Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Last City 05-23-06, 11:32 PM	My question is at the end of this short story: 2 paladins: Gevas and Frem are paladins of the Order of Silvermane. After many battles with evil eventually Gevas was persuaded by evil and slew Frem before the demon lord Boravious. Serving Boravious as his trusty blackguard Gevas became the icon of terror to his own homeland and his previous Order. But eventually Gevas confronted a Solar and a battle ensured. The solar bested the blackguard but instead of killing him, gave the blackguard a vision which eventually changed his life. No one knew what the vision was but in any case, Gevas turned against his master and slew the demon lord. After many many years... adventurers were given a bounty to hunt down this x-blackguard in a small village that he has retired himself to. Everyone from the Order to the government wanted Gevas dead... especially the son of Frem. The adventurers manage to track down the x-blackguard and were shocked to find him in rag tag condition doing charity to the village he is in (the villagers had no idea who this man was)... Gevas obviously has not atoned for his past sin and is denied his paladin powers. QUESTION: Although in game rules a good paladin that fell from grace CAN turn to a blackguard, what about the story for an "x-blackguard"? Is there such thing? Or evil never leaves this man and the blood in his hands never leaves??? Kindly comment :)
Fuzzy_Logic 05-23-06, 11:54 PM	Officially, he remains a blackguard. if he stops being evil, he loses his special abilities. depending on your campaign, you can mke it possible for blackgards to become paladins. this conflicts with the default rule, that (I belive) a palaidn who willing turns to evil can never return. (assuming, of course, an ex-paladin blackguard. a blackguard who never was a paladin wouldn't be affected) I, personally, Belive that a blackguard should be allowed to trade in blackguard levels for paladin levels. HOWEVEr, he will shortly thereafter die a heroic and PERMANENT death.
Torbida 05-24-06, 01:19 AM	Interesting idea. I see no reason for this Fallen pally to regain his status if he finds redemption. I disagree with Fuzzy here. Evil would forever hate him and want to destroy him. But Good forgives. Good is able to accept. He would not be an Ex-Blackguard but a renewed pally. In this humble pally's opinion.
Ankalagon 05-24-06, 04:00 AM	It's an interesting concept but I believe anyone who comes back to the path of light after being the epitome of all things evil, after being blessed with light should accept that he can never regain his divine status as his punishment and what's more he shouldn't be looking for it either. Paladinhood-Blackguard-Paladinhood I believe isn't something you can jump around with. Having said that, if he wasn't looking for it. Accepted his punishment and then through some great act of good, possibly that only a Paladin could hope to succeed at (it would have to be very big) then maybe, just maybe he could regain his Paladin status. Take fictional Lancelot as an example and all he did was bang his mates' missus. Mind you she always looks fit so I probably wouldn't atone for that one either :smirk:
Jarrad 05-24-06, 04:27 AM	Cool story. Maybe it'd be worth your while considering WHY the solar showed him the vision instead of killing him? It wouldn't be in the nature of a solar to allow an irredeemably evil creature to live - and clearly he has turned back to Good - but did the solar believe that the man had some sort of role to play in the future. It wouldn't necessarily have to be cataclysmic - you know, perform some grandiose act of heroism and become a Paladin again for the 45 seconds of life he has remaining - but could be relatively mundane. Try this for size. Perhaps in his vision he saw that he would one day perform an act of charity for someone who would in their turn go on to prevent vile darkness from overcoming the land/kindom/world/universe and is thus performing charitable acts for everyone he meets in case he doesn't recognise the person when he comes across them. Maybe he hasn't *exactly* repented, but is at peace with what he did and why he did it. The reason he is doing what he's doing now is because although he has done some evil things in his time, the consequences of him NOT helping the person he's supposed to are so awful that he has no choice: after all, as a Paladin or a Blackguard we're talking about someone who must have had a strong sense of duty. He could tell the PC's his story and inform them that when he has done his duty he will know, and they're welcome to come and kill him after that. I'm with the people who say this man should never again be a Paladin. His descent into evil was too profound. It's harsh, but that's the way it goes. I'm not patting myself on the back here, but I do quite like the story hook above. On the one hand, his punishment is that he has to perform charitable works for everyone from the lowest to the highest in the land as and when he meets them for fear of missing his opportunity: for a proud man, helping grovelling peasants out of the dirt would be very difficult but his strong sense of duty compels him. On the other hand, his *reward* is that although the task he is to perform is very menial and he will die forgotten and alone, he will do so knowing that he has done something utterly crucial for the future happiness of (potentially) millions of sentient beings, and his years of sacrifice toward this goal should at least ensure that his soul doesn't end up in the Hells. Bear in mind - if the threat of some future catastrophe would mess up your campaign world - that the world this person will go on to save doesn't have to be THIS one. If the PC's use magic to ascertain that he at least BELIEVES he's telling the absolute truth, they're left with a very interesting dilemma. Not only would they be hard-pressed to decide to kill him and collect the bounty (unless they're completely selfish and amoral), but they'd probably have to lie about having found the man if asked a direct question. There'll always be *someone* who wants to collect the bounty and either hasn't heard or doesn't believe the story, so letting people know where he is and trying to convince the world and his wife not to go and kill him is pretty much a non-starter. If you wanted to make this a serious plot hook, you could always grant the ex-blackguard a revelation that one of the PC's is also somehow tied up in the fate of this mysterious person who will one day do great good... or even that one of the PC's IS that person (although you would need to beware of "invulnerability syndrome" in that case). What do you think?
Last City 05-24-06, 04:53 AM	Cool story. Maybe it'd be worth your while considering WHY the solar showed him the vision instead of killing him? It wouldn't be in the nature of a solar to allow an irredeemably evil creature to live - and clearly he has turned back to Good - but did the solar believe that the man had some sort of role to play in the future. Well i wanted a different sort of punishment... Something Gevas saw that he considered worst then death and the revelation made Gevas a tool to slay the demon lord (The Gods do not waste good mortals to fight evil ;) ) Consider it an irony played by the gods against the demon lord: "You made him fall from grace? Ok, you can have him... now he kills you. GG GG." Bear in mind - if the threat of some future catastrophe would mess up your campaign world - that the world this person will go on to save doesn't have to be THIS one. Hmmm.... something interesting to think about (if the PCs spared him) :) In any case, this plot hook will bring many blackguards hunting for Gevas as well. Although everyone agreed that he doesnt get to become a paladin again, i could have his special mount be an "npc animal" and hint to the PCs about who his old master was...
CzarGarrett 05-24-06, 09:22 AM	As a general principle, I see no reason why a Blackguard could not attempt to atone for his evil acts and become good. I doubt I'd allow a Blackguard to become a Paladin however. Being a Blackguard, IMO, leaves enough of a stain on one's soul that they could not be as holy and pius as a Paladin. But they can still become good with enough time and personal guilt.
Pandaemoni 05-24-06, 09:39 AM	Paladinhood-Blackguard-Paladinhood I believe isn't something you can jump around with. Aw, come on...it's the story of Darth Vader!
Brand_X 05-24-06, 09:51 AM	Consider this. In Star Wars - Darth Vader could be considered a Blackguard. In the end he turns from the Darkness and finds once again the light and helps to save his son from the Evil of the Emporer. This redemption is not unheard of through heroic tales. If you followed into the Dark Empire Series that came after Star Wars Luke also succumbs to the Dark Side (Blackguard) but with the help of his sister he returns to the Light (Paladin) and atones for what he has done being accepted back. In D&D there are some Gods that would never take back a Blackguard. Such as the Elven God in the Forgotten Realms that feels that ALL Drow should be killed no matter what. Including in this case Drizzt. BUT isn't forgiveness a trait normally found in good people. Evil does not forgive, they remember and keep grudges and hatred alive rather than accept that people make mistakes. In the case of the original story in this thread the Vision touched the character deeply and helped him to realize that he was wrong in his pursuit of evil. An example is when someone has a life changing experience such as near death in the real world and forsake their poor/evil ways to be a beacon of good and hope in the world or their little corner of it. The rules say NO but logic says why not? Do you not forgive your children and usually your friends for their transgressions? Sheesh I almost sound like a Preacher. Brand X Generic Gm
bitnine 05-24-06, 09:53 AM	Hm, a rebuild quest (as per PHB II) over to Fighter levels? I think that's what I'd go with. Turn your back on evil, get rid of those Blackgaurd levels, and become a fighting force for good, maybe, but a Paladin again notsomuch.
Milandros 05-24-06, 10:07 AM	Pandaemoni has it right - it's the Darth Vader story, and I'd suggest it end as such. Have the village attacked by overwhelming forces. The ex-blackguard has this one, last chance for redemption - and takes it. The PC's job is to get the villagers to safety while he holds the terrible monster leading the bad guys at the bridge. For this one, last fight in which he knows he will perish, the gods grant him back his full powers. He slays the beast and is then cut down by the other attackers (or wounds the beast so badly it withdraws before he dies). A great, heroic redemption that also had a cost to it - no setting the precedent for changing alignment and paladin/blackguard levels on a whim - and the PCs get to fight the remaining enemies off as the villagers flee to safety. They get to be heroes, their target is dead, but honourably, there's a bittersweet but warm moment of triumph and everyone is satisfied.
