* He was "Chosen of Paladine" and thus had automatic access to Paladin's spells no matter what
* Paladin wasn't paying attention
* Takhasis was granting his spells (all but stated in 'The Dark Queen')
* The Kingpriest was the son of a God (probably Paladine) and thus granted his own spells
* The Greygem granted the Kingpriest his spells (It certainly caused some chaos!)
* The Kingpriest was so isolated from his kingdom that everything he did WAS good and WAS righteous, so paladine didn't remove the spells even if his advisors implimented them in horrific ways
* The Kingpriest's legend blew out of proportion and the whole thing became ridiculous
* Gods of Krynn can't remove spells, which would explain Raistlin/Fistandalius/The Kingpriest/Renegade Wizards and pretty much everything else I think
* The Kingpriest was a magician and used his powers there to make up for his lack of paladine's power
Beldinas had as much chance of being a mystic as he had of being a grapefruit.
Since we have had the discussion on the KingPriest garnering power from Paladine enough, I will take a different spin on it, as I examine the abillity that Raistlin (and probably Fistandantillus as well) were able to draw power from the Black Moon of Nuitari, to the point that it would have been enough to destroy the Queen of Darkness in the alternate future shown in Test of the Twins. It did not make any sense that Paladine would grant prayers to Crysannia or the Kingpriest when they were doing things ruinous to the world; and it certainly would not have made sense for Nuitari to allow Raistlin that level of power to destroy his own mother (although possible Nuitari may have wanted it too).
So my theory is that Clerics gain the abillity to "Tap" into their deity to a point that after a while, the Deity will not be able to prevent such a "Tap" if the Cleric is ultimately doing it in the name of their god's overall pantheon (Light, Dark, Neutrality).
Although hypothetically he could have used mysticism, another more likely possibility I figured was that Beldinas used the power of the Miceram (Crown of Power), and possibly even other magical items & artifacts, to continue his "miracles" even after falling from Paladine's favor. The Kingpriest of Istar no doubt had many magical resources to draw upon.
I suppose the latter part there is the meat of this issue, which Charles Phipps mentions in one of his ideas/points:
"The Kingpriest was so isolated from his kingdom that everything he did WAS good and WAS righteous, so paladine didn't remove the spells even if his advisors implimented them in horrific ways"
DID the Kingpriest lose Paladine's favor (before the day of the Cataclysm) and if so, when? =)
Belidnas was someone that Fizban the Fabulous loved a great deal. I'd like to advance my preferred theory (remember, Paladine refuses to say he was evil in DoSD) that the god of Light's better nature got the better of him.
The Kingpriest was meant to be an ADVISOR to the TRUE Kingpriest because he was an innocent. Unfortunately, the man became so fanatically worshipped and trusted in that he was quickly and irrevocably in over his head.
There's no evidence that he ever wanted to do anything evil but simply make the world a better place. I believe his creation of slavery was sincerely an attempt to try to end bloodthirst and reform people, in which case the name should better be termed "Forced Labor sentencing"
I believe the rest of the excesses were the work of his fanatical cult of personality that did him much like Torm in "Tantras." Torm if you recall was basically held prisoner in his home and kept from knowing that his clergy murdered the other religions in town along with engaging in all sorts of zealot like behavior.
The Kingpriest's actions probably DID move him to lawful neutral and cost him much of his powers but perhaps the One step rule applies in Dragonlance as well....he was just stripped of many of his powers but recall he also sincerely was regretful whenever something ended poorly.
My guess is that the attempt to BIND PALADINE was the only time Paladine realized that his priest was beyond redemption and insane.
I don't doubt that Paladine did love Belidnas. I'm sure that a god like Paladine loves all his worshippers. But there comes a time when the Kingpriest starts going against the ideals of Paladine. I've had mainly 3 points where the Kingpriest goes against what I personally believe Paladine would want.
Number 1 was when he attacked wizards. Now I'm sure some of you argue that they thought they were a threat. Yes maybe, but there is no way that I can see Paladine not minding that his worshippers are hunting down and killing his son Solinari's worshippers. To me there is no way that Paladine was like "eh it happens". And this isnt an instance where you can say.. well maybe the kingpriest didnt know. Because he took an active role in instituting it. And I don't see where Paladine would just be like..well he thinks hes doing good, so its ok.
The second was the mindreading. Now this doesnt seem like such a big deal, but if you read the stories there were people who were being taken away and sold into slavery if they even had one bad thought. Now thats pretty harsh stuff. Everyone has thoughts that arent always the purist, but you don't act on them. I can't ever see Paladine condoning the taking away of free thought. Paladine preaches about free will for gods sake. He has to be an advocate of free thought.
