Paladins and Gods - Seriously, What's Up? [Archive]

T.G. Oskar

2011-07-05, 01:43 AM

Well, it's probably baggage from old editions, but really: it's because of the (historical) Crusader. When you envision a Paladin, you either envision (a) an Arthurian Knight or one of the Twelve Peers (whose devotion to lord and country was equal, but somewhat superior, than that to God and church) or (b) a Knight Templar, Knight Hospitaller or Teutonic Knight, whom was pretty much ordained as a "holy warrior" due to belonging to an actual religious-military order of knighthood (in opposition to others). The Arthurian Knight's Code is not as "religious" as that of the Crusaders.

The original vision was that the Paladin represented archetype A, while the Cleric envisioned archetype B (the Paladin's fluff comes pretty much from Three Hearts and Three Lions, a fictional story about the Peers of Charlemagne, while the Cleric's fluff was meant to reflect the Knight Templar or Knight Hospitaller). With the advancement of RPGs (both in console and in tabletop), the Paladin was growing closer and closer to the archetype of the Knight Templar, Knight Hospitaller or Teutonic Knight (a divine warrior that follows the will of his or her god) while the Cleric subtly became the "white wizard", the wandering friar (much like Friar Tuck) or the chaplain (and associated ever closer with the healer archetype, eventually becoming the "battle medic").

So, really, it's because of external influences. The original archetype of the Paladin was done better through fluff than through crunch, so eventually the Fighter (or that was the intention), the Knight (which is slightly closer) and eventually mundane melee classes envisioned that idea better than the Paladin. In essence, the Paladin is but ONE of the many ideas of the Knight archetype, the one devoted to faith rather than to his liege (as the classic Knight, or the Samurai), to adventure and to his dame (Knight-Errant) or to his troops (the Marshal). Thus, more and more it was necessary to pump up the divine feel, and what better way than with a god? Clerics CAN be (and most of the times ARE) followers of ideals, but apparently that's not the same with Paladins, even if it's perfectly possible (in fact, if the decisions of a god conflict with the Code, the Code prevails; IIRC that's on the Complete Paladin's Handbook of the old TSR AD&D books). In this case, while the Paladin was meant to be divorced slightly from the divine trappings, the progression of the archetype in terms of fluff has caused it to develop a strong divine feel, and the game pretty much presses you to adopt a deity; consider the feats, prestige classes, magic items and whatnot related to deities in-game, not to mention the load of example characters that follow a deity instead of a principle, with what exists for clerics that follow no particular deity or faith.

Hazzardevil

2011-07-05, 01:51 AM

Azazer uses Doing the Research on Lord_Gareth. It's super-effective!

Lord_Gareth fainted!

Just as I red that a pokemon advert came on.

Anyway, having little experiance with any sort of holy warrior. I think that most people worship gods so they have an organisation to affiliate with as well as providing plott hooks.

Analytica

2011-07-05, 08:11 AM

I agree that the PHB explicitly allows Paladins to gain power from an abstract cause (alignment) rather than from a deity.

However, out of all published WotC supplements: adventures, campaign setting books, even class books, what fraction of Paladin characters do not have a deity explicitly listed? Going by written fiction, D&D novels etc, what fraction of Paladin characters are not described as gaining their powers from their Lawful Good deity? From what I've seen this is a limited fraction.

Given that, I think it can be concluded that while the D&D 3.5 PHB explicitly RAW allows godless paladins, or paladins whose vows are to virtue itself rather than to a virtuous deity, most people at WotC have either not even thought of that option, or might consider it just that; optional, in the case of rare exceptions within a world or for a minority of campaign worlds. I am not saying they are right or wrong in this, just that it does not seem unlikely this is the view implicitly held by a majority of the people writing Paladins into WotC material.

As such, I also would not be surprised if, when gaming with the designers themselves, many of them would not allow me a paladin PC whose powers came from their alignment and virtue only. I further think this perception of designer intent may affect that people often speak of the paladins as implicitly being servants of deities, along with the fact that although FR is not 3.5's implied default setting, it is probably the single most well-detailed D&D setting there is, with the most material produced in a variety of media.

Last, houseruling paladins to require deities (which I would mostly be inclined to) does have some positive consequences: any code of conduct issue can be analyzed by just having the deity making a ruling. It may not be the solution for everyone, but it does mean that there can always be a true and a false answer.

Swooper

2011-07-05, 08:49 AM

Now I want to play an atheist paladin. Or a cleric devoted to the principle of atheism. :smallamused:

hamishspence

2011-07-05, 08:52 AM

Athar clerics in Planar Handbook have to be strongly opposed to the worship of the D&D pantheons- but generally they still have an element of reverance to a "Great Unknown".

Though some within the group regard even this, as misguided.

So there is precedent.

Urpriest

2011-07-05, 08:57 AM

Lord_Gareth

2011-07-05, 08:58 AM

Now I want to play an atheist paladin.

