Throwing in a level or two

Remove all ads!

I don't see why you're citing 2E as a sourcebook when you actually play 3E, Chev.

And by the way, political correctness should apply, as far as I'm concerned to D&D, regardless of historical context (which really doesn't matter in the first place). Otherwise, it's like saying, "Oh, no, only rich males can be champions of good! You beggars and women, get out of the Paladins' way!"

A Paladin is not necessarily a noble. A Fighter is not necessarily a commoner. Go find a module involving nobles. There's a good chance the noble could be a Fighter, Rogue, etc. If Paladins were just perked-up Fighters with a special badge that says, "Hey, you're a Paladin, unlike those lowly Fighter scum!", that would pretty much upset most players who want to play a Fighter instead of a Paladin. There should be no advantage socially of one core class over another. And indeedy, in 3E, this is how it is (with the arguable excpetion of Barbarians and Monks). If Paladins were more special than vanilla Fighters, than it means that the guy playing a Paladin would have a right to be pretentious, arrogant, and "better" than the Fighter simply because he's a noble.

Not to mention that applying medieval history to D&D is also fairly Euro-centric, since many campaign settings (think of Forgotten Realms) have more than a Western Medieval European feel: they have an Arabian feel (Calimshan), a Russian feel (Unapproachable East), an African feel (Chult), and a just plain weird feel (Underdark).

 

Evolution. 3 is after 2 etc. I've already said - the roots aren't cut with going up one number.

Nobility is not a European concept. Nobility was around when Europeans wore furs and spoke like orcs. Whatever the name, it's present in almost all non-democratic societies and many partly democratic ones.

I'm still going to maintain my point about the roots of the word 'paladin', and, secondly, the roots of d&d paladins.

I've already written that nobility has nothing inherent to do with being rich. You can be richer than your king and still not noble and you can be noble and own your sword only.

I referred political correctness to ideology, not to background. Knighthood is generally of the nobles, but, as I said, it makes you noble if you hadn't been born so. "Rise, sir Commoner" and voila, you're noble now and your shiney coat-of-arms shield will be due in a week. Simple, isn't it?

However, we as far as literature goes, we can't forget about the mystic side of nobility. Well, a noble knight of a round table, for example, is indeed an exception... because they're almost all royals Well, not that a random noble doesn't have princes and kings at some end, but it's still quite exaggerated in the legends. Why? For the reasons of the mystic side to nobility. Per ancient categories, nobility was closer to gods. More native to things sacred. Joining the ranks of nobility put you in these regions, despite the blood - in recognition of nobility as a trait, if not as status. Yes, actually more of recognition than of actual grant - even if someone's status was changed to noble from stable cleaning boy. Such was the respect associated with qualities traditionally assigned to nobility (if but in theory, for practice was largely different). Therefore it's perfectly sane to have a commoner-born paladin. He is, however, not a commoner any longer. The same applies to knight fighters, knight rangers etc. Of course, that's still far from demigod

Another point is: not only males. Just wonder how much of it is made after St Jeanne d'Arc. Neither rich nor male, was she? Ah, and not born noble.

However, making half of Radiant Heart sentries female was just plainly sick!

 

3E/3.5E is not some "improvement" to 2E; it is no such thing. The roots are changed, the perspective is changed, and things are different. Very much. Go contrast the two handbooks. The 3E PHB does not say "all Paladins are exactly like Chevalier says (well, not that, but you get the idea)."

I would go so as far to say that you have a skewed misconception of D&D, but there is no such thing. The conception is based on what the DM says. And as a DM, I don't believe in applying so many silly rules about Knighthood and nobility. Knighthood is unexistent and unaddressed, nobles are rich guys with titles, and Paladins are champions are overall goodness. Period. This overrides any stuff in the PHB (not that I override it, and not that the PHB contradicts what I'm saying about Paladins).

Now, you don't have to see it that way if you're running the game. Heck, no one's stopping you from applying medeival ideologies and stuff in your game if you're the game. Heck, go ahead and make the Paladin a freaking template. Apply whatever notions you have about D&D onto the game. I just hope your players enjoy playing like that.

