics are illegal.

I am relying on a precedent: I was trying to build a deityless ordained champion out of a deityless cleric and the ruling was that war domain grants no weapon proficiencies to deityless classes.

RAI, though, I would guess the game makers didn't intend it to be illegal by default.

[ericgrau]

I think that text is only referring to clerics with a deity and does not say that a deityless cleric must or must not be neutral. I mean it also implies, but likewise does not state, that clerics have deities.

Think of it this way: "A deityless cleric may not be neutral unless his deity is also neutral" => What? Not applicable.

Or "You may not go over 75 mph unless your car is on a race track". Ok, so if I don't have a car I may never go over 75 mph? Uh, no. Also undefined.

[Red Fel]

I think, though, that this text assumes that the Cleric is a Cleric of a deity. It makes no exception for or mention of Clerics of ideals; it merely says "within one step of his deity's" and "his deity's alignment", both of which reflect an assumption that this rule applies to Clerics of deities.

Given that assumption, I think this rule would not apply to a Cleric of an ideal. After all, if a Cleric's alignment must be within one step of his deity's, without exception, then a Cleric without a deity is by RAW impossible - how can you be within one step of a deity when you don't have a deity? Since we know that Clerics of ideals are not by RAW impossible, it stands to reason that they constitute an exception to this rule.

[Florian]

*Headdesk*

PHB RAW explains the rules and then uses the Greyhawk pantheon to showcase how they function.
DMG "World Building" section actually goes into detail how you create deities or use philosophies (Principles, Cosmic Goons, etc.) instead of and/or alongside deities.
Once a thing is created, the regular rules apply to it. We only have this useless talk as some people don´t seem to either want to take the step of creation or don´t see the DMG as part of RAW.

[Vaz]

Do you have some form of RAW to support this claim? It would be really helpful, like seriously helpful.

Define neutral. RAW is flexible depending on your interpretation of that RAW. Ergo, you have RAI, or RACSD.

[magicalmagicman]

*Headdesk*

PHB RAW explains the rules and then uses the Greyhawk pantheon to showcase how they function.
DMG "World Building" section actually goes into detail how you create deities or use philosophies (Principles, Cosmic Goons, etc.) instead of and/or alongside deities.
Once a thing is created, the regular rules apply to it. We only have this useless talk as some people don´t seem to either want to take the step of creation or don´t see the DMG as part of RAW.

I'm looking at the World Building section and I can't seem to find the part you are referencing. Could you give me a page number?


For the matter of the question: Deityless clerics are illegal, period, unless they worship a pantheon.

Deityless clerics are in Complete Divine, so you are wrong.


I think that text is only referring to clerics with a deity and does not say that a deityless cleric must or must not be neutral. I mean it also implies, but likewise does not state, that clerics have deities.

Think of it this way: "A deityless cleric may not be neutral unless his deity is also neutral" => What? Not applicable.

Or "You may not go over 75 mph unless your car is on a race track". Ok, so if I don't have a car I may never go over 75 mph? Uh, no. Also undefined.


I think, though, that this text assumes that the Cleric is a Cleric of a deity. It makes no exception for or mention of Clerics of ideals; it merely says "within one step of his deity's" and "his deity's alignment", both of which reflect an assumption that this rule applies to Clerics of deities.

Given that assumption, I think this rule would not apply to a Cleric of an ideal. After all, if a Cleric's alignment must be within one step of his deity's, without exception, then a Cleric without a deity is by RAW impossible - how can you be within one step of a deity when you don't have a deity? Since we know that Clerics of ideals are not by RAW impossible, it stands to reason that they constitute an exception to this rule.

I'll be using your reasoning to my DM unless something else comes up in this thread.

[Hackulator]

The quoted text has nothing to do with deityless clerics, it is talking about clerics with a deity. This is one of the many times when someone is taking the idea of RAW to a ridiculous extreme.

Also, it clearly means True Neutral. If the first sentence doesn't prove that to you when you think about it, you must be trolling.

[ericgrau]

Or in an argument with his DM or another player in the group more likely. Someone who took some rules text too literally.

magicalmagicman, do try to make your case but if it doesn't work out just keep playing and don't worry about it. Plenty of other builds to play.

[magicalmagicman]

Or in an argument with his DM or another player in the group more likely. Someone who took some rules text too literally.

magicalmagicman, do try to make your case but if it doesn't work out just keep playing and don't worry about it. Plenty of other builds to play.

