Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Charles Phipps 07-29-07, 02:42 PM	I recall Keith Baker mentioning the only real proof the Sovereign Host and other gods exist in Eberron is, aside from the spells that anything could be granting (like the Rajahs), there's the choosing of Paladins. That occurred to me in making me wonder if Paladins weren't suffering from an overabundance in Eberron. Should Paladins be a rare, once in a lifetime thing, or represent very elite ensouled orders? For me, I tend to think there's got to be only a dozen or so Paladins in all of Eberron. It's like a HUGE thing. However, I think holy knights probably do exist. The majority of them probably being Fighter/Adepts.
DragoonDarkfire 07-29-07, 03:10 PM	What if you use Paladin Variants?
N3palm 07-29-07, 03:13 PM	Well, it sertanly is a thinker. Cause, because the gods aren't physically present, or at least don't meddle with the mortals, are paladin's still chosen by those gods? Or could anybody extremly lawfull become a paladin of a faith? And could paladins, like clerics, not be of a specific faith/deity but of pure lawfulness or another higher, abstract ideal?
Kaizer_Ryu 07-29-07, 03:15 PM	I wonder if it could be feasible to distinguish between those who just think they've been chosen, or those who's devotion/faith is strong enough (Holy Warriors with enough faith to take the Paladin class), and those who have actually been chosen (true Paladins). This, of course, assumes the gods truly exist at all.
NevronEQ 07-29-07, 03:19 PM	To me, it seems that with 3.5E in general and Eberron specificly there's alot of paladins running around. Requirements to play a paladin were lessened when moving to 3.0 D&D, and in Eberron alignment plays a lesser role, so there's likely some worshippers of the silver flame out there doing things that would have them loose their powers in a heartbeat anywhere else. Then there's the whole "The gods may not even be there!" talk which relates again to paladins and their views. *shrug*, It's a trend really. I'm a huge fan of the suicidal fanatic they were drummed up to be in AD&D 2E :) So that's how they will always be to me.
Charles Phipps 07-29-07, 03:36 PM	I wonder if it could be feasible to distinguish between those who just think they've been chosen, or those who's devotion/faith is strong enough (Holy Warriors with enough faith to take the Paladin class), and those who have actually been chosen (true Paladins). This, of course, assumes the gods truly exist at all. It's an interesting question really. Certainly, Adepts and Miracle workers have the ability to display most of the powers that Paladins have. On the other hand we've got competing viewpoints. Keith stating Paladins are the one proof the gods exist vs. the statement it might be possible for Paladins to gain powers from devotion to nationalism itself. (A blasphemy if I ever heard one to most paladin ears)
Vharuck 07-29-07, 04:07 PM	Actually, IIRC, paladins are specifically called out in the ECS as being held up to the same alignment rules as in any other setting. Only clerics get more room for deviation.
DragoonDarkfire 07-29-07, 04:29 PM	Actually, IIRC, paladins are specifically called out in the ECS as being held up to the same alignment rules as in any other setting. Only clerics get more room for deviation. And again. As a DM who allows variant paladins in his campaign, what does this mean for me?
NevronEQ 07-29-07, 04:33 PM	Same as with any other setting. Your game, your rules
Alex_ 07-29-07, 07:09 PM	Paladins are rare and exceptional individuals who are chosen by the cosmic forces of Good. How they choose them is up to them. They can choose to devote themselves to a God, Church, or some other institution, but if they do so, should try to follow those rules, but they're really beholden to Good above all other things. The Silver Flame, being the organization closest to the Paladin's goals and functions, is therefore, the most likely to attract Paladins. The God Dol Arrah is more likely to attract Paladins than Balinor, and the Host in general is more likely to attract the service of Paladins than the Dark Six. A Paladin is in many ways closer to a Druid than a Cleric. Both the Paladin and Druids follow something fundamentally greater than the churches and the Gods (Good and nature respectively, which will always exist even without deities) and need not worship any deity or belong to any church. Likewise, both have rules they have to follow to maintain their connection with the fundamental force (special weapons/armor and behavioral codes) that cannot be circumvented without losing their powers. Clerics, however, can do whatever they want as long as they aren't caught by the church and stripped of their powers.
ArcTan 07-29-07, 09:22 PM	To me, it seems that with 3.5E in general and Eberron specificly there's alot of paladins running around. Requirements to play a paladin were lessened when moving to 3.0 D&D, and in Eberron alignment plays a lesser role, so there's likely some worshippers of the silver flame out there doing things that would have them loose their powers in a heartbeat anywhere else. The only rule Keith Baker actually said he wanted to relax was the rule about "associating with Evil characters", which in my opinion should be relaxed anyway. Otherwise it makes Paladins impossible to play in many campaigns. Then there's the whole "The gods may not even be there!" talk which relates again to paladins and their views. *shrug* Paladins in 3e have never *depended* on any god. You can abandon your god and still be a Paladin (which is not the same as abandoning your *code* -- indeed, if the god and the code come into direct conflict, you *must* abandon your god to stay a Paladin, like if you were a Paladin of an LN god who's just gotten an order to do something Evil from an LE Cleric). It's just that religions that emphasize Paladin-like virtues are more likely to produce Paladins than other religions, which is not surprising. *shrug*, It's a trend really. I'm a huge fan of the suicidal fanatic they were drummed up to be in AD&D 2E :) So that's how they will always be to me. I think everyone prefers Paladins as a class that you can actually use in a campaign with diverse characters.
Charles Phipps 07-29-07, 09:33 PM	And again. As a DM who allows variant paladins in his campaign, what does this mean for me? Sorry for the delay. Well one of two things.... 1. Paladins are more common in your world, but not necessarily very common. 2. Paladins are almost all uniquely chosen. I.e. You have your base Paladin who serves Dol Arrah but then you have Ollandra's Holy Liberator. The "base Paladin" is not anymore common than variants. 2# becomes more a type of Chosen as in other settings.
Roxlimn 07-30-07, 10:16 AM	Personally, I would hold that Paladins in Eberron would be significantly more secular than Paladins elsewhere, simply because there is no proof that gods exist and the continued existence of similar powers across faiths and even against faith rather strongly argues against the existence of gods.
Charles Phipps 07-30-07, 10:19 AM	Personally, I would hold that Paladins in Eberron would be significantly more secular than Paladins elsewhere, simply because there is no proof that gods exist and the continued existence of similar powers across faiths and even against faith rather strongly argues against the existence of gods. Counterpoint, Eberron is also the only other campaign setting than Forgotten Realms where gods are a real and established fact of life too. The Sovereign Host rely on faith to worship them. The Undying Court and Silver Flame are pretty much visible parts of Eberron life. Over in Aerenal, it's really an issue of walking up and saying hi to Enkidu and Ishtar. Plus, really, the whole idea of secular paladins is something no one has ever done right. A person who serves the state above all others does not get the power to Detect Evil from it. It's like that moment in Doctor Who where the guy drove off vampires thanks to his faith in communism. No, just no.
Roxlimn 07-30-07, 10:40 AM	I didn't say that. A Paladin is still devoted to Good and his power STILL derives from his dedication to Good. This could be embodied in a Good kind of nationalism. The Paladin would believe that his nationalism gives him the strength to persevere, but really, it's his devotion to Good that's doing it. Even when demonstrations of faith are visible, believing in them is still a matter of faith. For instance, despite the fact that you can view the Silver Flame as an undisputed entity that exists in the world, neither the Church nor the Sovereign Host priests seem to be making a big deal out of it. Aerenal itself is distinct and separate. The Elves don't worship Enkidu or Ishtar. They worship their ancestors. The Undying Court as a mysterious multi-minded whole is as strong as a god, but I'm not sure the elves worship the Councillors or view them as deific in the traditional sense. Secularism has nothing to do with devotion. You could be devoted to the cause of Good body and soul, and yet be wholly agnostic.
Charles Phipps 07-30-07, 10:43 AM	I didn't say that. A Paladin is still devoted to Good and his power STILL derives from his dedication to Good. This could be embodied in a Good kind of nationalism. The Paladin would believe that his nationalism gives him the strength to persevere, but really, it's his devotion to Good that's doing it. Being a patriot won't give you magic powers. That kills the mood for me, right there. Even when demonstrations of faith are visible, believing in them is still a matter of faith. For instance, despite the fact that you can view the Silver Flame as an undisputed entity that exists in the world, neither the Church nor the Sovereign Host priests seem to be making a big deal out of it. That's just being ignorant. You know, the guy who doubts in the face of God himself. Of course, no one has really ever given a reason why you should doubt the guy who can raise the dead anyway. Aerenal itself is distinct and separate. The Elves don't worship Enkidu or Ishtar. They worship their ancestors. The Undying Court as a mysterious multi-minded whole is as strong as a god, but I'm not sure the elves worship the Councillors or view them as deific in the traditional sense. That was called making an allusion. I think you'd get that when I refer to the Undying Court by name. Secularism has nothing to do with devotion. You could be devoted to the cause of Good body and soul, and yet be wholly agnostic. And we have a class for that, its called a fighter.
Roxlimn 07-30-07, 10:50 AM	Charles Phipps: Being a patriot won't give you magic powers. That kills the mood for me, right there. Being patriotic in an altruistic kind of way shouldn't give you magic powers, but just being altruistic will? I don't see why this ought to be that far a stretch. That's just being ignorant. You know, the guy who doubts in the face of God himself. Of course, no one has really ever given a reason why you should doubt the guy who can raise the dead anyway. Because people who are too easily taken by such brazen displays of power can be misled to worship Radiant Idols, unscrupulous wizards, and even the forces of the Dragon Below. That was called making an allusion. I think you'd get that when I refer to the Undying Court by name. You're missing the point. The elves don't worship the Undying Court because they can see it. They CHOSE to worship their ancestors, and that practice eventually gave rise to the Undying Court. And we have a class for that, its called a fighter. A Fighter is the Paragon Warrior for Good? Since when? I was under the impression that Paladins stood for that.
Charles Phipps 07-30-07, 10:53 AM	Being patriotic in an altruistic kind of way shouldn't give you magic powers, but just being altruistic will? I don't see why this ought to be that far a stretch. I think a person could be the saintliest man alive without developing cleric like abilities. Just like you can have a tremendously religious fighter without becoming a paladin. Because people who are too easily taken by such brazen displays of power can be misled to worship Radiant Idols, unscrupulous wizards, and even the forces of the Dragon Below. A very good rebuttal on that end. You're missing the point. The elves don't worship the Undying Court because they can see it. They CHOSE to worship their ancestors, and that practice eventually gave rise to the Undying Court. And? I'm just saying they're real and you can touch them. A Fighter is the Paragon Warrior for Good? Since when? I was under the impression that Paladins stood for that. I'm just saying there's no Mana Bar for magical abilities you get for being heroic and noble.
Roxlimn 07-30-07, 12:21 PM	Charles Phipps: I think a person could be the saintliest man alive without developing cleric like abilities. Just like you can have a tremendously religious fighter without becoming a paladin. I still don't see the point. A Paladin is called upon to serve Good - he's altruistic and his sustained altruism maintains that connection. What does it matter if this altruism has some kind of nationalistic bent to it? And? I'm just saying they're real and you can touch them. Even when they weren't real, the Elves believed in them, and that MADE them real. It's solipsism in its purest form.
Nuclear_Buddha 07-30-07, 01:35 PM	And? I'm just saying they're real and you can touch them. Pardon me cutting in, but I think boths sides of that thread of the argument are missing the point: Yes, the elves worship the Undying Court. Yes, individual members of the Court are very powerful. Yes, collectively the Undying Court is very powerful; enough so that it can hold Argonessen at bay. However, none of this is divine. The Undying Court doesn't grant clerical or paladin abilities, or at least cannot be proven to do so. In that respect, they are no different than a very large gang of radiant idols. Same thing with the Silver Flame. Sure, you can go to Flamekeep and see it, but you certainly can't prove that what is, at face value, just a strange natural phenomenon is actually a god and is granting power to miracle-workers.
Roxlimn 07-30-07, 01:38 PM	Actually, collectively, the Undying Court is somewhat divine, and it does rather have followers who have spells and such. I didn't miss the fact that all of it STILL relies on faith, not proof. That's the exact thing I've been saying.
Nuclear_Buddha 07-30-07, 01:45 PM	Theoretically, a follower of a radiant idol could cast divine magic. Big deal. You definitely don't need a god for that, just belief. I just thought the argument was moving away from the "faith" aspect, which, in my mind at least, is the really elegant part of how Eberron treats its theoretical gods. It doesn't matter how the Undying Court came about: they could even just be a unique feature of all of Aerenal's Irian manifest zones. It's the their followers' belief in them, not anything they do themselves, that grants clerical abilities.
Alex_ 07-30-07, 04:49 PM	Actually, collectively, the Undying Court is somewhat divine, and it does rather have followers who have spells and such. The Undying Court itself is not divine. Members and followers may be able to cast divine magic, which could be said of any individuals in any faith, but the Undying Court does not in and of itself grant divine spellcasting, take away divine spellcasting, or have any divine ranks.
ArcTan 07-30-07, 04:58 PM	Counterpoint, Eberron is also the only other campaign setting than Forgotten Realms where gods are a real and established fact of life too. What the hell are you talking about? The gods are just as real in Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Planescape, Al-Qadim, Kara-Tur, Mystara, Spelljammer, and Birthright as in the Forgotten Realms. Only Dark Sun has had a comparable level of divine withdrawal to Eberron. The Sovereign Host rely on faith to worship them. The Sovereign Host have never even been proven to exist. If they do exist, it is a highly arguable point whether they "rely on faith" in the way that gods following the Deities & Demigods laws -- or the laws instituted in Toril by Ao after the Time of Troubles. Nothing has suggested that they do, or that there's any law of nature that says they would fade away if people stopped worshipping them. Indeed, the All-Encompassing Host doctrine states that people don't have a *choice* about worshipping them -- whenever they try to come up with a new deity they inevitably end up worshipping a member of the Host instead. The Undying Court and Silver Flame are pretty much visible parts of Eberron life. The Undying Court isn't exactly a god, and neither is the Silver Flame. Over in Aerenal, it's really an issue of walking up and saying hi to Enkidu and Ishtar. No, it's like walking up and saying hi to the priest-kings who lead the worship of and ritually embody Enkidu and Ishtar. (Enkidu, by the way, is not really a deity.) But no single member of the Undying Court has the power of even a Rank 0 Demideity from core D&D. Plus, really, the whole idea of secular paladins is something no one has ever done right. A person who serves the state above all others does not get the power to Detect Evil from it. It's like that moment in Doctor Who where the guy drove off vampires thanks to his faith in communism. Why does it have to be a "faith in" something? Paladins have powers because they are holy people. They drive off Evil because they hate it with a burning purity. Yes, it sounds dumb if you say that instead of worshipping a god they must worship "the state" or "transcendental transubstantiation" or "my left shoe". So don't. A secular Paladin is someone who receives the call to fight Evil and is given mysterious powers to do so, from no one in particular, at least that she's aware of. She's Buffy the Vampire Slayer. What's the big deal?