D&D doesn't have to be historically or legendarilly-lorily correct. It just has to be fun.

The PHB is at odds with you again. It doesn't say, "once you become a Paladin, you become a noble." If a commoner Fighter 4 began taking levels in Paladin, he wouldn't suddenly become a noble. The fact that the PHB does not say every Paladin is a noble sticks. Once again, you are confusing the idea of a D&D Paladin, D&D aristocrats, and historical nobles and knights.

The D&D game is based on the presumption that you know what most people know about typical fantasy. You shouldn't have to know two hundred pages of medieval and historical crap to play D&D "correctly". The point still remains, after whatever you can dredge up from the textbooks and legends and lore, that the Paladin is a champion of goodness. He is not defined by title, name, wealth, or so on. His identity is based on the fact that he goes around smiting evil people.

My, if I were a female Paladin-player (I'm neither), I'd biznitch-slap you. ; But I guess RPGs are generally sexist in a few ways.

One of these days, I'm just going to play a poor, title-ness, humble, commoner hick Paladin just to prove my freaking point.

[ November 23, 2003, 23:16: Message edited by: Oaz ]

 

Paladin is not based on smiting evil people or even just being a champion of LG, according to 2E definitions, which clearly say that such a role may well be performed by an LG fighter. The ideals of chivalry are listed as one of the differences and I don't know if that hasn't been carried on to 3E.

Knighthood or nobility are not addressed in any of official 3E materials. But many things aren't. There's nothing on the society at all, to be precise. That is left up to campaign settings, which ultimately means the DM himself This is perhaps in order not to limit people's games, or maybe addressing social issues in basic core books was considered pointless in the light of the multitude of different campaign settings.

2E, however, was not so elastic and was more than just sketched out, contrary to 3E. Therefore, 2E contains quite a lot of source material even in basic core books. Handbooks have even more.

CPH truly doesn't say that all paladins are inherently noble, but it states clearly that paladins are considered nobles by virtue of their paladinhood. It also notes that most come from highly socially prestigious circles. Those are nobility or, when nobility in Western European sense is nonexistent, nobility in Roman sense (descendants of dignitaries who are also dignitaries) or in Greek sense (simply: the 'best', 'oldest' houses - oi aristoi, aristocrats), or in any other sense (please don't confuse nobility with Western style nobility - and well, even Western style is far from monolithic). 1E goes even further and paladins are LUC. UMC background is grudgingly accepted.

Last but not least, I don't confuse d&d with history. I specifically say that some d&d concepts are based on historical ones. The authors draw upon history. However, they sometimes don't get it right. I don't blame them, they're not professionals in history. Their purpose was to make a game and make it for fun - and they have done a great job. Even in history-related matters. So, I don't blame them. I just insist that what they wrote shouldn't be seen as law. They didn't mean to reproduce crippled historical or literary concepts. They meant to reproduce them correctly. So, when they don't get something right (like for example the table of nobility ranks in 2E), we should adhere to proper facts rather than improper relations. Sometimes problems don't even come out of errors, but generalisations or simplifications made to save space or spare the readers minuscule details.

Ah, and let me repeat again: nobles don't have to be rich. Being rich may help you become noble, but when you become poor, you're still noble. I know nobles who have worked physically.

Your idea of playing a humble, non-noble, poor and hick paladin is a worthy one. As the powers come from his deity and not from any mortal institution, it's the deity to decide. The deity chooses his paladin from the ranks of poor commoners and the great men of this world can but sit down and watch For a believer, his status with the patron is more important than his status with worldly powers. Of course, if he keeps low profile, people may not realise his paladinhood (especially when low-level), but how long do you expect him to remain the soil of the earth when he gets to higher levels? Unless no one has ever heard of him. Well, do you expect 1-2 level aristocrats to treat a level 20 champion of good with a heroic reputation like filth? Won't work. No matter his class. He will wear more gp worth on his unwashed body than most nobles or merchants have ever seen in one place And damn can he swing, hehe.