The third point is the slavery. Now some people may say that the Kingpriest doesnt know *everything* that is going on under him. This may be true. But he did know that races were being hunted (and just because they were that race) and he knew a lot of them were being put in slavery. He also figured that slavery was better than their own lives they could mess up. To me, there is no way that Paladine as a god of Good could condone slavery. No way. And yet the Kingpriest does know its going on. He might not know every specific detail of every slave, but he knows the general jist of it and the hunting of races. I can't see Paladine condoning the enslavement of any race, even evil ones. Not to a letter..where every race is hunted down and exterminated or put into slavery.
Now if you say, yes well the Kingpriest thought he was doing good, so Paladine still backed him, this opens up a whole new can of worms. Because now anybody can have a PC in their world do "evil" things because they think its for the greater good. My example has always been my cleric if Kiri-Jolith can enslave dwarves because he wants to "save their souls". My cleric truly believes he's doing it to save them. Do you let people do whatever they want as long as they thnk its right? In D&D and Dragonlance good is a tangible force. And in D&D/Dragonlance good clerics lose their spellcasting abilities when they do an evil act. This would mean immediate loss of spellcasting when the kingpriest did an evil act. There is no "well they think its right" clause.
In Dragonlance, the gods are an active force. They can speak to their worshippers. Why this didnt happen with the Kingpriest, I have no clue. I dont understand why he wouldnt explain to the man who is highest in his graces about the things he was doing. Obviously other gods talk to their worshippers, its shown in their stories.
I explain Fistandilus/Raistlin as wizards being different. I dont look at it that the Moon Gods can shut off wizardry when they want. So Nuitari didn't have much to do when raistlin was doing his shtick. But then again, he did give back magic to dalamar so who knows. Crysania getting the power to open the portal I have no answer to.
But all in all, I assume the Kingpriest went from a cleric of Paladine to a general cleric. This is why he still had all the same spells and was able to do what he wanted to do, without Paladine's approval. I find it amazing that Paladine cut off all the other clerics, but not the Kingpriest. I would cut off the highest priest in my clergy for doing evil acts before I would cut off a lowly priest who maybe just doesnt know better. But maybe thats me.
Paladine also knew that the Kingpriest was trying to do good and frankly I don't see how you can remove clerical powers when he doesn't know what he's doing is wrong.
It's not a new can of worms at all. Slavery or execution....tough call.
I wouldn't as a DM remove the player's paladin powers if he had the chance to commute the sentences of those sentenced to death to life in service.
Of course, he HATED everything that was going on.
he was bamboozled by the nature of the Kingpriest thogh. Thoroughly
"I don't see how you can remove clerical powers when he doesn't know what he's doing is wrong." This basically means any cleric can do any evil thing they want, if they dont see it as evil. I'm not such a fan of it. There has to be clerical dogma that guided the clerics of Paladine. His thing has *always* bee free-will. The only ones who dont believe in free will are the evil gods. And the neutral gods hold it as their highest ideal. But the good gods still believed that people should be able to choose, they just hoped they chose good.
Bamboozled by the Kingpriest? In the end, the Kingpriest was a worshipper of Paladine. yes I'm sure Paladine loved him, but I dont see how you would not do something if your most powerful and influential worshipper went grossly against what you believe in. It just doesnt make sense.
Well if you go with the thing that the Kingpriest could have "stepped back from the precipice", why werent any of the other clerics given that chance? Why was only the kingpriest given the chance to repent..and not the other ones? They were all doing evil things. To me that just doesnt make sense.
If you allow the thinking that "the Kingpriest didnt know better".. than that means any PC in your campaign can do whatever they want, as long as they stipulate that they dont know better. They really believe that it is for the greater good. Now enslavement, murder, torturing, etc can be done by good people... because they believe they are doing right and what their god would want. I find this...amazing.
Only if what they know to be the probable results of their actions is not evil. Frankly, I don't think you're getting my points. It's not ignorance of Paladine's law I'm talking about, its about bringing a prisoner in Ishtar and being told the evils of things by the poisonous tongues of those whom he was supposed to be leading.
"All wizards are baby eating monsters!"
Belidnas "Really? I had no idea!"
"It's true!"
Belidnas "We should stop that!"
"Yes milord!"
***
"The Kingpriest had ordered the death of all wizards in Krynn."
