Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Agback" data-source="post: 2641735" data-attributes="member: 5328">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.</blockquote>

Verification