 

It's based on that in 3E. A Paladin is defined by what he does - fighting evil. Go read the PHB. Chivarly isn't exactly addressed in 3E. Thank goodness for that.

D&D isn't meant to be an exercise in historical knowledge. I don't want to have to bother with a bunch of nobility titles, tradtions, and other junk to be able to play a Paladin or DM "properly". The game designers probably took out the entire "improper historical things" because it didn't matter, since D&D is not only based on history, but fantasy. You will see a bunch of titles arbitraily assigned to nobles in modules ("Eh, let's just make this one a Duke, and her a Baroness."). I wouldn't mind a DM doing that either, since it wouldn't matter to me. So the Earl is actually superior to the Duke (or whatever); egad! That's deviant from history! Does it really matter? How does it actually wreck game balance or even game flavor?

You may or may not be correct, but it really doesn't matter, since in most modules, the nobles are just the guys with money who hire adventurers. That's pretty much it. Sure, you could make a noble with no money or property, but what would it really matter (unless you had some big adventure revolving around that)? Who hasn't heard the stereotypical level-1 adventure consisting of a noble hiring a bunch of random adventurers to go fight some orcs?

Paladins get their abilities from the general goodness in the world. They don't have to mash their lips on a deity's feet to get their powers. This is the same idea with godless Clerics. This is a 3E concept; don't know about 2E.

You might as well make up your own rules and charts for "proper" monster biology, since none of the game designers had degrees in biology and ecology, resulting in some very strange and improbable monsters. I mean, the entire point is that suddenly being wrong historically about nobles or biologically being wrong about griffons shouldn't really minor, they're just so... minor aspects of the game (which, as we all know, is killing and looting).

 

Heh, I sense an unspoken conclusion that it's all about powergaming, then. And about being politically correct at it. Godless clerics, damn. It's like not-fighting soldiers.

How do paladins get power from the goodness of the world? Does the great turtle that carries the world on its back awaken and give it to them?

Paladins are subject to deities. Deities make rules for paladins, deities can make paladins ex-paladins. Sure, a paladin can find another patron and get reinstated so long as everything's in line with LG-ness and stuff. But the whole idea of godless clerics and paladins is strange. It's like atheist saints, you know...

About ranks:

It's possible to have an Earl superior to a Duke in feudal ladder. It was quite normal also that some Count (Earl equiv.) titles in Western Europe were more important and more prestigious than ducal ones. For example Count Raymond of Toulouse, the famous first crusade leader was also referred to as Count de Saint-Gilles, and later Count of Tripolis. However, he was also the Duke of Narbonne and that title was almost never used. IIRC the Duchy of Narbonne was but an island in the sea of County of Toulouse at that time, hehe.

Also take the British Prince Edward, now Earl Wessex. And take the Duke of, let's say, Norfolk. It so happens that's the biggest non-royal noble over there And who's more important? Hehe, again.

However, mixing or messing the hierarchy itself just because it isn't earth, is not right. Why? If it's not Earth and thus it's so different, then there shouldn't be Dukes and Earls. We can use the terms Duke and Earl descriptively or as equivalents to our ones, but in that case, the Earl one would be called Duke (as it's grander) and the Duke one would be called Earl.

Anyway, I can't imagine someone couldn't know that Duke is above Earl.

I still don't care how people play their games so long as it doesn't involve me. Otherwise, I just like order. I don't want roses called tulips and tulips called roses.

[ November 26, 2003, 02:10: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

That's how D&D worlds work. You can't exactly argue against it, since that's what it says in the PHB. It's not an entity that grants Paladins and godless Clerics their powers. It's the power of Good in general (or Evil, Chaos, Lawful, Air, Earth, etc.). They open themselves up to it. No one's forcing you to play that way, but it's just how the standard rules work.

And yes, Paladins don't have to believe in deities. If you believe otherwise, then the rules are against you. If you want to prove that, then try looking up the nonexistent line in the PHB line that deities commission Paladins, that deities give Paladins their powers, and that Paladins serve a deity.

