Can the gods strip a paladin of his class?

[Hawken]

Originally Posted by Hawken
You keep requesting specifics that you know are not there and are not meant to be there.


Good. You agree that these specifics are not there.

If that's all you got out of what I wrote, then you need to go back and actually read it, not just search for a statement that you think supports your reasoning.

Your original question "Can the gods strip a paladin of his class?" was answered quite well by those here that cared to post, despite the fact that you come across as obstinate and rude. Even at your insistence of finding something in writing, they have provided excellent answers and explanations which you disregard because it didn't suit your purposes or dismiss out of hand because their reasoning was more solid than your own.

Your mind is obviously made up about this subject and your insistent quest for specific wording is ludicrous and annoying. I don't think there's too many here who would go back over your posts and not feel at least some slight annoyance or offense because of your posts.

There is a difference between interpreting rules as written and making house rules. Deciding that a paladin's powers come from a deity is interpreting those rules from the paladin class description, as well as deciding that that is how they are removed when the paladin does something wrong. The rules are written as they are so DMs will have the freedom to decide if the paladin's power come from a god, some other divine source or perhaps the inate pure spirituality of an uncorrupt and morally upright soul, or whatever else the case may be. The majority of people posting here about paladins and deities seem to have decided to use deities as the source of the powers paladins receive and that is how they lose the powers. It is not a house rule, it is the interpretation of the rules as decided upon by the DM and agreed upon by the players that play paladins.

House rules are where some specific and/or existing rule has been altered or removed and has thus been changed to accomodate a specific DM's desire. Everything else is the DM's interpretation of those rules that are written. Saying a paladin gets Smite Evil 2/day, instead of 1/day, at 2nd level would be an example of a house rule. Saying that a paladin gets his powers from Pelor and must follow Pelor's code of conduct (in addition to whatever restrictions exist in the paladin class description) to continue as a paladin is an interpretation of the rules.

However, I had never noticed the implicit restriction on who Paladin powers can be granted to.

Sort of implies that the gods aren't in charge of it. Of course, it's really just a back door added in a gamist sense to allow "philosophical" or even "atheistic" paladins, but if someone wanted to be a Rules Lawyer, they are well within their rights to declare that their DM is against the rules by having a god strip their powers (unless of course there was a clear lay-out of such House Rules beforehand). And I've seen enough moral quandries in games where the paladin player did the most good possible and the DM decided to apply the god pincers anyway that I would be sympathetic.

"No, it's not 'what Torm would do' but it was even more morally correct, so I don't see the problem."

In many games, that would lead to "you're not a paladin anymore" or at best a lengthy, irritating side quest so this guy can get his powers back. However, if I read the rules correctly, a paladin who did not actually do evil or break his code should not lose his powers in that case, because his powers are not OF the god. They are OF Lawful Goodness.

The god is merely someone he respects and worships because of their similar worldview and vast divergence in relative power.

Like Agback, you are confusing house rules with interpretation of the rules. Yes, DMs and players should hash out the source of paladin powers and what it takes to keep them (or keep from losing them) before play begins. The implicit rule is right there for anyone to see, it is the explicit rule that, like Agback, you are expecting when it is obviously absent and utterly unnecessary.

You are also forgetting that the DM is the final arbiter of moral quandaries and such. If the DM doesn't see Torm (or whoever) as condoning an action, it is not condoned. If the DM sees the paladin as having violated his code or alignment, when the paladin does not, then the paladin has violated it. No one thinks they are violating their alignment, if and when they are. Even the majority of sentient, Evil villains think they are doing some kind of Good. The DM is the final decision on alignments and all their implications, and the will of the gods. Not the players. NEVER the players, though they are free to voice their decision. It is the DM that DECIDES. By playing with a DM or selecting a DM, the players are giving DM not just authority and decision making powers over the rules of the game, but how they are interpreted as well.

 

[Agback]

A god is not a character and that's a not even close as an example. These powers are in fact being taken away. It not because the character's wisdom or charimsa got to low preventing him from using his powers.

No, it's because his lawfulness, goodness, or purity got too low to use them. He lost a necessary qualification.

 

[Agback]

Sounds like you already made up your mind before you posted.

I had an opinion, based on the paladin class description and the mechanics of the Atonement spell. But I wasn't confident of that opinion, because I thought that there might be some other rule somewhere else that established that the gods choose paladins, that the gods grant paladins their powers, that the gods judge paladin class qualifications, or that the gods can waive the paladin's loss of powers (and substitute a lesser punishment). So I asked whether anyone more knowledgeable than myself might point out such a rule.