1) If You read THE KINGPRIEST TRILOGY, you are going to get a totally different view of the Kingpriest then in other novels. In the TWINS trilogy, he is potrayed as someone so fearfull of evil that he is doing what he needs to do to stop evil forever. If you read novels before the KINGPRIEST trilogy, then the KingPriest is potrayed as genuinely evil and arrogant. And in the KingPriest trilogy, you get what I think is the real KingPriest.
2) The KingPriest, despite all else, DID have the abillity to summon Paladine at the end when he was preparing the final ceremony. It was even possible that the KingPriest could have succeeded in the ceremony, had a certain lapse in concentration not happened during it. The KingPriest trilogy was not clear on whom the "other precences" were in the room beside himself and Paladine. It is possible that even as in the TWINS TRILOGY, that Tasslehoff and Crysannia listened in, that some version of the two of them had again snuck in during Fistandantillus's time as well.
3) I still believe, even though there is no support for this in any of the books, that Paladine also wanted the KingPriest to succeed in driving evil out of KRynn back then. That he answered the KingPriests prayers because it is what he wanted.
I am sure, as the God's of Evil were being wiped out, that Paladine would have been gleefull. So would his pantheon. But as things spread next to the God's of Neutrality, perhaps Paladine believed "it was for the best". Which did not sit well with Gillean and Reorx and the rest. And when the War Against Magic began, Solinari probably was ready to jump ship on Paladine as well and throw in with the others to save the world.
And thus, at some point, Gilean and Takshisis told Paladine that if the KingPriest went thru with what he was planning, that there would be a Cataclysm and that they would work together to make it happen, even though all were no doubt aware that Takhisis banishment was directly tied to Krynn "Remaining Whole". Paladine probably sent the signs, as well as the Night of DOom, probably believing the KingPriest woudl see the light, but by the end, may have realized that he Paladine had errered in supporting the KingPriest so far.
And thus, when it finally happened (the KingpRiests demand) that Paladine had no choice but to act.
The mind reading thing and taking away of free thought, I have no clue how to explain how that can be seen as all right. The Kingpriest knew exactly what he was doing, and I dont see how he could have stayed "good" condoning this very tactic. He was even the one who instituted it, if I remember right.
The slavery thing, I can kind of see your guys' points. I've reread the Legends (which deals with the slavery/extermination more than the Kingpriest trilogy) and kind of see where a lot of things were kept from the Kingpriest. But... but while a lot of things were kept from him.. he had to have known that "evil" and "neutral" races were being specifically hunted down. This..I can't see as being good either. Yes he didnt know exactly how the Games were being used and other stuff. But the hunting of other races was a country spanning thing, maybe even continent spanning. I'm sure somewhere the order had to have come from the Kingpriest. He did know the Games were going on, but he saw it as a necessary thing and thought that there was no bloodshed, so hes innocent on that. But the hunting down and enslaving of dwarves? I'm sure there was a list somewhere that listed the races that werent "ok" and I'm sure the Kingpriest had seen it.
Maybe my problem isnt so much that the Kingpriest did these things, but that where was Paladine in all this? I mean, the Kingpriest is his most powerful and recognizable cleric, and he can't even get that guy to follow his tenents? I think everyone can agree that Paladine is against the hunting of his son's followers, the enslaving and genocide of every race that isnt elves and humans (while this may be a generality, its pretty close to what they thought), and the mindreading and consequently the taking away of free think. So this god had the power to funnel spells to his clerics, make blessings and miracles happen, take avator form, but never deigned to give a clear cut sign to his most prominent cleric that what he was doing was evil? Granted they gave the thirteen signs.. but sheesh can you be anymore vague. Those could have come from any god. Him or Mishakel, cant remember which one, even showed up to Lord Soth and told them *exactly* what they needed to do. He cut off spells from every cleric who didnt follow his tenents.. except for the highest cleric? Now you could say Maybe he didnt show up because he wanted the Kingpriest to have free will.. ok then all his clerics can keep doing wrong while Paladine hopes they "see the light"? Obviously not because the other clerics lost their powers. I dunno.. I just find it amazing when all the guy had to do was pop in and tell the Kingpriest what he should be doing, and if he doesnt do it, take the powers away. He obviously doesnt want to follow you. All other clerics are held accountable for what they do in the service of their gods.. why not the Kingpriest?
Sure Fisty had a part in making the black robes more militant and committing more horrors but that was the idea. The Ishtarians were attacked and attacked badly so they were going to disband wizardry.
