Does this not mean Heliod could be Lawful Neutral at best? He's done 2 "inherently" evil acts, and probably plenty of Good acts off-screen, and the evils he has commited did fall into the category of Lawful. This way, an evil cleric could just as easily worship Heliod as a good cleric. Not just can Heliod be interpreted this way, but most of his followers (Elspeth & Kytheon included) were pretty Lawful Good, but I must admit that Heliod's evil actions cannot allow him to qualify as Good.

Don't let the focus on D&D speculation lead to square pegging and ignoring canon.

Its entirely possible that Heliod did some Good acts in the past, and given the fact that its heavily implied that the personality of Theros gods shifts in accordance to their worshippers' changing views it's very likely that some previous itteration of him was benevolent.

But this current incarnation is pretty clearly Evil. Before murdering Elspeth (and making THREE attempts on her life on the course of Godsend, no less), he waged war against Purphoros because the god of the forge wouldn't bow to him. His antagonism against Xenagos is less because the planeswalker was a threat to Theros and more out of outrightly having his power being threatened. His mentality is that of a very petty child, and almost everyone in story, from gods to Ajani, recognises him for what he truly is: a vile, disgustingly immoral being.

In fact, I'm not even sure if he's Lawful. He might very well be the rare example of a Neutral Evil character.

It could be interpreted as him having a problem with Purphoros due to the White-Red conflict...

ANY WAY, then what should mechanically be done? Have a special clause for Clerics and Paladins of Heliod? You may be any Lawful, Evil, OR Good, regardless of HIS alignment?

The problem is, the heart of that conflict less in disregarding the freedom of another being that is nominally his equal. He demands obedience tantamount to slavery from literally everything, including Kruphix which is technically his superior.

He doesn't believe in the sovereignty if any life save his own.

Just saying, colour alignments don't make conflicts inevitable. Squee didn't despise the mostly aligned Weatherlight crew, for example.

Purphoros wouldn't accept Heliod's authority, and Heliod wouldn't accept another god not bowing before him. Just two aggressive individuals fighting.

So then what to do? Heliod is a special case? NE/LE but LG, LN, LE, and NG can worship him?

\_(ツ)_/¯

Depending on the edition worshippers don't necessarily need to be of the same alignment. 3d had Amaunator in a similar position, with worshippers ranging from Chaotic Good to Lawful Evil, even if the deity himself was Neutral Good.

I think the whole good/evil concept is losing a lot of ground in our culture.

I don't think it balances it out like that, either in D&D fiction nor in life. Your most generous interpretation, a god who is not self-interested so much as murderously devoted to the established order...is Lawful Evil. A Neutral being simply does not wipe out whole cities of lives, even if they also do benevolent things. If someone is just as likely to murder you as throw you a feast, that being is not a Good nor Neutral being.

Then what is Lawful Neutral?

Erebos probably counts here. He is only concerned with the enforcement of the natural order of death. He can be kind but he doesn't go out of his way to do so, nor is he overtly malevolent. I don't think Athreos has much of a defined personality, but he also seems Lawful Neutral, neither benevolent nor malevolent, simply maintaining order.

Ignoring the worse (Grand Arbiter Augustin IV) and the better (Lavinia) elements of Azorius, the Senate is Lawful Neutral as a whole. It is concerned with administration and protection of the law in order to preserve order and nominal peace, but it isn't really concerned about people's dignity or well-being.

The black heroes arguably fall here: Teysa is self-interested but not to the point of malevolence; she will work for the greater good when necessary. It's arguable that she is True Neutral but she is methodical, keeps her promises, and is respectful towards law and authority. Toshi Umezawa can be argued in different ways, but I can see him as Lawful Neutral, a man with certain binding principles and promises, selfish but not malevolent. They both veer towards True Neutral, though.

Seriously, you're a D&D fan and don't know what "Lawful Neutral" entails?

A Lawful Neutral character is a character focused on a code, either personal or codified as a law, above all else. Heliod is not Lawful Neutral; in the best case scenario, he is taking advantage of order and strcuture for his own ends, a much more Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil approach. A true Lawful Neutral character doesn't use laws as a means, it uses law as a ends.

But then there was the incident with Vraska, so they must be Lawful Evil.