Jarrad 05-24-06, 10:29 AM	Aw, come on...it's the story of Darth Vader! Much as it goes against the grain to disagree with the revered President of the S.P.P.B., I disagree with the revered President of the S.P.P.B. ;) There's no indication whatsoever that Darth Vader made it back to "Paladinhood". No, he couldn't stand to see his own son frazzled to a crisp by the Emperor's force-generated lightning - and thus chucked his beloved master down a big hole - but that hardly constitutes a repudiation of decades of evil McNastiness! Lets face it, that wasn't him reacting to a crisis of Universe-shaking proportions and choosing Good over Evil at the cost of his own life: that was merely an illustration that he was still just human enough to choose his own flesh and blood over his master. Hardly Paladin material... All that feeble deathbed apologia didn't take anyone in, did it? ;)
terrainmonkey 05-24-06, 10:33 AM	I had to reply because it sounds like a great story and there are so many juicy things you can do with this so, the Blackguard Gevas is helping the villagers. The party comes into town, and he comes to them, arms outstretched, giving himself up for punishment. Any bluff checks, sense motive, etc, even detect evil come up that this guy is on the level. he wants to go back and face justice, his order, etc. He KNEW the party was coming. The solar gave him this last look at what his life would be like and how it would end. He is fated to follow them back. Why? because that same demon lord, (hereafter refered to by me as Golgoroth) has found a way to come back, and wants to destroy the former blackguard's order. The solar knew this, and that was the vision to Gevas so many years ago. however, now Golgoroth is more powerful, and Gevas will need the help of the party to destroy him utterly. Perhaps Gevas has a certain sword, or artifact, or the piece of an artifact that the party needs in order to destroy him. This sets up a grand battle wherein the ex blackguard has to fight Golgoroth with the help of the party, or keep the demon away from the party as they put together the last part of the artifact that destroys and sunders his essence utterly. thus, Gevas is then exhalted, forgiven, and the solar comes down, grants him peace, and takes his soul away forever. the order buries his body in the place of honor in the order's graveyard, and all is happy in the world. This is epic storytelling. This is what D&D is about. Gevas has to save his order, he has to die. but his death will save the order, his soul, and eventually millions of souls from the ravages of Golgoroth.
Ankalagon 05-24-06, 10:40 AM	Aw, come on...it's the story of Darth Vader! I don't believe it is. Darth Vader, in fact Jedi in general got their powers naturally and honed them through training. While their position may have been 'exalted' in the eyes of some the powers were not gained through divine purpose, support or reliance. Darth Vader was for all intents and purposes a LE fighter/wizard (or some branch of psionic whatever), possibly NE. Paladinhood is an exclusive club. Once you take a dump on the club house doorstep (and make everyone walk through it) they are unlikely to let you past the garden gate in future. Your soul (whether you like it or not) is almost irreversibly tainted.
Pandaemoni 05-24-06, 12:41 PM	I don't believe it is. Darth Vader, in fact Jedi in general got their powers naturally and honed them through training. While their position may have been 'exalted' in the eyes of some the powers were not gained through divine purpose, support or reliance. Darth Vader was for all intents and purposes a LE fighter/wizard (or some branch of psionic whatever), possibly NE. Paladinhood is an exclusive club. Once you take a dump on the club house doorstep (and make everyone walk through it) they are unlikely to let you past the garden gate in future. Your soul (whether you like it or not) is almost irreversibly tainted. Two quotes suggest otherwise to me: Hokey religions and ancient weaspons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes. Both suggest that devotion to the Force was a religion, albeit more akin to an eastern religion than a traditional western or near-eastern one. As for whether Jedi are "paladins", of course they aren't in the strictest sense, but ion that sense they aren't fighter/wizards either.
Tormsskull 05-24-06, 01:56 PM	Much as it goes against the grain to disagree with the revered President of the S.P.P.B., I disagree with the revered President of the S.P.P.B. ;) There's no indication whatsoever that Darth Vader made it back to "Paladinhood". No, he couldn't stand to see his own son frazzled to a crisp by the Emperor's force-generated lightning - and thus chucked his beloved master down a big hole - but that hardly constitutes a repudiation of decades of evil McNastiness! Lets face it, that wasn't him reacting to a crisis of Universe-shaking proportions and choosing Good over Evil at the cost of his own life: that was merely an illustration that he was still just human enough to choose his own flesh and blood over his master. Hardly Paladin material... All that feeble deathbed apologia didn't take anyone in, did it? ;) Actually, by the rules in the D20 Star Wars CS you cannot become a force spirit (like Obi-Wan and Yoda) if you have any Dark Side points when you die. Everyone would probably agree (and the rules would support you) that Darth Vader had a lot of DS points. So then by extrapolation, we'd have to assume that final act of goodness was enough to cast off ALL those darkside points and become a force spirit. Plus, in my own SW-fanatic opinion, Darth Vader finally realized the prohecy all along was speaking to that exact moment. The prohecy said that the choosen one would bring balance to the force. The Emperor had skewed the balance of the force by destroying nearly all the Jedi (and if you read any of the expanded universe stuff) propogating some DS minions of his own. At that one moment when he could no longer bear the pain his son endured, that realization hit him like a hammergun, and he fulfilled the prohecy. But as to weather this Pally should be able to redeem himself as a Pally, I don't think so. Think about Final Fantasy 2 (well, it was 2 here in the states) When Goldbez has a change of heart and joins with that old lunar guy (I won't even try to remember how his named is spelled) to fight against Zeromus. After the final battle, Goldbez says there is no way he could go back to the normal world knowing all of the evil and havoc that he unleashed upon the world. Even if the anti-blackguard survives whatever huge event comes his way, he'll never be the same, never have the capacity to be a paladin. All IMHO of course.
mlund 05-24-06, 02:11 PM	The Jedi and the Sith aren't religions themselves - though their philosophies about life definitely intertwine with their member's thoughts about religion. The derogatory comments referring to the Force as a "religion" come from the context of the people delivering the lines. When he was younger, Han Solo ran extremely afoul of a religious cult sponsored by the Hutts of all beings. It cost him the lives of several people he cared about. Admiral Motti is a self-importat military leader of the Galactic Empire, rising during a time where the Jedi were considered enemies of the state and were murdered wholesale while knowledge of the Force and Jedi teachings were subject to the era-equivalent of book-burnings. Both of them speak from utter ignorance when they make those comments. The Jedi and Sith teachings of the Force in Star Wars is just Metaphysics - not Religion. It is no more religion than the Wizard who taps the Metaphysical Forces of Magic in D&D through his Spells. The Force is certainly a part of many religions across the Star Wars universe, but the Jedi and Sith themselves established no religion - merely moral philosophies that apply to Force Sensative and the Unaware alike and sciences of manipulating the very real (in Star Wars) power of the Force. They are all cross-class Psions - the Jedi being a Psion / Monk hybrid and the Sith being a running tradition malicious Psion activity paired with whatever the student and master was good at (typically Rogue or Fighter - in Palpatine's case it was apparently Aristocrat). The Jedi = Paladin concept is complete rubbish, as you can continue to advance all the skills of a Jedi after you leave the Order and you can commit several Dark Side acts and still say pre-dominately Light Side with little to no impact on your ability to use the Force. - Marty Lund
woodwalker 05-24-06, 02:26 PM	It's an interesting concept but I believe anyone who comes back to the path of light after being the epitome of all things evil, after being blessed with light should accept that he can never regain his divine status as his punishment and what's more he shouldn't be looking for it either. Paladinhood-Blackguard-Paladinhood I believe isn't something you can jump around with. Having said that, if he wasn't looking for it. Accepted his punishment and then through some great act of good, possibly that only a Paladin could hope to succeed at (it would have to be very big) then maybe, just maybe he could regain his Paladin status. Take fictional Lancelot as an example and all he did was bang his mates' missus. Mind you she always looks fit so I probably wouldn't atone for that one either :smirk: i idsagree. turning from the path of good is very easy, but turning from the path of evil is not. by killing his evil lord, the blackguard showed that either he is becoming good again or that he was ffed up with his master. either one is likely.
Sulaco 05-24-06, 03:07 PM	Paladinhood-Blackguard-Paladinhood I believe isn't something you can jump around with. Sure it is, but only within limits. You can't just flip-flop between the two forever. Generally the good believe in redemption but will never trust someone again when twice-burned, and the evil will kill you in a moment if you tried to return after turning your back on them. So a paladin could fall to evil and then be redeemed, but that is the extent of it. In the scenario given above I'd say there are two options: The first is that the paladin slaying the demon and then leading a life of charity and good deeds has served as his redemption and making him a paladin again, thus putting the PCs in a difficult position as to whether they should complete their mission or let him live, or even if they can trust him. The second is that he is trying to redeem himself but the attempt on his life by the PCs awakens his dark side and he resumes his evil ways on a very grand scale, butting the PCs in the position of having to stop the great evil they have unleashed. Either one can work and, if it were me, I wouldn't make a decision as to which one was true until I absolutley had to. In other words, how the PCs act will determine the backstory and will pretty mcuh guarantee that it will not be a simple morally black-and-white mission..
