Can the gods strip a paladin of his class?

[Agback]

If you don't like the gods being able to strip powers then they could always just use the Hand of Death SDA and kill the paladin outright, no ressurection possible.

Sure. But the paladin dies a paladin.

Paladins cast divine spells and draw other powers from the same source. Divine spells by their very nature are related to the dieties.

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?

 

[Agback]

If a DM wants to have Paladins all have no spell casting and instead have much greater abilities with mounts, that's okay and allowed by the rules.

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.

Gods have all kinds of powers and can do darn near what they please when it comes to individual characters.

Is this a D&D rule? Or a piece of setting design? It is definitely not a logical necessity, because a lot of real-world religions, fantasy stories, and game settings have included gods that had decidely limited powers. Aphrodite could not make her lover Tithonos immortal or unaging. Death could not take Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser.


Do the powers of a paladin come from his or her god in any sense more significant than that in which a fighter's bonus feats come from his or her god, according to the D&D core rules as written?

 

[Artoomis]

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?

The way dieties work is very much a campaign-specific thing.

 

[Lord Wyrm]

Just because they serve no diety does not mean they do not serve its interests. Divine magic is by its very nature divine. Its comes from gods regardless of what a given cleric or paladin or druid serves. The dieties use such creatures as servants of opportunity. The said beings may simply gain powers from different gods based on their current objectives. Lets also not forget the OverGods such as Ao. These beings may grant the spells of dietyless clerics and such for their own, unfathomable, reasons.

 

[Agback]

Divine magic is by its very nature divine. Its comes from gods regardless of what a given cleric or paladin or druid serves.

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?

 

[Crothian]

Its called Divine. It's in the definition of the word. Sure the Palaidn may not worship a god, doesn't mean the power doesn't come from a god. Sure, it might not be the most spelled out part of the rules but in the end its up to the DM. That's why there is a DM for when the rules are not clear or are not enough.

So, what does the DM say?

 

[Artoomis]

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?

Oh, for goodness sakes. Give it up, would you? This is a very, very campaign specific area. Divine, by just the word itself, implies having to do with the gods. How much so is campaign-specific.

Looking for what is says in the rules is useful for what purpose, may I ask?

 

[Caliban]

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.

Does your questioning have a point? Or are you just trying to be annoying?

 

[Agback]

The way dieties work is very much a campaign-specific thing.

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 the god's pleasure.

2) That it is up to the judgement of a paladin's god (an NPC with the game world) whether the paladin has broken any of his or her class restrictions.

3) That a paladin's god can let him or her continue to exercise class abilities after ceasing to qualify for the class, as an act of forgiveness or mercy.

4) That a paladin's god can substitute an alternative (eg. reduced) penalty instead of stripping the powers from a paladin who no longer qualifies for the class.

5) That a paladin's god can require that the paladin go on a quest or perform some other penance as a condition of recovering class abilities.


If I can't find these rules, I will still support the right of a setting designer who wants the gods to be active, and paladins and clerics to have personal intereactions with their gods to introduce such world features using Rule Zero. If you can point out these rules to me, I will still support the right of setting designers to abolish them using Rule Zero, for example if they want their gods aloof and mysterious.

All I want to know is whether these rules are actually in third edition D&D core rules somewhere.

 

[Crothian]

Who is taking away the paladins powers if not the god?

And to what end are the questions being asked?