"If the gods can prevent evil, but are unwilling, then they are malevolent."

I did this archetype once. It was awesome. Granted, I used Crusader levels, but the sentiment is identical.

hamishspence

2011-07-05, 09:05 AM

The reason Paladins are usually attributed a deity in threads discussing their code and the like is because it makes more sense to personify some sort of ultra-picky ordering them around than to think of an abstract "force of goodness" as constantly splitting hairs about what they can and cannot do.

One way of looking at it- certain acts, cause "evil energy" to seep into the character- - which causes the connection between the paladin and the "cosmic forces of good and law" to fail- and which can only be removed by atonement.

So the force doesn't really have any direct input- it makes no decisions.

Midnight_v

2011-07-05, 09:32 AM

"If the gods can prevent evil, but are unwilling, then they are malevolent."

I did this archetype once. It was awesome. Granted, I used Crusader levels, but the sentiment is identical.

You have made my morning with this reference.
Thank you.
Sounds really cool.

My favorite fluff for the paladin is the Kantian Paladin. Have you guys seen it?

Talya

2011-07-05, 09:33 AM

The entire concept of divine power without the divine is silly, I really dislike it. (Exception: The Ur-Priest is specifically flavored to steal divine power, I don't mind it so much.)

However, I usually play in the Forgotten Realms, and in FR, Paladins, Clerics, Druids, and Rangers all absolutely require a deity (or occasionally, non-divine powerful being with aspirations of Godhood) to grant them their power. (A druid can worship "nature" as an abstract, but it still ends up directly associating to one of the setting's nature gods, whether or not the Druid knows it.)

Fax Celestis

2011-07-05, 09:35 AM

Urpriest

2011-07-05, 09:47 AM

One way of looking at it- certain acts, cause "evil energy" to seep into the character- - which causes the connection between the paladin and the "cosmic forces of good and law" to fail- and which can only be removed by atonement.

So the force doesn't really have any direct input- it makes no decisions.

The issue remains that the force's properties are suspiciously anthropomorphic, though.

You have made my morning with this reference.
Thank you.
Sounds really cool.

My favorite fluff for the paladin is the Kantian Paladin. Have you guys seen it?

I prefer the Dark Kantian. Categorical Imperative: Murder! (http://dresdencodak.com/2009/01/27/advanced-dungeons-and-discourse/)

DiBastet

2011-07-05, 09:54 AM

This brings to me the ages old fashion of playing modern sensibilities char and world... Atheistic clerics and paladins are cool, unlawful dark knights and rogues are super cool, and do-whatever-i-want wizards are ultra cool...

...while every lord and prince is a weakling or moraly wrong char, every religious or governamental leader is corrupt and where honor-bound knights and paladins are boring or MUST fall (then they become cool).

Easy to see by the sheer number of "blood magus" "dark assassin" "witcher" and "dark awesome lord" homebrew lately...

hamishspence

2011-07-05, 09:58 AM

Dark Side points?

That's one way of looking at it- though it wouldn't necessarily have to involve exact numbers.

In BoVD, an exceptional evil event, can "taint" the area, in a similar fashion to the Cave in Empire Strikes Back.

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-07-05, 10:00 AM

Every single thread that the beloved/maligned Paladin comes up, someone references that Paladin's deity. They don't just do this once; the do it often, and frequently, with a clear and present connection being drawn between a Paladin's class and the worship of a divinity of some kinds.

Why in the Nine flaming Hells is this happening?

If you look, not just at the SRD, but at the Player's Handbook, the Paladin is a Gods-Optional class; his power, such as it is, flows directly from his dedication to righteousness and his Code, and any given divinity should (in theory) be highly honored that a Paladin of all people chose to serve them. Canonically, the only setting where this is not the case is Forgotten Realms.

So why the all-pervasive belief that Paladins gain power from gods rather than from pure goodness?

Probably because the original paladin was just as dedicated to a deity as a cleric was... and it is really quite silly to imagine a Holy Warrior, a Divine Champion, without being pledged to a deity to gain that power from.

big teej

2011-07-05, 10:04 AM

Every single thread that the beloved/maligned Paladin comes up, someone references that Paladin's deity. They don't just do this once; the do it often, and frequently, with a clear and present connection being drawn between a Paladin's class and the worship of a divinity of some kinds.

Why in the Nine flaming Hells is this happening?

If you look, not just at the SRD, but at the Player's Handbook, the Paladin is a Gods-Optional class; his power, such as it is, flows directly from his dedication to righteousness and his Code, and any given divinity should (in theory) be highly honored that a Paladin of all people chose to serve them. Canonically, the only setting where this is not the case is Forgotten Realms.

So why the all-pervasive belief that Paladins gain power from gods rather than from pure goodness?

quite possibly. the "none of that 'cleric for a cause' crap" philosophy

alternately, the fact the paladin can fall

Gnaeus

2011-07-05, 10:15 AM

One way of looking at it- certain acts, cause "evil energy" to seep into the character- - which causes the connection between the paladin and the "cosmic forces of good and law" to fail- and which can only be removed by atonement.

