How far can (Should?) A cleric stray from his god's teachings

[Nephrahim]

I looked for any information on this but for some reason I can't find anything. Everything I see is about abandoning your god for another one or somthing, but that's not what I mean.

I'm playing a Cleric who is a devoted follower of their god, but, there is one thing they are doing they KNOW goes agienst their commandements. Basically it's a god of order that commands you obey your family, and she's choosing to ignore that (It's not an evil commandment or anything either, just one she does not agree with.)

What effect would that have on my character? It is willfully ignoring of one of her god's teachings, but it's not as if she's trying to kill someone, or anything extreme like that. Would it be the sort of thing that would affect her class features?

[denthor]

What is the two alignments axis

Lawful

Neutral

Chaotic

Good

Neutral

Evil

This make quite a bit of difference

[Nephrahim]

What is the two alignments axis

Lawful

Neutral

Chaotic

Good

Neutral

Evil

This make quite a bit of difference

Lawful good.

[zinycor]

Well, it depends on your GM's interpretation but There are a few things to think about:

- Why did this cleric go against what was expected of her? If the order from her family went against the other commandments from her God there would be no conflict at all.
- Are the broken commandments important for her God or to her church? If it is only important for her church, she could join/create a new church of this God that suits her better

[LordEntrails]

Their is no definitive answer. Their can't be one outside of how your DM rules it. Talk to them and see what they say.

That said, imo, it's going to depend upon the god's personality. Some gods could care less about their followers (i.e. see Crom from Conan). Others are very rigorous. In general though most gods allow followers that are one alignment shift away from them. So, LG would allow LG, LN, & NG followers.

[False God]

Depends on your god really, and how the DM is running it.

Are they a "the rules are the rules follow them or else" sort?
Are they a "you may deviate at times but it has to be under exceptional circumstances"?
Is the "Obey your parents" rule a "Do whatever your parents say no matter what and never question them." or "Do what your parents ask of you so long as it is reasonable."?

If you're asking us to tell you the results of not following XYZ rule, we can't really tell you. That's between you and your DM and how the situation plays out.

[denthor]

Ok

Lawful Good

Is not as problematic as it seems.

Listening to family. My sister considers me a criminal. She will not speak with me. How does your family feel are they the same diety?

Your thing is saying feeling for family is important. You do not have to listen or even attend the family game night. Your an adventurer build up other families why avoiding your.

Build an alter, structure elsewhere expand become the head of other people's family.

[Kane0]

Firstly, any one single action usually shouldn't change things on your character sheet. Alignment, deity, traits, flaws, etc represent consistent aspects of your character, you can usually make some exceptions as long as that doesn't become the new norm for the character.

Secondly, clerical powers aren't only bestowed to devoted and faithful priests. It's entirely possible that your character was chosen for cleric status regardless of what they did or thought about it. Check with your DM, but strictly speaking there's nothing tying your clerical powers to a particular deity or dogma. Remember that you are an adventurer first and an acolyte second.

Thirdly, starting at level 9 you can directly contact your deity and ask. Divination (4th level spell) and Commune (5th level spell) both allow you to get the answers straight from the source.

[InvisibleBison]

It would depend, at least in part, on the nature of the relationship between gods and clerics. If gods sponsor clerics purely to get more mortals to believe in philosophies that the gods approve of, a cleric who's abandoned her god's dogma is no longer doing anything useful for the god and is therefore going to get rejected. On the other hand, if the gods sponsor clerics because they need the worship of mortals to survive, the cleric may be alright so long as she's still providing sustenance to the god.

[Anymage]

In theory, it's super complicated. How important is the rule, are there mitigating circumstances, and what sort of mechanical penalty seems about right without being excessive. (If we assume an extraordinarily detailed rule system and an extraordinarily skilled DM, characters with a granted power set should have some way to have some of those powers held back without proceeding straight to Fall.) Unless obedience to family is the god's primary purview, though, it should be some loss of powers if a greater commandment and no real effect if it's a lesser commandment and/or there are mitigating circumstances.

In practice, though, that's a lot of mental overhead for the DM and is likely to make the player feel cheesed off. Most of the time, you can get by just allowing the character to behave like a generic adventurer with the "cleric" power list. It isn't worth fussing over.