And, yes, there are campaign settings with this idea. Consider the Planescape campaign setting (okay, it's 2E, but vestiges of it are in the MotP). Priests open themselves up to philosophies or ideals, and get power from that. Screw the gods.

Or, hey, just look at a freaking official core source: the PHB. Druids get divine powers without worshipping deities. They just revere nature, in the same way that aforementioned Paladins and Clerics revere an ideal/philosophy.

I don't know that (okay, actually, I do, but I found out around only a year ago), probably because I'm one of those Americans (American immigrant, anyways) who doesn't care much for nobility. If you believe the term Duke sounds grander then the Earl, then you can call it like that in your game, but it doesn't mean that the world is suddenly topsy-turvy if the DM happens to say that the Earl suddenly, say, imprisoned the Duke (or whatever powers an Earl shouldn't have over a Duke).

Perfectly fine, except that I don't know too many gamers that differentiate between tulips and roses, and neither do the core books.

I just follow the core rules. Then add common knowledge. All that silly book-learnin' (except those from the core books, of course!) can go out the window, for all I care.

It seems to me that the petty stuff like nobility and titles just causes most players, DMs, and game designers to just raise an eyebrow and say, "So?"

[ November 26, 2003, 03:47: Message edited by: Oaz ]

 

I don't know too much about 3E, but this is from the 2E Complete Paladin's Handbook:

All paladins have an abiding faith that serves as a moral compass and foundation for their ethical principles. Although most follow established religions, others draw spiritual sustenance from non-traditional philosophies and even natural forces. All paladins, however, believe in something: Their faith provides them not only their spells, but also thier special powers

I'm not sure if this help in the discussion...

 

The 3e rules may say that a Cleric or Paladin doesn't need a deity, but that was the first rule I threw out when 3e came out.

 

Oaz is right on the money here. What we can assume about Paladins is all found in the PHB (Players Handbook for the uninitiated) of the edition you're playing. The different editions does not necessarily have or should have the same ideas of the different things. If you play 2E, assume what it says in the 2E PHB, if you play 3E, look in the 3E PHB. Everything not in the PHB about the class is straight to the trash-can when considering general assumption.

What we'd desire exceeding the PHB definitions depends on the DM. Seems in perfect order and makes perfect sense to me.. I don't get the biggie?

 

I'll vouch for Oaz here. He's right in saying that paladins in 3/3.5E do not require deities to get their powers as long as they remain truthful to a LG philosophy.

Deities are crutches for the weak anyway.

This however does not apply in FRCS where godless clerics and paladins do not exist.

 

Quoting rules doesn't help.

I said it was dumb that paladins or clerics could be godless per 3E rules. Ergo: I established that they existed in 3E. Convincing me to something I say myself is a loss of time.

I maintain that it's stupid that a cleric can be godless. What the hell is the purpose of a priest of no god? It has one aim: to allow atheists in the cleric class. PCness wins with common sense here. A priest is someone who leads religious ceremonies and performs duties of worship. So if he doesn't believe in any god, what the nine hells is he doing?

 

Sounds like you pulled that out of... well, probaby your own concept of the game.

But the whole thing is, yes, Clerics don't have to worship deities. Why not? Because it says so. Right there (I'm pointing to the relevant page in the PHB). If you don't like it, you don't have to play that way. Of course, that may entail, disagreeing with the DM (who establishes the rules), but hey, suddenly you're right onto yourself.

Btw, the Cleric does not lead religious ceremonies or perform worship. No line in the PHB about that. He serves a greater power (which is why you can have priests who worship demons and still get spells).

Yes, I just said Clerics don't worship Deities. Erythnul doesn't want worship. He wants you to kill people in his name. Screw the whole praying and kneeling ceremonious crap. Slaughter!

A Cleric doesn't need a devotion. Period. If you say otherwise, it's an unofficial house rule. He just serves good, evil, one of the elements, etc. Besides, don't forget that a whole bunch of modules have godless Clerics, and many monsters cast Cleric spells without mashing their lips on a god's shoes.

