The Apostate Paladin

[Quickleaf]

I've always felt D&D simplified religion too much, and preferred apostate plots to revolve around doctrinal differences not an abstract alignment.

For example, a paladin PC may belong to a church which advocates that their paladins have the right and responsibility to be judge, jury, and executioner of those who break religious law (which coincides with state law in several cases). During his adventures, the paladin PC decides this is too much power, but when he speaks out against the practice he is excommunicated. If he continues to be outspoken he faces retribution by his former church, but other paladins sympathetic to his cause may voluntarily leave the church to join him.

 

[Justin D. Jacobson]

Fred Hicks did a very cool product on this very topic, a paragon path called Unbroken.

Money quote:

The loss of faith can be a terrible tragedy, especially if you have spent your life as a champion of divinity. For many, it is the end of everything. You have weathered this tragedy and come out stronger for it—
bloodied, battered, but unbroken. Whether it has left you embittered towards the gods, or merely weary of their games, it has not weakened your resolve to do the things that must be done. Though you turned from your deity, your powers have not abandoned you, either because your god still supports you or perhaps because you never needed a divine crutch in the first place.

 

[defendi]

This is why the new alignment system is my favorite version (though I too wish they had dropped it entirely). In The Echoes of Heaven Campaign Setting we have a lot of ambiguous religious morals. The idea that a paladin might be secretly (or even inadvertantly) getting his power from demon gods is a core one of the setting. No one knows anyone else's alignment. All they really know is that at one point this person's order believed they were worthy of endowment. Heck, who many people fall to great evil, telling themselves right up until the end that they are doing good.

I love shades of gray.

 

[ppaladin123]

Galactus gave Silver Surfer a sliver of the power cosmic. Silver Surfer eventually turned on Galactus yet retained his power. Once Galactus relinquishes control of a piece of his cosmic power, he cannot recall it.

I like this idea for gods in d&d. They identify those they believe are worthy to wield divine power and sacrifice a small part of their essence to imbue those beings with divine strength. They hope that the actions of their new servants will pay back their investment by furthering their agenda on earth, increasing the number of their faithful, and, through this, increase the net power of the god. Sometimes however they make mistakes. Sometimes investments fail.

Meanwhile there is a small divine flame now burning inside the servant. He finds that as he grows in prestige and fame he grows ever more powerful and attains further mastery of that divine spark...

 

[Nivenus]

This is how I would do it. Note that this is completely houseruled, rather than RAW.

I would make it a saving throw. One that a mid paragon-level paladin or higher would be likely to beat. If the paladin fails the saving throw, they lose their divine power (this does not, however, prevent them from reacquiring it through a different god). If the paladin succeeds, they retain all of their powers, with the exception of any channel divinities (which again, they can regain through accepting a new patron). They can also continue to gain levels as a paladin without acquiring a new god to worship in this case (though, again, they wouldn't have access to channel divinity).

See, I like the idea that a god can remove their agents' power. Otherwise, it makes the gods look too weak in my eyes. But at the same time, I like the idea of an apostate/rogue paladin, who resists his or her god's attempts to depower them and becomes a dangerous threat to their own god's followers. I also, like the idea of an inquisition that makes sure paladins maintain their purity, though, so I'd only have something like this happen if the paladin did something that "crossed the line" so to speak, which would of course vary depending on the god.

I wouldn't recommend this as a core rule, mainly because it's a wee bit complicated. But I think it's a lot funner, all the same, than the either/or position most seem to adhere to (either the gods can remove the powers whenever they feel like it or they can't, no matter what).