It's not that big of a deal. It just means I can't summon spiders or control undead since my DM banned evil alignments.

[RoboEmperor]

When in doubt, look up examples. Forgotten Realms is rife with examples.

Helm clerics cannot be true neutral despite him being Lawful Neutral.

Torm clerics can be NG and LN

Sharess clerics cannot be TN despite being NE.

So clearly neutral = true neutral and NG/LN/CN/NE =/= neutral.

I believe by RAW deityless clerics cannot be true neutral, but they can be everything but.

[magicalmagicman]

When in doubt, look up examples. Forgotten Realms is rife with examples.

Helm clerics cannot be true neutral despite him being Lawful Neutral.

Torm clerics can be NG and LN

Sharess clerics cannot be TN despite being NE.

So clearly neutral = true neutral and NG/LN/CN/NE =/= neutral.

I believe by RAW deityless clerics cannot be true neutral, but they can be everything but.

Nice, thanks. I think I can convince my DM with this hard evidence. Thanks.

[Red Fel]

When in doubt, look up examples. Forgotten Realms is rife with examples.

Except that in Faerun, you really can't be a Cleric without a deity. The importance of faith is emphasized in that setting even moreso than in most; even non-Clerics are strongly, strongly advised to worship a deity, lest they be consigned to the Wall of the Faithless.

So while, yes, this supports the idea that a Cleric of a deity cannot be TN unless his deity is also TN, that really doesn't say anything one way or the other about Clerics of an ideal.

[RoboEmperor]

Except that in Faerun, you really can't be a Cleric without a deity. The importance of faith is emphasized in that setting even moreso than in most; even non-Clerics are strongly, strongly advised to worship a deity, lest they be consigned to the Wall of the Faithless.

So while, yes, this supports the idea that a Cleric of a deity cannot be TN unless his deity is also TN, that really doesn't say anything one way or the other about Clerics of an ideal.

It helps because
1. It clearly states "A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral." means true neutral.
2. If you look at the entire quote, it basically says "Clerics with deities have alignment restrictions." and "No cleric can be true neutral except if their deity is neutral.". Being a deityless cleric, the former is completely irrelevant and the latter's worst case scenario is that you can't be TN. So by RAW, OP's problem is solved. He doesn't want to be TN, he just wants to be LN or CN.

The logic stuff you used in your earlier argument is an attempt to allow TN deityless clerics and is completely incompatible with what I said in #2, but if you don't care about being TN, I don't think you really need to rule-lawyer or argue semantics here especially since there isn't a clear RAW statement that clarifies the matter at hand, even in additional supplemental books. So yes you are correct in the sense that the examples I gave do not clearly and concisely determine whether deityless clerics can be TN or not, but I hereby argue that that point is irrelevant at the topic at hand.

I brought up FR because its still 3.5, all rules that apply to greyhawk apply to FR except when stated otherwise (like clerics worship of a deity being mandatory), and that rule is irrelevant at the matter at hand, because all I wanted to prove with the FR examples is point #1.

On a side note: my characters never worship a deity in FR. Epic Spells can turn you into gods, or at least very close to gods, so you can avoid the wall of the faithless with sheer power and skill, which makes the game more fun for me XD. Oh right, and there's also that ice assassin thing that actually turns you into a god.

[zergling.exe]

Did everyone miss this text in the PHB?
If your cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, you still select two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities. The restriction on alignment domains still applies.
So a neutral-neutral cleric just can't select any alignment domains.

[SirNibbles]

"Serving an Abstract Principle: You don’t need to serve a deity to be a cleric. You can simply choose two domains you like and act to advance the cause of a congruent philosophy. (A cleric can only select an alignment domain if his alignment matches that domain.)"
- Complete Divine, page 6


"Spells: A cleric casts divine spells (the same type of spells available to the druid, paladin, and ranger), which are drawn from the cleric spell list (page 183). However, his alignment may restrict him from casting certain spells opposed to his moral or ethical beliefs; see Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells, below.
...
The cleric’s deity influences his alignment, what magic he can perform, his values, and how others see him. You may also choose for your cleric to have no deity.
...
You can select an alignment domain (Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law) for your cleric only if his alignment matches that domain. If your cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, you still select two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities. The restriction on alignment domains still applies.
...
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). For example, a good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) cannot cast evil spells. Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions (see Chapter 11: Spells)."
- Player's Handbook, pages 32-33

There is nothing saying you can't be a godless True Neutral Cleric. If you are, your domains are restricted to Neutral domains. Since there is no opposite to Neutral, you should be able to cast aligned spells even if you are neutral- you just can't choose an Alignment domain.


