Chaotic Neutral actually, but the idea was definitely to be a “Not Good” Life Cleric.
Originally Posted by AureusFulgens
I agree, Life Domain is strongly tied to Good, and is definitely the norm.
But one of the things 5e did well was to repeatedly point out that characters don’t have to follow the norms. Adventures are extraordinarily people, after all.
Another unusual trait of Rilis is that he and Mask do not get along. Rilis curses Mask’s name every time Sacred Flame misses. When Rilis casts Spiritual Weapon, it appears as a crude club, instead Mask’s favored weapon, a graceful Longsword.
Definitely not the normal diety cleric relationship. But inspired by this text from Creating a Cleric:
“Once you’ve chosen a deity, consider your cleric’s
relationship to that god. Did you enter this service willingly? Or did the god choose you, impelling you into service with no regard for your wishes? How do the temple priests of your faith regard you: as a champion or a troublemaker?”
Being told that your character can be outside the norm is not new to 5th edition. But with the addition of backgrounds, I’ve found players can fall into the trap of thinking that certain backgrounds can only fit certain classes. Soldier background = Fighter. Acolyte = Cleric. Criminal or Urchin = Rogue. Sage = Wizard. I’ve seen posters reject the idea that you can play an Urchin Barbarian.
I like how well 5th edition shows that things like creating Unusual Life Cleric character concepts is both expected and encouraged.
Have you thought about this? In your pantheon, how do Life Domain Clerics that do NOT follow one of the 5 Good deities of Life fit. How rare are they? Do all non evil deities like having an In-Temple Life cleric on staff? Is it so uncommon that the common folk can’t grasp that there can be a Life Cleric who does not follow one of the five of Life?