Can a 3.5 cleric of the chaos and good domains fall for being too lawful? Examples?

[Zhentarim]

Can a 3.5 cleric of the chaos and good domains fall for being too lawful? Examples?

[HouseRules]

It's harder to fall from evil for being too good.
It's harder to fall from chaotic for being too lawful.

Remember that perception is not reality.
That means other characters could perceive your characters to be more lawful or more good than they really are.

[Buufreak]

By my reading, it says you gotta go pretty far, and as playing to a concept and not a god, therefore not having in stone tenants, you can probably get away with most anything shy of building a city and establishing in it a democracy.

[animewatcha]

Can a 3.5 cleric of the chaos and good domains fall for being too lawful? Examples?

Lawful in regards to rules of current place of where character presently is? Or lawful in regards to doing things against your diety? This does matter since usually Clerics of <appropriate alignment here> are usually 'lawful' in manner of speaking to their deity.

[False God]

Since the Cleric lacks any strict alignment code like Paladins, I'd argue it's more important to stay in line with the general principles of your diety, than with your deity's particular alignment. A CG god could be a god of nature (and there are several variants under that), they could be a god of healing (heal everyone in need regardless), they could be a god of free but honest trade, they could be a god of vengeance who sees law as an excuse to protect the wicked.

So ultimately the Cleric (and any other religious-related classes) end goal should be to engage in the things their god favors, and NOT engage in the things their god disfavors.

Also, this really depends heavily on how a game interprets alignment.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Technically, yes.

A cleric who worships a deity of a CG alignment can fall for failing to stick to the ideas of his patron and that likely includes following rules for their own sake when it would be detrimental to the greater good to do so.

A cleric who holds those ideas in the abstract doesn't have to worry about it until he behaves lawfully for long enough for his alignment to shift all the way through to lawful, having betrayed his own ideas.

[hamishspence]

If you are CG and have the Chaos domain itself, changing alignment to NG is arguably sufficient to cut you off - you don't need to go all the way to LG.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm

Deity, Domains, and Domain Spells
A cleric’s deity influences his alignment, what magic he can perform, his values, and how others see him. A cleric chooses two domains from among those belonging to his deity. A cleric can select an alignment domain (Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law) only if his alignment matches that domain.

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

Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).

[Zhentarim]

My cleric serves no particular deity, but has the chaos and good domains nonetheless.

[Biggus]

The main virtues of chaotic characters are protecting freedom, following your conscience regardless of what the rules say, and ensuring tradition does not stand in the way of new ideas. So if you allow someone to be punished for breaking the law when they were trying to do the right thing, do something wrong (or fail to do something right) to avoid breaking the rules, or let a new idea which has the potential to make people's lives better be suppressed, I'd say you'd be betraying your alignment.

[False God]

My cleric serves no particular deity, but has the chaos and good domains nonetheless.

I mean then...ask your DM? While the cleric is allowed to also believe in non-deific ideals such as "Do right by everyone." or "Law is merely a way to prevent you from doing the most good." It's sort of on you to establish and follow your particular philosophy and it's your DMs job to enforce it.

In the context of having your own ideals system, you'd basically fall for not living up to your own standards.

[Calthropstu]

By my reading, it says you gotta go pretty far, and as playing to a concept and not a god, therefore not having in stone tenants, you can probably get away with most anything shy of building a city and establishing in it a democracy.

Edit: realized the post was skirting awfully close to the forum rules so deleted.

[Zhentarim]

Edit: realized the post was skirting awfully close to the forum rules so deleted.

PM it to me.

[Silvercrys]

There isn't any rules text that causes "Clerics of a concept" to lose spellcasting access even if they no longer believe in that concept. Technically speaking, the only penalty for a Chaotic Good "Cleric of Chaos and Good" is that if you become Lawful aligned you cannot cast several of your Chaos domain spells because they have a subtype that opposes one dimension of your alignment.

However, it doesn't make much conceptual sense for a Lawful Cleric to still have the Chaos domain. If I were your DM I'd probably verify with you that you're intentionally drifting your character's alignment and work with you to find a new concept to be dedicated to and hash out how all of that works. If it's unintentional I'd just give you a heads up that you're being too lawful and maybe shift your alignment to neutral good if it's particularly egregious.

[Mordaedil]

Yes, but it isn't as clear-cut as falling from commiting an evil act. It isn't as simple as merely following the rules, for a chaotic cleric to fall, they'd have to impose nearly tyranical order upon someone or curelly imprison someone against their will, to the point where it is questionable if it isn't merely an evil act. As a guide, for a cleric of chaotic good, if your act is tantamount to a lawful good act, that isn't enough to fall. If your act is closer to lawful neutral, you might need to stop and analyze your actions and if it is closer to lawful evil, you've transgressed.

If you now wonder if it isn't simply more the evil act that is causing the fall than the chaotic act, well true, but generally it is also true for the evil-good axis. Usually what makes paladins fall isn't then acting lawful neutral or lawful evil, is it? It's them commiting a neutral evil/chaotic evil act. Something overtly evil.

