Can the gods strip a paladin of his class?

[Agback]

Divine, by just the word itself, implies having to do with the gods.

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 'arcane' means 'secret'. You can't deduce D&D rules from the original meanings of words co-opted for use as technical terms.

 

[Artoomis]

In its original sense, yes.

...You can't deduce D&D rules from the original meanings of words co-opted for use as technical terms.

nor can you assume the opposite - that these terms actually have precise D&D meaning. Many of these terms, divine in perticulalr, may seem to have a D&D precise menaing, but good luck finding it and then showing it is always used withint the meaning in the definition!

I wonder if Divine is in the glossary? I can't look it up just now...

I do think this whole discussion is a mite foolish - just tell your players how it works in your world and be done with it. By now it shoudl be obivous that's what you need to do.

 

[Agback]

nor can you assume the opposite - that these terms actually have precise D&D meaning.

Just so. "Divine" is a case in point.

I wonder if Divine is in the glossary?

"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 that that is what the authors meant.

I do think this whole discussion is a mite foolish

Maybe. But not, I submit, as foolish as wading in to any other paladin thread with a dogmatic insistence that everything is up to the gods, when the setting has not been specified. Or wading into such a thread with a dogmatic insistence that the gods are not involved unless specified, without first checking with people knowledgeable about the rules.

So I'm in, if not good company, at least lots of company.

just tell your players how it works in your world and be done with it. By now it shoudl be obivous that's what you need to do.

That would unfortunately leave my curiosity unsatisfied, except that I am now pretty sure of what is and is not in the rules.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Maybe. But not, I submit, as foolish as wading in to any other paladin thread with a dogmatic insistence that everything is up to the gods, when the setting has not been specified. Or wading into such a thread with a dogmatic insistence that the gods are not involved unless specified, without first checking with people knowledgeable about the rules.

So I'm in, if not good company, at least lots of company.

You've mentioned this several times, but as a frequent participant in paladin threads myself, I don't recall it being as pervasive as you suggest. So, in the absence of anything other than the vague references you've given so far, I'm going to treat these assertions with a grain of salt.

I have to admit that I do find your logic a bit confounding. The core rules are, by design, relatively free of "flavor text." They provide the basic rules, but do not provide the decoration for the gaming constructs thus built. Clerics and paladins both can worship a god, or a concept, as the DM and player decide is appropriate. A fighter can be an army officer, or a lone swordsman wandering the Steppe. Again, either is appropriate. The core rules provide the mechanics of the game. It's up to the DM to provide the trappings.

Gods and the extent of their powers are a part of those trappings. So too is the nature of paladins and a paladin's Fall. The core rules provide the mechanics of it. Paladins who violate their code of conduct lose their powers. Again, it's up to the DM to provide the trappings, to explain how these machanics fit into the in-game worldview. A DM might decide that a paladin's powers are granted by a deity, under the condition that said paladin remain true to a certain code. When that code is broken, the deity revokes his power from the mortal vessel. Another DM might decide that a paladin's powers are the byproduct of a certain state of cosmic grace. That by being in tune with [Good], his nature partially transcends mortality, granting him his paladin powers. When he commits acts that drive him out of harmony with the Universal Good, he Falls into base and mundane mortality, and as such no longer commands the powers of an ascended being.

It's all in the trappings, which are all up to the DM.

You seem to be asking, "is there an official take on the gods' powers, and whether they can or cannot grant/deny paladin powers?" The short answer is no. The core rules neither condone nor deny the possibility that a god might revoke a paladin's powers.

 

[Agback]

You seem to be asking, "is there an official take on the gods' powers, and whether they can or cannot grant/deny paladin powers?" The short answer is no. The core rules neither condone nor deny the possibility that a god might revoke a paladin's powers.

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

 

[Lord Pendragon]

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

Yes...and...? Do you believe that the fact that the rules don't state "a paladin's powers can be taken away by his god, if he follows one" thereby proves that paladins are beyond the power of the god they serve (if they do indeed serve one,) to judge or censure? Extending that logic, do you believe that, by the rules, the gods only have those powers that have been explicitly granted to them in the core rulebooks?

If so, it would seem the gods can do nothing but censure their clerics, since nothing else has been explicitly allowed them.

Or, one could decide that the core rulebooks, despite making specific mention of a particular purview of divinity, largely leave the boundaries of divine power undefined, precisely because it is the place of the DM to do so. And further, one might decide that the lack of such specifics is not an indication of an "unwritten rule" disempowering divinities.

 

[Agback]

Yes...and...? Do you believe that the fact that the rules don't state "a paladin's powers can be taken away by his god, if he follows one" thereby proves that paladins are beyond the power of the god they serve (if they do indeed serve one,) to judge or censure?

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 talking through his hat. Divine ukase applies to paladins on exactly the same basis as it applies to rangers, or fighters for that matter.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Nope, not at all. I simply conclude that anyone who attempts to settle a rules question by reference to house rules is talking through his hat.

On this I can agree with you.

Divine ukase applies to paladins on exactly the same basis as it applies to rangers, or fighters for that matter.

You do realize that the above statement is guilty of exactly the same trespass that you've accused the general masses of in unspecified previous paladin threads? Assuming campaign-specific rules are core. I remain unconvinced that the absence of rules regarding divine authority proves anything regarding its potency in regards to paladins, rangers, or fighters. In other words, your assumption is no more correct than "theirs."

On a completely unrelated note...'ukase.' Nice, I learned a new word.

 

[irdeggman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artoomis
In the last paragraph you have it exactly right - a god can indeed become personally involved with a sorceror and change his powers

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.

Where in the world is this tie in of a deity and sorcerer's spellcasting coming from?

It is not in the RAW. Deities grant divine powers and abilities (not arcane, except in rare cases where the divine duplicates arcane, but they are still divine) and sorcerers are arcane casters.

 

[irdeggman]

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.

This is (even according to the RAW) a false statement. Druids and rangers can get their spells (and abilities) granted either by nature itself or by a god of nature - the default being nature itself. (3.5 PHB pg 33 (under Religion) for druids and pg 46 for rangers).

from the PHB pg 307:

"Divine spells: Spells of a religious origin powered by faith or by a deity. Clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers cast divine spells."