"Like druids, paladins, and rangers, divine bards need not designate a specific deity as the source of their spells. However, a divine bard can't cast spells of an alignment that doesn't match his. Thus, divine bards cannot cast lawful spells (since bards can't be lawful). Neutral divine bards can't cast any spells associated with an alignment (and are thus relatively rare)."
- Unearthed Arcana, page 50

Neutral Divine Bards have a restriction which prevents them from casting any aligned spell. Whether this was intended to be in effect for Clerics or not is unknown, but there is no indication that it is. If your DM wants to rule that a TN Cleric can't cast aligned spells, I don't think it'd be unreasonable.

[DrKerosene]

I generally took the "within 1 step" bit to mean you can't be one alignment away diagonally (on the grid), and this was one of those attempts to be redundantly RAW, with the unnecessary repetition of things already said.

Mind you, I'd allow Serterous and Heretic of the Faith shenanigans, so I'm not interested in limiting the number of NN clerics.

[Gullintanni]

Clercis who worship deities may never be True Neutral unless their deity is. There is no restriction on Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Neutral beyond the one step rule.

RE: True Neutrality and Clerics of ideal, the SRD states, "A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral.".

The most restrictive logically valid reading of this statement contains the following two arguments:

1) A Cleric may not be neutral.
2) If a Cleric's deity is neutral, she may be neutral.

It follows logically that if a Cleric can not fulfill the exception criteria in clause 2, clause 1 remains in effect. The key words here are may not and unless. If a Cleric does not have a deity, then his deity's alignment is not neutral. That statement remains true regardless of whether or not the Cleric worships a deity.

That said, a Cleric of Ideals might embody "Balance" as an ideal, and be True Neutral for all the same reasons a Druid would be. Being in that the Cleric still doesn't have a deity, by RAW, True Neutral remains barred; but IMO, that's stupid. Rule Zero.

[magicalmagicman]

Alright thanks everyone. Since I don't want to get in a huge debate with the DM, I'll be satisfied with just CN. There are no lawful spells I want to cast so it's fine.

[RedMage125]

Clercis who worship deities may never be True Neutral unless their deity is. There is no restriction on Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Neutral beyond the one step rule.

RE: True Neutrality and Clerics of ideal, the SRD states, "A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral.".

The most restrictive logically valid reading of this statement contains the following two arguments:

1) A Cleric may not be neutral.
2) If a Cleric's deity is neutral, she may be neutral.

It follows logically that if a Cleric can not fulfill the exception criteria in clause 2, clause 1 remains in effect. The key words here are may not and unless. If a Cleric does not have a deity, then his deity's alignment is not neutral. That statement remains true regardless of whether or not the Cleric worships a deity.

That said, a Cleric of Ideals might embody "Balance" as an ideal, and be True Neutral for all the same reasons a Druid would be. Being in that the Cleric still doesn't have a deity, by RAW, True Neutral remains barred; but IMO, that's stupid. Rule Zero.

Don't try and confuse the OP. Like you said, that is the MOST RESTRICTIVE way to read that statement.

A more balanced (and still correct) breakdown is as follows:

1) A cleric's alignment must be within one step of his deity's alignment.
1a) Caveat - A cleric may not be Neutral (note that only one alignment is called "Neutral" in Chp 6), unless his deity is Neutral.
2) A cleric can be a cleric of an ideal instead of a deity.
3) A cleric can ONLY choose an alignment domain (Good, Evil, Law Chaos) if his alignment matches that component.
3a) Clerics without deities pick whatever domains represent their spiritual inclinations, but the restriction on alignment domains still applies.
3b) If a deity-less cleric chooses an alignment domain (which must match his own alignment), they have a correspondingly powerful aura of that alignment.

What we can draw from that is that a deity-less cleric can be of whatever alignment they choose, since rule 1-and its caveat-do not apply to them.

Since the only alignment restrictions on deity-less clerics are in regards to domain choice (rule 3 and caveats), there is no clear rule barring deity-less clerics of ANY alignment. Only clerics WITH deities have alignment restrictions. A Neutral deity-less cleric thus may exist, but will not be permitted to choose an alignment domain, and will not have a powerful aura under a "detect x" spell.