ArcTan 07-30-07, 05:04 PM	That's just being ignorant. You know, the guy who doubts in the face of God himself. Of course, no one has really ever given a reason why you should doubt the guy who can raise the dead anyway. Nobody doubts the existence of the Silver Flame. They just doubt whether the fact that it exists means you should worship it. For instance, plenty of followers of the Host think the Flame is just a manifestation of the power of Dol Arrah or one of the other gods, and that therefore the Church of the Silver Flame will eventually be folded back into the Sovereign Host. It would be impossible for someone in Eberron to take the perspective that just because someone can raise the dead, that means they're absolutely right about the world and how it works and who their god is and where their powers come from and who you should listen to about right and wrong. It would mean, for instance, that the existence of Clerics of the Lord of Blades would constitute "proof" that all fleshy races should surrender to him and be killed.
Darakhoranon 07-30-07, 05:34 PM	I think the main problem with "nationalistic" Paladins is that "good" knows no borders. It doesn´t matter if you´re Karrnathi or Aundairian - if you´re a good person, the Paladin is your friend, no matter where he´s from. The Paladin who gets his powers from his sincere belief in the good inherent in the Karrnathi state - aka the Paladin who beliefs Karrnath is an embodiement of "good" -, on the other hand... It just doesn´t fit. "I´m Karrnathi, so I´m good. You´re Aundairian, so you´re evil." Sure, this is over the top. But taken to its ultimate implication, this is exactly what the "nationalistic" Paladin is about. Be that as it will, on to other things. I also think actual Paladins should be rare. You can easily have a religious fighter who follows the Paladin´s code. You can even have a Fighter/Cleric - Anomen from Baldur´s Gate 2 comes to mind - who aspires to be a Paladin (and just lacks something, whatever that may be). This Fighter/Cleric can do (nearly) everything the Paladin can do, but he still isn´t one. He´s near, but he´ll never reach "perfection". This way, a genuine Paladin is still someone special.
Charles Phipps 07-30-07, 05:38 PM	I think there's some good ideas behind it. Captain America is the embodiment of good in the Marvel Universe. The "paladin" of the MU by his devotion to America the ideal. However, that's probably not a terribly well developed concept in Eberron. And I'd also say that while he's still an embodiment of good, I'd be askance if he gained the power to heal in Eberron.
JulesCARV 07-30-07, 05:52 PM	Do you think Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) in Paths of Glory could be a paladin in Eberron?
ArcTan 07-30-07, 11:16 PM	I think the main problem with "nationalistic" Paladins is that "good" knows no borders. It doesn´t matter if you´re Karrnathi or Aundairian - if you´re a good person, the Paladin is your friend, no matter where he´s from. The Paladin who gets his powers from his sincere belief in the good inherent in the Karrnathi state - aka the Paladin who beliefs Karrnath is an embodiement of "good" -, on the other hand... It just doesn´t fit. "I´m Karrnathi, so I´m good. You´re Aundairian, so you´re evil." Sure, this is over the top. But taken to its ultimate implication, this is exactly what the "nationalistic" Paladin is about. If he were purely about nationalism, sure. But that's also a reason Paladins aren't just about narrow religious zealotry (sorry, you've never committed your life to the Flame, so you're lower-priority).
Charles Phipps 07-30-07, 11:42 PM	If he were purely about nationalism, sure. But that's also a reason Paladins aren't just about narrow religious zealotry (sorry, you've never committed your life to the Flame, so you're lower-priority). No, however, what people don't seem to understand is that the idea behind most religion is to be universally good. In this case, the Paladins are empowered by their faith but tend to be out of step with those members not so motivated to the ideals behind it but the political reality.
Alex_ 07-31-07, 01:23 AM	No, however, what people don't seem to understand is that the idea behind most religion is to be universally good. In this case, the Paladins are empowered by their faith but tend to be out of step with those members not so motivated to the ideals behind it but the political reality. A Paladin has to be Good and follow the code whether they respect a church more than a state or a state more than a church. Who the Paladin is devoted to after Good makes no difference, as long as they remain Good and uphold the Paladin code while supporting such institutions.
Hopeless 07-31-07, 07:34 AM	Bound by Iron and one of those short stories from Tales of the Last War pretty much talks about just such a paladin and the problems he faced. I've been reading through Faiths of Eberron and although not got as far as the Blood of Vol have noticed the clergy seems more concentrated about keeping their power in the hands of those sympathetic to those in charge with those trained at an official cleric school having higher rank than those trained at a local church and even higher than those trained in the field like adventuring cleric's for example. What I'm getting at is that a Paladin in Eberron isn't as cut and dried as most people think, I've played in a Greyhawk game where another player ran his like a fanatic with no respect for the other Pcs whose god wasn't Hieronymous and yet it fits perfectly with Eberron especially after reading the Crimson Talisman again (and yes I know half elves can't carry dragonmarks belonging to human mark families). My own viewpoint is that until I can get to read the Forge of War my best way of representing this is with the following; Before the advent of the civil war many people joined the Silver Flame faith one in particular was a half elf named Darius Tuarte, a skilled warrior he was also very distantly related to the ir'Wynarn family by virtue of being the result of an illegitimate relationship of then Emperor Jarot's Uncle. When Thrane and others chose to not recognise proper protocol in the ascension Darius chose to stand with the true heir and in the course of the war was single handedly responsible for killing the Speaker of the Flame who led Thrane during the early years of the war. Considered the vilest of traitors it didn't stop Darius from leading an army of Cyre until he was discharged because he refused an order that would have resulted in the deaths of countless innocents and even when removed from command chose to face off his own troops helping to save as many innocent lives and barely escaping court martialling due to his interference that prevented a number of ploys on the part of the neighbouring nations to draw away enough of Cyre's forces to allow Cyran lands to be annexed. He was eventually killed following Cyre's destruction commanding a single unarmed airship holding off three Karrnathi stormships allowing the Cyran refugees aboard two other surviving airships escaping the destruction of Cyre to flee to safety. No matter what had transpired what was known for sure was that even after he had slain the then leader of Thrane's faith, Darius didn't lose his paladinnic status and more importantly although Thrane's clergy have permanently declared him the Silver Flame's greatest traitor he is still held in great respect by the various nations as Galifar's greatest champion. My point is anyone can be a hero, a Paladin however must be something more and until I read otherwise not something that can be properly explained or roleplayed... Cheers!
Alex_ 07-31-07, 12:22 PM	Before the advent of the civil war many people joined the Silver Flame faith one in particular was a half elf named Darius Tuarte, a skilled warrior he was also very distantly related to the ir'Wynarn family by virtue of being the result of an illegitimate relationship of then Emperor Jarot's Uncle. When Thrane and others chose to not recognise proper protocol in the ascension Darius chose to stand with the true heir and in the course of the war was single handedly responsible for killing the Speaker of the Flame who led Thrane during the early years of the war. Considered the vilest of traitors it didn't stop Darius from leading an army of Cyre until he was discharged because he refused an order that would have resulted in the deaths of countless innocents and even when removed from command chose to face off his own troops helping to save as many innocent lives and barely escaping court martialling due to his interference that prevented a number of ploys on the part of the neighbouring nations to draw away enough of Cyre's forces to allow Cyran lands to be annexed. He was eventually killed following Cyre's destruction commanding a single unarmed airship holding off three Karrnathi stormships allowing the Cyran refugees aboard two other surviving airships escaping the destruction of Cyre to flee to safety. No matter what had transpired what was known for sure was that even after he had slain the then leader of Thrane's faith, Darius didn't lose his paladinnic status and more importantly although Thrane's clergy have permanently declared him the Silver Flame's greatest traitor he is still held in great respect by the various nations as Galifar's greatest champion. That's becuse throughought all of that, he didn't violate the Paladin code. A Paladin of the Silver Flame gets their abilities from the elemental forces of Good, but not the church itself, which is composed of mortals of Good/Neutra/Evil alignment. My point is anyone can be a hero, a Paladin however must be something more and until I read otherwise not something that can be properly explained or roleplayed... It is properly explained in the PHB. It's just so easy to fall into the idea that the Paladin is just like the Cleric in that its the chosen of its church or deity. They're not. Paladins are the chosen of Good. Good flows through them like the Force flows through Jedi in Star Wars (it's a "energy" not just a point of view), and like Jedi, they can choose to use them in support of one cause or another.
Logos7 07-31-07, 02:59 PM	I could easily see a Paladin in Eberron who worship/bases his worldview around the code of galifar. if you can have paladin's of agriculture and knowledge ( Aureon and Arawai respecetively ) in additttion to the more traditional paladin's I don't see the problem with it. If the paladin was from Karnath I would expect the People's Champion of Chivalary and the Downntroddin, champion of hard work and endurance. The codes the same, why are people freaking out over perhaps the most minor point of fluff ( Like the national spirt that's animating and providing the warrior's knowledge to all those skeletons, I don't see why this national spirit , built from the blood of countless warriors who died in honourable combat, couldn't provide for a LG Champion, who can heal and banish those undead who are being used for nefarious purposes, IE against him)
Hellcow 07-31-07, 06:48 PM	Keith stating Paladins are the one proof the gods exist vs. the statement it might be possible for Paladins to gain powers from devotion to nationalism itself. I haven't had time to read this entire thread, but I wanted to speak to this for a moment. I don't feel that paladins PROVE the gods exist. I do believe that a paladin is called to service. You can't just decide to be a paladin - that it's not something you can be just because you want to be (one reason the code of conduct is even stricter than it is for priests). Those that do hear the call find it hard to resist. But the fact that they are called doesn't prove the identity of the caller. Tira Miron would tell you that she was first called to the light by the Sovereign Dol Arrah. This service purified her and opened the way for the Silver Flame to reach her. Maybe this is true. Or maybe all gods are just a lens for the power of Siberys shaped by the collective unconscious of the people of Eberron. The experience of the paladin is very different from that of the cleric. Someone CAN become a cleric through sheer devotion, and they can keep their cleric status even in situations where a paladin would lose hers. The paladin can't just want to be a paladin - and many who hear the call may NOT want to be paladins. But there is more to it that desire: there is an outside agency at work. But whether that agency is anything like what the paladin believes it to be is certainly open for debate. There's no 100% conclusive proof that the gods exist. Paladins make a good case for it, but there's always other explanations. As for numbers, personally I do consider paladins to be rare - even rarer than clerics, who are in turn rarer than adepts... and remember that most priests in Eberron are actually experts. I'd say there's more than a dozen (there were thirteen, but one went missing). But I don't think there's thousands of them. Just as a priest can be an expert, a templar can be a warrior... or a fighter, or a knight. I believe that paladins should be remarkable and holy people - not just "Oh, yeah - another paladin. Seventh one this week." But that's not necessarily in line with what's been shown in sourcebooks; there's a number of paladin NPCs that I'd make other classes. Ultimately it's a DM call.
ArcTan 07-31-07, 07:13 PM	No, however, what people don't seem to understand is that the idea behind most religion is to be universally good. In this case, the Paladins are empowered by their faith but tend to be out of step with those members not so motivated to the ideals behind it but the political reality. ...And that's just it. There's *always* a separation between a religion's ideals and that religion as an institution. One can argue the same is true about the separation between a nation's ideals and that nation as an institution (at least about certain nations that claim to be founded on ideals, like the modern United States, or ancient empires like Rome or Galifar). A Paladin of a religion is one who follows the *ideals* of the religion as opposed to the *institution* of the religion. It's not that hard to imagine a Paladin who is a Paladin "of a nation" in the same way. (Captain America is a good example. Note that present-day Captain America is a man who has several times opposed the United States government, broken US law, and once launched a full-fledged rebellion, for which he gave his life.)
ArcTan 07-31-07, 07:17 PM	Note that this means that I *do* think Paladins can exist for religions that I nonetheless think are objectively Evil, like the Blood of Vol, the worship of certain of the Dark Six (say, a Drow Paladin of Vulkoor who comes to Khorvaire and takes the Mockery as her symbol) or the Lord of Blades cult. This is because *their* view of the ideals of their religion is one that is Lawful Good, and it is to those ideals that they are devoted, despite the fact that both the institution and the mainstream ideals of their faith are Evil. (A Paladin of the Blood of Vol would be blissfully unaware of what her religion is actually about -- or, if confronted with the evidence, might conclude that the Blood of Vol is a "corruption" of something better and higher.)
Hopeless 08-01-07, 06:57 AM	As for numbers, personally I do consider paladins to be rare - even rarer than clerics, who are in turn rarer than adepts... and remember that most priests in Eberron are actually experts. I'd say there's more than a dozen (there were thirteen, but one went missing). But I don't think there's thousands of them. Just as a priest can be an expert, a templar can be a warrior... or a fighter, or a knight. I believe that paladins should be remarkable and holy people - not just "Oh, yeah - another paladin. Seventh one this week." But that's not necessarily in line with what's been shown in sourcebooks; there's a number of paladin NPCs that I'd make other classes. Ultimately it's a DM call. I have always been of the opinion that any paladin you do meet you'll probably not recognise as such since they shouldn't come across as that different its only in their actions thats when you start to wonder. I do like that bit from Faiths of Eberron where they point out that bit about cleric's being rare especially as it makes it all the more like "Cadfael" a series of movies based on medieval england and a monastery with one of the monks being a former crusader who became a monk and subsequently a herbalist with a sideline in being an inquisitive... I would like to know what that paladin described in the Crimson Talisman was supposed to be.
Hopeless 08-01-07, 07:07 AM	Note that this means that I *do* think Paladins can exist for religions that I nonetheless think are objectively Evil, like the Blood of Vol, the worship of certain of the Dark Six (say, a Drow Paladin of Vulkoor who comes to Khorvaire and takes the Mockery as her symbol) or the Lord of Blades cult. This is because *their* view of the ideals of their religion is one that is Lawful Good, and it is to those ideals that they are devoted, despite the fact that both the institution and the mainstream ideals of their faith are Evil. (A Paladin of the Blood of Vol would be blissfully unaware of what her religion is actually about -- or, if confronted with the evidence, might conclude that the Blood of Vol is a "corruption" of something better and higher.) Actually from what I've read so far this is entirely possible however the truth behind their tendencies will only be perceived as corruption in the faith which they'll be dedicated to wiping out with just as much reasoning as members of the Silver Flame are trying to route out say a cult of the lords of dust from inside flamekeep. I've actually run a game where a paladin player used his code as the perfect defence, he didn't violate it he didn't needless endager his comrades in the pursuit of personal glory, he simply chose the best path to follow and then I played in a greyhawk campaign and the most experienced player on the table ran a fanatic, not a paladin but a glory hound who was perfectly willing to ignore the rest of the party even if they gave perfectly good reasoning and he chose to use torture, intimidation and even lied on occasion let alone the cold blooded murder of unarmed prisoners simply because he believed he alone had the right even though the rest of the party protested and humble he was not! Sorry to go on for so long but his actions look perfectly normal for what Eberron feels like, but it also made me wonder why Paladins were only Lawful Good as they always came across as holy warriors of a faith even though my impression was more of the Captain America variety (even if i think Marvel stuffed themselves with their civil war series). I did like that notation about there having been maybe 13 of them but 1 had gone missing though! Question is what about those from the Mark of Death?