Ankalagon 05-24-06, 03:46 PM	Sure it is, but only within limits. You can't just flip-flop between the two forever. Generally the good believe in redemption but will never trust someone again when twice-burned, and the evil will kill you in a moment if you tried to return after turning your back on them. I think evil would keep having you back, welcome you with open arms as long as you did a little nasty on the way and take joy in your further torturing of your own soul. Do you wanna atone as a blackguard. No problemo buddy, just slaughter an orphange or better still be a pillar of the Bulgarian legal system (oops snuck that one in again sorry).
Pandaemoni 05-24-06, 03:53 PM	The derogatory comments referring to the Force as a "religion" come from the context of the people delivering the lines. When he was younger, Han Solo ran extremely afoul of a religious cult sponsored by the Hutts of all beings. It cost him the lives of several people he cared about. Admiral Motti is a self-importat military leader of the Galactic Empire, rising during a time where the Jedi were considered enemies of the state and were murdered wholesale while knowledge of the Force and Jedi teachings were subject to the era-equivalent of book-burnings. Personally, I'm more of a realist on matters Star Wars rather than one who adheres to the continuity. In my view, George Lucas hadn't written the back story of either Han Solo or Motti in such detail at the time he wrote those lines...but he was plainly drawing a direct parallel between "the Force" and the philosophy surrounding it and his populist understanding of Buddhism. Buddhism is a religion, it's just one without any deities and which believes in "forces" that bind and tie everything together.
Ankalagon 05-24-06, 06:48 PM	Buddhism is a religion, it's just one without any deities and which believes in "forces" that bind and tie everything together. So are you saying Paladinhood doesn't have to be based on dietific sponsorship? It's an interesting concept, I think it's called monk but if you have a better detail then cool.
Last City 05-24-06, 11:24 PM	wow... i didnt think the thread would ended up in star wars... but yeah now that u mentioned it... it does sounds like it. :) So what happends is this guys is now not paladin/ not blackguard and is just :"A fighter with no bonus feats" ? (quoted from a favourite character of mine in OoTS. ;)) The rebuild quest might be interesting, i could keep him around as an ally if the PCs spared him. :)
Pandaemoni 05-24-06, 11:36 PM	So are you saying Paladinhood doesn't have to be based on dietific sponsorship? It's an interesting concept, I think it's called monk but if you have a better detail then cool. From the Player's Handbook: A Paladin need not devote herself to a single deity--devotion to righteousness is enough The description in the PHB makes it clear that a paladin may be devoted to a deity or deities, but doesn't have to be. The SRD description doesn't mention deities at all.
Ankalagon 05-25-06, 04:15 AM	From the Player's Handbook: The description in the PHB makes it clear that a paladin may be devoted to a deity or deities, but doesn't have to be. The SRD description doesn't mention deities at all. It's the "doesn't have to be" that I'd always discounted as pure guff. It's intrinsic to the class. From the SRD: The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells. Plus the fact they have to be judged. A Paladin without dietific sponsorship is just a very nice fighter. If they devote to righteousness they are still devoted to dieties and are granted power and judged by those dieties, not necessarily singular. There is no mention of inner power or that the Paladin's abilities stem from personal belief. If that was the case, no matter they did (as long as they believed it righteous) they wouldn't fall. "I'm gonna slaughter the babies in that orphanage because just 1 might grow up to be Evil incarnate. I am adamant about this, it's the right thing. Purge the world of all possible evil". Am I wrong in viewing Paladin's like this? Why can't a Paladin be devoted to the forces of Neutrality? Please explain why.
Jarrad 05-25-06, 04:45 AM	Actually, by the rules in the D20 Star Wars CS you cannot become a force spirit (like Obi-Wan and Yoda) if you have any Dark Side points when you die. Everyone would probably agree (and the rules would support you) that Darth Vader had a lot of DS points. I think it's actually more likely that George Lucas had a lot of BS points :D I couldn't give a monkey's what the Star Wars D20 rules say, to be frank; Darth Vader did nothing more than save his son from horrible torture and all that business about him subsequently turning up as a happy-clappy spirit of fluffybunniness with Yoda and Obi-Wan, even though he'd been instrumental in the death and suffering of millions is WEAK. It was purely and simply the desire for a "happy ending" that made that scene and anything else is rationalisation after the fact. In a milieu with any concept of karmic or divine justice, that bozo should be burning in the local equivalent of Hell for a million years or reincarnated as a tapeworm in the digestive tract of a Rancor ;) A Paladin need not devote herself to a single deity--devotion to righteousness is enough "A Paladin need not devote herself to a SINGLE deity" is not the same as "A Paladin need not devote herself to any deities at all", nor is it anywhere suggested that this is the case. "Devotion to righteousness" would be a general devotion to the Powers of Good and Law unless you're running a campaign where divine magic isn't. The qualification about the following of a single deity, I believe, was intended to allow people to play Paladins that don't restrict themselves to the portfolio of interests of a single Good deity, NOT to suggest that they don't get their powers from the gods. I'm with Ankalagon: in a campaign where deities represent the forces of Good and Evil, Paladins get their powers from the gods. Variant campaigns are always possible, of course, but I believe the default position is divine sponsorship. Likewise on the Paladin-Blackguard-Paladin question: no way. The forces of Good might well welcome someone back with open arms, but that's not the same as allowing said individual to become a Paladin. Paladins are supposed to be shining examples; the entire calling is sullied in the eyes of all the peoples of the world if someone known to have deliberately committed Evil acts is granted that divine favour. Inadvertent evil, assuming you say that such a thing actually _counts_ as evil, may be a different matter but a Blackguard has at some point wholly embraced his evil nature. Sure, he redeems himself, climbs out of the pit, maybe joins the church and starts accumulating levels as a good-aligned cleric... but becomes a Paladin again, a shining paragon of all that is Good? Sorry, that absolutely doesn't work for me.
Ankalagon 05-25-06, 06:36 AM	reincarnated as a tapeworm in the digestive tract of a Rancor ;) :rofl: "Dietific", I must have been smoking something.
STAT 05-25-06, 08:20 AM	"A Paladin need not devote herself to a SINGLE deity" is not the same as "A Paladin need not devote herself to any deities at all", nor is it anywhere suggested that this is the case. "Devotion to righteousness" would be a general devotion to the Powers of Good and Law unless you're running a campaign where divine magic isn't. The qualification about the following of a single deity, I believe, was intended to allow people to play Paladins that don't restrict themselves to the portfolio of interests of a single Good deity, NOT to suggest that they don't get their powers from the gods. Clerics also have a similar statement in their religion section as follows, "Some clerics devote themselves not to a god but to a cause or a source of divine power." I think that can reasonably be interpreted as there being other possible sources of divine power. As such, I don't think it's a stretch to apply the same logic to the paladin. Now, is it easy to say they get their powers from the gods? Yes. Is it necessary? No, but I'd probably add the requirement that you have to state where you are infact getting your power from. This seems to be Wizards way of letting people be clerics/paladins with out saying they worship a god which might conflict with their in real life religious beliefs. Taking that into consideration I think it makes very little sense for them to do this and then imply that you're still worshipping gods in some form.
Pandaemoni 05-25-06, 09:34 AM	"A Paladin need not devote herself to a SINGLE deity" is not the same as "A Paladin need not devote herself to any deities at all", nor is it anywhere suggested that this is the case. "Devotion to righteousness" would be a general devotion to the Powers of Good and Law unless you're running a campaign where divine magic isn't. The qualification about the following of a single deity, I believe, was intended to allow people to play Paladins that don't restrict themselves to the portfolio of interests of a single Good deity, NOT to suggest that they don't get their powers from the gods. I disagree. A "devotion to righteousness" would mean a devotion to "righteousness" as opposed to "good deities generically." If they meant "multiple good gods," then they chose the wrong words, missing their mark by a mile, because "righteousness" does not require that one worship deities. It requires only that one live a moral and virtuous life. Anyone devoted to righteousness would honor others devoted to the same cause, from a simple country farmer to the good gods, but as allies rather than as objects of worship. The PHB no where says, "A paladin must worship a god or gods." One could easily be a "righteous Buddhist" even though Buddhism has no deities. While we ordinarily link "divine" power with deities, that's because most religions (especially those familiar in the west) have deities. Buddha had a sacred power to him (at least mythologically speaking) and "sacred" is one of the potential definitions of "divine".
Ankalagon 05-25-06, 09:50 AM	Clerics also have a similar statement in their religion section as follows, "Some clerics devote themselves not to a god but to a cause or a source of divine power." I think that can reasonably be interpreted as there being other possible sources of divine power. As such, I don't think it's a stretch to apply the same logic to the paladin. But clerics cannot fall. There is no judge, in that case there would be a power "out there" that they can tap into. I also think that is guff but I do have an explanation for it. One could easily be a "righteous Buddhist" even though Buddhism has no deities One could, but powers granted because of that would be related to inner belief i.e Monk. Rather than the external judgement of being deemed worthy wouldn't you say? Many can be righteous, knightly, saintly, LG and all the nice things but that still doesn't qualify as Paladinhood. Neither do those criteria grant you back in after a fall. There has to be an external judge (or judges) rather than one's own moral compass as that can have a magnet thrown on it. Why no Neutral Paladins?