[Zakhara]

They can go as far as it takes to embody the spirit of their gods, rather than the letter.

Disagreeing with interpretation of a commandment is where this gets fuzzy. What does the God (or DM) define as "family," and does not advocating one commandment of their faith really make the Cleric sacrilegious?

[Kaptin Keen]

In Eberron - which I consider to be right on the money in this case - clerics need share their dieties alignment or convictions not at all. So you can have utter villains doing attrocious crimes in the name of their Good and Lawful deity, which just ... gives a range of narrative diversity. It shouldn't be overdone, though, clearly. In general, clerics of good deities should be predominantly good(-ish).

[Psyren]

I'm playing a Cleric who is a devoted follower of their god, but, there is one thing they are doing they KNOW goes agienst their commandements. Basically it's a god of order that commands you obey your family, and she's choosing to ignore that (It's not an evil commandment or anything either, just one she does not agree with.)

This depends on a lot of factors, including the other tenets of the god in question and the cleric's reasons for violating that one. For example, Golarion's chief "god of family" is Erastil, but he's also a god of nature - and if your family decides to despoil nature and wants the cleric to join in, he'd be honor-bound to break with them and side with the greater good, keeping his powers and alignment in the process.

[Spore]

Difficult because a big part of this problem lies within what the god requires of the subject and how the cleric gets their divine magic (this sounds like basic D&D with a homebrew campaign so its not as easy).

Is Faith literally just a measure of willpower wanting to form the world to their will? Then being a cleric is the result of discipline.

Is Faith a channel towards the god who then grants you the miracle in question? Then being a cleric is a gift.

Plus I have never seen any (IRL or fantasy) religion say: "Listen to your family." I have heard "Protect and cherish your family." and I have heard "Listen to your Elders" which I assume is meant because else your little baby sister telling you to get sweets could make you fall.

Personally I would discuss this matter with your DM BEFORE it comes to the point where your character falls. You want to know how far you can go and maybe even prepare some alternative gods for your character because whenever a crisis in faith is considered in storytelling (and thus RP), the two results are generally the character adapting a new faith or the character changing its faith a teeny tiny bit towards what is more amicable with them.

[Jay R]

It depends on the god and the situation. I will not guess at what a ruling should be without knowing what the situation is.

Loki would love not get upset at a follower not obeying his rules (usually). Garl Glittergold would enjoy seeing a gnome breaking his rules occasionally to play a joke.

Assume that the god knows all the situation, including ten thousand consequences that the PC could not know.

[Honest Tiefling]

Firstly, depends on the setting. Not all gods can really reel in those pesky clerics, and sometimes they go a way off the beaten path and straight onto a road paved with good intentions. Other times, gods can give messages and the like to nudge the lost flock back onto the correct path.

Other times, the god could just be unaware. It happens in various settings and stories, but I would be prepared for when the god learns.

Secondly, I would say it depends on intent. If your character is lawful and following their family would violate one or more tenants because your family is a bunch of demon worshippers, I'd say no, that's okay, the god probably is okay with this. Or if you disobeyed them because they wanted you NOT to follow this particular god, and this god is NOT the god of obedience. If you feel like you have a good case for this...Maybe roleplay it out? Seek out a cleric of your own faith to speak with (perhaps out of sessions, if the DM is willing) to address this issue.

Also, speak with your DM, because even a well-intentioned DM might think you are purposefully trying to fall or are aware that you are falling. Clear communication is always best.

[Quertus]

Well… "honor thy father and thy mother" is how I remember a bit of an IRL religion (but what that actually *means* is beyond my knowledge).

Same thing here. What does the god in question actually expect people to do regarding Family? Always be obedient to those above you in the chain? Protect members of your Family with your life? Lie and kill so that the Family can get ahead? Spawn as many children as possible (but only with one partner)? Nepotism? There are so many possible ways a god of "Family" could go.

If your character really doesn't mesh with just that one aspect (however it turns out to be defined), consider Heretic of the Faith. From its example, we can see that gods will continue to grant power to Clerics who have substantial differences of opinion regarding what divine doctrine should be.