One major advantage of deity-less clerics is that you never have a deity's code that could be "violated" to make you lose your powers.

You know, as an aside, I'm kind of tickled that people are finally noticing all the messed up rules regarding clerics. So many alignment threads complain about monks, paladins, or barbarians (and sometimes bards). But not many notice that the cleric is the most restriction-bound class in the game. Human raised among dwarves wants to be a cleric of Moradin? Nope. Lawful Neutral Cleric of Hextor has a powerful Evil aura, but Lawful Evil cleric of Wee Jas does not. Neither can cast Good spells, despite the fact that Wee Jas in general allows them, and other Lawful Neutral clerics of non-evil deities can as well. Lawful Neutral deity-less cleric with Law domain has a powerful Law aura, but deity-less LN cleric without Law domain (worships same philosophy) does not. And none of the mentioned clerics can cast Chaotic spells. What a mess, eh?

[RoboEmperor]

One major advantage of deity-less clerics is that you never have a deity's code that could be "violated" to make you lose your powers.

This isn't true. You could be a cleric of good, get ****ed by humans for years until you lose faith in humanity. Now you hate humanity, you wanna wipe em out and you lose your cleric powers as a result.

Less extreme example, you become a racist, wanting to wipe out elves but not humans or dwarves, etc.

[Clistenes]

Looking at the SRD, I think RAW implies that neutral deityless clerics are illegal.

I am relying on a precedent: I was trying to build a deityless ordained champion out of a deityless cleric and the ruling was that war domain grants no weapon proficiencies to deityless classes.

RAI, though, I would guess the game makers didn't intend it to be illegal by default.

You could be a member of Deities&Demigods' Academy, that worships a NG concept... I think you could be a TN priest.

There is a sect in the Spelljammer setting that worships the concept of Peace. I think their priests can be TN.

You could worship Nature, like a Druid.

You could worship an Outer Plane and take the Planar Domain.

[RoboEmperor]

For the matter of the question: Deityless clerics are illegal, period, unless they worship a pantheon.

I quote Eberron campaign setting

Other clerics across Eberron serve no church and claim no allegiance to any deity. They recognize the power of the deities, but not their authority over mortal life. They hold principles of alignment or other abstract ideals higher than the deities who claim these ideals in their portfolios, and they draw divine power from the pervasive spiritual force in the world instead of channeling it through deities. These clerics are usually outcasts and loners, but the reality of their power is impossible to deny, and it lends credence to their unorthodox theology.

So deityless clerics are legal in every setting except FR. I think someone asked for a quote, here it is.

[Dragonexx]

If your cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, you still select two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities. The restriction on alignment domains still applies.

Well that's weird. In complete divine, there's an npc who has the evil domain but is chaotic neutral.

[RoboEmperor]

Well that's weird. In complete divine, there's an npc who has the evil domain but is chaotic neutral.


A cleric can select an alignment domain (Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law) only if his alignment matches that domain.

Page number please so I can check it out.

[DEMON]

Page number please so I can check it out.

Stormlord, p. 66.

[RoboEmperor]

Stormlord, p. 66.

Hah, it's true. He even has the evil domain spells prepared.

So I guess you only need to start out in an alignment to get the alignment domains, and then freely change alignments without any repercussions.

[DEMON]

Hah, it's true. He even has the evil domain spells prepared.

So I guess you only need to start out in an alignment to get the alignment domains, and then freely change alignments without any repercussions.

I'm more inclined to believe that the blind dog and drunk monkey, that were employed as WotC's editers for most of their 3.5E books, had a day off when CD was being reviewed and okayed for print.

[Gullintanni]

1a) Caveat - A cleric may not be Neutral (note that only one alignment is called "Neutral" in Chp 6), unless his deity is Neutral.


Here's the issue. Caveat 1a parses as follows:

i) Cleric of Ideal: True.
ii) Cleric has no Deity: True.
iii) Cleric's Deity is True Neutral: False.

Nothing in subclauses i), or ii) preclude or obviate the existence of subclause iii). Per the language in the SRD, subclause iii) must return True, or the Cleric can not be neutral. This is because of the ironclad specificity of the exception language in the SRD:

A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral.

The statement above is logically identical to the two statements below:

A cleric may not be neutral.
If a cleric's deity is neutral, then his alignment may be neutral.