Solanari its easy for the Kingpriest to believe he's been corrupted (that's ARROGANCE not evil to believe he can judge a god's mind)
I actually do believe the Kingpriest didn't know about the extermination of other races. I believe he was probably the one who believed that they would be better off embargoed til they died off naturally but I don't believe he was an active proponent of genocide.
Remember, Fisty noticed that Beld HAD lost most if his higher level clerical abilities. Paladine had put some pretty stiff penalties down onto his priest. It was only the ritual in the Disk of Mishkahal that apparently allowed his summoning and binding to some purpose (why Paladine put something like THAT in them I have no idea) which was the straw that broke the camels back.
Re: The Paladine issue though
The obvious comparison is between "why didn't god pop in during the crusades." There's a number of very good reasons that we don't have to bend D&D rules about to say
* The Istarians should KNOW better
It's in Paladine's law not to murder, torture, and destroy!
* Paladine's true clerics are his mouth pieces not his avatars
The followers of the Solamnic Knighthood, Miskahal, Majere, Kiri-Jonilith, and those who didn't follow 'Istarian Paladineism' were persecuted, tortured, and murdered.
and my big one
* Paladine could have shown up in the middle of Istar's street and loudly proclaimed
"REPENT SINNER! YOU ARE DAMNED!"
And he would have been ignored as a wizard's blapshemous illusion. The people had sincere faith...in themselves.
(Yes, this requires ignoring DLA's rules for alignment change, but it's the only way I can explain everything else.)
Matthew L. Martin
Working theory: all you need to cast clerical spells is three things: the presence of the god, proper ordination/investiture/etc., and faith in your patron. Orthodoxy and morality don't enter into it, and once the gift's given, it won't be taken back, due to the emphasis on free will.
This could work, especially since Eberron works this way. It was my theory for a long time that a cleric learned the spiritual gifts of the diety and then was able to draw upon their own soul power to power their spells. They are still a cleric of a particular diety, just not in the God's favour.
However recently, upon further reflection, I've been forced to abandon this conclusion.
The problem with Dragonlance vs. Eberron is that the gods are a lot more active. They manifest on the material plane, and they personally converse and commune with their followers. For example, look at Kang when he was praying for spells. One day Takhisis was displeased with him, and wasn't as forthcoming with her gifts. Clerics when they pray sense their god's presence. Goldmoon talks about this occasionally too.
However, Belindas didn't receive communion with Paladine. He didn't speak with Paladine. He could have been a true cleric of Paladine, but was led astray by those such as Quarath. A mystic would solve this problem, but mystics aren't allowed before the War of the Lance.
So another way to solve it is to give Paladine the benefit of the doubt, that granting Belindas spells and causing the cataclysm was the necessary choice to be made in order save the world from a worse fate. After all, he could see forward in the river of time right?
Of course, given that you can actually hide the world from Paladine, it might be that he just screwed up. If that was the case, I wonder if he no longer felt himself to be worthy to lead the gods of light. After all, Mishakal, not him, was the first good goddess to reappear in Ansalon. Was there really only one way to stop Takhisis, or did he choose mortality as an suicide/atonement? Interesting idea to entertain.
It would be a lot easier if things worked like Eberron, but they dont. Paladine is a living, active force. There is no way that he would keep giving spells to a person who was doing evil, no matter if it was in his name or not. If you let the Kingpriest still receive spells, that means pretty much the gods have no say about their worshippers. I can be good, get spellcasting ability from a god of light, and then become evil. And the god can't do anything about it? An evil person could receive spells from Takhisis, Sargonas, etc..and if he started not caring about his deity and started doing good things on a regular basis that went against his god's wishes.. they would still get spellcasting ability from the god? There is no way that youc an convince me that the gods have no control over who gets their blessings. If they grant them, they should be able to take them away. Thats how it works in D&D, and thusly Dragonlance because there is nothing that says different.
My theory still stands. He started out as a cleric of Paladine and had full spellcasting abilities. As time wore on, he decided he thought he knew better than Paladine what needed to be done. He now switched to a cleric without a god. He still knew how to cast spells and use them, but he started getting his spells from his ideals and belief in himself, not from Paladine anymore. He was way more wrapped up in what he thought, not Paladine.
Justifying this metaphysical action as still gaining Paladine's power for the world.
Given that Reorx blamed Iothas (Father Chaos) for the Cataclysm, it may be that the Greygem was involved. Graygem swoops down and touches a small boy living in Xak Tsaroth. Small boy has affinity to Paladine and begins to worship him. Paladine accepts small boy as a cleric. Small boy grows up to be Kingpriest. Taint of graygem allows him to the things he does... Paladine is forced to destroy the world.