Tormsskull 05-25-06, 09:55 AM	But clerics cannot fall. There is no judge, in that case there would be a power "out there" that they can tap into. I also think that is guff but I do have an explanation for it. Clerics cannot fall in the same way as Paladins, but correct me if I am wrong, if they act against their alignment, can't their powers be withdrawn from them? If a good cleric turns evil, don't they generally have to start praying to an evil god and hope that god grants them spells? So if a cleric were to pray to a force, or a belief and thats where she drew her powers from, then she would risk losing those powers if she went against the force, or those beliefs. Why no Neutral Paladins? As far as core rules go, Paladins are supposed to be the embodiment of Law and Goodness, that is why there are no Neutral Paladins.
Ankalagon 05-25-06, 10:02 AM	Clerics cannot fall in the same way as Paladins, but correct me if I am wrong, if they act against their alignment, can't their powers be withdrawn from them? If a good cleric turns evil, don't they generally have to start praying to an evil god and hope that god grants them spells? So if a cleric were to pray to a force, or a belief and thats where she drew her powers from, then she would risk losing those powers if she went against the force, or those beliefs. Kind of my point. Something is judging you. It doesn't come from the self, it comes from an external source. As far as core rules go, Paladins are supposed to be the embodiment of Law and Goodness, that is why there are no Neutral Paladins. That's a silly argument. Why not a description like if you're Lawful Good you are a Paladin, if you are Neutral then you are a Knight of Neutrality if it's in support of forces. But even then those forces will still sit in judgement so yet again it's not of the self it's based on external sponsorship and deemed worth.
Fuzzy_Logic 05-25-06, 10:11 AM	The Force is a power; the Jedi are a religion. As I underwstand it, lots of people can use the force. sith, jedi, witches of dathomir, ithorians shaman, and so on. plus untrained people who do it naturally. the force itself doesn't judge, it jsut IS. The Jedi, on the toher hand, have temples. they have a Jedi Code, their equivalent of teh commandments. they worship the force itself as a kind of god, beliving in the will of the force and whatnot. The sith also have been a religion at parts of their history. where t gets tricky is that the religion affects the kind of power its wielders have. but it is NOT because Jedi use divine magic; rather, because Jedi CHOOSE to use light-side powers and sith to use the darkside. Its more like Neutral Good wizard who voluntarily does nto leanr evil spells, than a cleric or paladin beholden ot a good-aligned god.
Sulaco 05-25-06, 10:40 AM	Am I wrong in viewing Paladin's like this? Why can't a Paladin be devoted to the forces of Neutrality? Please explain why. Cos paladins are extremists. By definition the middle is neither one extreme nor the other. Also, paladins need not be "nice." A paladin can be a complete a-hole and still serve the tennets of good.
Tormsskull 05-25-06, 10:45 AM	Kind of my point. Something is judging you. It doesn't come from the self, it comes from an external source. (Previous) If that was the case, no matter they did (as long as they believed it righteous) they wouldn't fall. Well, I was just showing you how a cleric can "fall", and thus if the same principle were applied to Paladins without deities the same could be said for them. A Paladin could still fall if he/she violated "goodness" or whatever you want to call it. It's not as if they'd be judging themselves, they would be judged by the belief or whatever they followed. That's a silly argument. Why not a description like if you're Lawful Good you are a Paladin, if you are Neutral then you are a Knight of Neutrality if it's in support of forces. But even then those forces will still sit in judgement so yet again it's not of the self it's based on external sponsorship and deemed worth. I'm not sure I understand you here, but I'll take a shot at it. Are you saying that acting like a Paladin makes you a Paladin, and thus, all Lawful Good people are Paladins? All Neutral people are Knights of Neutrality? My quote was just to show you that the reason there are no Neutral Paladins is due to the fact that in core D&D a Paladin is modeled after the idea of a person that is the embodiment of Law and Goodness. Even if you are Neutral Good you simply don't have the dedication to take on the mantle of a Paladin. Of course, people view Paladins and alignments in a lot of different ways, so I don't think anyone would call you a moron if you said that a Paladin had to worship a deity. I'd assume you also wouldn't think it so off the wall that someone could think a Paladin could believe in the forces of goodness and draw his/her power from there rather than a specific deity. This is especially a good argument when you are talking about a campaign with 10,000 deities and 1,000 of them are Lawful Good. Rather than the Paladin identifying him/herself as a Paladin of ______ they'd simply be a Paladin because they fight for justice, uphold the law, help the needy, and are so dedicated to those pursuits they have developed special powers due to that dedication. Edit: No their not, at least not in my view. Extremist would be LE and rigidity would be a trait of persona not alignment necessarily. the word Extremist currently has a negative connotation associated with it, Extremist simply means you believe in something to the extreme. You can be an extremist good person.
Ankalagon 05-25-06, 10:54 AM	Cos paladins are extremists. By definition the middle is neither one extreme nor the other. No their not, at least not in my view. Extremist would be LE and rigidity would be a trait of persona not alignment necessarily. Also, paladins need not be "nice." A paladin can be a complete a-hole and still serve the tennets of good. 'Ave a word state the obvious kid. I meant "nice" as in fluffily Lawful and Good. Not as in someone whacks you in the nose and you apologise for damaging their fist. I'd still very much like to know how a Paladin can be a Paladin without divine sponsorship?
Ankalagon 05-25-06, 11:01 AM	Well, I was just showing you how a cleric can "fall", and thus if the same principle were applied to Paladins without deities the same could be said for them. A Paladin could still fall if he/she violated "goodness" or whatever you want to call it. It's not as if they'd be judging themselves, they would be judged by the belief or whatever they followed. As I said, you can believe slaughtering a bunch of innocents the right thing and if your own moral compass be the guide then you can never fall. This is not the case with the Paladin. I'm not sure I understand you here, but I'll take a shot at it. Are you saying that acting like a Paladin makes you a Paladin, and thus, all Lawful Good people are Paladins? All Neutral people are Knights of Neutrality? Of course not, I am arguing against that very concept. That's the concept of others. My quote was just to show you that the reason there are no Neutral Paladins is due to the fact that in core D&D a Paladin is modeled after the idea of a person that is the embodiment of Law and Goodness. Even if you are Neutral Good you simply don't have the dedication to take on the mantle of a Paladin. Why not, NG is widely considered to be true good. Discipline is about the self not the alignment. Chaos can have disciplined followers. Of course, people view Paladins and alignments in a lot of different ways, so I don't think anyone would call you a moron if you said that a Paladin had to worship a deity. I'd assume you also wouldn't think it so off the wall that someone could think a Paladin could believe in the forces of goodness and draw his/her power from there rather than a specific deity. Not a specific diety but dieties yes. Otherwise there is no judge to take away. This is especially a good argument when you are talking about a campaign with 10,000 deities and 1,000 of them are Lawful Good. Rather than the Paladin identifying him/herself as a Paladin of ______ they'd simply be a Paladin because they fight for justice, uphold the law, help the needy, and are so dedicated to those pursuits they have developed special powers due to that dedication. Exactly and those 1000 would sit in judgement when you drop a clanger.
Pandaemoni 05-25-06, 11:25 AM	One could, but powers granted because of that would be related to inner belief i.e Monk. Rather than the external judgement of being deemed worthy wouldn't you say? If you can have a cleric with no deity (and you can, see here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050329a) (stating, "A cleric could have no deity at all."), not to mention druids), why is a deityless paladin any more controversial? Just because you prefer to model them as monks, doesn't mean they all *must* be monks. What is one wanted to use a sword and wear heavy armor? In any event, I wasn't saying that we lift Buddhism wholesale into the game; I was merely illustrating that deity-free, and non-centrally organized, "religion" can exist and could have paladins without violating the RAW. If a player were to come to you and say he wanted to play a paladin of no deity, what would you say? "That's a monk. Play a monk or pick a new character"?
Tormsskull 05-25-06, 11:27 AM	Well, I was just showing you how a cleric can "fall", and thus if the same principle were applied to Paladins without deities the same could be said for them. A Paladin could still fall if he/she violated "goodness" or whatever you want to call it. It's not as if they'd be judging themselves, they would be judged by the belief or whatever they followed. As I said, you can believe slaughtering a bunch of innocents the right thing and if your own moral compass be the guide then you can never fall. This is not the case with the Paladin. Reread my quote, specifically the bolded section, and then reread your quote, specifically the bolded section. If we go off the assumption that a Paladin can be deity-less, then it is very likely that the Paladin serves a force, a belief, or a concept. Regardless which, they'd all have to be Lawful Good (because that's what the PHB says). So if you own moral compass allowed you to slaughter a bunch of innocents, then your moral compass would not align with Lawful Good, and thus you could not be a Paladin. In addition, if you were a Paladin, and suddenly your moral compass shifted from a Lawful Good alignment, you'd instantly lose your powers (as per the rules in the PHB). If you are concerned about gameplay; that a Paladin could use this method to not be Lawful Good by saying that they get their powers from their own personal set of beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are, then you need to go back and read the passage in the description of classes for Paladin where it talks about Paladins being restricted to a Lawful Good alignment.