Charles Phipps 08-01-07, 07:10 AM	Like I said, my only thing about National Paladins is that all Paladins have to have a supernatural source for their powers. I attribute this to gods who, for whatever reason, select an individual to die in a bloody ditch somewhere because he's THAT nice of a guy.
Roxlimn 08-01-07, 07:15 AM	My take is that a National Paladin is much the same as any other Paladin except that he's got a Nationalism twist on his Goodness, much as a Cannith Wand Adept is a magic user who's got a Cannith twist to his magic. He's still a magic user - just a specific kind of magic user. Paladins, IMO, aren't simply chosen to die. They're chosen because their native outlook and methodology either need all the help they can get or they're a good champion for the cause. Neither of those mean that the force of good is a sadistic misanthrope.
Charles Phipps 08-01-07, 07:19 AM	I explain it as the "Tragedy of the Superhero." Basically, history has produced two great Paladin stories. The Tragedy of King Arthur and the Tragedy of the Jedi Knighthood (I'm exaggerating---slightly). Fundamentally, I always think that Paladins are guys who are never going to quite get the Happily ever after they want. Let's say, Sir Huff'N'Puff manages to make it to 70 years old and with three grandchildren without compromising his ethics. The dude hears about a Half-Fiendish dragon terrorizing the local villages. ....I think we all know what the poor man is going to get on his horse and do. Despite knowing its probably futile.
Roxlimn 08-01-07, 07:33 AM	That's not Good, that's stupid. Pursuing a suicidal futile action under the impression that it's virtuous isn't in my mind a staple character of the Paladin. It's altogether acceptable and probably more virtuous for that old man to find and help anyone else who can make a difference, rather than pointlessly throwing his life away.
Charles Phipps 08-01-07, 07:37 AM	That's not Good, that's stupid. Pursuing a suicidal futile action under the impression that it's virtuous isn't in my mind a staple character of the Paladin. It's altogether acceptable and probably more virtuous for that old man to find and help anyone else who can make a difference, rather than pointlessly throwing his life away. Oh, certainly Sir Huff'N'Puff isn't rushing to his death because he wants to. I imagine that if he had some clever way of defeating the Dragon in mind then he certainly would use that. However, Paladins do not know fear. Sir Huff'N'Puff would rather leave his family orphaned and widowed than do nothing against a foe he has very little chance of defeating. Certainly, Obi Wan isn't going to lose his Paladin levels because he's training Luke. However, Obi didn't hesitate a second to give his life to let Luke get away.
Roxlimn 08-01-07, 07:42 AM	That's precisely the point. Obi Wan gave his life for SOMETHING. He had a definite end in mind, and he was reasonably certain that his death would ensure that it happened. He wasn't pointlessly or vainly throwing his life away. As it turned out, Palpatine paid for it very, very dearly. The fact that he isn't likely to win would weigh heavily on the mind of a conscientious Paladin, not out of fear, but out of concern that he might be able to contribute more to people by doing something else. In a way, going to meet death head on for little to no effect is a coward's solution. A Paladin is called on to be beyond such things.
Charles Phipps 08-01-07, 08:01 AM	A Paladin is called on to be beyond such things. :rolleyes: Yes, but let's face it. You wouldn't be a Paladin if you weren't an eternal optimist either. Sir Huff'N'Puff knows he's outmatched but he also knows that he could possibly wound the creature enough that others might finish it off or it might break. He might get a lucky shot in. The fact is that he's going to continue to fight evil, wherever it is, until he dies. They will dig him out of a ditch somewhere because a paladin can't retire.
Roxlimn 08-01-07, 08:58 AM	I don't see that. Terminal optimism is something I don't include in my own Paladin vision. Where Paladins are outmatched and they know it, I think it would be more in their nature to consider their values and the effect their actions would have on the world. As the paragon of LG, I think it's consistent for them to be this level of conscientious. Whereas SOME Paladins can be that stupid and that insane, I don't hold it as common for the archetype. Some Paladins can be overzealous or overweeningly vain, or murderingly intolerant to the edge of falling into Evil, but I don't hold those as core the Paladin concept, either.
Charles Phipps 08-01-07, 11:02 AM	I don't see that. Terminal optimism is something I don't include in my own Paladin vision. Where Paladins are outmatched and they know it, I think it would be more in their nature to consider their values and the effect their actions would have on the world. As the paragon of LG, I think it's consistent for them to be this level of conscientious. Whereas SOME Paladins can be that stupid and that insane, I don't hold it as common for the archetype. Some Paladins can be overzealous or overweeningly vain, or murderingly intolerant to the edge of falling into Evil, but I don't hold those as core the Paladin concept, either. Whatever. In the end, I consider it what makes them heroes. A person isn't a paladin who doesn't spend every breathe of their lives fighting the good fight until they die. They put good over love and their own happiness even if they might find some before they die. If you consider that against the Paladin's code, clearly you don't see them similar to superheroes. Which is what my point is all about. Captain America never submits to Thanos despite him having the Infinity Gauntlet. Same with the Red Skull.
Hellcow 08-01-07, 11:36 AM	I do like that bit from Faiths of Eberron where they point out that bit about cleric's being rare... That's not exactly new to Faiths of Eberron. The first paragraph under "Cleric" in the ECS (page 34) says the same thing. The Religion in Eberron (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20040705a), Demographics (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20040712a), and Silver Flame part 2 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a) Dragonshards all point out that not only are clerics rare, but many priests aren't even adepts... True clerics are rare. They are the crusaders of the church, skilled in battle and capable of channeling the power of their deity. The vast majority of priests are experts who possess no spellcasting ability whatsoever. An average religious expert might possess Knowledge (religion), Knowledge (History), Heal, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive, and use these skills to provide spiritual guidance to her community. Most divine spellcasters are adepts, just as most arcane spellcasters are magewrights. ... and those were all written back in 2004. So it's not a new concept. ... not a paladin but a glory hound who was perfectly willing to ignore the rest of the party even if they gave perfectly good reasoning and he chose to use torture, intimidation and even lied on occasion let alone the cold blooded murder of unarmed prisoners simply because he believed he alone had the right even though the rest of the party protested and humble he was not! I'm not quite sure I'm following this correctly. But if I was running an Eberron campaign, someone was playing a paladin in my game, and he tried this, he'd lose his status pronto. In my campaign, a paladin is simply never going to get away with torture, no matter what he believes - because unlike the cleric, his powers don't simply come from his personal faith. A paladin is called. It's up to the DM to decide what actually calls him - whether it's the god he believes in or something else entirely - but his powers come from that outside force, and it's that force that strips them away if he proves an unworthy vessel. The ECS says it right in the description of Paladins on page 39 - Paladins are called to a strict and exalted life, and are mystically held to a higer standard than even clerics. A cleric of the church of the Silver Flame can fall into heresy or even adopt an evil alignment and still retain all his abilities, but a paladin must rise above the corruption that plagues almost every church and cling to the higher ideals of his faith. I'd also like to call attention to the phrase "the corruption that plagues almost every church" - for those who focus on the CotSF as somehow the lone bastion of religious corruption, it's not; it's simply the case that like ALL the religions of Eberron, it's not perfect. But going back to the paladin... the point is that the paladin is really a pulp character. He is the true white hat. He's not going to fit that well into a campaign that leans more towards the noir side of the spectrum, because he isn't about moral ambiguity. He is a champion chosen to embody noble principles and mystically bound to maintain those standards. The cleric can retain his powers provided that he believes he is serving the cause of his faith. A priest of the Silver Flame can get away with torture if he truly believes that it is necessary and serves the greater good. A paladin cannot. The character may believe it's for the best - but he'll find out that he's wrong when he does it and loses his powers. Paladins of different faiths (especially faiths that aren't themselves lawful good) will have different beliefs. But they still need to abide by the basic principles of law and good. I don't care if you're a paladin of the Blood of Vol - something which I do think is possible (though I'm dubious about a paladin of the Emerald Claw) - you're still not going to torture people. Because you believe that your religion IS serving good. You're going to try to protect the innocent followers of the faith from harm. You're going to fight the forces of evil that oppose your faith. Remember that the core of the Blood of Vol is the war against death itself; as someone who can heal and cure disease, you are equipped to fight that battle. So in my opinion - and by the ECS - the paladin should be held to a stricter standard than the cleric, and his powers aren't simply based on his personal beliefs. If you WANT to play a holy warrior of the Silver Flame who can torture in the name of the faith, it's easily done; play a fighter/cleric or a knight/cleric. But a paladin is supposed to be the pulp hero - one of the sole pillars of light in a world where little else is certain. Tied to this, and because paladins are rare, I generally have their status on display. The powers of a paladin aren't going to go unnoticed, because if the paladin fights for his beliefs, he won't let them. A paladin in the CotSF isn't just another guy; as the ECS says, he's a rare champion of the faith, and that status should be made obvious so people know to turn to him in their time of need. It's also important for other members of the faith. Cardinal Krozen may believe that it's necessary for Thrane troops to massacre a village for the greater good. But he knows a paladin will never stand for this, regardless of what he is ordered to do - which means the paladin needs to be assigned elsewhere. Managing paladins is a tricky business for religious officials, because as has been pointed out, they serve the cause, not the structure. Beyond this, I'm in complete agreement that the paladin shouldn't be "lawful stupid". Far from it. As one of the few incorruptible (hopefully) champions of the church, it is his duty to use his wisdom to protect those in his care, as well as his courage. Just because you don't know fear doesn't mean that you are incapable of judging a threat; you are just willing to face it without fear. There are times when this means charging into battle. And the example of Ben Kenobi is an excellent one: his personal sacrifice served a higher purpose, saved the others, and ultimately allowed them to destroy the Death Star. But if they could have all gotten together safely without Ben sacrificing himself, I'd have expected him to run too. If the paladin's death serves the cause of justice and protects innocents, he should certainly lay down his life. But if he can save MORE innocents by living, he should be prepared to live. This doesn't justify pure cowardice. Let's take the old paladin in Charles' example. If the dragon is threatening the village and there is quite simply no other option, I'd expect the paladin to fight in order to buy the villagers time to flee (though I'd also expect him to first exhort them TO flee,warning them that the odds of him defeating this beast on his own are low). It's the Ben Kenobi thing - laying down his life to save others, even though he knows it's a battle he (probably) won't win. On the other hand, if he KNOWS of something else he can do that has a greater chance of helping the people - leading them and protecting them on a dangerous exodus to a new sanctuary; seeking aid from a powerful good creature in the nearby forest... a forest filled with creatures that would devour any villager, and a creature who wouldn't listen to a lesser man - I'd expect the paladin to undertake that quest, to do the thing he feels has the better chance of protecting people. He's still placing himself at risk; I don't see him saying "Eh, I can't beat the dragon... I'll just leave these people to their fate." But I also see him considering the options, and searching for the best path (provided, of course, it also holds to his principles - he can't turn to torture!). After all, Wisdom is one of the strengths of the typical paladin - he should use his wisdom as well as his sword.
Hellcow 08-01-07, 11:50 AM	A person isn't a paladin who doesn't spend every breathe of their lives fighting the good fight until they die. Certainly. But the point is that FIGHTING isn't always the right choice. If Galactus is about to eat the Earth, will Captain America just keep smacking him in the big toe even though he KNOWS it's futile? Or will he board Galactus' ship, find the Ultimate Nullfier, and challenge Galactus with this weapon - even though he knows that using it will mean his own death? This will require him to leave the battlefield, leaving his comrades to fight without him... but in the long run, it is quite possibly the only way to save the Earth. And it's a challenge that will require courage, skill, and possibly sacrificing his own life - a challenge that requires a true hero. Captain America would never put his own safety over those of innocents. He would never give up on a fight. But he might avoid the DIRECT fight, if the best way to WIN the fight requires him to take a different path. Camptain America is one of the bravest people in the Marvel Universe. But he's not the (stupid) Hulk - he won't simply charge in and batter the enemy until one of them drops. His intelligence and strategic knowledge is just as important as his martial skills. In fact, as a hero with limited powers, he often needs to out-think his opponents... because he can't rely on invulnerbility or brute strength to win the day. Captain America may be immune to fear - but again, that doesn't mean that he will foolishly ignore a threat, or ignore the best way to defeat that threat.
Charles Phipps 08-01-07, 12:00 PM	Well basically, Hellcow, I agree with that point. I was just making a point that "impossible" odds in Pulp fiction are more akin to Han Solo navigating an asteroid field at top speed as opposed to "you instantly splatter against them." In the case of the Fiendish Dragon, my point was not H'N'P throws his life away but the fact that he's willingly going to disrupt a healthy family life because he's compelled by his sense of duty to put his life on the line even when no sane person would begrudge him his retirement. Indeed, I tend to agree with all of your points there. Superhero comic books are filled with moments like what I'm describing where the hero basically has to go to extreme lengths to either protect his loved ones or must make absurdly difficult moral choices few people would ever imagine making. You know, Sir Clark of Kent must rescue Lady Louise of Lane or stop the Eldritch Machine from blowing up Throneport. Now, hopefully, Sir Clark will do the Paladin thing and save BOTH of them SOMEHOW but that's more the issues of the DM because unless you're running Anakin Skywalker/Sir Lancelot then he doesn't choose saving Louise to be his top priority. I think, my point, is that Paladins have built in excuses to angst in the world of Eberron. We've listed in this thread plenty of reasons why Paladins have tougher lives than normal folk. Paladins who are called to disobey orders because it's inhuman or evil in the Last War, Paladins whom get labeled heretics by their Faith, Paladins whom are getting too old to fight on but keep doing so in the Lower Wards of Sharn (yes, The Dark Knight Returns!). For me, the default assumption of Eberron is that Paladins are much more interesting to play because the world is so much darker and nuanced. Being the "good guy" is a whole lot more interesting because it's never as easy as in Forgotten Realms where you just sign up at Torm's Temple and go kill some Banites. As someone cited with Captain America, he frequently is screwed over by his government because the guy doesn't compromise the spirit of what America claims to stand for versus what many (possibly even most) think it does. Oddly, it does help me realize that a National Paladin could exist. However, he's called by "something" that is still beyond his own devotions. He might believe its the spirit of liberty giving him these amazing powers but he just doesn't know.
Edymnion 08-01-07, 12:41 PM	Should Paladins be a rare, once in a lifetime thing, or represent very elite ensouled orders?Dredging this up from the early days of the boards, with no idea what book (or if it even came from a book and not one of Keith's posts, or even something else), but Eberron Paladins are supposed to be as rare amongst PC classes as the PC classes are amongst the NPC classes. As in, if only 1 in a thousand people even has a PC class, the only roughly 1 in 1,000 PC classed characters would be a Paladin, making them the single rarest (IMO) class in the setting. Which would make every Paladin unique.