So the force doesn't really have any direct input- it makes no decisions.

Yeah, but then you have endless arguments about what "good" or "evil" is in situation X. In my opinion, "What would Moradin do?" is an easier question about 90% of the time.

tyckspoon

2011-07-05, 10:21 AM

Probably because the original paladin was just as dedicated to a deity as a cleric was... and it is really quite silly to imagine a Holy Warrior, a Divine Champion, without being pledged to a deity to gain that power from.

But Paladins aren't divine champions. That's what Clerics, Favored Souls, Crusaders, Divine Minds, and religiously inclined Knights/Fighters/Rangers etc are for.. Paladins are champions of Good. Their beliefs and goals may align with a god, leading them to follow that god, but their Paladinhood isn't related to that- it's not a Paladin's job to advance a god's agenda.

Talya

2011-07-05, 10:31 AM

But Paladins aren't divine champions. That's what Clerics, Favored Souls, Crusaders, Divine Minds, and religiously inclined Knights/Fighters/Rangers etc are for.. Paladins are champions of Good. Their beliefs and goals may align with a god, leading them to follow that god, but their Paladinhood isn't related to that- it's not a Paladin's job to advance a god's agenda.

Says...who?

Paladins have rather specifically been divine champions for a very long time. This whole idea of a character with divine power yet no divine sponsor is new. And bad.

Edit: One of my favorite books in 3.5 is Champions of Valor, with its plethora of substitution levels to represent the paladins of various knightly orders, reflavored to match the appropriate gods. Unfortunately, none of them address the issue that paladins sorta suck...

hamishspence

2011-07-05, 10:32 AM

Yeah, but then you have endless arguments about what "good" or "evil" is in situation X. In my opinion, "What would Moradin do?" is an easier question about 90% of the time.

One option is to comb the various sources for "always evil" acts- remove any you think need removing- and otherwise, tend to err on the side of leniency with acts that are "not always evil".

This whole idea of a character with divine power yet no divine sponsor is new. And bad.

How new is it in D&D though? Didn't the Rules Cyclopedia avoid mentioning specific sponsors?

Coidzor

2011-07-05, 10:34 AM

Says...who?

Paladins have rather specifically been divine champions for a very long time. This whole idea of a character with divine power yet no divine sponsor is new. And bad.

IIRC the idea of the Divine as something independent of an individual deity goes back to around Socrates at least.

Midnight_v

2011-07-05, 11:01 AM

The issue remains that the force's properties are suspiciously anthropomorphic, though.

I prefer the Dark Kantian. Categorical Imperative: Murder! (http://dresdencodak.com/2009/01/27/advanced-dungeons-and-discourse/)

Wow... thats not cool... damn. :smalleek:
Well I guess thats what a blackguard to him would be. Bravo!

....
Someone ... made some post about Cool & Evil.
Its because of: the idea that Good = The right to judge.
Judging = Uncool.
It's really about being judged that makes people not like "That guy", even when people aren't doing anything wrong the concept that there's another person running around with it in his head to judge and censure your actions, tends to offends many people.

Fax Celestis

2011-07-05, 11:03 AM

Says...who?
Says the PHB?

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-07-05, 11:10 AM

Says the D&D 3.5 PHB?

FIFY.

Specifically, this is the first edition wherein that is actually correct. Cultural baggage is such that to say 'paladin' is to imply 'a martial follower of a deity'. The two are synonymous among gamer community, because the 3.5 system is the ONLY one which makes this distinction.

In other words, if you call your spoon a spork, other people will wonder why it doesn't have prongs on the end.

Midnight_v

2011-07-05, 11:16 AM

Doesn't matter its the 3.5 d20 thread I'm pretty sure it doesn't require a god in the srd either.

And bad.
Interesting opinion...
Mine says things that add versimilitude to the game are good.
One says we can have paladins of "GOOD" regardless of religion and the other says paladins of a "God" who have to please the god and Good. Its kinda frivolous. Meh.

Fax Celestis

2011-07-05, 11:21 AM

Specifically, this is the first edition wherein that is actually correct.

Sure. It is still correct.

Talya

2011-07-05, 11:21 AM

Doesn't matter its the 3.5 d20 thread I'm pretty sure it doesn't require a god in the srd either.

Unless you're playing in Forgotten Realms, in which case you absolutely do require a deity as a paladin.

Interesting opinion...
Mine says things that add versimilitude to the game are good.

I think a lot of people use that word without understanding it. Removing the divine from a divine class actually decreases "versimilitude." (A.K.A. "Realism.") It removes the link from the crunch and the setting, it removes the sense of connection between the magic of the world and the setting itself.

One says we can have paladins of "GOOD" regardless of religion and the other says paladins of a "God" who have to please the god and Good. Its kinda frivolous. Meh.