Pandaemoni 05-25-06, 11:32 AM	Not a specific diety but dieties yes. Otherwise there is no judge to take away. What about druids? They might revere a nature god, or they might revere "nature" (but no deity) and can have their powers taken away. Why can't a paladin revere "righteousness" when the PHB expressly says that that is sufficient. You're entering the realm of houseruling.
Ankalagon 05-25-06, 11:36 AM	If you can have a cleric with no deity (and you can, see here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050329a) (stating, "A cleric could have no deity at all."), not to mention druids), why is a deityless paladin any more controversial? Yes I believe it is. If a player were to come to you and say he wanted to play a paladin of no deity, what would you say? "That's a monk. Play a monk or pick a new character"? Then either a) You are a Paladin of all LG dieties and they will sit in judgement on you or b) Explain to me how mechanically, given the very concept of Paladinhood is based upon divine sponsorship how would you re-write the Paladin. How would you be anything other than an LG Fighter. Which Pandaemoni, I am asking you. This concept interests me greatly. It wasn't until other numbties started not reading the thread and jumping in that it began to degenerate. I believe a certain way but if you can inject how a Paladin can be a Paladin without divine judgement to take away powers then I am all ears. Honestly, I owuld like to know your take on this. How can a Paladin be self governing.
Pandaemoni 05-25-06, 11:43 AM	Which Pandaemoni, I am asking you. This concept interests me greatly. It wasn't until other numbties started not reading the thread and jumping in that it began to degenerate. I believe a certain way but if you can inject how a Paladin can be a Paladin without divine judgement to take away powers then I am all ears. Honestly, I owuld like to know your take on this. How can a Paladin be self governing. It would be the same way a Druid who reveres "nature" works. The Paladin who is devoted to righteousness or moral duty could get his powers directly from those qualities in the same way a druid does from nature. Note that the PHB says that paladins fall when they cease to be lawful good, when they commit an evil act or when they violate their code of conduct...but it says nothing about losing faith in their deity (unless you read maintaining faith into their "code of conduct"). As I see such a code, it would be the same, in concept, as the code shared by a LG cleric of no deity. It's not a question of re-writing the paladin. The description of Cleric is *far* more tied to the notion of having a deity, and yet they are not required to have one. The SRD version of thePaladin doesn't mention either deities or gods at all in connection with them. Even without a god, they work perfectly as written.
Ankalagon 05-25-06, 11:44 AM	In addition, if you were a Paladin, and suddenly your moral compass shifted from a Lawful Good alignment, you'd instantly lose your powers (as per the rules in the PHB). But as most of the Paladin threads on the boards will attest, a view on what is and what isn't an evil action is subjective. What you are suggesting is no rule except the Paladin's perspective of his own accuracy in his following of his alignment (please see previous detail of purging all possible evil by slaughtering ALL). What about druids? They might revere a nature god, or they might revere "nature" (but no deity) and can have their powers taken away. Why can't a paladin revere "righteousness" when the PHB expressly says that that is sufficient. You're entering the realm of houseruling. I thought you might go to druids. But it still doesn't wash. It's still a God or Gods providing said power.
Pandaemoni 05-25-06, 11:47 AM	I thought you might go to druids. But it still doesn't wash. It's still a God or Gods providing said power. Not under the RAW. Under the RAW a druid could love nature, but believe the nature gods are merely powerful allies worthy or respect, but not reverence in their own right. He or she could fail to perform their rituals at every turn, yet retain his or her divine power, because "nature" is its own force under the RAW. You might as well claim that clerics of no deity really do have deities.
Sulaco 05-25-06, 11:52 AM	No their not, at least not in my view. Extremist would be LE and rigidity would be a trait of persona not alignment necessarily. A terrorist is an extremist, but so is a vegan living in a treehouse and driving a solar-powered VW Microbus. An extremist is someone who serve an extremes, whether those are extremes of good or evil, law of chaos. There is nothing intrinsically evil about extremism. In D&D terms the Paladin - who is devoted to both the extremes of law and good - is the ultimate extremist PC class. Neutraily is the balance point, the fulcrum mid way between all the extremes. Thus a paladin cannot be neutral. That you don't agree does not change it. As to the issue of diety vs. no-deity, I think that is more setting-specific than rules-dictated. The proviso that paladins do not need a god was, I believe, included in ordxer to give DMs options for including paladins in settings with no gods or indifferent gods.
STAT 05-25-06, 11:54 AM	But as most of the Paladin threads on the boards will attest, a view on what is and what isn't an evil action is subjective. What you are suggesting is no rule except the Paladin's perspective of his own accuracy in his following of his alignment (please see previous detail of purging all possible evil by slaughtering ALL). How exactly does that change anything if there is a diety involved? How does a diety make things less subjective? Will there not be a person (DM) subjectively deciding what the paladin does or doesn't fall from? Will not same said person still be there if the paladin is worshipping a philosophy or other undefined source of divine power?
Ankalagon 05-25-06, 11:54 AM	It would be the same way a Druid who reveres "nature" works. The Paladin who is devoted to righteousness or moral duty could get his powers directly from those qualities in the same way a druid does from nature. Note that the PHB says that paladins fall when they cease to be lawful good, when they commit an evil act or when they violate their code of conduct...but it says nothing about losing faith in their deity (unless you read maintaining faith into their "code of conduct"). As I see such a code, it would be the same, in concept, as the code shared by a LG cleric of no deity. Hmmmm, now that's interesting. Why no neutral Paladins? Why no chaotic Paladin's? Why is Paladin not a PRC (maybe it should be). Are you taking literally what I think was entered into the books to prevent religious offense as opposed to being a basis for character build. It's not a question of re-writing the paladin. The description of Cleric is *far* more tied to the notion of having a deity, and yet they are not required to have one. The SRD version of thePaladin doesn't mention either deities or gods at all in connection with them. Even without a god, they work perfectly as written. You see I think it is. The Paladin class (arguably) is based on Teutonic or Arthurian Knight or even Templars (somewhat laughable considering those nasties) but the point is they are Holy Knights. The power is divine and they are IMO an annointed class. Where does that all come from if not a Diety or Dieties.
Ankalagon 05-25-06, 12:01 PM	A terrorist is an extremist A terrorist by ACTION would be evil to some or a paragon of justice to others. but so is a vegan living in a treehouse and driving a solar-powered VW Microbus. No, that would be an actionless personality preference. An extremist is someone who serve an extremes, whether those are extremes of good or evil, law of chaos. There is nothing intrinsically evil about extremism. In D&D terms the Paladin - who is devoted to both the extremes of law and good - is the ultimate extremist PC class. Please make your point in context and I still don't believe the Paladin is an extremist class. They are a LG everybody else, have good days and bad days. But I am not getting into another true paladin thread and what and what doesn't constitue extremism or even falling. This was never the point of this.
Ankalagon 05-25-06, 12:03 PM	How exactly does that change anything if there is a diety involved? How does a diety make things less subjective? Will there not be a person (DM) subjectively deciding what the paladin does or doesn't fall from? Will not same said person still be there if the paladin is worshipping a philosophy or other undefined source of divine power? Hmmmm, perhaps. I have to shoot now but I'll think on this and head back in later. c ya
Pandaemoni 05-25-06, 12:22 PM	Hmmmm, now that's interesting. Why no neutral Paladins? Why no chaotic Paladin's? Why is Paladin not a PRC (maybe it should be). Why couldn't there be a neutral paladin of a neutral deity? The answer is because the historical model of the "paladin" are the Knights of Charlemagne and, in fiction, they were the quintessential "knights in shining armor". The reason there are no neutral paladins, with or without a deity, is that it does not fit with the literary and folkloric archetype so the authors never covered it in the core rules (although I believe they did in an old Dragon Magazine), not because "it makes no sense." Are you taking literally what I think was entered into the books to prevent religious offense as opposed to being a basis for character build. I am taking the literal words of the RAW at face value. "A devotion to righteousness is enough," seems to me to mean "a devotion to righteousness is enough." If they meant "a devotion to righteousness is not enough, because you need to have at least one deity," then I think we could say they failed to make themselves clear. :D The Paladin class (arguably) is based on Teutonic or Arthurian Knight or even Templars (somewhat laughable considering those nasties) but the point is they are Holy Knights. The power is divine and they are IMO an annointed class. Where does that all come from if not a Diety or Dieties. Unfortunately, using that reasoning you could easily say "all paladins must be Christians" (or perhaps monotheists). All European archetypes (clerics included) will have gods because all European religions were deistic. The one (pseudo) exception is druidism...historically speaking that was also a deistic religion, but 18th and 19th centuries and later neo-druidic tradition suggested that they were "nature" worshippers, rather than the worshipers of Celtic deities. Real druids weren't even tied to "nature"...they were just "clerics" of the Celts. The Celts had numerous nature-related gods, but they also had gods of war, gods of trade, gods of poetry, etc. and the real druids revered them all. The druidism of D&D is the "new agey" neo-Druidism, invented by people who didn't know much about the real druids, but who were instead looking for an outlet for Romantic influences. Once you introduce the concept in that class, it can be easily expanded (hence the deity-less cleric). Even if Paladins are based on an historically theistic model, the RAW doesn't say they must be theistic (in fact, it expressly says otherwise). You are reading that in because it happens to be the archetype, but it's the archetype for clerics too. Until the rule "a devotion to righteousness is enough" is errataed out of the class description or, otherwise contradicted by some express provision in the RAW, I see no reason to force my players into a box on that issue.