Hellcow 08-01-07, 12:53 PM	Dredging this up from the early days of the boards, with no idea what book (or if it even came from a book and not one of Keith's posts, or even something else), but Eberron Paladins are supposed to be as rare amongst PC classes as the PC classes are amongst the NPC classes. Sounds like something I might have posted. The ECS doesn't say that, and certainly there's NPCs listed as paladins I'd make fighters or knights (or warrior/aristocrats, but that's me). I prefer to keep them as rare champions - sure, there's more than a dozen of them, but you don't have 25,000 warforged paladins.
Charles Phipps 08-01-07, 03:50 PM	Would that include the Queen of Thrane's lover, Hellcow? He's sort of the most prominent Paladin in the setting but I always debate whether or not he's a Paladin (Large P) or a paladin (Fighter/Cleric that makes up 90% of the Paladins I see listed in Eberron in my version of the game)
Euangelion 08-01-07, 04:48 PM	A few thoughts... Captain Otherro is a more interesting character as a paladin (due to his divided loyalties), so I'd recommend keeping him as one... It seems to me people need to think a little more deeply about the theology of call...and the real difference between being called and choosing one's own path in life (reread Hellcow's posts above as a start)... IMHO, the worst part about a paladin losing his/her abilities is the sudden return of fear... Going by the demographics in the Demographics Dragonshard article, there should be hundreds of paladins in Thrane, they're just almost all 1st level paladins, and thus not much more effective in combat than a 1st level warrior. But the true strength of a paladin is not in combat, it's in the fact that they're pretty much the only people in Eberron one can actually trust... Some places will have more paladins per capita than even Thrane, such as among the Ghaash'kala... A sizable percentage of paladins in Eberron will actually be ex-paladins, but it doesn't necessarily make them evil...
Hellcow 08-01-07, 06:06 PM	Captain Otherro is a more interesting character as a paladin (due to his divided loyalties), so I'd recommend keeping him as one... Yes, I don't mind Otherro. The person who jumps out for me is Alain ir'Ranek, the commander of the Argonth. Given Breland's general ambivalence towards religion, overall pragmatism, and the fact that a paladin may refuse to take unethical actions which the government deems necessary in a time of war, a paladin seems like a strange character for Breland to place in such an intriguing command position. Beyond this, there's simply not enough about Otherro for me to grasp why he should be a paladin, instead of a fighter, knight, or aristocrat/expert. I could certainly make up a story that would satisfy me; I'm not saying it makes no sense. In fact, I remember that The Forge of War has a piece on Argonth, so maybe that explains it. I'm just saying that he's someone who felt to me like a character who didn't need to be a paladin. Otherro COULD be a cleric/knight, But sure, having him as a paladin puts him in all kinds of fun conflict of interest situations. And I have no problem with paladins falling in love, often with unfortunate results; it's certainly happened to Captain America. It seems to me people need to think a little more deeply about the theology of call...and the real difference between being called and choosing one's own path in life. It's certainly an interesting topic. You might want nothing more than a quiet life with a family and children. But what do you do when you do hear the call of the divine, the surge of courage, the knowledge that you have a greater purpose to fulfil? Do you try to ignore it, to push it away - losing your powers in the process - or do you embrace your destiny, even knowing the sacrifices you will have to make? Another interesting point is WHY paladins are called. Consider: In a place such as Sharn, where the churches are so rife with corruption, paladins arise to bring justice to the people. If one truly embraced this idea, there should possibly be more paladins in Breland than Thrane - because Breland has more NEED of paladins. Again, while the cleric's powers are derived from his faith, the paladin is called where there is need. This is certainly a valid explanation for Brelish paladin Alain, but the point of the above statement is that the paladin is called to serve the people and root out corruption. Alain may feel that commanding the Argonth is important in maintaining the peace - but is HE needed for the job? Could any other aristocrat or knight do it just as well? Is this really his calling, or just a posting he CAN do... but one with no need of his divinely granted talents? Again, I could easily come up with a story WHY a paladin is needed for the job - I'm just not crazy about it. IMHO, the worst part about a paladin losing his/her abilities is the sudden return of fear... Fun point. Going by the demographics in the Demographics Dragonshard article, there should be hundreds of paladins in Thrane, they're just almost all 1st level paladins, and thus not much more effective in combat than a 1st level warrior. The problem is that it's tricky to do paladins the way I'd like to do them. I want there to be a handful of midlevel paladins in Khorvaire, so you can't simply drop the base die roll. At the same time, I personally strongly dislike the image of hundreds of first level paladins milling about. I prefer them to be rare and exceptional - not necessarily as rare as player characters, but still, few in number and more skilled than the average shmoe. Frankly, my inclination is simply to utterly disregard the Demographics tables when dealing with paladins and flat out say that it's up to the DM. The ECS notes that paladins are called where they are needed. If there's no need, they shouldn't be called (though it's important to note that paladins defend the innocent as well as fight religious corruption and the like; it's unlikely that there's a nation with absolutely NO need for paladins). If there's great need, there should be more of them. I do see them as the rarest of all PC classes, and I'd reflect that in demographics... perhaps replacing the paladin with the knight for standard demographic purposes. With that said, the point that many of those first level paladins may be FAILED paladins - people who have heard the call, but simply not had the strength to take up the burden - is an interesting one.
Charles Phipps 08-01-07, 06:12 PM	The problem is that it's tricky to do paladins the way I'd like to do them. I want there to be a handful of midlevel paladins in Khorvaire, so you can't simply drop the base die roll. At the same time, I personally strongly dislike the image of hundreds of first level paladins milling about. I prefer them to be rare and exceptional - not necessarily as rare as player characters, but still, few in number and more skilled than the average shmoe. I think a good note for the Dragonshard is adding in Thrane that the word Paladin is a title that got passed down on certain types of warriors. Sort of like you can refer to a Fighter as a warrior or a Cleric as a priest. True Paladins are extremely rare. Thrane however bestows the title of Paladin on any number of exceptional virtuous warrior. It might even have caught on with others. Frankly, what bothers me is the Bone Knights. It's come up in our online game here on the forums, what exactly could possibly create a class specifically designed to adapt the abilities of true Paladins to Necromantic empowered Anti-hero super-patriots? Was there a mass loss of faith before someone had a really strange vision or what? Bone Knights honestly seem to be some sort of weird Dark Jedi to Paladins, except they still serve the cause of their nation rather than pledging themselves to evil.
Euangelion 08-01-07, 08:16 PM	Frankly, what bothers me is the Bone Knights. It's come up in our online game here on the forums, what exactly could possibly create a class specifically designed to adapt the abilities of true Paladins to Necromantic empowered Anti-hero super-patriots? Was there a mass loss of faith before someone had a really strange vision or what? Bone Knights honestly seem to be some sort of weird Dark Jedi to Paladins, except they still serve the cause of their nation rather than pledging themselves to evil. They could be seen as a blackguard variant, not as a paladin variant. It's how I see them, at least.
SkyOdin 08-01-07, 08:34 PM	On the topic of secular Paladins in Ebberon: I actually played one for two years. He was a dragonmarked member of House Deneith, mostly an atheist, and a complete devotee to the ideals of Galifar. To him, to be Deneith was to shield the innocent and his companions with all of his strength, and his life if need be. (His dragonmark gave him the Shield Other spell.) He idolized the Sentinal Marshals and the Throne Wardens, and at the same time felt that the Blademarks should not be the core of the House. He wanted a return of the glory days of Galifar, a time of benevolent rule, free from the horrors of the Last War. He believed in the Code of Galifar, and the laws that prevented the Houses from obtaining political power. Thus, he opposed certain factions in his own house. As a character who grew up in Karnnath, the land of undead, he gained a strong awareness that he lived in a world of grey, and knew that blindly killing anything that detected as evil wasn't the right thing to do. Ironically, not knowing what King Kaius really was, Kaius III was one of the people he held in the highest regard in the world. He saw him as a (mostly) benevolent and strong ruler who helped save the world. The charater was a lot of fun to play, and never caused any problems for his group. He was neither a Saint, nor a Knight. He was a man with very powerful ideals, who was somehow chosen by destiny. So, based on my experiences, a Paladin can be devoted to secular, or even nationalistic, ideals rather than just religious ones.
Charles Phipps 08-01-07, 08:39 PM	The charater was a lot of fun to play, and never caused any problems for his group. He was neither a Saint, nor a Knight. He was a man with very powerful ideals, who was somehow chosen by destiny. So, based on my experiences, a Paladin can be devoted to secular, or even nationalistic, ideals rather than just religious ones. And how did he justify the fact he could heal others through faith alone?
Hellcow 08-01-07, 09:08 PM	As a character who grew up in Karnnath, he... knew that blindly killing anything that detected as evil wasn't the right thing to do. I'll just note that this isn't the right thing to do anywhere. Because of the spectrum covered by alignment in Eberron, the fact that someone detects as evil doesn't mean that they have done truly terrible things. It's much closer to the Jedi Knights - "There is much anger in that one." When someone detects as evil you know that they have the potential to do terrible things, but that doesn't mean that they have or even that they will. When Yoda senses anger in Luke, he questions the wisdom of training him to be a Jedi; he doesn't say "I'm gonna kill him just to be safe." Within the Church of the Silver Flame, the ideal response to encountering an evil human (or elf, dwarf, etc) is not to kill it, but to guide it back to the light (whether one-on-one, which you probably don't have time for as a PC, or by inspiring him with your own noble actions). You're supposed to be protecting these people from the truly dark forces out there: demons, undead, and the like. An evil human is misguided - but still a soul that can be redeemed and brought to the Silver Flame. If the evil person poses a clear threat to others, you should always put the safety of good or neutral innocents first; if the serial killer is about to kill again, put him down. But in the CotSF, at least, compassion is a virtue, and "Kill anything that detects as evil" would cause you to lose your status in my campaign. As for a paladin of a nation, I'd certainly allow it... with the a few caveats. In my opinion, a paladin is called to service by an an outside force (though not necessarily a "god" in any traditional sense); that this same force apparently judges the worth of the paladin and can strip him of his abilities, regardless of the paladin's belief in the righteousness of his actions; and his abilities are divinely empowered, whether or not it has the trappings of a religion. Detect evil is a supernatural ability, not just a keen eye for people... which is why it can be taken away. So looking to SkyOdin, I'm fine with the fact that his "god" is the spirit of Galifar, and that he doesn't think of it as a religion or use religious trappings. But if it was my campaign, I'd still emphasize that he had felt the call of Galifar itself, demanding that he right the wrongs being done in the shattered kingdom. His powers are a tool given to him to accomplish this, and if he proves an unworthy vessel, they will be taken away. If there is truly NO element of serving a higher power, and receiving supernatural abilities as a result, in my campaign the character wouldn't be a paladin - I'd encourage him to make a swordsage, kensai, or some other skill-based character.
Charles Phipps 08-01-07, 09:17 PM	no fair Hellcow! You explained it better than me!
Alex_ 08-01-07, 11:13 PM	And how did he justify the fact he could heal others through faith alone? Probably the same way Bards heal people through "will" alone.
The Dreaming Duck 08-02-07, 12:14 AM	Probably the same way Bards heal people through "will" alone. Now I'm confused. What do you mean by this? Bards are arcane spellcasters. They can use wands and scrolls as a result of being arcane spellcasters. They can learn new spells, and over time, swap out the old ones. And when they heal someone, it uses verbal and somatic components just like any other healing spellcaster - and this can be recognized by someone using Spellcraft, dispelled with dispel magic or counterspelling, and the like. I may be misunderstanding. The PHB does say "A bard brings forth magic from his soul, not from a book." But it is still clearly defined as casting magic, components and all. A bard may be a spontaneous caster, but he's still using arcane magic. So it still seems valid to ask "How does a paladin who doesn't acknowledge that he has a connection to a higher force explain his supernatural abilities?" I could see ways - detect evil is a sort of super Sense Motive, smite evil is a special maneuver he happens to only use when facing evil guys (hey, it's a plot device), lay on hands is some sort of super herbal healing trick. Where I have trouble is the fact that he loses all of these abilities in an anti-magic field or if he screws up with his behavior. I certainly think it's possible to play it that way, and depending on the style of the campaign, it could might be a much better way to go; if I was running a pure inquisitives campaign, I could using see Johnny Pureheart, the guy who can always spot a bad egg and who will never stoop to the level of the scum he's chasing. But in a normal game, I'd be more inclined to use an honorable knight or kensai than an "unpowered" paladin.
SkyOdin 08-02-07, 01:01 AM	And how did he justify the fact he could heal others through faith alone? He had no idea where exactly his powers came from.;) It actually confused him for a while. All he knew that was that he was granted special divine powers and a very special horse in order to do something very important. Re: Hellcow I agree with all of your points 100%. Seeking the redemption of evil before trying to destroy evil is the definition of Good in my book. In any case, my DM made it perfectly clear going into the campaign that my Paladin being stripped of his powers was certainly a possibility. Though, I do admit I was tempted to re-build the character as an Incarnum using character after Magic of Incarnum came out. Some of those clases can act as interesting alternatives to Paladins.
Alex_ 08-02-07, 01:03 AM	Now I'm confused. What do you mean by this? Bards are arcane spellcasters. They can use wands and scrolls as a result of being arcane spellcasters. They can learn new spells, and over time, swap out the old ones. And when they heal someone, it uses verbal and somatic components just like any other healing spellcaster - and this can be recognized by someone using Spellcraft, dispelled with dispel magic or counterspelling, and the like. Paladins don't get Spellcraft as class skills, and most probably couldn't tell the difference between lay on Hands and a stilled and silenced Cure Light wounds. Player knowledge in this case is separate from character knowledge. Also, many classes and creatures have supernatural abilities. Monks can heal themselves and kill with a touch, but aren't necessarily divine or believe in deities and higher powers. Many Magical Beasts also have supernatural abilities, and don't seem to venerate any higher power, and could be considered atheist. I'll avoid non PHB/MM examples unless you consider them applicable. I may be misunderstanding. The PHB does say "A bard brings forth magic from his soul, not from a book." But it is still clearly defined as casting magic, components and all. A bard may be a spontaneous caster, but he's still using arcane magic. So it still seems valid to ask "How does a paladin who doesn't acknowledge that he has a connection to a higher force explain his supernatural abilities?" By not believing that anything that's part of the world or rare is just part of the world and rare, and not necessarily a "higher source". They see their abilities like other creatures that have supernatural abilities, but don't feel like this necessitates belief in a deity or some kind of greater being. Being able to channel energy from the plane of positive energy is indeed an impressive ability, but if you don't believe in any idea of a deity or higher beings, you're not going to jump to that conclusion as an explanation as to how you can do it. I could see ways - detect evil is a sort of super Sense Motive, smite evil is a special maneuver he happens to only use when facing evil guys (hey, it's a plot device), lay on hands is some sort of super herbal healing trick. Where I have trouble is the fact that he loses all of these abilities in an anti-magic field or if he screws up with his behavior. I certainly think it's possible to play it that way, and depending on the style of the campaign, it could might be a much better way to go; if I was running a pure inquisitives campaign, I could using see Johnny Pureheart, the guy who can always spot a bad egg and who will never stoop to the level of the scum he's chasing. But in a normal game, I'd be more inclined to use an honorable knight or kensai than an "unpowered" paladin. Good and Evil are fundamental aspects of the universe in D&D. They can and do exist independently of one's belief in deities or even of the deities themselves. The ability to detect Good and Evil is not necessarily an ability that can only be bestowed by a deity, and it doesn't require belief in or veneration of some being believed to be superior or perfect.