[Tvtyrant]

I think it depends on what kind of character you want to play. If you want to be a radical priest who is causing a schism in the Church due to interpreting doctrine differently I think you could go pretty far out of normal expectations. As a Lawful Good Cleric that could mean deciding that your God is really more Lawful then Good, and interpret it in such a way that LN or even LE actions are allowed. The opposite is possible as well; "these rules prevent us from being flexible in achieving the true goals of *Insert God here.*"

The God is probably too busy to personally notice if you are interpreting doctrine correctly, so unless you break doctrine entirely you probably won't lose powers. Like "the law against usury doesn't apply to loans under 6%" versus "the Church will of course make you a loan to save your farm, 48% interest and you are enslaved if you fail to pay."

[tomandtish]

Alignment doesn't even necessarily play into it. There's still plenty of room within each alignment to substantially move away from the teachings of your god.

Take Pelor for example. He's a god of light, sun, and good, and is opposed to evil AND (specifically) darkness. A NG priest of Pelor who started holding midnight services, and preaching that everything should be done in darkness with no light is probably getting rejected by Pelor (even if all their actions fell in the NG range).

[Zakhara]

Alignment doesn't even necessarily play into it...A NG priest of Pelor who started holding midnight services, and preaching that everything should be done in darkness with no light is probably getting rejected by Pelor (even if all their actions fell in the NG range).

See, I can't agree with this, since there are so many variables. What if midnight services are their only choice (for this reason or that)? What if they have a different interpretation (i.e. moonlight being reflected sunlight)? What if Pelor's "darkness" refers to figurative darkness (amorality, societal corruption, etc.) rather than literal? I feel that asking Clerics to play in this way is a straitjacket.

[tomandtish]

See, I can't agree with this, since there are so many variables. What if midnight services are their only choice (for this reason or that)? What if they have a different interpretation (i.e. moonlight being reflected sunlight)? What if Pelor's "darkness" refers to figurative darkness (amorality, societal corruption, etc.) rather than literal? I feel that asking Clerics to play in this way is a straitjacket.

True, there are variables. And I feel a good DM will always let a player know if they are starting to cross lines that might not be obvious or (even better) hammer out those things in session 0 if it seems the character concept itself can run up against this.

My broader comment was that people shouldn't just think alignment when deciding whether or not someone is living up to a god's teachings. Heck, it could be the reason for a cleric antagonist.

[Black Jester]

Generally speaking, it is a cleric's main purose to act as the devoted agent of their sponsoring deity, both as a living embodiment of the divine dogma and, in non-mystery cults, by actively spreading the faith by proselytizing; a PC cleric that does not at least once seriously try to convert the other PCs to his faith is played with utter incompetence.

That said, you are still living in the real world, not the celestial realm, and there is a life before death. Striving for being the perfect embodiement is all good and fine, but your cleric is still a person, and person tend to be imperfect anyway. He farts after eating too much cabage, he snores and he might occasinally have his indiscretions, bad days and sometimes problems with the dogma and the rituals of faith. That conflict between personal desire and dogma can actually be interesting from a characters standpoint, because all conflict is potentially interesting.

So, I would probably play out the cleric's doubt in this one regard, and then try to 'compensate' (or maybe even overcompensate in a more farcical or more mature game) this 'sin' by upholding othere tenets of the faith with greater vigour or punishing himself for these transgressions.

[Phhase]

5e offers a fairly elegant solution. Religious classes need share only one of the two aspects of the alignment their deity embodies (As long as good is not flipped to evil, I think).

That way, you can have a cleric of, for example, Heironious who is Neutral good rather than Lawful good.

At least I think that's how it works. If feels right to me anyway.

[darkrose50]

[1] To what extent does the god control the access to the power?
[2] To what extent does the god know what the cleric is doing?
[3] To what extent are the rules made by the god, or the religion. Does the god care (anymore), or did the god change her mind?
[4] To what extent does the god care enough to do anything about it?

In my head gods are far off doing things. It is hard for them to show up and inconvenient for them to stop doing the things they are doing or want to do.