Tormsskull 05-25-06, 12:45 PM	But as most of the Paladin threads on the boards will attest, a view on what is and what isn't an evil action is subjective. What you are suggesting is no rule except the Paladin's perspective of his own accuracy in his following of his alignment (please see previous detail of purging all possible evil by slaughtering ALL). Stop trying to complicate the issue. You are right, people have different views on what is LG. So what? In any campaign that has a Paladin that DOES worship a deity, those views on what is LG will determine what actions cause a Paladin to fall. In a campaign that that has a Paladin that DOES NOT worship a deity, those exact same views on what is LG will determine what actions cause a Paladin to fall. Again, if a Paladin does not worship a deity, that does not mean he follows his own personal beliefs. It does NOT mean he follows his own perspective. It means he follows a force, a concept or something similar. The force or concept MUST be LG because that's what the PHB says. I thought you might go to druids. But it still doesn't wash. It's still a God or Gods providing said power. That was actually not my quote, it was Pandaemoni's, but I'd say it was a great example. I personally don't think that a Druid's power is required to come from a god. A druid can follow the force or concept of nature (which is pretty traditional) and thus get his/her powers from that. Mechanically nothing changes. There is no concern for breaking of any rules. I don't see any problem with it. Once again, if you campaign requires a direct connection to a deity to be able to use divine powers, that is fine. If it does not require it, that should be fine too.
Brand_X 05-25-06, 01:28 PM	i idsagree. turning from the path of good is very easy, but turning from the path of evil is not. by killing his evil lord, the blackguard showed that either he is becoming good again or that he was ffed up with his master. either one is likely. In the D6 rules ( not sure if I want to play the D20 Rules ever) It is stated that to reject the Darkside and come back to the "Light" all that is necessary is to have a Good Jedi tell you that the Light is more powerful. I do not remember the exact words but that is the basics of the rules in the D6 book. Simple Luke told his father that he could fight the dark side that he wasnt evil and that is all it took for his father to break the grip of the dark side. Something along the same lines for Liea (sp) in the Dark Empire comic. Back to my original point over all. Why Not? Brand X Generic GM
Fuzzy_Logic 05-25-06, 11:57 PM	remember folks, in D&D, good and Evil are NOT subjective. in application, they have to be-- the DMs and players have to come to a consensus on what is considered evil in their campaign. HOWEVER, those things ar,e in that world, objectively evil. the godless paladin (which is, in fact, the default paladin) is beholden to and judged by the veyr force of good itself. the universe knows what's good and evil, and if the paladin does evil, he loses his power to embody good. paladin-like figures embodying other alignments are possible, I would say, but not neutral. A: there is no force of neutrality in D&D for them to draw on B: what would a paladin of neutral do? most versions i've seen have been either: completely illogical (wants to balance good and evil--limit suffering or icnrease it, to get to teh desired level) or really just a paladin of law or good
Ankalagon 05-26-06, 04:27 AM	Unfortunately, using that reasoning you could easily say "all paladins must be Christians" (or perhaps monotheists). Actually quite the opposite. But Divinity is the judge, it's divinity provided by a singular or a multitude of gods in support of the same cause that provide the Paladin power and ultimately will take it away. Think of it like this. In D&D non-arcane power is divine. Every core book points to this. Neither is there any example of that "divinity" being a generic force people can just tap into and use as they wish. That's why I am struggling here, and believe me it's not that I don't want to accept what your saying. See below. The druidism of D&D is the "new agey" neo-Druidism, invented by people who didn't know much about the real druids, but who were instead looking for an outlet for Romantic influences. Once you introduce the concept in that class, it can be easily expanded (hence the deity-less cleric). You see I don't see it necessarily as being "new-agey". I think it's your classic paganistic approach. Bow before *insert here* lord of all trees etc, etc Even if Paladins are based on an historically theistic model, the RAW doesn't say they must be theistic (in fact, it expressly says otherwise).) No it doesn't but it more than alludes to the fact. Again I think this was thrown in for political correctness. You are reading that in because it happens to be the archetype, but it's the archetype for clerics too. Until the rule "a devotion to righteousness is enough" is errataed out of the class description or, otherwise contradicted by some express provision in the RAW, I see no reason to force my players into a box on that issue. Perhaps I am reading into it. I don't think it's about forcing my players into a box though. It simply is and therefore must be. Divinity being: "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force". You see, personification. In D&D that being god or gods. Stop trying to complicate the issue. You are right, people have different views on what is LG. So what? In any campaign that has a Paladin that DOES worship a deity, those views on what is LG will determine what actions cause a Paladin to fall. I am not trying to complicate the issue. In fact I think you are. People do have different views, even Gods have different views (based on their write-up). So when judging a given Paladin's actions, if they are not the Holy Warrior of God X and thereby not judged by the belief's of God X then they are Holy Warriors of Gods X, Y, Z. The beliefs of X, Y and Z will judge their actions. Not the DM. The DM is the facilitator and interpreter, the game world sets the rules. At least in my view. Now this all started in relation to how I maintain a Paladin is absolutely nothing like a Jedi (silly argument I know but hey some threads can be like that). But it's moved on and I'll explain my interest. A couple of years ago Oakspar77777 managed to drag out of me my thoughts on the nature of magic, kind of a philosophical 'what if' and it went something like this. ALL magic is in essence the same. Arcane and divine. It's the application and the methods of harnessing that differ. For the cleric/druid his magic comes from his faith in God or Gods but is not provided by said Gods. Essentially the power of the self, using established Prayers as a conduit of release and if not for religious dictate their power would be limitless. The Wizard/Sorcerer. He forces (through words of power) powerful energies into being. The fact he forces them means he can never truly be in harmony with them and as such his power will always be restrained. Although study/intuitive feel can make it expansive. The Bard. The most powerful spell casting class. He coaxes powerful energies into being. Charms and sings them forth. Unbound and unconstrained by any religious dictate. The powerful forces willingly do his bidding with their maximum force. But the Paladin breaks the mould. He is champion of all that's right and as such gains sponsorship in his quest. That sponsorship is divine. I would like to alter it so it fits in nicely with the above philosophies on magic but it just doesn't. Anyway you dress it up a Paladin is the biatch of a God or Gods. Or is he? h'mmmm still thinking.
Nyaz 05-26-06, 05:45 AM	I think that a Paladin who has turned his back on paladinhood, especially one who's become a blackguard, can never again be a paladin. He can redeem himself. He can be a good person, and he can help others selflessly. But he cannot be a Paladin, at least in my opinion. Anyway, one human, or even elven, lifetime is not long enough for that kind of transformation to take place. Becoming an ex-Paladin Blackguard should alone take years of gradual decline, otherwise it's just not being explained properly. Going the other way is far more difficult, because once a character has been seduced by the Evil side there is really no reason for him to go back to Good. Life-altering visions or not. And Paladins are the definition of extremists. What's more extreme than someone who's 100% Lawful and 100% Good (and they are, because for them there's never a middle way)? A Paladin can never cooperate knowingly with evil characters, even if it's done to help a good cause.
Ankalagon 05-26-06, 05:53 AM	And Paladins are the definition of extremists. What's more extreme than someone who's 100% Lawful and 100% Good (and they are, because for them there's never a middle way)? A Paladin can never cooperate knowingly with evil characters, even if it's done to help a good cause. That's not true matey. Extremism is down to an individual persona and not an alignment or do you think every LG character has an identical view. In fact do you believe every role played Paladin is a clone of another? Is CE an extremist? Is CG an Extremist are Monks extremists. Are LG clerics extremists. It just isn't true.