Hellcow 08-02-07, 01:38 AM	it doesn't require belief in or veneration of some being believed to be superior or perfect. No one said anything about the force that empowers a paladin being perfect. And a paladin doesn't have Spellcraft as a class skill. He doesn't need to understand where his powers come from. But to me, the fact that the paladin is called to service remains a key underlying point of the class. Joan of Arc didn't plan on leading armies; divine voices charged her with the task (speaking to the tale - what you believe is obviously your own opinion). I don't care if the paladin believes the force empowering him is a god, or perfect, or infalliable. I do care that he believes that there IS a force empowering him, that more than any other class he has a purpose- that he has a mission, and that if he strays from his mission, his powers will be taken from him. The abilities of a paladin are a gift, and that gift can be taken away quite easily... which is a stark contrast to the spells of a bard or the abilities of a monk. As I've said, I have no problem with a paladin serving a nation instead of a god. But I believe that such a paladin will see the nation or principle as a living force. The paladin of Galifar will believe that Galifar acts through him, that he has been charged to restore it and to embody its principles. Two different paladins of Galifar may have entirely different ideas about the nature of this Galifar spirit; one may say it is the embodiment of all the noble souls of old Galifar, while the other may say it's the principle itself, given life through people's belief. But both will agree that it is a power that has called them to service, and it is a power that strengthens their arm when they smite. They don't have to know anything about the mechanics of it; but they know where the power comes from, because it's the power that called them to serve. (Of course, as I said before, there's no telling if what they believe to be the source of their power is actually what they think it is... so again, this doesn't actually prove the existence of gods.) You're obviously welcome to handle things differently. But to me, the calling is a critical part of the paladin. The cleric is driven by his own faith, but YOU were chosen for your task - a destiny you may not even want. In a world that is colored in so many shades of grey, the paladin is a lone bastion of light - and some would argue that this is why they are chosen, because the world needs such champions.
Hellcow 08-02-07, 01:47 AM	Being able to channel energy from the plane of positive energy is indeed an impressive ability, but if you don't believe in any idea of a deity or higher beings, you're not going to jump to that conclusion as an explanation as to how you can do it. Just to clarify, my point is that a paladin doesn't have to believe in a deity or higher beings. He doesn't have to have any knowledge of arcana, religion, or spellcraft. But in my opinion, there's no question in his mind where his powers come from - they come from the force that called him. He knows what this force is (or at least believes that he knows). He knows what he is charged to do; it's not like he should stumble around saying "Can I torture someone? Whoops, I guess not." Looking back at Joan of Arc again, her voices identified themselves and set a task before her. So I don't see paladins just randomly discovering "Hey! I hit that evil guy and hurt him more than usual! And this horse seems to like me!" In my opinion there is always a moment when the paladin learns of his purpose, and learns of the powers that have been granted him. With that said, I can certainly see the reluctant paladin who doesn't believe in this divinity of this force, or who puts his own spin on it (like the two Galifar paladins I described above). Unlike the cleric, the powers of the paladin aren't based on personal faith; they are a gift, and are maintained by following the code; you can question the code, as long as you still live by its rules. So certainly, I could see a paladin who fears that he is actually being manipulated... though if he doesn't trust his guiding light, he might not stay a paladin for long. I'd see that as being quite rare, but as has been said before, I think there's a lot of roleplaying opportunity in the fact that paladinhood isn't something you choose - it's something thrust upon you.
Charles Phipps 08-02-07, 01:50 AM	While his behavior is hardly Lawful Good, Neo fits with this sort of thinking. I tend to think of Paladins as The Chosen One class in Eberron. Neo is basically called by "Destiny" to be the Chosen One even though he's reading the Code for it. Morpheus clearly believes there's a Force at Work beyond him learning how to read Code as acting through the Oracle and everything leading up to this period. Neo doesn't understand the Force that supposedly reincarnated their leader. He might also believe this force is his own inner divinity at work but SOMETHING supernatural is moving through him and around him. Calling him to do something great.
Alex_ 08-02-07, 01:57 AM	No one said anything about the force that empowers a paladin being perfect. Then one can ignore that part. However I also mentioned not believing that the power is necessarily greater or higher than anything else. This was my main concern. But to me, the fact that the paladin is called to service remains a key underlying point of the class. Joan of Arc didn't plan on leading armies; divine voices charged her with the task (speaking to the tale - what you believe is obviously your own opinion). I don't care if the paladin believes the force empowering him is a god, or perfect, or infalliable. I do care that he believes that there IS a force empowering him, that more than any other class he has a purpose- that he has a mission, and that if he strays from his mission, his powers will be taken from him. The abilities of a paladin are a gift, and that gift can be taken away quite easily... which is a stark contrast to the spells of a bard or the abilities of a monk. A Monk's and Bards abilities do require them to maintain a particularly alignment. Although not as strict or narrowly defined as a Paladin's code (and of Chaos and Law rather than Law and Good), they do seem to receive their abilities through following specific behaviors and do lose them if they stray. Certainly different in many ways, but not a stark contrast. Although this isn't the way I'd run my NPC Paladins, I could understand if a PC wanted to play an atheistic Paladin who felt the a "calling" or knew they had been fortunate to recieve special powers and have the obligation to use them for Good, and desire to fight Evil, but was not religious or deeply spiritual. I'd imagine they would play very much like a secular superhero.
Alex_ 08-02-07, 02:00 AM	He might also believe this force is his own inner divinity at work but SOMETHING supernatural is moving through him and around him. While there is certainly religious and spiritual metaphor, neither Neo, nor many of the main characters in the Matrix are very religious or spiritual. They speak of powerful and amazing things happening, but in a more secular and humanist way, and not necessarily something divine. For example, they hold great value in the concept of choice, but don't attribute it to any sort of divinity, but more of as it being a part of what makes a Human a Human (and not a machine). There's no real discussion of souls or an afterlife either, which is quite interesting in a movie dealing so heavily with the idea of advanced AI.
ArcTan 08-02-07, 02:02 AM	Just to clarify, my point is that a paladin doesn't have to believe in a deity or higher beings. He doesn't have to have any knowledge of arcana, religion, or spellcraft. But in my opinion, there's no question in his mind where his powers come from - they come from the force that called him. He knows what this force is (or at least believes that he knows). He knows what he is charged to do; it's not like he should stumble around saying "Can I torture someone? Whoops, I guess not." See, that's just it -- I think a Paladin is definitely one of those who has power thrust on him rather than one who pursues it, but that doesn't demand total clarity of purpose. The Paladin's sense of his own purpose might be no more profound than "I'm here to help people" or "They need me". That, itself, can of course be quite profound, but the point is the Paladin doesn't need to *clearly* know what he's supposed to do -- "Defend the nation of Aundair" or "Destroy the Lords of Dust" -- in order to be a Paladin. He could, in fact, just wake up one day and think "I have to help people".
ArcTan 08-02-07, 02:03 AM	While his behavior is hardly Lawful Good, Neo fits with this sort of thinking. I tend to think of Paladins as The Chosen One class in Eberron. Neo is basically called by "Destiny" to be the Chosen One even though he's reading the Code for it. Morpheus clearly believes there's a Force at Work beyond him learning how to read Code as acting through the Oracle and everything leading up to this period. Neo doesn't understand the Force that supposedly reincarnated their leader. He might also believe this force is his own inner divinity at work but SOMETHING supernatural is moving through him and around him. Calling him to do something great. Neo is clearly a Paladin of Freedom. He then evolves to become a Paladin of Freedom's version of a Gray Guard.
Charles Phipps 08-02-07, 02:20 AM	While there is certainly religious and spiritual metaphor, neither Neo, nor many of the main characters in the Matrix are very religious or spiritual. They speak of powerful and amazing things happening, but in a more secular and humanist way, and not necessarily something divine. For example, they hold great value in the concept of choice, but don't attribute it to any sort of divinity, but more of as it being a part of what makes a Human a Human (and not a machine). There's no real discussion of souls or an afterlife either, which is quite interesting in a movie dealing so heavily with the idea of advanced AI. Well in the 1st movie, Neo is supposedly their leader's reincarnation. Also Morpheus is all about destiny, which is one of those odd things since he clearly also believes in the importance of choice. (oddly, he seems, unlike Neo to find Destiny to be a liberating thing that must be embraced by one's own choice) But my basic point is that despite not being cross bearing religious folk, they are instruments in awe of the One that is the destined hero to liberate them.
Alex_ 08-02-07, 02:33 AM	Well in the 1st movie, Neo is supposedly their leader's reincarnation. Also Morpheus is all about destiny, which is one of those odd things since he clearly also believes in the importance of choice. He's not mentioned as a reincarnation. They do speak of destiny, but in a secular way more akin to atheistic determinism than the idea of a omniscient being already laying the foundation of what's to come. In the 2nd Movie, the architect does mention him being the sixth iteration of a series of individuals that have capabilities and purpose similar to his own, but he's in no way implied to posses their soul or spiritual being. But my basic point is that despite not being cross bearing religious folk, they are instruments in awe of the One that is the destined hero to liberate them. They aren't cross bearing religious folks, but they aren't really any kind of religious/spiritual folk. He's respected and its believed he's the chosen one-n the only capable of performing this feat- but not really because of any religious/spiritual/divine ability. It's largely atheistic in context. The biggest exception to this is in the 2nd movie where Neo returns to Zion and is greeted by throngs of people who treat him as though he were some divine being with spiritual powers. It's made very clear in the following scenes, however, that he believes them to be mistaken. Other than that, nobody else treats him like a prophet or anything.
Charles Phipps 08-02-07, 02:39 AM	Dude, the whole thing is Neo is supposedly the guy who founded Zion's return. Nevermind, this isn't the Matrix board though. And you can't really make an argument where you say "Well, he's not treated as a prophet except for all those people who worship him."
The Dreaming Duck 08-02-07, 02:42 AM	A Monk's and Bards abilities do require them to maintain a particularly alignment. Although not as strict or narrowly defined as a Paladin's code (and of Chaos and Law rather than Law and Good), they do seem to receive their abilities through following specific behaviors and do lose them if they stray. Wrong. Ex-Bards A bard who becomes lawful in alignment cannot progress in levels as a bard, though he retains all his bard abilities. Ex-Monks A monk who becomes nonlawful cannot gain new levels as a monk but retains all monk abilities. It's nothing like a paladin. The powers aren't a gift that can be taken away; they're skills that are learned, and once learned they are permanent. Each class requires a certain outlook on the world to advance. In order to improve your monk skills, you require the discipline of a lawful alignment. That same outlook makes it impossible to truly grasp the wild and whimsical skills of the bard. But you can never lose the skills that you already possess; once learned, they are a part of you. The paladin's abilities are taken away when he breaks the "rules", until he atones, at which point they come right back. The powers aren't his. A bard learn how to sing a certain magic song/spell. A paladin's ability to smite evil isn't a learned skill; it's a divine gift. He may not see it as "divine", but that doesn't change the fact that he's stripped of power the moment he breaks the rules - rules he may not personally believe in.
JulesCARV 08-02-07, 02:48 AM	Barbarians, dread necromancers, and hexblades, though, must all adhere to their alignment restrictions or lose significant features, unless I'm mistaken.
Alex_ 08-02-07, 02:57 AM	And you can't really make an argument where you say "Well, he's not treated as a prophet except for all those people who worship him." Sure you can. Those people who worshipped for maybe 2 minutes him were clearly shown as being wrong, as he and others celarly expressed that he was not deivine and was not to be worshipped for the rest of the 7+ hours. It's nothing like a paladin. The powers aren't a gift that can be taken away; they're skills that are learned, and once learned they are permanent. Each class requires a certain outlook on the world to advance. In order to improve your monk skills, you require the discipline of a lawful alignment. That same outlook makes it impossible to truly grasp the wild and whimsical skills of the bard. But you can never lose the skills that you already possess; once learned, they are a part of you. Ah, my mistake.
The Dreaming Duck 08-02-07, 03:15 AM	Barbarians, dread necromancers, and hexblades, though, must all adhere to their alignment restrictions or lose significant features, unless I'm mistaken. A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot advance as a barbarian, but retains all other class features. This isn't the same as a divine force revoking the power (and returning it upon atonement); I assume the idea is that the discipline mindset of a lawful alignment is at odds with rage, which requires you to let go and submerge yourself to your instincts. And while we're at it, rage isn't a supernatural ability. So yes, you lose it if your alignment changes... but not because some outside force takes it away from you. Skimming the dread necromancer, I see that it says at the BEGINING that DN's can't be good because the class requires you to regularly perform evil acts. So it's a logical conclusion. However, I don't actually see any text anywhere that says what DOES happen if your alignment changes. And, of course, once we get into the DN (in Heroes of Horror), there's dozens of classes we could consider. But we're still straying from the point. Changing alignment reflects a fundamental change in world view. In the case of the barbarian - and logically, the DN - changing your worldview interferes with your ability to use certain skills. You've changed. In the case of the paladin, you may not change at all. You don't have to do anything as drastic as changing your alignment. You just have to take one step off of your path, and POW, abilities are gone until you atone. Which suggests to me that they aren't skills you possess - they are supernatural abilities you have on loan.
Roxlimn 08-02-07, 08:01 AM	Technically, skills of a highly technical and difficult nature can be like that as well. One minute you're the top sniper of your squad, the next minute, you've "lost it."
The Dreaming Duck 08-02-07, 10:36 AM	Technically, skills of a highly technical and difficult nature can be like that as well. One minute you're the top sniper of your squad, the next minute, you've "lost it." And this would tend to happen because you lie, fail to help someone in need, or knowingly perform an evil act... and come back when a cleric casts a spell on you? On some level, I can see that, actually; I shoot the wrong person, it freaks me out so badly that I can't bring myself to shoot/smite anyone; the cleric helps me atone and get my skills back. The problem is that (of the classes in the core book) it only happens to character with divine powers. The other classes that haven't been mentioned are the druid and the cleric. A druid who ceases to revere nature or teaches the druidic language loses all spells and class abilities. A cleric who "grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god" loses all spells and class features. This doesn't happen to a fighter, wizard, rogue, or monk. Because their skills ARE technical. Arcane magic is a science; divine magic is a gift (IMO). As noted in the ECS, the paladin walks a far tighter line that the cleric; one lie can do the trick, which isn't a "gross violation" for most clerics. But the principle is the same. And how we got on this tangent in the first place was comparing the paladin to the bard. That remains a "sharp contrast" as far as I can see. The bard may be blocked from progressing if he himself undergoes a significant psychological change, but he won't lose the abilities that he possesses. A paladin only needs to take one misstep to have all his special powers vanish... and they'll all snap back when he atones. It may be possible for someone to lose highly technical skills in the real world, but I don't see anything about fighters losing feats or rogues losing their abilities - so I'd argue that this isn't something the rules are made to represent. If you want to bend the rules for the sake of color - pretend that the paladin isn't the paladin, but rather some sort of pulp detective with an unshakeable code and the ability to know what (well, whether) evil lurks in the hearts of mortal men, I personally think that would be an entertaining thing in the right campaign... but for me, that campaign would be one where no one was playing by the straight archetypes. The bard isn't a bard, he's Slick Willeth, the guy who knows everything and can talk the leg off a donkey. The shifter barbarian is Longfang, a wild man uncomfortable in the shadows of Sharn, but capable of unleashing terrible fury. And so on. But I do feel that the traditional role of the paladin as holy warrior called by a higher power (perhaps unwillingly) is what the class is designed to represent... and that the ease of loss of abilities is a "sharp contrast" to other classes, reflecting the fact that those powers are on loan.
