Hijacked Thread in need of closure.

[jgbrowning]

I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for here. Can you help me out here?

Thanks for the syntax lesson!


What im trying to say is that there is a defintion of paladin that is an acceptable and scholorly definition of paladin that does not require paladin to be "lawful good and only lawful good"

their are several definitions that have nothing to do with the DnD concepts of law and good.

1 : a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince)
2 : a leading champion of a cause"
3 :A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
4 :A strong supporter or defender of a cause
5: Any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court.
6: ? (a really good holy knight guy like galahad, who always follows his kings orders)

ok, looking at the definitions you have to agree with me that the concept of the DnD "Lawful Good and only Lawful Good" does not fit the majority of the definitions.

1,2,4 and 5 obviously do not require Lawful Good alignments.

I'm saying that the definition of Paladin doesn't require Lawful Good and the people who want to play LG paladins WOULD BE IN NO SHAPE WAY OR FORM PROHIBITED FROM PLAYING A LAWFUL GOOD PALADIN were they to accept a more open definition that includes ALL of the definitions of the world Paladin.

thats all.

and again for good measures sake

And for the fourth time i pose my two questions that i really want answered.

1. Why does Pelor care if his paladins lie, if by doing so they promote good? Why would he take away their power?

2. Why would a Paladin of Wee Jas lose his abilities if he passed by a peasant being attacked by a demon, because the paladin was ordered by his king to go with all haste and report to someone?

I want good ingame logic how these two gods can have paladins, but those paladins will lose thier powers if they behave in a manner that MATCHES their gods belief system.

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

But it loses what little meaning some people allow it now when there are "paladins" of other alignments running around.

Furthermore, I would submit to you that the cultural connotation is deeply rooted enough that ONLY D&D players and military personnel could come up with the notion of a paladin of beliefs that AREN'T Lawful Good.

As for your questions... I have no idea. I ONLY play paladins of Lawful Good gods. It doesn't make sense to me otherwise.

Thats what i thought your reason would be. Honestly man, the only person who gives your paladin the sense of justice, honesty, purity, goodness, and grace is yourself.

My definition of paladin in no form or fashion belittles the abilties and prowess of your paladin who walks a very difficult line to follow what he believes.

As you posted in the thread about rogues, i view the paladin as you view the new rogue. if we opened it up to include the champions of the other gods suddenly we would
1. get rid of the need for ninety billion PrCs that are basically Paladins with different alignments. and
2. Alow more people to play paladins that more closely match the alignment that provides them the "resonance" that you currently recieve by playing the LG paladin.

joe b.

 

[Theuderic]

I have a question about the paladin class of the 3E rule set. Do they have to worship a deity? And if so do they have to be limited to a specific deity?

 

[Dragongirl]

PHB p 41 "Paladins need not devote themselves to a single deity."

 

[jgbrowning]

I have a question about the paladin class of the 3E rule set. Do they have to worship a deity? And if so do they have to be limited to a specific deity?

as far as i remember they are not required to worship a god, kinda like a cleric. they can just worship the "force" like a cleric.

when they talk about worshipping gods they mention heironious (sp) and pelor as god that would be worshiped.

i extrapolated this to mean a paladin is capable of worshiping and receiving power (divine magic) from a god which they are one alignment step away from, just like clerics again.

joe b.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Jon,

I'll answer your questions according to how I run Paladin's in my games. I'll give you a little background first.

A Paladin's power comes from his pure spirit as well as his deity. Purity of spirit is something that must be maintained by following strict personal ideals that do not allow corruption and sin to enter the heart. This means that Paladins should avoid lying, womanizing, gambling, overindulgence of any kind, slothfulness, and any other type of behavior that opens them up to corruption or sin. They should have a very well-defined idea of what honor and duty mean, and the definition should be shared within the faith so that there is no personal interpretation allowed. These are the kinds of ideals I expect the Paladin to uphold to maintain their purity of spirit, and thus keep their Paladin status.

1. Why does Pelor care if his paladins lie, if by doing so they promote good? Why would he take away their power?

Paladin's of Pelor care because they must ensure that there own spirit is not corrupted by any lies they tell. They must ensure that lying does not become a habit for overcoming their enemies. They must be sure they do not use the methods of their enemy to overcome their enemy. The lack of lying is a very personl thing.

Pelor would not take their power away. They would have violated their personal code of conduct expected of their knightly or holy order, and thus have lost faith in themselves and their purity of spirit. By losing their faith in themselves, they would lose their Paladin abilities and thus be nothing more than a normal holy warrior (Regular fighter) in service to Pelor.

2. Why would a Paladin of Wee Jas lose his abilities if he passed by a peasant being attacked by a demon, because the paladin was ordered by his king to go with all haste and report to someone?

I am not a strict one-step alignment person. There is nothing in the philosophy of Wee Jas to indicate that they should have Paladin orders. I would not allow a follower of Wee Jas to be a Paladin in my campaigns.