In my head I always figured that the god and the cleric had a symbiotic relationship. They each gain power from the relationship. Having a 20th level cleric is a huge asset, and is messing with that asset could be counter-productive.

In my head gods are not all-knowing, and cannot do everything. Even if a god can do something, having someone else do it can be beneficial by saving time, effort, or resources.

In my head some gods are old, and have seen things play out over-and-over again. Depending on how the similar action tended to play out in the past could effect how the god reacts. A risk/reward calculation would be made. Similar to parenting. The first child will be watched like a hawk. The fifth child will have more room to explore. Some of the rules will just be less important and less worried over.

In my head a lot of the various rules surrounding a god would just be culturally made up. A powerful and charismatic head-priest does not like something, and all of a sudden it is part of the religion.

Things are misunderstood all the time. So the god saying that Jeff should not get a tattoo of a rubber ducky on his forehead became though shalt not mark or color your bodies. All of a sudden, in a few generations, people are not wearing makeup and tattoo artists are being put to death. The god likes tattoo's and has a wicked one on his arm that says MOM, and his wife loves eye-shadow.

In my head it may depend on how board the god is. If it might be more interesting to interfere, then it might interfere. If it is more fun to watch and see what occurs, then they might watch to see what occurs.

I know if I was a god that I would be spending time with my friends and family playing a game or something. If I had to do the equivalent of drive 12-hours to fix a problem, then it better be a big problem enough for me to reschedule my life around, and the life of those around me.

Now if a 20th level cleric does something and that can risk the bond granting the god power, like a lot of power, then it would likely act to fix the situation. This could range from a temper tantrum to a calm explanation of how the bond works.

"Listen I am the god of Ice Cream, and you becoming so interested in spinach could ruin the thing that we have going. Not only that . . . I see a spark in that girl over there that could turn into power for me and your community if cultivated to properly delight in Ice Cream. You going on about spinach could ruin that."

-----

A commandment to respect your elders . . . likely does not mean respect every elder to the fullest extent of your being. Your god knows there are idiots about.

[Psyren]

5e offers a fairly elegant solution. Religious classes need share only one of the two aspects of the alignment their deity embodies (As long as good is not flipped to evil, I think).

That way, you can have a cleric of, for example, Heironious who is Neutral good rather than Lawful good.

At least I think that's how it works. If feels right to me anyway.

That's known as the "one-step rule" and has existed since 3rd edition; 5e didn't invent it. (It might have been around before that too, I'm not actually sure.)



In my head I always figured that the god and the cleric had a symbiotic relationship. They each gain power from the relationship. Having a 20th level cleric is a huge asset, and is messing with that asset could be counter-productive.
...
Now if a 20th level cleric does something and that can risk the bond granting the god power, like a lot of power, then it would likely act to fix the situation. This could range from a temper tantrum to a calm explanation of how the bond works.


I think that's exactly the issue - high level clerics make a big splash. They typically play one of two roles:

1) Higher-ups in the church hierarchy that sway large numbers of the god's followers (and thus their actions matter a lot.)
2) Highly-capable field agents who advance the god's interests on dangerous missions (and thus their actions matter a lot.)

In both cases, the god is going to scrutinize what they do and make sure it's in line with their ethos. This doesn't mean you'd fall instantly if you do something questionable, but it does mean that a pattern of such behavior will probably get a response, either from a messenger, another cleric, or directly.

[Anonymouswizard]

This is highly dependent on setting. I've got one where you masks one mysterious and your patron will cut you off from your magic until you're back in their good books. In the one I'm currently working on how you act has nothing to do with your magic, a lot of magicians are also priests (the reverse isn't strictly true) but rogue wizards exist outside of the priesthood. (To be fair neither setting uses D&D. The first is Fantasy AGE, the second is The Fantasy Trip.)

In D&D most times I've seen it err on the aude of playability, so it'll take repeated transgressions and most losses of power will be temporary. Must GMs don't want to deal with it, and Clerics don't fall as easily as a Paladin.

As a general rule, a Cleric can break a lesser rule as long as they are actively persuing their deity's cause, and a major rule of their transgression furthers the cause. But this is really something to discuss with your GM.