In the latter set of statements, If and then are logically identical to unless in the former statement. One could re-write the SRD language as "A cleric may not be neutral under any circumstances unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral", but that would be logically redundant. "May not" is unambiguous language.

Now... that's just my 2cp, and having studied symbolic logic academically for a few years, that's the way I read the text. I think that the rules are a bit dysfunctional here and that they shouldn't work the way that they appear to. Clerics of Ideal should be able to select True Neutral if it matches up with their Ideal - I just think that by RAW, they can't. As a DM, my interpretation of the rules is not what I would enforce at the table.

[RedMage125]

Well that's weird. In complete divine, there's an npc who has the evil domain but is chaotic neutral.


Hah, it's true. He even has the evil domain spells prepared.

So I guess you only need to start out in an alignment to get the alignment domains, and then freely change alignments without any repercussions.


I'm more inclined to believe that the blind dog and drunk monkey, that were employed as WotC's editers for most of their 3.5E books, had a day off when CD was being reviewed and okayed for print.
DEMON is correct.

Complete Divine also lists Tharizdun's weapon as a "check toee" (which was a note for the editors to check Temple of Elemental Evil for verification, which they never did.

Black Flame Zealot says to check out the deity Pyremus on page "XX".

Complete Divine has so many errors it's not even funny.


Here's the issue. Caveat 1a parses as follows:

i) Cleric of Ideal: True.
ii) Cleric has no Deity: True.
iii) Cleric's Deity is True Neutral: False.

Nothing in subclauses i), or ii) preclude or obviate the existence of subclause iii). Per the language in the SRD, subclause iii) must return True, or the Cleric can not be neutral. This is because of the ironclad specificity of the exception language in the SRD:

A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral.

The statement above is logically identical to the two statements below:

A cleric may not be neutral.
If a cleric's deity is neutral, then his alignment may be neutral.

In the latter set of statements, If and then are logically identical to unless in the former statement. One could re-write the SRD language as "A cleric may not be neutral under any circumstances unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral", but that would be logically redundant. "May not" is unambiguous language.

Now... that's just my 2cp, and having studied symbolic logic academically for a few years, that's the way I read the text. I think that the rules are a bit dysfunctional here and that they shouldn't work the way that they appear to. Clerics of Ideal should be able to select True Neutral if it matches up with their Ideal - I just think that by RAW, they can't. As a DM, my interpretation of the rules is not what I would enforce at the table.

By your own admission, though, a cleric's restriction from the Neutral alignment hinges on the alignment of a deity. A deity-less cleric's only stated restriction on alignment comes if that cleric has an alignment domain.

[tomandtish]

Actually, Wizards answers this about halfway down (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050329a) this page.


A cleric could have no deity at all (see page 32 in the Player's Handbook). A cleric with no deity can have any alignment, but the cleric's choice of alignment can affect which clerical domains the cleric can choose (see the next section).

So Wizards says you can have a true neutral cleric who has no deity.

[RedMage125]

Actually, Wizards answers this about halfway down (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050329a) this page.



So Wizards says you can have a true neutral cleric who has no deity.

Had a feeling the PHB would have more info than the stupid SRD. but I didn't have my books on me.

[Gullintanni]

By your own admission, though, a cleric's restriction from the Neutral alignment hinges on the alignment of a deity. A deity-less cleric's only stated restriction on alignment comes if that cleric has an alignment domain.

If that's the conclusion you drew from my post, then I'd speculate that you didn't actually read my post.

Once again, the SRD says two specific things about Cleric alignment.

1) A Cleric may not be neutral.
2) If a Cleric's deity is neutral, he may be neutral.

The quoted text in my post establishes both clauses firmly and unambiguously. It sets out no exception to clause 1) where a Cleric with no deity is concerned.


Had a feeling the PHB would have more info than the stupid SRD. but I didn't have my books on me.

The quoted text refers to a Rules of The Game article, not the Player's Handbook. Skip Williams declares in the article that deityless Clerics may be Neutral, but those articles do not constitute a primary source for rules and are treated, at best, as vehicles for developer recommended house rules.

[hamishspence]

It suggests that RAI is that the statement "A cleric may not be neutral unless their deity is neutral" only applies to clerics that have deities.

[RedMage125]

If that's the conclusion you drew from my post, then I'd speculate that you didn't actually read my post.

Once again, the SRD says two specific things about Cleric alignment.