I'm generally aware of the concept of alignment, but it gets a little foggy figuring out how the two axes work when they are pushed together and pulled apart.

If I recall correctly, wasn't Heliod still deemed king or some form of ruler of the gods? Appointed after his creation? Came to life with this notion? Petulent yes, but if I'm correct and Theran mortals believed the leader of the pantheon was Heliod, and thus Heliod believed it with every fiber of his being, then he was being pretty lawful for a GOD.

If you're referring to the Azorius wrt Vraska, as I said, they as an organization are Lawful Neutral, concerned with keeping order more so than protecting individual rights or considering dignity and well-being. Individual members of Azorius may be Lawful Evil, may even be alignments that aren't Lawful, but the Azorius is itself Lawful Neutral, imo.

The Orzhov Syndicate similarly probably has a mix of people who are genuinely Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral or Neutral Evil or True Neutral, but as an organization as a whole, it's Lawful Evil.

I don't think Heliod cannot be Lawful but: Being a king doesn't make one Lawful, nor does believing one is an authority in one's actions. Heliod, as a protector of law and common agreements and the bonds between mortals, is Lawful. But in his personal actions, he is untrustworthy and capricious. The only saving grace there in terms of his Lawfulness is that it seems like he is always genuinely committed. I did not read the Theros books, but if he is forthright and open even as his heart flips and flops, then I can see him being Lawful with consideration to his portfolio. Lawful allows for hypocrisy and arbitrariness within the overall code of conduct.

Also, Good/Evil, Law/Chaos does not differ for a god as for a mortal. Again, these are objective standards. Having vast amounts of power does not release one from the moral/ethical constraints of D&D alignment.

Heliod's authorithy is recognised by his followers alone; none of the gods see him as their ruler, and Kruphix is in various respects his senior.

I'm myself torn about whereas Heliod is Lawful or not, though he seems to view order more as a means to an end.

Should Avacyn have 2 alignments; one for before the madness and one during? Or one alignment that describes her fairly regardless of her mental condition, or considering the way the Sanity Score works, only have one alignment that applies only before her descent into madness? I can see in a campaign on Innistrad the DM appropriately changes up a Cleric/Paladin of Avacyn's abilities (as the church's magic and wards have certainly taken a hit, regardless of whether her human followers have decided to worship her as she was/as she is/what she stood for before)

In MTG's case, it feels like since most cleric/paladin spellcasting would still just be insert-color magic with a divine provider, that the worshippers are more crucial than the god itself, heck, clerics of Emeria/Kamsa can still cast what appears to be "holy magic".

Tbh I think Theran pantheon has an interesting hook/twist that I think should be left intact. I'm not justifying Heliod's actions, but I am defending Good clerics/paladins who worship him, unaware of his pettiness, which would best translate to Evil, and his pettiness coming to light is a sweet plot-twist for players.

I don't think anyone in this thread thinks it's not okay for Heliod to have clerics that do not have matching alignments.

That's seemingly what I'm going for, but is that like a mold-breaker? Someone mentioned another god that's flippy-floppy between editions, but how does that work mechanically that obeys the rules? Do I label him Lawful Neutral as an unseen deity and Lawful Evil as an active character? As in his FAITH is Lawful Neutral (or even Lawful Good if that opens up the freedom to change it, though LN makes most sense, as even his supposedly benevolent actions, like smiting demons could be construed as what happens in the underworld stays in the underworld) and if he were to make an appearance he would behave Lawfully & Evilly? Is there concrete precedence for this?

The documents WotC released for Zendikar and Innistrad are based on 5th Edition, where clerics are not restricted by the alignment of their gods. 4th Edition similarly does not have such a restriction.

In 3/3.5, clerics do have to be within one step of their gods, but there are also nontheistic clerics. Clerics who ultimately derive their power from their faith and conviction. In the Eberron setting, no gods are confirmed as real and all clerics gain their power from faith. The Lawful Good church has an internal Evil cult, and neither lack access to clerical powers.

So, you can have clerics that explicitly derive power from their deity, which means the deity only has to decide that it is worth giving that cleric some of their power. And you can have clerics that derive power from their faith around the deity, which exists outside of the deity's true self.

Oh.... I've overlooked that the whole time. 5th Edition ignores deity-cleric alignment... Well. Lol That changes a lot.