Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:
Is the sponsoring deity the one responsible for determining if an action's evil?

Since they are the ones who grant the powers, that would be the assumption.

That raises an interesting question of whether or not all paladin deities would agree on whether or not a given action was good.

 Seaward wrote:
Is the sponsoring deity the one responsible for determining if an action's evil?

No, morality is objective. Gods do not have power over it. They are also defined by alignment.

 djones520 wrote:
they are the ones who grant the powers

Incorrect.

 Manchu wrote:
Incorrect.

You know, that is really annoying.

If you're going to state something like that, then provide justification for it.

For example. 3.5 Supplement Complete Champion states Paladins gain their divine power from their god.

 djones520 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Incorrect.

You know, that is really annoying.

If you're going to state something like that, then provide justification for it.

On the previous page he already posted:

"A paladin need not devote herself to a single deity--devotion to righteousness is enough." 3.5 PHB p. 43

They have powers even if not devoted to a specific deity, thus their powers are not derived from the deities.

 Ahtman wrote:
They have powers even if not devoted to a specific deity, thus their powers are not derived from the deities.

But the Forgotten Realms campaign setting supercedes that, requiring all divine spellcasters to have a patron deity, as that's where the spells are granted from.

It doesn't require that of paladins, as I pointed out.

 Manchu wrote:
It doesn't require that of paladins, as I pointed out.

I'll see if I can go back and find it over on Candlekeep (great resource, btw), but I believe Ed Greenwood said it does. That has apparently changed with 4th, though.

Fourth Edition changed paladins from righteous warriors into divine champions. They don't have the LG alignment restriction.

 Seaward wrote:
I believe Ed Greenwood said it does

Unless what he writes in published by TSR or WotC, it's kind of beside the point. The issue is that paladins in 3.5 must be LG and if they willfully commit any act of evil they lose their class abilities and are unable to gain paladin levels. The FR Campaign Setting does not make any exceptions to this rule. Even if the FR Campaign Setting did say paladins receive spells from deities -- and it does not -- this would still not necessarily contradict the rule regarding paladins. It would just mean, as I have also explained, that morality is objective and not determined by any subject whether mortal or divine.

nvm, I need to grab my FRCS

 Manchu wrote:
Fourth Edition changed paladins from righteous warriors into divine champions. They don't have the LG alignment restriction.

 Seaward wrote:
I believe Ed Greenwood said it does

Unless what he writes in published by TSR or WotC, it's kind of beside the point. The issue is that paladins in 3.5 must be LG and if they willfully commit any act of evil they lose their class abilities and are unable to gain paladin levels. The FR Campaign Setting does not make any exceptions to this rule. Even if the FR Campaign Setting did say paladins receive spells from deities -- and it does not -- this would still not necessarily contradict the rule regarding paladins. It would just mean, as I have also explained, that morality is objective and not determined by any subject whether mortal or divine.

Oh, I'm not disputing that paladins need to be Lawful Good. But there absolutely has to be a measure of subjectivity in what that means, else every single character of lawful good (or any other, for that matter) alignment would act in exactly the same manner in every conceivable moral quandary, and we know that's not the case.

Paladins are expected to react the same way in any moral quandary, however, inasmuch as they have to do that which is LG. This is probably why the 3.5 PHB tells us that paladins from all traditions view each others as comrades.

 Manchu wrote:
Paladins are expected to react the same way in any moral quandary, however, inasmuch as they have to do that which is LG. This is probably why the 3.5 PHB tells us that paladins from all traditions view each others as comrades.

Right, but we know, for example, that Tyr has two separate orders of paladins, one that focuses more on the good in lawful good, and one that focuses more on the lawful in lawful good. Would they both react the same way?

I don't know. This wasn't meant to be an open-ended question about the nature of alignment as it relates to paladins in Forgotten Realms, because clearly that's just going to get people angry over fiction. I know what the guy who'll be running this oft-delayed campaign thinks of the alignment system, so I know what rules I'm working within, and basically was just asking for some thoughts on good potential deities for more hardline paladins. Helm seems good, Hoar seems good.

Well, the objectivity of alignment doesn't really require that every actor proceed the exact same way. What it does mean is that deities do not establish and cannot overthrow the requirements of being a paladin.

I can only answer questions about the FR as a published setting and the published rules of 3.5, not any GM's particular house rules. In the game as published, no character could commit an action that could be reasonably called an atrocity and remain a paladin.

This is why it might be problematic to model your character on a Black Templar.

Also, Hoar is an especially poor choice as a paladin's patron considering he's closer to LE than LG.

 Manchu wrote:
Well, the objectivity of alignment doesn't really require that every actor proceed the exact same way. What it does mean is that deities do not establish and cannot overthrow the requirements of being a paladin.

Oh, I'm not arguing they can.

I can only answer questions about the FR as a published setting and the published rules of 3.5, not any GM's particular house rules. In the game as published, no character could commit an action that could be reasonably called an atrocity and remain a paladin.

Published FR material - specifically, Champions of Valor - would seem to disagree in that a Helmite paladin order unquestionably played a role in the Maztican atrocities. Dunno how to square that circle without resorting to subjectivism in terms of what "lawful good" means, or else starting to argue intent vs. act.

This is why it might be problematic to model your character on a Black Templar.

I meant "zealous, cold, focused crusader" rather than "murderer of eldar" when I made that analogy. Perhaps it wasn't as precise as I should have been.

Also, Hoar is an especially poor choice as a paladin's patron considering he's closer to LE than LG.

Really? I think he'd be pretty interesting, given his focus on retribution and poetic justice.

Wait, maybe there's just a simple disconnect here. I don't mean paladins can't commit atrocities. I mean they can't do so and remain paladins. They lose that status as a matter of committing the atrocity and must atone to regain it, if at all.

 Seaward wrote:
I think he'd be pretty interesting, given his focus on retribution and poetic justice.

It could be interesting, especially if you found yourself needing to smite a vindictive LE cleric of Hoare. If your DM houserules that your paladin abilities and spells are given to you by Hoare, the fallout of said smiting would indeed be fascinating.