Lord Pendragon
First Post
It is faithless. Just because it's an agreed-upon faithlessness doesn't make it any less so. The paladin will not be faithful to that woman, nor will the woman be faithful to him. There may not be harm in it, but that's not the point.Joshua Dyal said:Who says its faithless? If both of them know what they're getting into, then it's not necessarily faithless.
As far as I know, this thread has nothing to do with rules support or setting support. It's here in General Discussion, not Rules. As such, I largely agree with what Celtavian posted.Again, this is projecting either our own culture, or at least, historical Western culture into a fantasy realm, where it may --or may not-- belong. It's also projecting your own ideas of what a paladin is which is not supported by the rulebook, or any setting of which I know.
Yes, those views, and my agreement with them, are founded on the Western understanding of an archtype based on a Western, Christian even, medieval concept. The Holy Knight. Saint George, Galahad, etc. etc. That doesn't invalidate such views in the slightest. Indeed, since that was AFAIK the archtype the paladin was based on, it could even be argued that it's the only valid view. (Though I won't argue that.

For me, Celtavian hit the nail on the head.