So far, I haven't seen anything of the kind indicated, though a couple of people have made a good point in that that a paladin who worships a god must respect that god's authority, which means that even under the RAW a god can lay extra code-of-conduct restrictions on paladins who worship it.

I still accept, as I have accepted from the beginning, that a setting designer or a DM is free to rule that in his or her world things do work this way, and that this can be a good and appropriate ruling, even a sound explanation in world terms of why things work the way the rules say they work.

It is just that I am trying to answer a simple factual question about what is written in the core books. I believe that there is nothing written in the core rules that says or logically implies that a paladin's god is the source of his or her class abilities or the arbiter of his or her conduct. But I am perfectly prepared to concede that there is, if someone will only point it out.

 

[Agback]

Your original question "Can the gods strip a paladin of his class?" was answered quite well

That is not my original question. That is indeed the title I gave this thread as an indication of its content. But the question I actually asked was in the original post, and is more specific than that. Check the original post if you have to. My original question was "Is this supported by the rules as written?". I also asked "Is there anything in the rules that I am missing?"

Your mind is obviously made up about this subject and your insistent quest for specific wording is ludicrous and annoying.

No, my mind is not made up. But since my question is "Is there a rule that says 'X'?", of course I require a specific wording to make up my mind.

Suppose I had asked "Is there a sentece in the core rules that does not contain the letter 'e', and if so what is it?" That would be a rather boring question, and you would be perfectly reasonable to ignore it. However, you would not be able to answer it in the affirmative without reference to a specific sentence in the rules.

This is the D&D Rules forum, and I asked a question that amounts to "Is there a rule that says paladins are chosen, empowered, and judged by their gods?" You might not be interested in that question. But whether or not you are, an answer that amounts to "The rules allow the possibility that they might be." is not responsive.

The rules are written as they are so DMs will have the freedom to decide if the paladin's power come from a god, some other divine source or perhaps the inate pure spirituality of an uncorrupt and morally upright soul, or whatever else the case may be.

Good, that is exactly what I thought from the beginning. I was (and still am) trying to find out if there is any section of the rules written in such a way as to take that freedom away from the DM (or the setting designer), or at least so as to require a use of Rule Zero to restore that freedom.

And the question still stands. Is there any rule anywhere in the core that must be interpreted in one of those ways rather than the other, as there is for the clerics of particular gods?

House rules are where some specific and/or existing rule has been altered or removed and has thus been changed to accomodate a specific DM's desire.

I don't quite agree with this definition. As I understand the term, it is also a house rule if some rule is added to cover something that is not covered by a rule-as-written.

 

[Crothian]

No, it's because his lawfulness, goodness, or purity got too low to use them. He lost a necessary qualification.

that's mechanics and meta game reason, in game though it is the gods

 

[Agback]

we are talking about paladins, not rangers, wizards or those of jewish faith...

Yes. but someone tried to make an arguement based on a dictionary definition of the word 'divine'. I pointed out that if this argument were correct, the same argument about the same word would mean that something was true about rangers which the ranger class description explicitly denies. In short, this was a reductio ad absurdem of a suggested chain of reasoning that was about paladins.

I then went on to point out another couple of examples in which terms for things in D&D do not mean what those words are defined as meaning in a dictionary. One of the examples was 'phylactery', which (in the real word) does have something to do with Jewish religious practice.

 

[Agback]

If your campaign has no gods....then no paladins, clerics, druids, or spell casting rangers (bring back MM for rangers!!!!!) Paladins are the holy warriors (or unholy, axiomatic, whatever) of a certain dieties.

I think you ought to turn again to the class descriptions of the cleric, druid, ranger, and paladin, and there read the explicit statements that members of these classes can receive divine spells without devoting themselves to a god, direct from the forces of Nature, or through devotion to righteousness.

 

[Agback]

that's mechanics and meta game reason, in game though it is the gods

Must it be as you say? If so, why? And how does this gibe with paladins who do not serve any god?

 

[Crothian]

Must it be as you say? If so, why? And how does this gibe with paladins who do not serve any god?

Of course it doesn't have to be this way, the DM is free to do whatever he wants. And if the game has paladins that don't serve gods, then one must still figure out who what is servedhas the power to give and remove abilities like this.

 

[Agback]

This thread strikes me as pointless.

If you don't share my curiosity, I guess that it doesn't have much point for you.

Regardless of what you think the rules do or do not say, just tell the players up front "this is how it works in my campaign".

Of course. That settles teh practical matter. But it doesn't satisfy my curiosity. But then, the argument in this thread isn't satisfying my curiosity either.