Paladins of Wee Jas should not exist. Only rules absolutists would allow such a Paladin to exist, though Wee Jas philosophy would not warrant the existence of a Paladin order.


I think being a Paladin is more of a mind set than simply picking the right god. I believe a Paladin picks their god as much as the god picks the Paladin.

A person who has the mindset to be a Paladin will only pick a God who strongly supports at least one aspect of the Paladin's alignment and does not conflict with the other. For example, a person who wants to be a Paladin might pick St. Cuthbert as a god because Cuthbert is strongly focused on justice and order, while at the same time seems to more inclined towards the goodly part of justice and order. Thus, a person inclined to be a Paladin would look at such a god as a worthy deity.

Whereas a person inclined to be a Paladin would not look upon Fharlangan as a worthy god to serve because he is too transient and lacking in a strong focus on either law or goodness to serve.

The thing I don't see many people taking into account in this thread is that only certain people would be willing and able to take up the mantle of Paladinhood. Those people by their very nature would not seek out gods with chaotic or non-good alignments or philosophies because they would not agree with those alignments or philosophies.

Just remember, a person who is willing and able to become a Paladin chooses the god as much as the god chooses them. Paladin is a mindset and not just a class. You can be a regular fighter in service to a god to be a holy warrior, most holy warriors are just regular fighters who serve a god. Some become divine champions if you play FR, most do not.

Truly, a Paladin is an uncorrupted person who serves a deity of ultimate good or ultimate order, preferably both. They are literally the embodiement of all that is good and orderly in the world, and others in society can look to them as an example of how to be a good human being free of vices and corruption. This is the reason that lawful good is really the only alignment for a Paladin.

Why do you think that even in the Deities and Demigods Sir Launcelot was a fallen Paladin, and that only Sir Galahad was the Paladin class, even King Arthur was merely a fighter. Sir Galahad was the only uncorrupted person free of sin in all the lands of Camelot, and thus, the only knight able to find the holy grail.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

God forgive me for quoting myself...

Furthermore, I would submit to you that the cultural connotation is deeply rooted enough that ONLY D&D players and military personnel could come up with the notion of a paladin of beliefs that AREN'T Lawful Good.

THIS is what's driving me crazy. (although, on secong glance, I should have included hard-core feminists on the list of people who perceive "paladins" as something other than LG)

Also, NAMES ARE IMPORTANT. Calling something that wasn't LG a paladin takes away the importance of the Name. (Shocking. This is all about semantics who'd have guessed.)

 

[Dragongirl]

THIS is what's driving me crazy. (although, on secong glance, I should have included hard-core feminists on the list of people who perceive "paladins" as something other than LG)

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: Re

Great points, Celtavian. But I do have a minor factual quibble...

Sir Galahad was the only uncorrupted person free of sin in all the lands of Camelot, and thus, the only knight able to find the holy grail.

Galahad was the one who disappeared along with the grail (presumably to Heaven, since he had acheived Perfection on Earth). But Percival and Bors were also allowed to attain the Grail in some versions of the story, they just came back afterwards.

 

[Lela]

1. Why does Pelor care if his paladins lie, if by doing so they promote good? Why would he take away their power?

By speaking a lie, he violates the code he took upon himself when he became a Paladin. Now that I'm done with the cop out (though still true), Pelor would see this as the Paladin not only lieing (I never could spell that) but also breaking his word to Pelor; something unexcusable.

Now, the follow-up question would likely be "Why would Pelor make the Paladin promise not to lie in the first place?"

Well, I would say that Pelor sees the consiquinces of lies (how they conflict with each other and build themselves up) and, as such, has asked his servant to trust him when he tells him not to lie. Once those promises are made (and not just the one pertaining to lies), the Paladin must keep them. It's part of the Obedience thing that gods like.

2. Why would a Paladin of Wee Jas lose his abilities if he passed by a peasant being attacked by a demon, because the paladin was ordered by his king to go with all haste and report to someone?

Here, he favors Law over Good, which he cannot do. That's part of what the Paladin is, the culmination of the two alignments. That's why it can be such a challange to play them.

Now (in the form of another cop out answer), I admit that I don't know much about Wee Jas (I'm more an FR fan), I would say that if he were to become a Paladin he promised his god that he would stamp out evil. We agree so far? So, he's got orders coming from a higher source (that of his god) and is forced to put the command from someone of lesser rank aside.

By no means am I saying that he should go looking for evil to fight (taking years to report to the guy). I'm saying that he shouldn't avoid it. Once agian, he must balance Law with Good. Something very hard to do.

If you'd like help with how this can be played out, there's a Story Hour that fits masterfully. If you like the first post, skip the rest of the 5 pages (all bumps asking for more) and go Here

I want good ingame logic how these two gods can have paladins, but those paladins will lose thier powers if they behave in a manner that MATCHES their gods belief system.

Now, I admit that my answers may not fit hthe God's belief system as I don't know too much about the two gods in quesion. Sorry. I hope it was helpful in general though.

And you a very welcome for that syntax lesson. I look forward to seeing you start using the code.