1) A Cleric may not be neutral.
2) If a Cleric's deity is neutral, he may be neutral.

The quoted text in my post establishes both clauses firmly and unambiguously. It sets out no exception to clause 1) where a Cleric with no deity is concerned.


Except that clerics may be devoted to an ideal in lieu of a deity. And if your ideal is not particularly Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic, your ideal may also be Neutral. The precepts and tenants of deity-less clerics are up to the individual.

[tomandtish]

Except the whole purpose of the articles were clarifications on rules, and examples of what was intended when rules collide.

Since Skip was one of the writers of the PHB, I'd argue his interpretation carries the most weight you can take into an argument unless it is specifically written otherwise elsewhere.

[Aleolus]

You know, as an aside, I'm kind of tickled that people are finally noticing all the messed up rules regarding clerics. So many alignment threads complain about monks, paladins, or barbarians (and sometimes bards). But not many notice that the cleric is the most restriction-bound class in the game. Human raised among dwarves wants to be a cleric of Moradin? Nope. Lawful Neutral Cleric of Hextor has a powerful Evil aura, but Lawful Evil cleric of Wee Jas does not. Neither can cast Good spells, despite the fact that Wee Jas in general allows them, and other Lawful Neutral clerics of non-evil deities can as well. Lawful Neutral deity-less cleric with Law domain has a powerful Law aura, but deity-less LN cleric without Law domain (worships same philosophy) does not. And none of the mentioned clerics can cast Chaotic spells. What a mess, eh?

This is what house rules are for. My personal ones regarding Clerics being:
1) A Clerics aura matches their alignment. The alignment portion that matches their Gods is stronger, but the other is still present, therefore a LN cleric of Hextor would have a strong Lawful aura, but no evil one, and a LE cleric of Wee Has would have a lawful aura as well as an Evil one, though the lawful one would be stronger.
2) Clerics may cast aligned spells if the spells are in line with their Deities alignment, therefore a NG cleric of Heronius can cast Lawful spells because his god is Lawful, so him becoming more lawful would help him become more like his god. However CN cleric of Obad-Hai still cannot cast Lawful spells because Obad-Hai is not lawful.

[Gullintanni]

Except the whole purpose of the articles were clarifications on rules, and examples of what was intended when rules collide.

Since Skip was one of the writers of the PHB, I'd argue his interpretation carries the most weight you can take into an argument unless it is specifically written otherwise elsewhere.

Primary source rules are explicit. The PHB is the Primary source for rules concerning classes and alignment. Ergo, if there is a conflict between the rules as contained therein and an article written by one of the developers, the PHB takes precedence.

It's the same reason the official WotC D&D FAQ isn't RAW.

I don't disagree with you philosophically, it makes sense to consider developer intent when you're running a game. But in discussions of RAW, the rules say that those articles are inconsequential.

You may argue that this seems absurd, and I'd agree - RAW is frequently absurd. Which doesn't prevent it being RAW.


Except that clerics may be devoted to an ideal in lieu of a deity. And if your ideal is not particularly Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic, your ideal may also be Neutral. The precepts and tenants of deity-less clerics are up to the individual.

...none of which matters, because the rules explicitly state that "Clerics may not be neutral".

This still applies to Clerics of Ideal because the rules fail to establish an exception specific to Clerics of Ideal. A Cleric may only be neutral if they have a neutral deity. That's what the rules say - full stop. That is the only circumstance under the rules in which a neutral deity is permissible.

[Hackulator]

Primary source rules are explicit. The PHB is the Primary source for rules concerning classes and alignment. Ergo, if there is a conflict between the rules as contained therein and an article written by one of the developers, the PHB takes precedence.

It's the same reason the official WotC D&D FAQ isn't RAW.

I don't disagree with you philosophically, it makes sense to consider developer intent when you're running a game. But in discussions of RAW, the rules say that those articles are inconsequential.

You may argue that this seems absurd, and I'd agree - RAW is frequently absurd. Which doesn't prevent it being RAW.



...none of which matters, because the rules explicitly state that "Clerics may not be neutral".

This still applies to Clerics of Ideal because the rules fail to establish an exception specific to Clerics of Ideal. A Cleric may only be neutral if they have a neutral deity. That's what the rules say - full stop. That is the only circumstance under the rules in which a neutral deity is permissible.

