Search results

Good. You agree that these specifics are not there.

No, not at all. I am acknowledging that house rules about paladins may be good things and are allowed by Rule Zero, but pointing out this is not a special quality of paladins, the same is true of all classes.

Not so, since the Ranger description in core rules explicitly states that rangers cast divine spells that are not granted by a deity. Besides which, the word 'arcane' means 'secret'. Are you going to argue that wizards cast secret spells? And are you going to argue that a lich's phylactery...

But that is not, I believe, what I am doing in that statement. What I am doing, or at least trying to do, is to point out that a DM's or setting designer's freedom to make setting-specific rules about paladins also allows them to make setting-specific rules about, for example, barbarians. A DM...

Same place as the connection between a deity and the paladin's powers, which is not in the RAW either. To be explicit, it is quite up to the DM or the designer of a setting to declare what the powers and interests of the several gods are, and the DM or setting designer is perfectly free to...

Nope, not at all. The denial of "Paladin powers are the gift of the gods" is "Paladin powers are not necessarily the gift of the gods", not "Paladin powers are never the gift of the gods". I simply conclude that anyone who attempts to settle a rules question by reference to house rules is...

Whereas by contrast the core rules explicitly state that a god can suspend the spellcasting powers of any of its clerics.

Just so. "Divine" is a case in point. "Divine spells" is. 'Spells of religious origin powered by faith or by a deity'. I don't think that that is very explicit--my dicitionary says that 'religion' is belief in deities (etc.), rather than the deities themselves, but I wouldn't argue vehemently...

My pleasure.

In its original sense, yes. But on the other hand, a rapier is a narrow-bladed straight sword with edges parallel or tapering towards the point, a phylactery is a small leather box containing Hebrew texts written on vellum worn by Jewish men at morning prayer as a reminder to keep the law, and...

Abilities don't have to be taken away for a character to become unable to use them. And most especially, they don't have to be taken away by a person. For example, a ranger whose hand is cut of loses the ability to dual-wield without a god taking it away, and a spellcaster who is subjected to an...

I can find only one passage that implies that a god can lay extra restrictions on his paladins. None that imply that the god makes the judgements, nor that the god can waive the penalty or substitute lesser penalties. Could you please mention two of the many things in the core rules that imply...

Perhaps not. But they do in some cases say explicitly that certain class abilities (eg. the spells of their clerics) do depend on the pleasure of the gods. My question is: "According to D&D core rules, are paladin class abilities in the same case as the spells of deities' clerics (ie. explicitly...

I am the DM. What ought I to say? Ought I to say "Naturally, the fact that the Legion of Heaven has paladins and your side doesn't does not mean that God supports the Lawful faction to take over the Church", or "I have applied Rule Zero to the bit about God appointing paladins in The Compleat...

Yes, it does have a point. Two, in fact. First, I am toying with the ideas of a few campaigns (two of them set in a fantasticised historical Europe, and one in a fantasy world) in which it is very important that characters might doubt what God wants. One is set in Southern France while the...

Indeed. And I have no intention of challenging the right of a GM or a setting designer to use Rule Zero. What I am saying is that I cannot find the rule in the D&D core books that says or logically implies that: 1) Paladin's class abilities are given by their gods at will and retained during...

This may be true in your campaign, but I don't that it is required by the rules of D&D. If I am wrong about that, could you please tell me where in the rules it is written?

It may or may not be okay. But it requires a change to the rules. I'll say again that although your house rules may be very interesting, I am not feeling particularly curious about them at the moment. Is this a D&D rule? Or a piece of setting design? It is definitely not a logical necessity...

Sure. But the paladin dies a paladin. Is this a D&D rule? If so, where is it written? And how do you account for rules that provide for paladins who serve no deity, clerics who serve no deity, and druids and rangers obtaining divine spells directly from the powers of Nature, not from gods?

But a god can't make a neutral good character into a paladin, nor empower a paladin to continue to use his powers if he knowingly associates with evil characters.