Jarrad 05-26-06, 08:05 AM	I'm sorry I missed a lot of this interesting stuff. Part of me wants to go back through the thread and respond to a ton of individual quotes, but I think I'm going to make a capsule summary of my understanding of the debate and go from there... [@Ankalagon, glad you got the "digestive tract" reference ;)] On the one hand, I believe Ankalagon is saying that Paladins get their power granted to them from SOME external agency. I further believe that the sematic juggling over what constitutes a "divine" power is irrelevant. The point is this: Paladins can lose their powers in a variety of ways, even by performing acts that THEY personally believe to be appropriate. This implies the existence of an external entity or entities sitting in judgement over what constitutes appropriate behaviour for a Paladin, bestowing or withholding powers as a consequence of said judgement. Even if the Paladin is simply "devoted to righteousness", his power is coming from somewhere. He might not be aware of, recognise or consciously worship the source of the power - it's an "out" for those who would compromise their religious beliefs by role-playing a worshipper of another deity - but it's definitely there, else his powers could not be stripped from him UNLESS he was cognisant of having performed wrong-doing and his belief in himself and his devotion to righteousness thus undermined. As an illustration, allow me to propose a thought experiment which ought to describe the two main points of view held forth thus far: A Paladin is under the influence of an evil spellcaster. He is ensorcelled such that he perceives reality differently (although the spellcaster in no way directly controls him) and thus slays innocent people, steals, defiles the churches of Good deities, poisons his companions and generally does horrible things, all by choice. However, whilst under this enchantment he BELIEVES himself, completely and utterly, to be doing Good things. He is bamboozled into thinking that the innocent people he's slaughtering are mindless undead nasties bent on eating babies and painting rude signs on shop doors or somesuch. He believes that the money he is stealing actually rightfully belongs to someone else and that he is engaged in a just and lawful recovery action. He believes that the Good churches he's defiling aren't churches at all but blasphemous temples of Evil used for summoning demons and he doesn't think he's taking a dump on the altar, he thinks he's sprinkling holy water on it. Right: don't worry about the details, the point is that the Paladin is totally and utterly deluded. It could just as easily be a strange brain disease as an evil enchantment. He is doing Evil things but is wholly and completely convinced that he is doing Good things. Assume, please, that he is in absolutely no way aware - consciously or subconsciously - of carrying out Evil deeds whilst under the enchantment: this is a thought experiment. There's little question that when (if) the enchantment ends and the Paladin realises what he's done that he will have to atone for his actions and will temporarily lose his Paladin status. Either view would agree with that outcome, I suspect. The question is this: does the Paladin retain his Paladinic abilities and his Paladin status whilst under the influence of the enchantment? Based on what I believe the debate to be, there are only two possible answers, depending on what one considers to be the source of the Paladin's powers and status: 1) Yes. The Paladin's powers come from the force his belief in his own Righteousness and Goodness, and thus he should retain them whilst he truly and completely believes he is in the right. 2) No. The Paladin's powers are granted by some external force of Law and Goodness, and they will be removed the moment he does Evil, even if he is UNAWARE of doing these things. I have to admit that, at least in the SRD, the Rules As Written tend to support the former interpretation, although there is a certain ambiguity (of course) due to the wording: Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Ex-Paladins A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate. The trouble here is that "willingly" and "willfully" do not mean the same thing (the bold emphasis on those words in the quoted text was mine). "Willful" is: Any act which is consciously or intentionally performed and directed toward achieving a specific purpose. Whereas "willing" is: disposed or inclined toward; "a willing participant"; "willing helpers" or: uncoerced: not brought about by coercion or force; "the confession was uncoerced" The acts performed by our hypothetical Paladin were "willing": he was disposed or inclined toward committing them and they were not brought about by coercion or force. It was simply that he was perceiving reality differently at the time and acted according to his nature, responding to the scenarios he thought he witnessed. There is no question that the acts were "willing", it's just that the acts he performed were not achieving what he thought. (If you want to consider the enchantment a form of coercion, use the brain-diseased example instead: let's not get side-tracked.) However, the acts were not "willfully" evil, although they were committed willfully. The acts were consciously and intentionally performed and directed toward achieving specific purposes, BUT the purposes *intended* were not Evil. This is the distinction between "willing" and "willful"; the former does not imply any specific intention beyond the intention to perform the act, whereas the second implies a specific intention for an outcome arising FROM the act. Thus the, Paladin did not "willfully commit an Evil act" because his intention and belief was not to commit Evil. So... does the Paladin actually lose any class abilities? If you believe that his powers derive from an external force that judges his actions according to a set of criteria, then the answer is probably yes. If you believe that his powers arise entirely from his single-minded devotion to a Lawful Good approach to life, then the answer is probably no, and furthermore the Paladin could continue to do dreadful things whilst retaining Paladin status indefinitely, so long as a condition exists under which he firmly and absolutely believes himself to be doing Good and following the tenets of Law. I confess, I started out completely on the side of Divine Judgement, but following my thought experiment I'm distinctly wavering, and possibly even more convinced of the "self-powered" explanation... if only because a brain-sickly Paladin who goes around murdering innocents in the firm belief that they're horrible evil monsters is a fantastic storyline :) Comments?
Ankalagon 05-26-06, 08:24 AM	Jarrad - Impressive post. So... does the Paladin actually lose any class abilities? If you believe that his powers derive from an external force that judges his actions according to a set of criteria, then the answer is probably yes. If you believe that his powers arise entirely from his single-minded devotion to a Lawful Good approach to life, then the answer is probably no, and furthermore the Paladin could continue to do dreadful things whilst retaining Paladin status indefinitely, so long as a condition exists under which he firmly and absolutely believes himself to be doing Good and following the tenets of Law. Stretch that a little further and I will be thinking about a Paladin/Blackguard dual-class. :evillaugh
Jarrad 05-26-06, 09:56 AM	Jarrad - Impressive post. Stretch that a little further and I will be thinking about a Paladin/Blackguard dual-class. :evillaugh Thanks :D Despite my attraction to the idea of a deluded Paladin wandering the countryside doing dreadful deeds and retaining his "holy" powers, I'd never run it that way in a campaign. Once you decide that a Paladin's powers are entirely dependent upon their *own* view of whether they're in the right, you open the floodgates for players to justify all sorts of dubious actions. In a subtle but very real sense, the DM in that situation would be obliged to "control" the character far more than a scenario where there's an external judge of right and wrong. Player: "But my Paladin absolutely believes, 100%, that he has to kill that guard without giving him the chance to surrender! He *believes* that's both Lawful and Good to do so!" DM: "Er... no he doesn't." Player: "That's it! Now you're telling me what my character is thinking! I've had it!" And that's the problem. If there's no external arbiter and the Paladin's powers derive from their own view of their actions, the DM has no cause or justification for removing the Paladin's powers under ANY circumstances that are not a direct letter-of-the-law violation of the very sketchy Code. Possibly not even then, if the player claims their character believes their actions not to be such a violation... and how do you deal with that? You're left in the depressing position of either having to tell the player that they're taking the p*** and that their character doesn't think what they SAY their character thinks, or of having a Paladin running rough-shod over whomsoever they wish because there's ultimately no judge beyond themselves as to the rightness of their actions. No, to manage the Paladinic character in any reasonable way, it is necessary for some Powers or other - whether that be the Gods, the Spirit of Righteousness or the local branch of the Federal Agency for the Regulation of Heroic Abilities - to either grant or withhold the Paladin's divine abilities. Rightly or wrongly, in the context of a role-playing game it's by far the safer solution even if your world-view favours the idea of a Paladin driven by the fires of self-belief. That's what I think, anyway :)
Ankalagon 05-26-06, 10:01 AM	I very much agree. I would also like to bend more with my view but I just cannot see how.
Jarrad 05-26-06, 10:15 AM	All I've left to say about your viewpoint is that I think the "divinity" argument (i.e. "it's a god or gods"/"it doesn't have to be either") you were having earlier is a complete side-track, although I do agree with you. The only question with regard to this topic is whether or not there is ANY external agent governing whether the Paladin does or does not receive his powers. It doesn't even matter whether the external agency is sentient: we could be talking about the violation of something equating to the laws of physics in a setting that really wanted to abstract Paladins from anything resembling a "deity". The point is that if it's entirely the Paladin's devotion to a cause that gives him his mojo then it's very difficult to ever forsee a circumstance under which the Paladin could Fall unless the player's prepared to say "My character knows this is wrong but does it anyway". If there is any external agent at all - even some mindless "forces" of Good and Law - against which the Paladinic criteria are judged, then it'll be down to the DM as to whether the Paladin keeps his powers, without having to tell a player what his character does or does not believe. If I were writing a novel, I'd be more inclined to have the Paladin's "divine" powers arise from his own self-belief 'cos I think I could make a better story from it. Running a role-playing game though, I can't see any manageable way to take gods out of the equation!
Sulaco 05-26-06, 11:58 AM	That's not true matey. Extremism is down to an individual persona and not an alignment or do you think every LG character has an identical view. In fact do you believe every role played Paladin is a clone of another? Is CE an extremist? Is CG an Extremist are Monks extremists. Are LG clerics extremists. It just isn't true. It is true. This is not real-life we are talking about. Morality is not subjective in D&D as it employs a system of moral absolutes. Anyone without an N in their laignment code is an extremist on either the Law/Chaos or Good/Evil, axis - sometimes both. However, there are also degrees of extremism. The extreme is not a single endpoint on a scale but rather a band with the end of the scale as the far boundary. Someone dancing inteh streets shouting "death to America" is an extremist, but not nearly so extreme as the person who straps a bomb to their back and blows up a school. Yes a LG person is an extremist, but unlike a paladin they do not stand as a paragon of that extreme. They exist within the parameters of the extremet but not right at the edge. A paladin, however, is a champion, even an embodiment, of an extremist philosophy. Just cos you don't understand this does not change it. The problem seems to be that you are blinded by the notion that extremism=negative in the context of political and religious extremism in the modern world rather than the literal defintion as it applies here.
