Can the gods strip a paladin of his class?

[Artoomis]

Indeed. And I have no intention of challenging the right of a GM or a setting designer to use Rule Zero.
...
All I want to know is whether these rules are actually in third edition D&D core rules somewhere.

The basic way this works is pretty straightforward:

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. [

As for the rest, I do not think it is addressed within the core rules as they do not really directly address the powers of the gods pre se (at lkeast not much), but only by implication.

Again, I say, talking about what god can and cannot do is a campaign specific issue, not a core rules one.

 

[Artoomis]

P.S. Woe to a mere mortal (player-character or even a player) who thinks he understands the limits of the gods in D&D. A very foolish PC or player, that.

Only the DM knows, and that's as it should be.

 

[Agback]

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

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 Cathar heresy was at its height and the Hildebrandtine Reforms sweeping the Church. Another is a quest for Prester John starting in Cyprus after the fall of Acre in 1291. And the third is set in a province in which Chaotic and Lawful factions are struggling for control of a monotheistic church.

Any of these campaign would involve extensive use of Rule Zero, so naturally I will be preparing a rules delta summary. If there is a rule somewhere that implies that God's position as between the Catholics and Cathars, as between the Christians and Muslims, or as between the Nonconformists and the Legion of Heaven, ought to be reflected in the availability of paladinship, I want to find it so that I can tell my players it does not apply in my campaign.

Second, there have been many long arguments on the ENworld forums and elsewhere about whether certain paladins have broken the class restrictions and what ought to happen if they have. In these arguments I find that many, perhaps most, of the posters assume that the gods give paladins their powers and can take them away at will, that the gods or their delegates judge paladin class restrictions, that the gods are able to impose arbitrary penalties, penances, and suspensions on paladins, or several or even all of these things. And they do so without qualification--not saying 'in my campaign', 'in my opinion', or 'in Faerûn'. Some even imply that these arrangements can be assumed to apply without asking about teh setting of the particular instance. So it seems to me that most people believe that these things are default features of the paladin that apply unless they are rule-zeroed, not house rules that must be assumed not to apply unless the setting is specified.

Now, I don't plan to go around bludgeoning people around the head with this in future paladin arguments. But it does seem strange to me that so many people should all assume that such-and-such is a default D&D rule when I can't find anything in my rulebooks that either says or implies it. So I'm curious. Is there something somewhere, perhaps in the 3.5 edition (which I don't have), on which this belief is based? If I'm overlooking something, I am simply curious to find it.

 

[dcollins]

Is it a feature of the paladin class that the gods watch (and nag) them? Or do the gods also watch, for example, clerics, sorcerors, and rogues? And if so, why? I would have thought that paladins are teh class that needs least supervision--they are dependably lawful and good, and if they do evil things the problem is self-correcting.

The answers to all of these questions are the same. They are not addressed by the D&D core rules one way or the other. It is the responsibility of each individual DM to answer these questions for their campaign.

If you go back to 1st Ed. AD&D you will find text saying that the advantages of all class increases (attacks, hit points, saving throws, etc.) are in fact favors from the gods. (Although at the same time there was no option for clerics or paladins to be without patron deities.)

 

[Agback]

So, what does the DM say?

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 Rule-lawyer, therefore 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".

And when it comes to a whole bunch of DMs on ENworld arguing about paladin behaviour, are the ones who assume that the gods judge it basing that assumption on some rule that I don't know about, and if so, where and what is the rule?

 

[Crothian]

And when it comes to a whole bunch of DMs on ENworld arguing about paladin behaviour, are the ones who assume that the gods judge it basing that assumption on some rule that I don't know about, and if so, where and what is the rule?

Well, everything on it has basically been quoted and mentioned. Is there a clear cut passage that says one way or another? Nope, but there are many things that infere it and that's good enough for some DMs. Make a judgement call that worsks for the campaign you are working on and don't be so caught up in the rules like this. That's my unsolicited advice.

 

[Agback]

ROFL. The rules, as writen, do not really restrict what a god can and cannot do.

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 exercised only during the will of the god), or in the same case as a fighter's feats (ie. within the DM's prerogative to decree that a god can take them away)?"

 

[Bryan898]

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

It could be like a Spiderman thing (Spiderman 2). His lack of faith in his own abilities and his lack of conviction in the cause of good cause his powers to fail him.

I kind of see his point. It says under Religion on page 43 of the PhB that devotion to righteousness is enough. Then on page 179 under the first paragraph of Divine Spells it repeatedly makes a distinction between deities and divine forces.

Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine forces of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells.

These statements tend to lead to the belief that a paladin doesn't have to follow a deity at all, and that he can gain powers from the forces of law and good that are present within the cosmos. Perhaps the very powers that make up the cosmos.

P.S" Woe to a mere mortal (player-character or even a player) who thinks he understands the limits of the gods in D&D. A very foolish PC or player, that.

Only the DM knows, and that's as it should be.

I agree that the powers of the deities are completely up to the DM, however, running rampart with deities and doing whatever you'd want to just because it's the deities and they can is pure foolishness. If a Vecna was to suddenly appear and strip my paladin of his powers just because he could with no good reason, I'd tell the DM where to stick it and find a new game where the DM doesn't abuse the deities as tools to be dumb. The deities limits are what you're players are willing to accept, because ultimately, you can't effectively play the game by yourself and have a good time.

 

[Agback]

Well, everything on it has basically been quoted and mentioned. Is there a clear cut passage that says one way or another? Nope, but there are many things that infere it

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 that paladins get their powers from god their gods?

 

[Agback]

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

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 ability drain may lose bonus spells without a god having any say in the matter.