Without the divine, there is no such thing as Good or Evil. If you want to have absolute morality, there needs to be an absolute moral authority.

Yuki Akuma

2011-07-05, 11:26 AM

It's been possible to gain divine power without a god since at least Planescape 2e.

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-07-05, 11:34 AM

It's been possible to gain divine power without a god since at least Planescape 2e.

But then it was an obscure character option from an obscure sourcebook that 99% of the players either didn't know about, or scoffed at.

Again, you ask why? I tell you: cultural baggage. You're using a word with significant meaning already, and attempting to re-define it. Naturally, there's some confusion between what it already means, and what you are attempting to re-define it as. Since no other system uses that word like that, and in fact uses it in a totally opposite manner, it's the 3.5 system who is bucking the trend, not gamers in general.

Or, to elaborate on my previous statement:

You are taking a spoon, and calling it Spork. Everyone else who goes to your table who asks for a spork expects it to have tines. The fact that it doesn't have tines is correct at your table, because you have defined it thusly, but that doesn't change the fact that to everyone else, 'spork' is a spoon-fork hybrid with tines.

Lord_Gareth

2011-07-05, 11:35 AM

Without the divine, there is no such thing as Good or Evil. If you want to have absolute morality, there needs to be an absolute moral authority.

The D&D divinities have about the moral authority of squabbling five-year-olds, though. Honestly, they're just really, really big Outsiders with strong, persistent fetishes. The only real difference between a Solar and Pelor is the latter has a following.

Yuki Akuma

2011-07-05, 11:44 AM

But then it was an obscure character option from an obscure sourcebook that 99% of the players either didn't know about, or scoffed at.

Again, you ask why? I tell you: cultural baggage. You're using a word with significant meaning already, and attempting to re-define it. Naturally, there's some confusion between what it already means, and what you are attempting to re-define it as. Since no other system uses that word like that, and in fact uses it in a totally opposite manner, it's the 3.5 system who is bucking the trend, not gamers in general.

Or, to elaborate on my previous statement:

You are taking a spoon, and calling it Spork. Everyone else who goes to your table who asks for a spork expects it to have tines. The fact that it doesn't have tines is correct at your table, because you have defined it thusly, but that doesn't change the fact that to everyone else, 'spork' is a spoon-fork hybrid with tines.

There has been a notion of "divine without divinities" since at least Socrates.

Talya

2011-07-05, 11:50 AM

The D&D divinities have about the moral authority of squabbling five-year-olds, though. Honestly, they're just really, really big Outsiders with strong, persistent fetishes. The only real difference between a Solar and Pelor is the latter has a following.

Ah, but they don't squabble over morality. They all know their own place on the alignment chart, and do not dispute it. Cyric doesn't ever pretend to be lawful good, Tempus doesn't pretend his way is the morally upstanding one. They each represent a philosophical viewpoint. Sune doesn't think she is lawful evil, and Torm doesn't pretend to be chaotic. Bane knows that he is evil, and that Lathander is good. The gods are unified in the definitions of Good and Evil, Law and Chaos (even if we sometimes have trouble figuring out what should be what.) They know their relative positions in the alignment system and do not dispute it.

Also, the D&D gods (whether FR or Greyhawk) are no different than any polytheistic mythological pantheon throughout human history in their internal, squabbling nature. Nor are they different from any human organizations, for that matter.

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-07-05, 11:51 AM

There has been a notion of "divine without divinities" since at least Socrates.

Which still does not change the mainstream culture viewpoint on the word with significant cultural baggage, most of whom are ignorant of that particular factoid.

Again, it's not a matter of when the concept was first introduced, but how many people it has been introduced to. Due to the lack of quality in public education over the past few decades (in my area, at least), this concept is still counter to the image called up when you use the word 'paladin', which is 'a knight who has sworn/pledged to a deity'

charcoalninja

2011-07-05, 11:51 AM

And D&D lore has time and again referenced the fact that deities are created and shaped by mortal belief. Vecna was a mortal that ascended, what sort of absolute moral authority does he have? There's an answer to that question... but its a secret... FR especially has deities that are directly fueled by the devotion of mortal thought. The outer planes of 2e were alignment based, built and sustained by the belief of mortals. Unless the uber outsider god intervened a lawful evil soul went to the nine hells for example.

The gods do not create morality in the D&D setting, but champion a specific way of looking at the world. Those of like mind look to these nigh indestructible beings for support in achieving similar goals. Many believe they're the creators of morality, but they're the worshipers of the guys in the first place so that's a common trait among the religious.

Talya

2011-07-05, 11:53 AM

FR especially has deities that are directly fueled by the devotion of mortal thought.

Fueled by, but not created by. Even "Fueled By" was a recent limitation placed upon the deities by Ao himself (although Ao is not fueled by such belief.) Prior to the Time of Troubles, the FR deities existed with their power independant of the number of adherents that venerated them.