Roxlimn 08-02-07, 10:42 AM	Fighters and other characters CAN lose the use of their abilities, just not by an action. Many features have prerequisites and losing the prerequisite loses the feature. I'm not saying that this is some sort of rationale for why Paladins ought to believe that they're "self-powered," only that it isn't as far-fetched as it sounds, and it's more natural-seeming than all that. Personally, I see Paladins not as Holy Warriors but as Champions and Paragons. A Holy Warrior is beholden to his god, a Champion is beholden to his cause. The "higher power" especially in Eberron is just as likely to be a god as not. Indeed, there's no way to tell one way or another. It's possible that the moral metaphysical laws surrounding Eberron allow certain individuals to access a kind of non-sentient or uncommunicative power source (possibly the Silver Flame, perhaps or something like) as long as they maintain a certain level of morality. I suppose you could say that it's a little like a Wu Jen's Taboos. As long as you're X, you're plugged in. If you do Y, you unplug yourself from the source and are unable to do your magic thing anymore.
Charles Phipps 08-02-07, 11:08 AM	It's possible that the moral metaphysical laws surrounding Eberron allow certain individuals to access a kind of non-sentient or uncommunicative power source (possibly the Silver Flame, perhaps or something like) as long as they maintain a certain level of morality. Yes, but that's no more likely than the Sovereign Host don't care about worship at all. Unlike D&D gods.
Euangelion 08-02-07, 11:39 AM	Bards heal by using the lingering eldritch strains of the music of creation to knit flesh and bone back together... A paladin certainly knows the difference between Lay on Hands and divine spellcasting! One ability requires a time of meditation to prepare, and the other doesn't. (And just because Spellcraft isn't on the paladin's skill list, it doesn't mean a paladin can't take ranks in the skill. This isn't 3.0!) The best part about a paladin losing his/her abilities is the inability to detect evil, cuz after that they just have to guess like the 99% of the other beings in the world... Probably the best mechanics for someone becoming a paladin in Eberron are the character rebuilding optional rules in PH2. In essense, every paladin trades something for accepting the call, even if it's just 1 level of commoner.(The better ability scores would be the result of the training after accepting the call). No one should be a paladin just because mommy or daddy was a paladin (though having that example may make it more -or less- likely to accept the call if it comes)... Edit: by the way, the word "vocation" comes from the Latin verb "vocare," to call. A job is a job, a vocation is a calling...
Hellcow 08-02-07, 12:46 PM	A paladin certainly knows the difference between Lay on Hands and divine spellcasting! I'm not sure anyone's arguing this. I think that the original question was "could a paladin somehow mistake his ability to heal for a natural ability". It's certainly not spellcasting. But it is a supernatural ability - you lay on hands and boom, flesh heals. I agree with the principle that you COULD come up with some rationale for it if you wanted to play an odd game. If you're making someone like The Shadow, you could say "It's a ancient Tibetan secret I learned in my time in Shangri-La", and justify loss of powers as "My powers come from my dedication to the righteous cause; if I perform an unrighteous deed, it shakes me to my core and prevents my access to my abilities." But my point is that I have a standard view of what it means to be a paladin, that I take into account when I'm putting paladins in sourcebooks; if I was doing something odd like that, I'd feel obligated to call it out and explain it. For me, the typical paladin is called; his powers are a gift that he channels; and he knows that he has a mission (though yes, that mission may not be extremely specific). He doesn't chat with the force that empowers him, and he doesn't ask it for permission to smite or to lay on hands. In my vision, he doesn't have to. A paladin of the Silver Flame feels the Silver Flame in a way no one else can, not even a cleric. He feels it flowing through him every moment, granting him his divine grace. When he smites or heals, he is simply letting it flow through him into his blade or his hand. If he is a paladin of Dol Arrah, he doesn't have a hotline to Dol Arrah, but he feels her holy light. If he's a paladin of the Blood of Vol, there's a few different approaches. He may feel the power of his own blood; after all, the principle of the BoV is that we all have the potential for divinity within us. However, this does make the ability to fall somewhat odd, though it could fall back to that "losing faith in your cause" thing. The other option is that he feels the strength of his people (also where I'd go with the paladin of Galifar). Another principle of the BoV is that the community stands together, sharing their blood to empower their champions. Again, this would be a force like the Silver Flame as opposed to an anthropomorphic god; but it would still be a force that has chosen him to serve the people, and that can be cut away from him should he fall from his appointed path. With all that said, I certainly might give a paladin a prophetic vision or dream (uh-oh, guided by dreams - you know what that means...). But I wouldn't let him converse with a "god" or empowering force. A paladin of the Flame might hear the Voice of the Flame urging him to go to Karrnath and save a child there. A paladin of Galifar may see a vision of an village being plagued by reavers and know where it is. But he can't say "Why? Could I go somewhere else?" The cleric can choose to commune if he has the spell. But the paladin has been chosen. He doesn't get a say it the matter; the force communicates when it wishes, and only when it wishes. And again, just because HE thinks it's the Voice of the Flame doesn't stop it from being the collective faith of the people of Thrane, the essence of Siberys perceived through the lens of his faith, or something else entirely. But it MIGHT be exactly what he thinks it is. Anyhow, this is all just my take on things - but it is what I have in mind when I put paladins in sourcebooks (or novels, for that matter, but I haven't done that yet and don't have plans to in the novel I'm currently working on). The best part about a paladin losing his/her abilities is the inability to detect evil, cuz after that they just have to guess like the 99% of the other beings in the world... Though at the same time, I feel that a paladin shouldn't rely too heavily on detect evil (though it is a useful tool and tells you what you can smite). They should defend the helpless. They should fight those who are doing evil. If a paladin faces a group of good soldiers who are planning to massacre a far larger number of good civilians, and in the process of stopping them he kills some of the soldiers, I won't penalize him; personal alignment aside, what the soldiers were about to do was an evil act. On the other hand, if those good soldiers were about to massacre the village because its inhabitants are evil baby-eating shapeshifters and the paladin kills the knights without questioning it, then he's in trouble - he should have tried to find out more. But in that case, I wouldn't care if the soldiers were EVIL - if they are engaged in a GOOD act, that's what matters. As I've said before, the duty of a paladin is to fight evil itself - and that's not alway the same as "that which can be detected by detect evil." Essentially, I'm just saying that even when he has detect evil, that shouldn't always give the right answer; he should also use his own wisdom. Probably the best mechanics for someone becoming a paladin in Eberron are the character rebuilding optional rules in PH2. In essense, every paladin trades something for accepting the call, even if it's just 1 level of commoner.(The better ability scores would be the result of the training after accepting the call). I hadn't thought of this, but I agree - great idea.
ArcTan 08-02-07, 02:13 PM	...Like I keep saying, just think of Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a Paladin, or Joan of Arcadia, or Tru Calling any number of the "chick who gets magic powers to stop evil" shows (for some reason it's always a female these days). Okay, Buffy's powers aren't *quite* as innately tied to Good as a D&D Paladin's -- check out our resident Blackguard-in-training Faith -- but still. Nearly everything said here could be translated into the Buffy universe without having to have a literal god who gave Buffy her powers (something that the Buffyverse carefully avoids). Buffy knows she has powers. She knows her powers exist for a reason. She has folks who are more learned than her, the Watchers (who would be Clerics and Adepts and Wizards in D&D) who can tell her how they work, even though she doesn't know, but they can't tell her for sure where they come from or what *exactly* their purpose is, though many of them have opinions. Sometimes her powers *stop* working, because of something she did or something she came in contact with, and she needs Clerics to help her manage her powers and connect with the source of them. But through this whole process her powers' source is mysterious and strange, and she herself is often conflicted over what, exactly, the point of having them is.
JulesCARV 08-02-07, 02:15 PM	Okay. Fair point -- I'm not sure about Dread Necromancers. Hexblades' abilities are considered arcane, and yet, as noted in the "Ex-Hexblades" part of Complete Warrior, they must retain their non-good alignment to retain their hexblade spellcasting and supernatural abilities. Wu Jen's spellcasting is considered arcane, and yet they lose their spellcasting abilities for the day if they violate a taboo. Knights are not divine, arcane, or otherwise magical, but nonetheless lose their "knight's challenge" ability if they violate their code, if they become non-lawful. The same is true of samurai as far as their charisma-based abilities. Meanwhile, as far as divine spellcasters go, the core ranger has no code of conduct or religious requirements to get divine spellcasting. Rangers seem to be able to cast divine spells regardless of their actions or spiritual values or lack thereof. The same is true of archivists, shugenjas, and spirit shamans. (and chameleons with Divine Aptitude Focus) So behavioral restrictions are neither exclusive to divine classes nor do they apply to all divine classes.
Euangelion 08-02-07, 03:38 PM	I'm not sure anyone's arguing this. I was responding in particular to this: Paladins don't get Spellcraft as class skills, and most probably couldn't tell the difference between lay on Hands and a stilled and silenced Cure Light wounds. Player knowledge in this case is separate from character knowledge. Though at the same time, I feel that a paladin shouldn't rely too heavily on detect evil (though it is a useful tool and tells you what you can smite). They should defend the helpless. They should fight those who are doing evil. If a paladin faces a group of good soldiers who are planning to massacre a far larger number of good civilians, and in the process of stopping them he kills some of the soldiers, I won't penalize him; personal alignment aside, what the soldiers were about to do was an evil act. On the other hand, if those good soldiers were about to massacre the village because its inhabitants are evil baby-eating shapeshifters and the paladin kills the knights without questioning it, then he's in trouble - he should have tried to find out more. But in that case, I wouldn't care if the soldiers were EVIL - if they are engaged in a GOOD act, that's what matters. As I've said before, the duty of a paladin is to fight evil itself - and that's not alway the same as "that which can be detected by detect evil." Essentially, I'm just saying that even when he has detect evil, that shouldn't always give the right answer; he should also use his own wisdom. I totally agree. What I was getting at is that when I put myself into the shoes of a paladin (roleplaying, if you will), one of the greatest burdens of the role is the ability to detect evil, to actually see the Evil (cue menacing music) in others to which most people are oblivious. That's a huge burden, a lonely burden. But when that ex-paladin can no longer see the Evil (cue menacing music), then that burden is lifted. For some, that's got to be a huge relief. It's the difference between knowing a co-worker as just a co-worker, and then finding out that your co-worker abuses their spouse and/or kids. In a lot of ways, not knowing is easier, especially if you're also one who is (or was) called to be the one to do something about it. It's the thing that every teacher/doctor/lawyer/pastor fears, that they're going to find out something so awful about someone that they will be compelled by law to action, which may indeed impact their own lives negatively. I know that it did for me, when I was in a position in which I was compelled by law, but more importantly by conscience, to act on behalf of a child. It involved a superior, and it cost me my job. Like I said, it's a lot easier not knowing... but the way of the paladin (and any person of conscience in the real world) is not always an easy one. :weep:
Charles Phipps 08-02-07, 04:21 PM	I do it the Jedi way. "I sense much hatred, greed, and wrath in these men. We must be cautious."
Hellcow 08-02-07, 04:21 PM	Okay, Buffy's powers aren't *quite* as innately tied to Good as a D&D Paladin's -- check out our resident Blackguard-in-training Faith -- but still. Nearly everything said here could be translated into the Buffy universe without having to have a literal god who gave Buffy her powers (something that the Buffyverse carefully avoids). Though I'd argue that Faith IS a critical point. Buffy is in many ways a good example of a paladin, in that she's given powers and a purpose. She can't lose her powers for minor infractions. The powers are in her; there's no seemingly active force that pulls them away if she violates the code. (I know there's a few other times she loses her powers, but the one that immediately comes to my mind is when the Watchers drug her... which essentially is more like being stuck in an antimagic field than breaking a code of conduct.) Buffy of the movie is slightly closer, in that (IIRC) some of her powers only come into play when fighting vampires - essentially, smite evil. But even there, it's not as if she can stop being the Slayer; it's simply what she is. (It's been a very long time since I've seen it, but I seem to recall Merrick saying something along the lines of "The power is in you, but it is not you" or something like that - prompting a sarcastic response.) Other than that, I agree with your points. Though again, I personally prefer Joan of Arc to Buffy. Joan DIDN'T need a Watcher to explain things to her. She didn't just discover she had powers and have no idea of her purpose. Instead, the power came to her and told her "This is what you must do." This ties to the ECS's suggest that paladins are called when they are needed - and that one of the times they are most needed is when there is corruption in the Church... meaning that the paladin shouldn't always rely on the cleric to explain things to her. With that said, I certainly see the noble cleric as someone the paladin SHOULD see as a trusted advisor and spiritual authority - but at the end of the day, the paladin should be devoted to the cause and not the cleric. Which is still true of Buffy in that she doesn't entirely trust the Watchers... but if no Watcher came along to explain things to her she'd never know what she could do, and I don't see that as the case with a paladin. In my opinion, even if a paladin doesn't have a specific purpose a la Joan of Arc, the basic aspects of the code of conduct - defend the innocent, do no evil, and so on - should be something they understand. If the paladin is called to overcome corruption in the church, I feel they'd know that - even if they aren't told "You must remove Cardinal X from power." Tira Miron KNEW what she needed to do; she didn't need a cleric to tell her, because at that time there weren't any clerics of the Silver Flame (in Galifar). She knew her purpose from her communion with the Flame itself... though one could argue that the couatl helped her to understand. But as always, that's me.
Hellcow 08-02-07, 04:22 PM	I was responding in particular to this: Ah, gotcha. Right you are.