[ November 28, 2003, 22:22: Message edited by: Oaz ]

 

Please, we all know the meaning of the word cleric. What d&d makes of it in some places in PHB is just a complete re-definition for the needs of political correctness. Just so they had atheist priest. You know, so everyone could play a priest his way. Just be priest without being what priests are, sort of.

Yes, and some worship solars. What's the deal then? It's still something from the celestial hierarchy, or the greater evil beings etc. Something that can be worshipped and can provide powers of divine nature. How do you imagine pulling a circle against evil out of thin air?

No faith, no religion, no worship. So to what does the guy pray (prayer, chant), what the hell sort of divine might does he draw upon (draw upon holy might), in whose name does he bless or lay curses (bless, curse)? And what makes him a priest then? Just logically, common-sense-wise, don't get stuck on the phb line saying that a cleric doesn't have to serve a specific deity (perhaps he worships the whole pantheon, whatever).

 

in good and evil, because they are forces that define the cosmos. Pretty simple.

a cleric in D&D is not the same as a cleric in the real world history. This what a cleric is, is defined in the PHB, and that's the logical point of origin for a cleric in D&D.

 

How do impersonal powers grant spells. Or are they just being drawn upon, aka A Great Reservoir of Freebie Healing?

 

Planescape: Torment

Just look at Grace! She is a 'godless' priestess. She draws her clerical power from the sheer force of her belief in her chosen philosophy.

Clerics/Paladins can get their powers from their sheer belief in their respective schools of thought as well.

This means that deities don't hold all the divine power and are thus less important.

If you don't like this concept, then don't include it in your campaign world.

Personally, I find it a great concept, making deities less than necessary.

 

If people want that, let them play like that. Sure. But it seems artificial to me. If you take power from your sheer beliefs, the power is from within you. Basically, it's really you who's the source. Would then clerics be just the special folks who made the source useful, or the rare ones with whom the force is strong ?

What's divine in them, then? Why are they called clerics?

 

A godless priest is probably pretty pious; he would not be atheist. Rather, he would have reverence to all appropriate deities, but true allegiance to not a single one. I conced that they might be rare, and defintely the exception, not the rule, but that doesn't mean you can't have them.

This also makes it easier to create a monstrous cleric (such as a Mind Flayer or a Kuo-Toa), for which a deity you have not created. Suddenly need a Marilith Cleric? Just give it Chaos and Evil domains, and leave it at that.

There is pretty much no such thing as an atheist in the D&D world; how do you deny the existence of gods after a guy wearing vestments of Pelor just brought you back from -9?

Lokken and Shura are right. That's how it works officially. It's not artificial or PCed (which should apply to D&D). It's just the game rules, and there is a strong justification.

[ November 29, 2003, 02:08: Message edited by: Oaz ]

 

Ah, nice to know you agree I thought you meant atheist by godless. Like totally godless, not just owing allegiance to no particular one. How did I put it? Worshipping the whole pantheon? Something like that. Yea, those would be rare, but not really unheard of.

However, I'm not OK with priests who don't believe in any gods. Yea, they might draw power from the whole lot of them, or from one that's willing to provide it at the moment of casting, or even from some solar or other minion of a deity. In reality, do you know if it's Lathander who supplies your heal or if it's not from some his solar?

Now, if by adhering to general good, you mean some more or less specific assembly of good deities, that's OK. But a philosophy? Philosophy is not a being, it doesn't have will. It can be a reservoir of power, sure. But it couldn't have created itself of its proper power. It can't even restrict the distribution of its powers by its proper power. In short: just a pool of spells. So there must be some will-having entity at some point. Still, some justification could be invented to preserve the priestly character of such a cleric.

But a cleric who doesn't worship anything or act in some power's name, he would have to draw the power from inside his own self. That's not priestly. Priests don't have proper power.

Someone driven by a deity he refuses to worship, such person could be of cleric class, but hardly a cleric.