No that is not what the rules say. That is your reading of the rules that you have created by taking a sentence out of context. The entire paragraph is about clerics with deities, and in fact clerics without deities are not even mentioned in that section. The fact that one of the people who wrote the book has clarified exactly what was meant by that sentence makes it 100% clear that your reading is wrong. Any further argument is inane in the extreme.

[RedMage125]

This is what house rules are for. My personal ones regarding Clerics being:
1) A Clerics aura matches their alignment. The alignment portion that matches their Gods is stronger, but the other is still present, therefore a LN cleric of Hextor would have a strong Lawful aura, but no evil one, and a LE cleric of Wee Has would have a lawful aura as well as an Evil one, though the lawful one would be stronger.
2) Clerics may cast aligned spells if the spells are in line with their Deities alignment, therefore a NG cleric of Heronius can cast Lawful spells because his god is Lawful, so him becoming more lawful would help him become more like his god. However CN cleric of Obad-Hai still cannot cast Lawful spells because Obad-Hai is not lawful.

That's...actually core rules, dude, not a houserule. ALL things with an alignment have an alignment aura. A level 10 LE cleric of Wee Jas has a Faint Evil aura (as an evil 10 HD humanoid), but has a Strong Lawful Aura (as a 10 HD cleric of a Lawful Deity. But a 10 HD NG cleric of Heironius has a Strong Aura of both Law and Good, even though he, himself is not Lawful. That's what the "Aura" part of the cleric class description means.

Also, by the RAW a NG cleric of Hieronius can already cast Lawful spells, and a CN cleric of Obad-Hai cannot. That is also not a houserule. The rules say that a cleric cannot cast spells of alignment opposed by the cleric's alignment OR his deity's. So clerics of Neutral deities like Obad-Hai are only restricted from casting spells opposed by their OWN alignment. And a Neutral cleric of a Neutral deity like Obad-Hai can cast ANY alignment spell.

Just pointing out that you don't even need to call those house rules. that's the way RAW already works.




...none of which matters, because the rules explicitly state that "Clerics may not be neutral".

This still applies to Clerics of Ideal because the rules fail to establish an exception specific to Clerics of Ideal. A Cleric may only be neutral if they have a neutral deity. That's what the rules say - full stop. That is the only circumstance under the rules in which a neutral deity is permissible.

"Clerics may not be neutral" is not a stand-alone rule. You're flat wrong to say that it is. The whole sentence reads "A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral." And if your philosophy or belief system (which you may have in lieu of a deity) is also Neutral,then you are fine being neutral.

Your entire argument hinges on the presumption that there is, somewhere, a sentence which solely says "Clerics may not be neutral" as a stand-alone statement. There is not.

[Thurbane]

This is one of those RAW/RAI arguments that will never be settled. Some people will read it one way, others will read it another. Boolean logic/grammatical debates will continue, obviously. :smalltongue:

My 2 coppers: a Cleric without a deity cannot be true neutral.


Additionally, a cleric may not be neutral (that is, neutral on both the good–evil axis and the lawful–chaotic axis) unless his deity is neutral.

[Gullintanni]

"Clerics may not be neutral" is not a stand-alone rule. You're flat wrong to say that it is. The whole sentence reads "A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral." And if your philosophy or belief system (which you may have in lieu of a deity) is also Neutral,then you are fine being neutral. Your entire argument hinges on the presumption that there is, somewhere, a sentence which solely says "Clerics may not be neutral" as a stand-alone statement. There is not.

Un·less
"conjunction"
"except if (used to introduce a case in which a statement being made is not true or valid)."

The grammatical and logical function of the word "Unless" in the sentence "A cleric may not be true neutral unless his deity is", is to introduce a singular exception to the statement "A cleric may not be true neutral". So the statement "A cleric may not be true neutral" IS a standalone statement with one exception.

As for the word of god vs. the primary source rules in the core rulebooks, the books themselves speak to the fact that the primary source is the definitive source for any ruling on a given subject.

From the PHB official errata:

Primary Sources:

When you find a disagreement between two... rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

Pay close attention to the first line - when two rules sources disagree, the primary sourcebook always wins, except for officially published errata.

Which means that if a developer speaks on a topic (rule source 1) and what he says conflicts with a rule in the primary sourcebook (rule source 2), the primary sourcebook wins.

It produces inane results, and essentially means that developers can not speak to the rules of their own game unless they can convince WotC to publish officual errata.