SkyOdin 08-02-07, 04:25 PM	I totally agree. What I was getting at is that when I put myself into the shoes of a paladin (roleplaying, if you will), one of the greatest burdens of the role is the ability to detect evil, to actually see the Evil (cue menacing music) in others to which most people are oblivious. That's a huge burden, a lonely burden. But when that ex-paladin can no longer see the Evil (cue menacing music), then that burden is lifted. For some, that's got to be a huge relief. It's the difference between knowing a co-worker as just a co-worker, and then finding out that your co-worker abuses their spouse and/or kids. In a lot of ways, not knowing is easier, especially if you're also one who is (or was) called to be the one to do something about it. It's the thing that every teacher/doctor/lawyer/pastor fears, that they're going to find out something so awful about someone that they will be compelled by law to action, which may indeed impact their own lives negatively. I know that it did for me, when I was in a position in which I was compelled by law, but more importantly by conscience, to act on behalf of a child. It involved a superior, and it cost me my job. Like I said, it's a lot easier not knowing... but the way of the paladin (and any person of conscience in the real world) is not always an easy one. :weep: This reminds of an idea I once had. I once played with the idea that detect evil was physically painful. Opening up you bare consciousness to the sins all human beings felt much like shoving a handful of broken glass shards up your nose into your brain. That kind of thing. Of course, I think that the most important implication of detect evil is that a paladin should not just look for the evils in the world around himself, but also look inward for the evil inside his own heart. As for the whole "the path of a paladin is painful" idea, I agree. When I look for examples of paladins in popular culture, two of my personal favorites are the anime/manga characters Kenshin and Vash the Stampede. While not strictly speaking Paladins, they act like it. Both are people with strict codes against killing. While it would certainly be easier for either character to kill their enemies, neither one does. To them, killing someone would be worse than dying. As a result, they are forced to be hurt, and to suffer quite a bit. BTW, on the Matrix tangent. The people argueing that there was nothing spiritual about Neo haven't read an essay that compares the Matrix to Buddhism and Gnostic Christianity. Neo was described as being similar to a Gnostic liberator, a Christ-like figure, or similar to a bodhisatva. Much of the symbolism in the movie is undoubtably spiritual in nature. Heck, even the name Zion is a reference to Jerusalem.
The Dreaming Duck 08-02-07, 05:33 PM	So behavioral restrictions are neither exclusive to divine classes nor do they apply to all divine classes. First, check what I originally said. "The problem is that (of the classes in the core book) it only happens to character with divine powers." Not "it happens to all characters with divine powers" or "of all of the classes in all supplementary material." I have no intention of claiming either of those things. As I said before, once you get into all the Complete Books, the "Heroes of" books, the PHB and DMG II, etc, etc, you've got dozens of classes and PrCs to work with and who knows what quality of design. I was talking specifically about the core classes. In the core books, yes, the ranger is a divine caster who doesn't have to maintain a code of conduct. But aside from the fact that I never claimed that ALL divine casters are penalized, IMO the ranger is the LEAST divine of the bunch. Cleric and Paladin are closely tied to religion. Druids are deeply connected to the natural world. Rangers LIKE nature, but heck, you can be an urban ranger if you want. The Valenar are largely rangers, but that's mainly because they're wilderness commandos, not because they're nature-lovers. The relationship between paladin and cleric and ranger and druid is very different. Per the ECS, the paladin is actually a GREATER champion of the faith than a cleric, and called to an even more restricted way of life. While again by the ECS, many rangers served in the last war, many make their homes in urban environments, and only "some" patrol the wilds of the Eldeen Reaches. So some are dedicated to the druidic mysteries, but it's not the same level of dedication as a paladin to his cause. Looking beyond the core books, and trying to be brief (something I'm not very good at...): Alignment change doesn't bother me at all. That's a major shift in character mindset. The DN specifies that use of DN abilities is an inherently evil act, so it's fine with me that a good DN can't bring himself to do it. Likewise, the lawful barbarian being unable to lose himself to his rage. I've never even read the Hexblade (as I said, dozens and dozens of classes), but I'm guessing it's like the DN - that the powers are inherently evil and that the significant change of heart prevents him from accessing them. Furthermore, it is a loss of supernatural abilities, which doesn't bother me in the same way as losing natural skills. With the Wu Jen taboos, it's simply a defined aspect of the character's style of magic. Yes, I said that only divine characters lose their abilities... in the core books. The Wu Jen plays with a different set of rules because it's magic isn't supposed to be like the traditional wizard. Essentially, the Wu Jen is a component in her own spells, and if she sullies himself, she's no longer a valid component for the spell. Which leaves the knight/samurai. Here, you're absolutely right. Mundane character losing mundane abilities for violating a code of conduct, something more minor than changing alignment. Personally, I don't like it. I justify it the same way I talked about the sniper earlier; you're so psychologically messed up by your personal failure that you just can't focus or bring yourself to act. But given that it's the case with ALL knights, it basically makes them all a bunch of shaky basket cases so focused on their honor that one misdeed can shatter them. Given that the paladin only loses supernatural abilities, and that those powers are a gift, there's nothing requiring a particular personality on the part of the paladin. You can have the paladin who DOESN'T believe in her cause, but knows that she'll lose her powers if the fails to adhere to the restrictions. You can have the die-hard paladin who fanatically adheres to the code even after failing once; he won't get his powers back until the cleric casts the spell on him, but he's not shaken by it at all; he knows he can redeem himself. The fact that he can't use his powers doesn't reflect poorly on him, because the powers weren't part of him to begin with. Whereas if a knight has the same level of personal confidence after his failure, why can't he use something that's a mundane skill? (On logical explanation I could see is that enemies don't respect a dishonored knight enough to heed his challenge, but it seems a little odd to say that the derro of Khyber have heard of the knight's dishonor.) I accept it, because it's a mechanic designed to make the class behave as it should. It's supposed to represent the chivalrous knight... so their needs to be a penalty for behaving in a dishonorable manner. But it still feels like a hack to me - forced on because we want the knight to be forced to behave in an honorable manner, as opposed to a supernatural power given to serve a purpose and stripped away when you prove unworthy. But that's just my problem - I'm sure it makes perfect sense to many others. Anyhow, my original point was just aimed at the core books. If you look hard enough, I'm sure you can find a pure-skill rogue-like character who loses all his skill ranks if he spits on a Thursday. ;) (And that was me "being brief"... sigh.)
Euangelion 08-02-07, 06:02 PM	Anyhow, my original point was just aimed at the core books. If you look hard enough, I'm sure you can find a pure-skill rogue-like character who loses all his skill ranks if he spits on a Thursday. ;) Sounds like a good UnCon contest! ;)
Hellcow 08-02-07, 06:48 PM	Sounds like a good UnCon contest! ;) "I'm a 3rd-level Fizban. I'm planning to take the Grand Fizban PrC when I hit 5th level, but the prereqs are tough - it has to be between 3:00 - 4:00 on a rainy Wednesday, you need to be wearing a plaid bowler, and you have to sneeze at the exact moment you level."
Charles Phipps 08-02-07, 07:12 PM	I accept it, because it's a mechanic designed to make the class behave as it should. It's supposed to represent the chivalrous knight... so their needs to be a penalty for behaving in a dishonorable manner. But it still feels like a hack to me - forced on because we want the knight to be forced to behave in an honorable manner, as opposed to a supernatural power given to serve a purpose and stripped away when you prove unworthy. But that's just my problem - I'm sure it makes perfect sense to many others. Paladins shouldn't be Knights. Paladins should be Chosen Ones. Knights should be Fighters.
ArcTan 08-03-07, 04:33 PM	In the core books, yes, the ranger is a divine caster who doesn't have to maintain a code of conduct. But aside from the fact that I never claimed that ALL divine casters are penalized, IMO the ranger is the LEAST divine of the bunch. I always viewed the "divine casting" of a Ranger to be a representation of the Ranger as someone supernaturally "in tune with his environment". You know, like legends of the wild man who knows the woods so well it's like he can talk with the woods as an old friend, or as a bitter but respected enemy. An Urban Ranger simply treats the city as his environment rather than the woods -- like Vimes in Discworld talking about Ankh-Morpork as though it were a woman, a lover, a living thing whose pulse and heartbeat he knew well, like Jack Hawksmoor's ability to "talk to cities". Rangers are distinct from Druids in that they do not *worship* their environment; they don't think of their environment, necessarily, as a thing higher than them or a sentient force with a will that must be obeyed. They simply know it and love it and use it, but not necessarily in the sense of devotion -- sometimes in the sense of fighting a rival, or of negotiating with a competitor (like the way Jack London describes a true survivor as someone who knows the spirit of Winter and can talk to it and fend it off). Which leaves the knight/samurai. Here, you're absolutely right. Mundane character losing mundane abilities for violating a code of conduct, something more minor than changing alignment. Personally, I don't like it. I justify it the same way I talked about the sniper earlier; you're so psychologically messed up by your personal failure that you just can't focus or bring yourself to act. But given that it's the case with ALL knights, it basically makes them all a bunch of shaky basket cases so focused on their honor that one misdeed can shatter them. Knights aren't "shattered" by breaking their knightly code. It just means they lose a knightly challenge ability for the day. *shrug* In a sense, "honor" for them is a limited resource that they can either expend by using it (issuing a challenge) or wasting it (breaking the code). But a Knight is not in any way even *close* to being as restricted as a Paladin. A Knight can sneak up on people and kill them without warning and play dirty tricks on them all day. It just means he can't also call them out to honorable duels *in the same day*. To me that makes sense, if not perfect sense -- it's more a "Well, I can't really play the 'fair fight' card after what I just did, now can I?" than a "Alas my honor is soiled forever!" kind of thing.
ArcTan 08-03-07, 04:34 PM	Paladins shouldn't be Knights. Paladins should be Chosen Ones. Knights should be Fighters. Why can't a Knight be a Knight? It's not a perfect character class, but there's nothing really wrong with it.
The Dreaming Duck 08-03-07, 05:55 PM	Rangers are distinct from Druids in that they do not *worship* their environment... That's where I was coming from. It is divine magic as opposed to arcane, but it's not really about commitment to a higher power in the way the others are. Knights aren't "shattered" by breaking their knightly code. It just means they lose a knightly challenge ability for the day. OH! Teach me to respond without looking up the class. Sure, that doesn't bother me at all. Do a bad deed, feel guilty about it, sleep it off... if that's what it is, that makes perfect sense to me. Your abilities aren't stripped away, and your psyche isn't horribly scarred or anything like that... you're just not in the right frame of mind for an honorable duel. And you're absolutely right, it's far less restricted than the paladin - especially in that the abilities can be regained just by waiting a day, as opposed to the paladin who could be screwed for years if he doesn't do some atonement.
Just another user 08-07-07, 04:46 AM	I think there's some good ideas behind it. Captain America is the embodiment of good in the Marvel Universe. The "paladin" of the MU by his devotion to America the ideal. However, that's probably not a terribly well developed concept in Eberron. And I'd also say that while he's still an embodiment of good, I'd be askance if he gained the power to heal in Eberron. I thought a little about that and, considered the "flexible" nature of hit points, this could be explained saying that the healing of paladins is just a form of inspire courage, it is not phisical healing, it is "spiritual" or moral, you are still wounded, but you have the strength to ignore the pain and keep fighting, after all Paladin's healing is based on Charisma. I don't know if I'm making sense with it.
Euangelion 08-07-07, 11:00 AM	I thought a little about that and, considered the "flexible" nature of hit points, this could be explained saying that the healing of paladins is just a form of inspire courage, it is not phisical healing, it is "spiritual" or moral, you are still wounded, but you have the strength to ignore the pain and keep fighting, after all Paladin's healing is based on Charisma. I don't know if I'm making sense with it. I see where you're going with it. Let's look at the ability in another light, to deal damage to undead. Going with your thought, it could be said that the undead is damaged by the very strength of the pure faith of the paladin, not so much by positive energy in and of itself.
Edymnion 08-07-07, 01:02 PM	I thought a little about that and, considered the "flexible" nature of hit points, this could be explained saying that the healing of paladins is just a form of inspire courage, it is not phisical healing, it is "spiritual" or moral, you are still wounded, but you have the strength to ignore the pain and keep fighting, after all Paladin's healing is based on Charisma. I don't know if I'm making sense with it.Oh, you're making sense, its just that most people don't stop to think of it. D&D only has 4 states a character can be in: Dead Unconcious and Dying Concious but Incapacitated Alive and at full power You get no penalties of any kind to your abilities for being at 1/100th of your hitpoints. You are not tired, you aren't limping, you are every bit as mechanically powerful as if you were at full hitpoints. Hence, hitpoints must represent more than your physical ability to soak up abuse. It has to include your ability to dodge, plain luck, and divine intervention. For example, take Star Wars. Repeatedly we see Luke and Han run past a squad of Storm Troopers and never get hit once by weapons fire. In D&D, they probably got "hit" repeatedly, and lost a lot of hitpoints in the process. Its just that none of those hits were enough to bring them to 0 hp (aka, actually injure them), so they just used up their "luck" for the encounter.
Just another user 08-07-07, 06:38 PM	I see where you're going with it. Let's look at the ability in another light, to deal damage to undead. Going with your thought, it could be said that the undead is damaged by the very strength of the pure faith of the paladin, not so much by positive energy in and of itself. Exactly, even if in some case it would make more sense replace the turn undead with some other ability, (even just using the customizing options in the PHB) For example Captain America-as-paladin could have "turn nazis/commies" :D Edy: FWIW in the old times I came upi with my personal equation for hit points, IMHO hit points are (percentual can vary) for a 20% "meat" i.e. Constitution, the physical side of it, for a 30% experience and, why not? luck, the sword thrust that skever the 1st level fighter just graze the 5th level fighter because he is able to roll with it, the arrow that hit the 1st level fighter in the eye hit the 5th level fighter ear because his instinct made him dodgeit, etc, the remaining 50% is something that I call "guts" and is another expect of experience, essentialy a wound that would put down a inexperienced fighter is not equally serious for a veteran, because he is used to the pain and/or he seen worse (like Schwarzenegger in Predator "you are bleeding" "I ain't got time to bleed". :)
ArcTan 08-07-07, 11:42 PM	I see where you're going with it. Let's look at the ability in another light, to deal damage to undead. Going with your thought, it could be said that the undead is damaged by the very strength of the pure faith of the paladin, not so much by positive energy in and of itself. Or that positive energy *is* distilled courage, faith, idealism, life, hope, etc. (Or, rather, courage, faith, hope, and other positive attributes are the conscious, moral form of the basic force we call "yang", "life", "extropy" or "positive energy").
ArcTan 08-07-07, 11:44 PM	Oh, you're making sense, its just that most people don't stop to think of it. D&D only has 4 states a character can be in: Dead Unconcious and Dying Concious but Incapacitated Alive and at full power You get no penalties of any kind to your abilities for being at 1/100th of your hitpoints. You are not tired, you aren't limping, you are every bit as mechanically powerful as if you were at full hitpoints. Star Wars Saga Edition has tried to fix this with a condition track. Hence, hitpoints must represent more than your physical ability to soak up abuse. It has to include your ability to dodge, plain luck, and divine intervention. For example, take Star Wars. Repeatedly we see Luke and Han run past a squad of Storm Troopers and never get hit once by weapons fire. In D&D, they probably got "hit" repeatedly, and lost a lot of hitpoints in the process. Its just that none of those hits were enough to bring them to 0 hp (aka, actually injure them), so they just used up their "luck" for the encounter. Well, yeah, but this is dumb. Then having two mechanics, AC and HP, is one mechanic too many, and the term "hit" is horribly misleading for having an attack roll exceed AC, and wounding weapons make no sense, and so on.