Midnight_v

2011-07-05, 11:53 AM

I think a lot of people use that word without understanding it. Removing the divine from a divine class actually decreases "versimilitude." (A.K.A. "Realism.") It removes the link from the crunch and the setting, it removes the sense of connection between the magic of the world and the setting itself.
I... the slight there imagining the slight. . . If the implication is I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd have to say your veiw is kinda narrow. Or perhaps we're just having a difference of veiw there.
What I was saying was: There are people in real life, who show religious fervor about a cause, just as much people who believe in a god. It stops there though since people don't get super-belief-based as on earth.
Further, its contiguous with the rest of the concepts that you can access the divine without a diety to connect you to the power, since clerics don't need a diety, druids likewise don't need a diety, Crusaders don't need a diety, and Ur-priests!(YAY) don't need to a diety.
So yeah it follows that paladins wouldn't need to have a diety either, now those that pledge themselves to a diety, still lose their powers by not praying at midsummer or whatever, but thats because they've sword additional oaths, not because not praying at midsummer is "EVIL".

Unless you're playing in Forgotten Realms, in which case you absolutely do require a deity as a paladin.
HAHAHA! Right, Faerun. In soviet Faerun Dieties pick you!
Ooooooh... well we're clearly not talking about campaign specifics but yeah, if your campaign says everyone has to choose a God or "BAD when you DIE" yeah.
In faerun, I'd pick a diety just to not be one of the faithless, or find a way to live forever.... so yeah faerun is an exception. An exception I'm aware of but I find not really worth mentioning since we all are likely aware the "land of the gods and thier girlfriends" exists. Again take the rest of the conversation to say "Except in soviet faerun".

Without the divine, there is no such thing as Good or Evil. If you want to have absolute morality, there needs to be an absolute moral authority.
Kind of a simple thought process, but I'm pretty sure there's waaaay more philosophy that we can bring to bear that says we can be good strictly sans god. From a Humanocentric persepctive, for example but...
Go look up: "Good without qualification" or maybe take a second year philosophy class which might enlighten that thought process a bit.

It's been possible to gain divine power without a god since at least Planescape 2e+1

Talya

2011-07-05, 11:56 AM

Go look up: "Good without qualification" or maybe take a second year philosophy class which might enlighten that thought process a bit.

Moral Relativism and Nihilism have more "versimilitude" for me in real life. Morality is a self-decided thing. The only ethical value in anything is what the individual decides it has.

Fantasy is another matter. Where we have magic and visible, measurable gods and such right there, and an absolute moral compass for us to follow, I cannot imagine someone not choosing to follow a divine path to at least some degree.

(My favorite use for the Ur-Priest is the priest dedicated to the revival of a dead god.)

Fax Celestis

2011-07-05, 11:58 AM

You're using a word with significant meaning already, and attempting to re-define it.

D&D does that all the time. Or are you telling me clerics belong in libraries studiously copying holy texts (since clerics traditionally do clerical work)? Or that a sorcerer should tell fortunes (1520–30; earlier sorcer, Middle English < Middle French sorcier, perhaps < Vulgar Latin *sortiārius one who casts lots)? Perhaps even that barbarians are from Barbary (mid-14c., from M.L. barbarinus (cf. O.Fr. barbarin "Berber, pagan, Saracen, barbarian"), from L. barbaria "foreign country," from Gk. barbaros "foreign, strange, ignorant," from PIE base *barbar- echoic of unintelligible speech of foreigners (cf. Skt. barbara- "stammering," also "non-Aryan").)?

If we use the definition as presented in the real world (1590s, "one of the 12 knights in attendance on Charlemagne," from M.Fr. paladin "a warrior," from It. paladino, from L. palatinus "palace official;" noun use of palatinus "of the palace" (see palace). The Old French form of the word was palaisin (which gave M.E. palasin, c.1400); the Italian form prevailed because, though the matter was French, the poets who wrote the romances were mostly Italians.), then there can only be 12 paladins in the entire game, and they all have to attend to Charlemagne.

TeaL;DeeR D&D redefines things all the time. Holding to a real-world definition is silly when the game has its own definition.

hamishspence

2011-07-05, 12:07 PM

It's been possible to gain divine power without a god since at least Planescape 2e.

Rules Cyclopedia also mentions that this is an option for clerics- they don't have to gain power from immortals.

In that, the tie between paladins and clerics was strong- paladins had to serve a Lawful clerical order, and learned how to cast their spells from clerics.

How far back did that material go before Rules Cyclopedia compiled it?

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-07-05, 12:09 PM

D&D does that all the time. Or are you telling me clerics belong in libraries studiously copying holy texts (since clerics traditionally do clerical work)? Or that a sorcerer should tell fortunes (1520–30; earlier sorcer, Middle English < Middle French sorcier, perhaps < Vulgar Latin *sortiārius one who casts lots)? Perhaps even that barbarians are from Barbary (mid-14c., from M.L. barbarinus (cf. O.Fr. barbarin "Berber, pagan, Saracen, barbarian"), from L. barbaria "foreign country," from Gk. barbaros "foreign, strange, ignorant," from PIE base *barbar- echoic of unintelligible speech of foreigners (cf. Skt. barbara- "stammering," also "non-Aryan").)? Clerics performed miracles based on faith, which is something Clergy occasionally did, by myth and legend.