They are often afforded the ability to act a tad bit tyrannical. It is in their blood after all.

[hamishspence]

I tend to agree with Kish here:


The axes are separate. Lawful Evil is just as evil as Chaotic Evil.

Paladins can fall for LE acts as easily as for CE or NE ones.

[Calthropstu]

I tend to agree with Kish here:



Paladins can fall for LE acts as easily as for CE or NE ones.

Let's face it, paladins can fall because a gm decides he falls. It's simple as that.

[Duke of Urrel]

Can a 3.5 cleric of the chaos and good domains fall for being too lawful? Examples?

Suppose you are visiting a country that is a strict Lawful-Neutral theocracy that requires all healers who do not follow Saint Cuthbert to pay a tax at the local Cuthbertite temple every time they heal someone. The tax is the same as the price for selling the spell, for example 50 gold pieces if you are a fifth-level cleric and you cast Cure Light Wounds.

The proper thing to do in this country, if you are a Chaotic-Good cleric, is to avoid being noticed by the Cuthbertites when you heal someone, so that you can avoid paying the tax, because your deeply-held religious view is that this tax is ethically reprehensible. If the Cuthbertites catch you healing someone and demand that you pay the tax, you protest or try to make up some excuse (using Bluff skill) to avoid paying it, and if you must pay the tax after all, you use creative civil disobedience – nonviolent, of course – to get back at the Cuthbertites somehow. Ideally, you arrange things so that the Cuthbertites, by obeying their own rules, cause themselves embarrassment or a loss of profit.

In contrast, if you don't try to conceal your healing acts in this realm and you dutifully pay your tax to the Cuthbertite temple without complaining – just because it's the law – your deity might be offended enough to withhold all divine magic until you reaffirm your commitment to Chaos and get the Atonement spell cast upon you.

Post-Script: Just to be clear, whether you worship a particular deity or not, failing to be faithful to Chaos as an ethical principle should have exactly the same consequences for a cleric as failing to be faithful to a Chaotic deity.

[Zhentarim]

Suppose you are visiting a country that is a strict Lawful-Neutral theocracy that requires all healers who do not follow Saint Cuthbert to pay a tax at the local Cuthbertite temple every time they heal someone. The tax is the same as the price for selling the spell, for example 50 gold pieces if you are a fifth-level cleric and you cast Cure Light Wounds.

The proper thing to do in this country, if you are a Chaotic-Good cleric, is to avoid being noticed by the Cuthbertites when you heal someone, so that you can avoid paying the tax, because your deeply-held religious view is that this tax is ethically reprehensible. If the Cuthbertites catch you healing someone and demand that you pay the tax, you protest or try to make up some excuse (using Bluff skill) to avoid paying it, and if you must pay the tax after all, you use creative civil disobedience – nonviolent, of course – to get back at the Cuthbertites somehow. Ideally, you arrange things so that the Cuthbertites, by obeying their own rules, cause themselves embarrassment or a loss of profit.

In contrast, you don't try to conceal your healing acts in this realm and you dutifully pay your tax to the Cuthbertite temple without complaining – just because it's the law – your deity might be offended enough to withhold all divine magic until you reaffirm your commitment to Chaos and get the Atonement spell cast upon you.

Post-Script: Just to be clear, whether you worship a particular deity or not, failing to be faithful to Chaos as an ethical principle should have exactly the same consequences for a cleric as failing to be faithful to a Chaotic deity.

I can think of several reasons why the tax is a bad idea from a good-aligned perspective—namely that it prevents the free circulation of healing magic to those who need it. I’d imagine part of the justification from the lawful government is revenue: Merchant clerics can just pass the tax along to the consumer, ie, you pay me 100 gp for the spell or no deal. The lawful government may also see those who are unable to pay for healing as a blight problem, the same way many major cities are so offended by the existence of the homeless they put spikes where the homeless would sleep.

[Duke of Urrel]

I can think of several reasons why the tax is a bad idea from a good-aligned perspective—namely that it prevents the free circulation of healing magic to those who need it. I’d imagine part of the justification from the lawful government is revenue: Merchant clerics can just pass the tax along to the consumer, ie, you pay me 100 gp for the spell or no deal. The lawful government may also see those who are unable to pay for healing as a blight problem, the same way many major cities are so offended by the existence of the homeless they put spikes where the homeless would sleep.

All the more reason for a cleric of both Chaos and Good to oppose this tax, or for a cleric of this alignment to require Atonement if they fail to resist it.

The Cuthbertites don't see this tax as Evil, of course. They believe they it is fully in the common interest because they use tax revenues: (1) to promote the common good; (2) to exalt their own religious organization, which is of course the most efficient means to this end; and (3) to fight Evil – and Chaos, of course, which they regard as the unwitting ally of Evil. They also believe that anybody who opposes their perfectly reasonable tax is an enemy of the state who may be tolerated but truly deserves to be punished.