Of course... we have to ask do we really want this divine mystery solved? I personally like it as one of those troubling questions of Krynnish faith. The theories are more fun than the answer could possibly be.
"Paladine has his own reasons for not removing the spells"
If clerics can go against thier deity's wishes, than that opens up a new thing on alignment in Dragonlance. People can make characters vastly different.. an assassin priest of Reorx who thinks nonbeliever dwarves should be wiped out, a priest of Kiri-Jolith who enslaves evil *and* good races and forces them to learn his religion and work for him to "save their souls", a priest of Morgion who goes around healing people and doing kind deeds because he thinks disease is "wrong", a priest of Majere who only finds perfect enlightenment in the killing of innocent people, etc. PC's can be very different because now its just an open field. You want to be a cleric? Pick a god.. no dont worry about what their portfolio is or what their wishes are.. yea you dont need to follow any of that. Maybe this sounds extreme.. but its a valid way that you could go, and I dont personally like that. Clerics of a god, especially an active god, should try to abide by the wishes of their deity as much as possible. I've never said that a person couldnt mess up a few times, obviously no mortal is going to be a perfect representative of their god. But come on.. going against your god's main tenents over and over again.. should do something. Not just... silence.
Well the main reason I want it resolved is because I want to know if its possible in Dragonlance to go against your god's core beliefs, and still get spells.
No.
The relationship between the cleric and his or her god is intimate and abiding, yet hinges on the cleric's faith in the god and the furtherance of that god's interests. Clerics give up a portion of their free will in return for this divine power, yet they may always reclaim that freedom by surrendering the power and turning from the faith.
Cheers,
Cam
I understand what it is in the rules. But some people were wanting to know why other people might want to know what happened with the Kingpriest. I want to know because the Kingpriest goes against the rules.
Right, he's clearly an exception, much like Raistlin's an exception (being the only mortal to achieve godhood in one alternate future) and so on. Game mechanics and other considerations will have to be written to cover it, but you asked whether it was possible to keep getting spells from one's deity without following their beliefs, and in every other case it isn't. Beldinas' specific circumstances will be revealed at a later date (and he's not a mystic).
Cheers,
Cam
Probably be a pretty big surprise, something like Arakias being a Thorn Knight. While I dont always agree with what is done, I do realize that a lot of times these things come out for the best.
There are indeed two problems with Ariakas being a Thorn Knight.
1) He specifically says that he took the Test of High Sorcery, and he worked closely with the Black Robes during the WotL.
2) The arcane spell failure reduction class feature would ensure that Ariakas had armour on when he was giving an audience, in addition to his magical protections. How could Tanis drive a sword through his gut after Raistlin dispel Ariakas' Wall of Force then?
People have been gutted in armors quite enough time. Also in most pictures I've seen of the scene, Ariakas is in fact wearing armor at the time. It certainly makes it a bit difficult, but not entirely impossible for that to happen.
People have been gutted in armors quite enough time. Also in most pictures I've seen of the scene, Ariakas is in fact wearing armor at the time. It certainly makes it a bit difficult, but not entirely impossible for that to happen.
The cover of Dragonlance Adventures depicts this very scene, or at least the moments after it; a fallen Ariakas, Tanis with the Crown of Power, and Soth advancing from behind.
Cheers,
Cam
How could Tanis drive a sword through his gut after Raistlin dispel Ariakas' Wall of Force then?
Was it a wall of force? I had the distinct impression it was a prismatic wall or prismatic sphere-type spell.
Was it a wall of force? I had the distinct impression it was a prismatic wall or prismatic sphere-type spell.
Prismatic wall. Which is why Ariakas has 8th level spells, and also why I forgot to boost his Intelligence up by 1 point so he could use those 8th level spells. Gah.
Cheers,
Cam
Prismatic wall. Which is why Ariakas has 8th level spells, and also why I forgot to boost his Intelligence up by 1 point so he could use those 8th level spells. Gah.
Cheers,
Cam
For suspension of disbelief, I would presume Tanis' sword is still the blade of Kith Kanan.
For suspension of disbelief, I would presume Tanis' sword is still the blade of Kith Kanan.
Only if he got it back from the Speaker of the Suns in Qualimori, where it ended up.
Cheers,
Cam
I had always thought Tanis had kept that blade and must have forgotten it. Maybe because I always felt heroes would never give up their signature weapon.
Frankly, I'm alittle saddened Huma didn't give his sword to Sturm and Shield