By modern usage, sorcery is synonomous with magic. Which is what sorcerers do.

I'm well aware of the roots of 'barbarian', starting with the roman definition, which was 'unshaved' and thus seen as savage and uncultured, from which root word we get 'Barber', meaning 'one who shaves'. However, it still has no impact on the cultural baggage which is 'some dude who wears fur, and screams as he charges into combat'.

If we use the definition as presented in the real world (1590s, "one of the 12 knights in attendance on Charlemagne," from M.Fr. paladin "a warrior," from It. paladino, from L. palatinus "palace official;" noun use of palatinus "of the palace" (see palace). The Old French form of the word was palaisin (which gave M.E. palasin, c.1400); the Italian form prevailed because, though the matter was French, the poets who wrote the romances were mostly Italians.), then there can only be 12 paladins in the entire game, and they all have to attend to Charlemagne.Please don't bring RL religions into it, we don't want to get the thread shut down. However, again, i must point out that it is not the original definition of the term you are fighting, but the cultural baggage inherent in the term as it is now used by the mainstream culture.

TeaL;DeeR D&D redefines things all the time. Holding to a real-world definition is silly when the game has its own definition.Who said anything about holding to a real-world definition?

The OP asked: Why do people relate paladins to deities?

I answered: because that is the mainstream view on paladins.

It was not a value judgement on what *should* be, nor what it *was* nor the *origins* nor the *historical connotations* nor the *educated connotations*.

It is simply a statement that this is the mainstream cultural baggage associated with the word, as it currently stands.

If you wish to engage in religious debate, I would be more than happy to do so on a forum which permits such things. I think you would be rather surprised at my viewpoints, in fact. However, I shall decline to do so on these forms, and so avoid getting myself hit with the ban-bat. However, it really has no bearing on the cultural baggage of the word as seen by the vast majority of the gamers.

Midnight_v

2011-07-05, 12:09 PM

(My favorite use for the Ur-Priest is the priest dedicated to the revival of a dead god.)
:smallsmile: I like that... quite a bit. Pardom me if I borrow it.

Fantasy is another matter. Where we have magic and visible, measurable gods and such right there, and an absolute moral compass for us to follow, I cannot imagine someone not choosing to follow a divine path to at least some degree.
I gotcha... however, there would be some people with mad ons against the gods. DAMN THE GODS! Like that remake of clash o the titans.
There are also some people who are trying to escape judgment for whatever horrible thing they've done, and even then just because people have magic powers doesn't mean that its divine... I mean... lets say for instance that "doubt" is a universal constant amoungst humanoids. Otherwise faith means nothing. Ymmv. You know? Sorry I've reached the point where alignment gives me a headache, back to optimization.

Talya

2011-07-05, 12:11 PM

:smallsmile: I like that... quite a bit. Pardom me if I borrow it.

No pardon required. It's actually mentioned as a possible background in the Ur-Priest fluff in Complete Divine.

Zaydos

2011-07-05, 12:27 PM

Rules Cyclopedia also mentions that this is an option for clerics- they don't have to gain power from immortals.

In that, the tie between paladins and clerics was strong- paladins had to serve a Lawful clerical order, and learned how to cast their spells from clerics.

How far back did that material go before Rules Cyclopedia compiled it?

Well I've always heard Rules Cyclopedia is a compilation of D&D (as opposed to AD&D) so let's check the old Red Box..

A cleric’s spell powers come from the strength of the cleric’s beliefs.

It also says that the game does not deal with theological beliefs, so of course clerics can't get power from gods when you are wary to say anything about gods.

The older AD&D Player's Handbook says that clerics draw their powers from gods (and that they bear resemblance to religious orders of knighthood), but doesn't note paladin's power source.

I can't find my older brother's green box so I don't know what Basic D&D said about paladins, but I think it's the same as the Rule Cyclopedia reference.

hamishspence

2011-07-05, 12:29 PM

It also says that the game does not deal with theological beliefs, so of course clerics can't get power from gods when you are wary to say anything about gods.

"Immortals" filled a similar role, but they weren't a requirement.

I can't find my older brother's green box so I don't know what Basic D&D said about paladins, but I think it's the same as the Rule Cyclopedia reference.

It would probably have been Companion Set D&D- since they are a high-level fighter variant in Rules Compendium.

Zaydos

2011-07-05, 12:57 PM

"Immortals" filled a similar role, but they weren't a requirement.

It would probably have been Companion Set D&D- since they are a high-level fighter variant in Rules Compendium.