Alex_ 08-08-07, 01:01 AM	HP represents, "cinematic mortality". The more important characters can always survive more actual hits than the extras. Luke and Han have been hit by blaster fire, but unlike Storm Troopers, they don't go down from a single blaster shot. Sometimes it's just a glancing shot. Sometimes it hits a non-vital area. Sometimes it hits, but something happened to reduced the hit. They get hit, but they don't go down like a mook does. And of course there's scenes like the death of Boromir in LOTR or Leonidas in 300, where they can kill several faceless enemy soldiers with a single swing of their sword, and yet it takes an unrelenting hail of arrows to bring them down.
ArcTan 08-08-07, 02:59 AM	HP represents, "cinematic mortality". The more important characters can always survive more actual hits than the extras. Luke and Han have been hit by blaster fire, but unlike Storm Troopers, they don't go down from a single blaster shot. Sometimes it's just a glancing shot. Sometimes it hits a non-vital area. Sometimes it hits, but something happened to reduced the hit. They get hit, but they don't go down like a mook does. And of course there's scenes like the death of Boromir in LOTR or Leonidas in 300, where they can kill several faceless enemy soldiers with a single swing of their sword, and yet it takes an unrelenting hail of arrows to bring them down. Yes, but cinematic mortality tends to include the idea that characters, no matter how unrealistically resilient, are hampered by their wounds and get more and more hampered as their wounds become worse and worse. That's what the SWSE condition track is for.
Euangelion 08-08-07, 10:31 AM	And of course, we don't want to get into the whole "hack off a limb" thing, which the current HP/AC system completely ignores (apart from vorpal), but I suppose might be an important mechanic to include with Star Wars, seeing as it happened in at least Episodes I (if you count Maul's torso), II, III, V, and VI. (I'm not familiar with the SWSE so I don't know if its mechanics support it.)
NthDegree256 08-09-07, 12:40 AM	And of course, we don't want to get into the whole "hack off a limb" thing, which the current HP/AC system completely ignores (apart from vorpal), but I suppose might be an important mechanic to include with Star Wars, seeing as it happened in at least Episodes I (if you count Maul's torso), II, III, V, and VI. (I'm not familiar with the SWSE so I don't know if its mechanics support it.) I think it's a talent you can select as a Jedi, actually. When I DM, I generally have limbs go flying off whenever the PCs drop an NPC to negative hitpoints, just as an added way to spice up the death. We also have been known to play Star Wars with a houserule that lets you trade in a limb for a few hitpoints when you drop below -10, i.e. "You take 14 damage." "Ouch, that puts me at -12. Uh, I guesss I'll lose my left arm so it's just -8." Of course, the problem with this in D&D is the lack of cybernetics for replacements... I think some additional houseruling would be in order for that, depending on the setting.
ArcTan 08-09-07, 03:17 AM	I think it's a talent you can select as a Jedi, actually. When I DM, I generally have limbs go flying off whenever the PCs drop an NPC to negative hitpoints, just as an added way to spice up the death. We also have been known to play Star Wars with a houserule that lets you trade in a limb for a few hitpoints when you drop below -10, i.e. "You take 14 damage." "Ouch, that puts me at -12. Uh, I guesss I'll lose my left arm so it's just -8." Of course, the problem with this in D&D is the lack of cybernetics for replacements... I think some additional houseruling would be in order for that, depending on the setting. You have grafts and the regenerate spell.
Charles Phipps 08-14-07, 09:27 PM	For me, I think it's interesting to define what a Paladin looks like in every campaign setting because the "feel" of a Paladin is extremely important to the actual setting in my opinion. Dragonlance has the Knights of Solamnia and while none of them were Paladins, it's hard to imagine that a Paladin would be anything but this setting. Forgotten Realms is designed liberally around the setting of High Fantasy Tropes. You'll get your High Chivalric Knights here too. Greyhawk: See FR, though thanks to the D&D sourcebooks its a place where you get lots of variety to the types of Paladins that exists. Ravenloft: Paladins are walking targets. Eberron seems to be a place where Paladins are much rarer and more unique type of character than in other settings. It may have the variety of Greyhawk but instead of an order of Holy Liberators, you'll have ONE single Holy Liberator contrasted against one single Holy Liberator. Most Holy Orders will instead be composed of Warrior/Adepts with the occasional rare Fighter/Cleric. My suggestions for what Paladins should look like. The Belmont Clan (Castlevania): If you want a great inspiration for Paladins in Karrnath (and possibly Ravenloft) then why look further than a hereditary family that possesses 'Mysterious Powers' that doesn't make them particularly beloved by the locals of Transylvania despite the fact they keep going up against the vampires and other horrors of the world. There's usually only one Belmont a generation who possesses the skill to resist the darkness and they're intimately tied to the horror that they face. Obi Wan Kenobi: (A New Hope): For me, what works about Obi Wan Kenobi is not the fact that he's an awesome warrior like the Prequels. It's the fact that 20 years after he's won the entirety of the Clone Wars with his apprentice, people have forgotten that he even exists. Indeed, politics in Eberron make it entirely likely that people are willing to hunt down and destroy the people who fought the good fight but are now no longer politically conveinant. Kenshin Himura: (Rurouni Kenshin): For me, despite the martial arts nature of his power, I always felt that an important element of Kenshin was the way that he had to struggle against his own darker natures mixed with how utterly inconveinant those morals made him when he had to deal with more ruthless opponents plus the government he associated with. No one else seemed to GET it and that's the Paladin's burden. Batman: (Batman Begins) I choose this example since there's so many different variants on Batman. For me, I always felt the Batman of Eberron would be a typical example of how unconventional divine support can be. Bruce Wayne gets chosen as a child by Boldrei by falling into the cave and seeing all the bats that mark him. Later, he's picked up by some Eberron Claw guys, taught the ways of combat and the enemy, before fleeing but now knowing everything he needs. When he achieves Fourth Level, he conveinantly gets his Lightning Car with battle suit plus all the Holy Armor and weapons he needs. But all this comes crashing down if he ever breaks his stringent oaths. Thus, for me, the theme of a Paladin is that he's going to be constantly tested against his own morals in a setting where everyone is brutally pragmatic. Also, the simple fact is that people are not going to look at him with the kind of awe reserved for Superman and Captain America (other Paladin style characters) that they would in a more idealistic setting.
Roxlimn 08-15-07, 07:44 AM	I would argue that Kenshin is actually a reverse-Blackguard. Blackguards are guardians of all things Good until they allow their one flaw to dominate them and then they fall hard. Kenshin is the reverse. His idealistic and violent nature easily led him into the butechery of the Meiji Restoration, but his love for his wife and his abiding guilt eventually turn him from his Evil ways and thereafter continue to "plague" him - forcing him to toe the line or else precipitously fall right back to what he was before.
Nuclear_Buddha 08-15-07, 10:36 AM	I haven't seen the OVA in a while, but shouldn't that be: ...his love for his "wife" and... I thought it was just a convenient cover?
Roxlimn 08-15-07, 12:13 PM	I'm not really sure. Whether or not it was officiated, they certainly thought of themselves that way.
Charles Phipps 08-15-07, 12:47 PM	I think the official issue is that Kenshin was always a naturally happy go lucky guy with the Shogunate being sufficiently dehumanized for him early on. Then the Shogunate killed Tomoe, the girl he was genuinely interested in, and he let all Hell go loose on them. Afterwards, he vowed never to kill again. Example wise, I tend to think that evil-doers seeking redemption are very appropriate people for the gods of Eberron to choose (or whatever force "chooses" paladins be they the spirit of Galifar or whatever). Especially, in the context of the Last War there are going to be a lot of people that want to seek redemption for actions they've done and gain spiritual strength from that.
Hopeless 08-15-07, 02:16 PM	Exactly, even if in some case it would make more sense replace the turn undead with some other ability, (even just using the customizing options in the PHB) For example Captain America-as-paladin could have "turn nazis/commies" :D I believe his version of smite evil was by means of a shield that hits multiple opponents before returning to his hand, I don't believe lethal damage was involved unless he was forced though... Edy: FWIW in the old times I came upi with my personal equation for hit points, IMHO hit points are (percentual can vary) for a 20% "meat" i.e. Constitution, the physical side of it, for a 30% experience and, why not? luck, the sword thrust that skever the 1st level fighter just graze the 5th level fighter because he is able to roll with it, the arrow that hit the 1st level fighter in the eye hit the 5th level fighter ear because his instinct made him dodgeit, etc, the remaining 50% is something that I call "guts" and is another expect of experience, essentialy a wound that would put down a inexperienced fighter is not equally serious for a veteran, because he is used to the pain and/or he seen worse (like Schwarzenegger in Predator "you are bleeding" "I ain't got time to bleed". :) And those critical hits can be REALLY painful especiallly if its the predator doing the crit! Otherwise a good premise, but how do you describe psionic blows though?
yrogerg 08-15-07, 03:06 PM	Thus, for me, the theme of a Paladin is that he's going to be constantly tested against his own morals in a setting where everyone is brutally pragmatic. Also, the simple fact is that people are not going to look at him with the kind of awe reserved for Superman and Captain America (other Paladin style characters) that they would in a more idealistic setting. It's interesting that you lump Captain America in as the sort who'd be more appropriate for a more idealistic setting, especially since after WWII, Captain America definitely had to deal with rampant corruption and America's failing to live up to its ideals, often retiring, assuming a different guise, or even participating in armed insurrection when these ideals have conflicted America's agenda. Honestly, the latter part of the run of Captain America definitely represents him as an idealistic character living in a less-than idealistic world, trying to represent American ideals even when America doesn't live up to them. If anything, I'd say this character represents a great way to play a Paladin in Eberron, which is rife with nationalistic conflicts between the nations and deep-seated corruption that threaten to disillusion the idealistic. It's also interesting that despite the various comic book references on that list, you neglected to include Hartigan from Sin city, who is really the best example a noir-setting Paladin character I can think of.
yrogerg 08-15-07, 03:20 PM	I think the official issue is that Kenshin was always a naturally happy go lucky guy with the Shogunate being sufficiently dehumanized for him early on. Then the Shogunate killed Tomoe, the girl he was genuinely interested in, and he let all Hell go loose on them. I definitely wouldn't describe even young Kenshin as "happy-go-lucky" in the OVA.
Roxlimn 08-16-07, 04:19 AM	I think that Kenshin effectively lost "happy-go-lucky" when his own mother was killed in front of him. That can have some rather profound effects on a man.
Charles Phipps 08-16-07, 04:28 AM	I think that Kenshin effectively lost "happy-go-lucky" when his own mother was killed in front of him. That can have some rather profound effects on a man. Nevertheless, throughout the war right up until Tomoe was killed, he was a stupidly idealistic young man whom still believed that all of this was right and the weight of the people he killed wouldn't destroy him. Only afterwards did he embrace being a monster to destroy the Tokugawa. and his parents sold him to slavery, they were just girls sold to slavers. But to go back with the idea of Kenshin as Paladin, I think the world of Eberron is sort of like the Post-Revolution world of the Mejii even if the reasons are very different. There's A LOT of warriors lying around Eberron that are now suddenly unemployed and probably rapidly becoming to be treated less than politely by the citizenry at large. A major running theme of Kenshin the series is the fact that a huge number of people want to destroy the peace that is currently in the land; primarily because they were either humiliated by the end of the war (Aoshi and his band of weirdoes never got to fight), because they were horrifically wronged (Mokoto Shishio the Mummy Man is nearly killed because he Knew Too MuchTM), or because they simply have no idea how to exist in an era where their skills are not required (any number of one-shot villains). I think that a paladin in Eberron is called, primarily because of circumstances to a large extent. Just like Anakin Skywalker was sent to deal with Darth Sidious, Eberron's Paladins should have a "pet cause" of some kind that they are especially drawn to. Generic good should be what a paladin DOES but he should also have something that especially drives him.
Roxlimn 08-16-07, 04:38 AM	His parents sold him to slavery? What episode is that in? I was under the impression that his family was fleeing the armed conflicts when they were set upon by bandits. After his mother was killed, his master picked up him, so to speak, and named him Kenshin.
Charles Phipps 08-16-07, 04:54 AM	His parents sold him to slavery? What episode is that in? I was under the impression that his family was fleeing the armed conflicts when they were set upon by bandits. After his mother was killed, his master picked up him, so to speak, and named him Kenshin. I think it was in the subtitled version but basically, Kenshin's master says he's sorry about his parents and Kenshin said "They're not my parents. They were slavers." And basically says the girls were nice to him. It makes their dogged protection of him that much more noble (or desperate)
Roxlimn 08-16-07, 08:00 AM	That doesn't square with the sub I watched. Different subtitle company, I suppose, but the one woman he was with was definitely his mother, which is why she behaved like she did.
Nuclear_Buddha 08-16-07, 10:40 AM	the Shogunate killed Tomoe C'mon now, that is totally wrong.
Charles Phipps 08-16-07, 02:44 PM	C'mon now, that is totally wrong. I could say that the Shogunate tries to kill him and she throws herself between him and his enemies only to be sliced in half but I'm paraphrasing. Early life That doesn't square with the sub I watched. Different subtitle company, I suppose, but the one woman he was with was definitely his mother, which is why she behaved like she did. I checked Wikipedia and this is what it says... Kenshin is born into a peasant family under the name of "Shinta", but by age 7, both his parents die of cholera. By the time he was 8, he was to be sold into slavery. However, the slave-traders' caravan is attacked by thieves in the mountains. Every person, except for Shinta, is slaughtered, including three slave girls named Akane, Sakura, and Kasumi, who tried to shield Shinta and save him to no avail. As Shinta picked up a katana, in an attempt to fight back, Hiko Seijūrō XIII intervenes, killing all the thieves easily. Hiko then leaves Shinta alone in the field of bodies, instructing him to seek shelter in a nearby village. A week later, Hiko decides to visit Shinta at the nearby village, but is surprised to hear that Shinta never arrived. Presuming that he has committed suicide, Hiko returns to the site of the slaughter, to find that Shinta has buried all the corpses by hand - even those of the thieves. Won over by the boy's strength at heart, he adopts Shinta into his Hiten Mitsurugi Ryu apprenticeship. He renamed him "Kenshin" (Ken=sword, Shin=heart), since he believed that 'Shinta' wasn't a fitting name for a swordsman. Kenshin later obtained "Himura" ("of the scarlet village") as his family name.
Nuclear_Buddha 08-16-07, 04:08 PM	Bah, might as well blame "society" for killing her. She was only cut by one sword, and it wasn't being held by a tool of the Shogunate.
Roxlimn 08-16-07, 04:26 PM	Charles Phipps: I've checked my sources as well. Wiki's really not that good. But it appears that you are correct. I'll give Trust and Betrayal another watch "to confirm this." Of course, I would've used any other excuse to watch more Rurouni Kenshin. :D