Pandaemoni 05-26-06, 12:00 PM	The only question with regard to this topic is whether or not there is ANY external agent governing whether the Paladin does or does not receive his powers. It doesn't even matter whether the external agency is sentient: we could be talking about the violation of something equating to the laws of physics in a setting that really wanted to abstract Paladins from anything resembling a "deity". The point is that if it's entirely the Paladin's devotion to a cause that gives him his mojo then it's very difficult to ever forsee a circumstance under which the Paladin could Fall unless the player's prepared to say "My character knows this is wrong but does it anyway". If there is any external agent at all - even some mindless "forces" of Good and Law - against which the Paladinic criteria are judged, then it'll be down to the DM as to whether the Paladin keeps his powers, without having to tell a player what his character does or does not believe. I agree that there must be an external standard (no one's arguing for a subjective code of conduct), I just disagree that that standard must be a deity. From a metagame perspective, that standard is really "what the DM thinks". That metagame standard wouldn't change, and it doesn't really matter whether the DM describes the paladin's actions as "unrighteous" or "contrary to the will of God." Under the rules, it says that a paladin falls if he commits an evil act, ceases to be lawful good or violates his code of conduct. Nothing says that code of conduct is "the rules of a religion" (just as well, since the rules suggest that there are paladins devoted to more than one god...and their religions could have incompatable requirements), so the issue of how a paladin falls from grace remains the same.
Witch 05-26-06, 12:04 PM	A terrorist is an extremist, but so is a vegan living in a treehouse and driving a solar-powered VW Microbus. An extremist is someone who serve an extremes, whether those are extremes of good or evil, law of chaos. There is nothing intrinsically evil about extremism. In D&D terms the Paladin - who is devoted to both the extremes of law and good - is the ultimate extremist PC class. Extremists are typically viewed as people who are willing to commit violence to enforce their views. While in your viewing, there is no problem with extremism an sich, in the typical view people see it, it's wrong. The vegan living in a treehouse and driving a soler-powered VW Microbus will not be labelled an extremist. The vegan killing people who eat meat, or bombing a McDonalds, is.
Sulaco 05-26-06, 12:18 PM	Extremists are typically viewed as people who are willing to commit violence to enforce their views. While in your viewing, there is no problem with extremism an sich, in the typical view people see it, it's wrong. The vegan living in a treehouse and driving a soler-powered VW Microbus will not be labelled an extremist. The vegan killing people who eat meat, or bombing a McDonalds, is. All that proves is that both the "views" and "labels" are wrong, as are your conclusions drawn from those erroneous assumptions. Any bipartite system - good/evil, law/chaos, war/peace, violence/pacifism, etc. - has two extremes, not one. People tend to focus on the negative ones cos they are easier to spot and make more noise, but anyone living at either extreme is an extremist.
STAT 05-26-06, 12:42 PM	All I've left to say about your viewpoint is that I think the "divinity" argument (i.e. "it's a god or gods"/"it doesn't have to be either") you were having earlier is a complete side-track, although I do agree with you. It wasn't a sidetrack so much as a misunderstanding. I think that Ankalagon was misunderstanding our point. No one was saying that the paladin was judging himself which is what Ankalagon seemed to think the rest of us were saying. We were simply saying that, per the RAW, you can have your divine power come from a divine source other than a diety. This is, in part, where the confusion lies because I don't think Ankalagon can see how you can be a paladin and get your powers from the cosmic essence of lawful goodness. Now I agree that it is infact difficult for us to understand how a non-sentient force can stand in judgement of a mortal which seems to be a very sentient action. I think whoever said it was like breaking the laws of physics made a good point. That's not a bad way to think about it. If someone wants to house rule that you can only worship gods and not another source of divine power I don't see anything wrong with that. It avoids a lot metaphysical wonkery by not having to deal with some very abstract concepts. You could also simplify things by having mouth pieces for said abstract divine force. If the paladin screws up, have a celestial speak to him and inform him of such.
Ankalagon 05-26-06, 02:50 PM	It is true. No it isn't However, there are also degrees of extremism. When you go to 90 degrees in a 90 degree angle that is the extremity. Anything in between isn't. Just cos you don't understand this does not change it. The problem seems to be that you are blinded by the notion that extremism=negative in the context of political and religious extremism in the modern world rather than the literal defintion as it applies here. It's not about understanding or maybe it is. Because you view everything as black and white and lack the understanding of a personalities shades of grey or even the differences in a multitude of roleplayed persona doesn't make you right. Quite the opposite in fact. Two paladin can be quite different, hold differing views and standpoints and yet both be LG. What you are actually saying is as soon as you put two little letters on a piece of paper that makes you an extremist because there is then a neat little definition and that's just nonsense. If the paladin screws up, have a celestial speak to him and inform him of such. Just a question. How is that then not a personification?
Sulaco 05-26-06, 03:07 PM	Because you view everything as black and white and lack the understanding of a personalities shades of grey or even the differences in a multitude of roleplayed persona I do? Wow, and here I was thinking I was an intelligent, educated person who was capable of making my own decisions. Thank you for making a sweeping declarative generalization about what I think and believe based on a tiny handful of internet posts on a single topic. You saved me a lot of time actually thinking about things. Btw, what do I want for dinner tonight? Please tell me now so I can pick it up on the way home.
Ankalagon 05-26-06, 03:16 PM	I do? Wow, and here I was thinking I was an intelligent, educated person who was capable of making my own decisions. Thank you for making a sweeping declarative generalization about what I think and believe based on a tiny handful of internet posts on a single topic. You saved me a lot of time actually thinking about things. Btw, what do I want for dinner tonight? Please tell me now so I can pick it up on the way home. Now that is funny but how is what I wrote any worse than.... Just cos you don't understand this does not change it. The problem seems to be that you are blinded by the notion that extremism=negative in the context of political and religious extremism in the modern world rather than the literal defintion as it applies here. Give it but can't take it eh? We can go to civility or degenerate into sarcasm it's up to you. I prefer the latter but it doesn't really achieve anything does it. You decide in your next post, if there is gonna be one.
Sulaco 05-26-06, 04:01 PM	Now that is funny but how is what I wrote any worse than.... Give it but can't take it eh? We can go to civility or degenerate into sarcasm it's up to you. I prefer the latter but it doesn't really achieve anything does it. You decide in your next post, if there is gonna be one. The key difference is this: I wrote: "The problem seems to be..." You wrote: "...you view everything as..." Mine was a statement of perception on my part, yours was a declaration of intent on my part. I will concede though that my first sentence comes off as snarky. It is difficult in a text-only interaction to say "you don't get what I''m saying" without sounding like you are ripping in to someone. It wasn't intended in that manner.
Ankalagon 05-26-06, 04:09 PM	The key difference is this: I wrote: "The problem seems to be..." You wrote: "...you view everything as..." Mine was a statement of perception on my part, yours was a declaration of intent on my part. I will concede though that my first sentence comes off as snarky. It is difficult in a text-only interaction to say "you don't get what I''m saying" without sounding like you are ripping in to someone. It wasn't intended in that manner. Cool buddy. Acquiescence is a beautiful thing. Although in fairness I did deliberately elicit a prescribed response, sorry. Ok back to the point. How is a Paladin fundamentally an extremist rather than a flavoured persona, differing in all manner of ways from another Paladin. Is a member of the World Wild Life Fund fundamentally an extremist or Greenpeace etc
STAT 05-26-06, 04:21 PM	Just a question. How is that then not a personification? I was just trying to simplify things. It'd work pretty much that the Celestial type beings are more "in touch with" whatever said paladin/cleric is worshipping. It's more a way for a person to worship an abstract divine power while circumventing the whole metaphysical BS that's involved. If you want to just take it that the paladin "knows" when he's lost his powers that works just fine too I suppose.
Ankalagon 05-26-06, 04:38 PM	I was just trying to simplify things. It'd work pretty much that the Celestial type beings are more "in touch with" whatever said paladin/cleric is worshipping. It's more a way for a person to worship an abstract divine power while circumventing the whole metaphysical BS that's involved. If you want to just take it that the paladin "knows" when he's lost his powers that works just fine too I suppose. That's cool. I "get" the concept but as Jarrad put's it what I am struggling with is how to mechanically apply it without giving over to possible Player abuse or re-writing the Paladin class to allow any alignment (not that, that would be a bad thing). Where there are forces ruling a given fantasy world and not necessairly dieties then there has to be a force for all or at least differing forces available to all that can allow/achieve their own aim. Even if that aim (in the case of neutrality) being balance. For example Gilean (I think) in dragonlance could well be a force and that force can be tapped into by the Crusaders of Equilibrium. It's just not really sticking as yet with a lack of definition in my own mind, maybe I'll get there given more thought.
STAT 05-26-06, 05:23 PM	Well there are paladins for other alignments: Paladin of Freedom (chaotic good), Paladin of Tyranny (lawful evil) and Paladin of Slaughter (chaotic evil). I believe they were in an issue of dragon magazine. Which is to say the reason you cant be a paladin of another alignment is arbitrary/Wizards hasn't made them. I think that's just an issue with the way paladins are designed and can be asked regardless of who/what the character worships.
Fuzzy_Logic 05-27-06, 08:50 AM	Yes, but Neutrality is not a force ins D&D, only the four directions are.
Witch 05-27-06, 08:56 AM	Well there are paladins for other alignments: Paladin of Freedom (chaotic good), Paladin of Tyranny (lawful evil) and Paladin of Slaughter (chaotic evil). I believe they were in an issue of dragon magazine. Which is to say the reason you cant be a paladin of another alignment is arbitrary/Wizards hasn't made them. I think that's just an issue with the way paladins are designed and can be asked regardless of who/what the character worships. Actually, Wizards did make them. They're in the SRD.