They weren't even mentioned in the Red Box, and I never saw the Immortals Box (didn't even know a gold one existed).

And the Companion Set came in a Green Box with a Green Dragon on it. IT had all the cool stuff, druids, paladins, avengers, knights.

hamishspence

2011-07-05, 01:01 PM

I can't find my older brother's green box so I don't know what Basic D&D said about paladins,
Ah- you were using "basic D&D" to refer to all the boxes, besides the first one that's called "Basic".

Were immortals not mentioned in the Cleric description in Basic, besides "causes" as things clerics could draw power from?

Analytica

2011-07-05, 01:29 PM

I've gotten the impression in some places that the inclusion of clerics of causes, little mention of specific religions in rules material etc., is in part because of a fear that the game would be seen as pagan or occult otherwise. Similar to how some older sourcebooks talk of baatezu instead of devils, and life forces instead of souls. This may or may not have had any impact on the apparently (as you demonstrate to my surprise) inclusion of cause clerics. Though I also lean towards the interpretation that they are there so that players can create pseudo-Buddhist clerics.

The idea that deities are fuelled by faith, and that faith consequently is magical on its own, is certainly there in Planescape, not so much in FR (as someone stated, it's more that the deities get score points from AO the more worshippers thay have). I first saw it in the works of Terry Pratchett, and am unsure if there are earlier incarnations of the idea in fiction. It is one of the options discussed in Deities and Demigods, and I don't really remember if they specify whether they think it is the case for the "core pantheon".

Regardless, it is ultimately a facet of the game world, as an aspect of what its magical laws are like. How many published (or home-brew) D&D settings do include it? Furthermore, how common is it in those settings? I don't really know. For any setting where clerics and paladins alike exclusively or most commonly gain power from a deity, it makes sense to include it in a discussion. Out of all D&D games played, I would expect a large fraction if not the majority to take place in a setting where those assumptions do indeed hold. I have no statistics to back this up, though, so...

Honest Tiefling

2011-07-05, 01:32 PM

1. Faerun is a common setting, but I have seen homebrew use similar rules.

2. Sadly, some people can't be trusted with the concept business for powergaming issues.

3. If you follow a god, you get access to both nifty feats, prestige classes and other things, as well as plenty of RP hooks and the potential to try to influence or be influenced by a church.

4. Easy flavor, just add water. I suspect that people can easier imagine a paladin of Moradin (dwarfy, large beard, thinks highly of family and skillful crafters, etc.) better then say, a paladin of time.

5. People like some DnD gods. I like Wee Jas, and if I get into a Greyhawk game, I'll probably make a follower of her. Talya seems fond of Sune, so this is not just restricted to me I think.

Othniel Edden

2011-07-05, 01:35 PM

I once had this concept of playing a cleric or paladin of Communism, but I never went through with it, because I was between groups at the time.

NNescio

2011-07-05, 01:38 PM

hamishspence

2011-07-05, 01:38 PM

The idea that deities are fuelled by faith, and that faith consequently is magical on its own, is certainly there in Planescape, not so much in FR (as someone stated, it's more that the deities get score points from AO the more worshippers thay have). I first saw it in the works of Terry Pratchett, and am unsure if there are earlier incarnations of the idea in fiction. It is one of the options discussed in Deities and Demigods, and I don't really remember if they specify whether they think it is the case for the "core pantheon".

"Gods Need Prayer Badly" predates Pratchett by quite a bit:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodsNeedPrayerBadly

Gnaeus

2011-07-05, 01:49 PM

One option is to comb the various sources for "always evil" acts- remove any you think need removing- and otherwise, tend to err on the side of leniency with acts that are "not always evil".

So, I can either pick which sets of optional alignment rules are in play, cross reference different places in half a dozen different sources, written by different people, which don't always agree with each other, which don't always make sense and are so crystal clear that intelligent people can debate exactly what the printed text means within a single example (and which can also be interpreted in light of printed NPCs whose alignment does not necessarily agree with those rules), or I can read a god's description (WHICH THE DM MAY HAVE WRITTEN) and try to figure out what he would think about that situation.

You are right. I am wrong. Upon further examination of your argument I should have said What Would Moradin Do is easier way more than 90% of the time.

Kenneth

2011-07-05, 01:50 PM

I can be completely wrong in this, but I think it stems from teh older edition requiremnts of Paladins to worship a LG diety ( later editions allowing you to worship non LG ones as long as they were good or promted justice and such)

Much like a lot of rules, that are carry over form older editions that people still follow, like for instance the 1 sneak attack a round rule. Thouhg its not the most popular, it is still common enough.

SOmehow the thread got derailed into a take on real life religion and philosophy. Am i the only one who wanted to slap them all? trying to bring real world actualities into not just a game, but a game based on the make believe. and they all manged to skip over this very simple explanaintion.

and the whole socrates thing was not a specific diety. not how some poeple are running about syaing 'no diety'

Though I do have to say, as my opinion. How does one get any divine powers at all, if there is not some sort of divine force behind those powers?

I might be a bit of lard here for the vast majority of you. but what You guys are saying is I can be a paladin and run around smiting things and laying down divine justice and be doing it for the cuase fo that there ARE no dieties? SO here I am an atheist Paladin who does not belive that divine beings even exist and yet, i am laying the holy smakc down with said divine abilities?

somebody explain this to an old school gamer like me.

Also.. to everybody capitalizing 'god' when used in a generic sense. You are doing it wrong.

hamishspence

2011-07-05, 01:54 PM

So
You are right. I am wrong. Upon further examination of your argument I should have said What Would Moradin Do is easier way more than 90% of the time.

"What Would X do" varies a lot- especially if the deity is LN.

"What would Wee Jas Do" could quite feasibly involve evil acts- which contradicts the basic principle of paladins not committing evil acts.

Conversely "What Would Wee Jas Object To" might not actually be an evil act.

Though I do have to say, as my opinion. How does one get any divine powers at all, if there is not some sort of divine force behind those powers?

I might be a bit of lard here for the vast majority of you. but what You guys are saying is I can be a paladin and run around smiting things and laying down divine justice and be doing it for the cuase fo that there ARE no dieties? SO here I am an atheist Paladin who does not belive that divine beings even exist and yet, i am laying the holy smakc down with said divine abilities?

somebody explain this to an old school gamer like me.

It usually involves "divine energy" as a seperate thing, part of the universe, that D&D deities can draw on.

and that the beings exist but are "glorified outsiders".

NNescio

2011-07-05, 01:54 PM

So, I can either pick which sets of optional alignment rules are in play, cross reference different places in half a dozen different sources, written by different people, which don't always agree with each other, which don't always make sense and are so crystal clear that intelligent people can debate exactly what the printed text means within a single example (and which can also be interpreted in light of printed NPCs whose alignment does not necessarily agree with those rules), or I can read a god's description (WHICH THE DM MAY HAVE WRITTEN) and try to figure out what he would think about that situation.

You are right. I am wrong. Upon further examination of your argument I should have said What Would Moradin Do is easier way more than 90% of the time.

As for the remaining 10%... (or less) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0073.html)

Gnaeus

2011-07-05, 02:01 PM

"What Would X do" varies a lot- especially if the deity is LN.

"What would Wee Jas Do" could quite feasibly involve evil acts- which contradicts the basic principle of paladins not committing evil acts.

Conversely "What Would Wee Jas Object To" might not actually be an evil act.

But if you start with the principle that Wee Jas is the guy granting your spells/powers, and that you only fall when you start doing things that he doesn't like, you don't really have much of a conflict. The only question is when the DM replaces your powers with Paladin of Tyranny. It isn't like 3.5 paladin is so amazingly strong that he needs a limiting code to keep him from dominating the game.

Alternately, if you are a "Paladins are only LG" purist... Wee Jas no longer has paladins. He covers that slot with crusaders, clerics, and RKVs.

Telonius

2011-07-05, 02:07 PM

It usually involves "divine energy" as a seperate thing, part of the universe, that D&D deities can draw on.

and that the beings exist but are "glorified outsiders".

More or less, that's it. It's not really, "Atheist Paladin is laying down holy smack on the person," as "Atheist Paladin is using the same source of energy that these things we call 'gods' are using." That's also the idea behind things like the Ur-Priest in Complete Divine.

Zombimode

2011-07-05, 02:07 PM

FIFY.

Specifically, this is the first edition wherein that is actually correct. Cultural baggage is such that to say 'paladin' is to imply 'a martial follower of a deity'. The two are synonymous among gamer community, because the 3.5 system is the ONLY one which makes this distinction.

In other words, if you call your spoon a spork, other people will wonder why it doesn't have prongs on the end.

Thats actually false. I cant speak for AD&D 1e or older, but right here in my 2e phb the paladin is pretty much described as the "champion of good" (and civilisation), and not tied to any gods at all.
It was (and is) a specific Forgotten Realms thing. At least in 2e the gods could be of any good aligment or of lawful neutral aligment.

tyckspoon

2011-07-05, 02:11 PM

Though I do have to say, as my opinion. How does one get any divine powers at all, if there is not some sort of divine force behind those powers?

I might be a bit of lard here for the vast majority of you. but what You guys are saying is I can be a paladin and run around smiting things and laying down divine justice and be doing it for the cuase fo that there ARE no dieties? SO here I am an atheist Paladin who does not belive that divine beings even exist and yet, i am laying the holy smakc down with said divine abilities?

somebody explain this to an old school gamer like me.

In D&D cosmology, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are cosmic forces in their own right. They exist regardless of what gods and mortals do or think. Is it so hard to imagine that these forces might exhibit a will from time to time and empower a mortal to be their representative on the material world? Or that some mortals just have the appropriate mindset and talents to reach out to those forces and draw some power from them without being forced to beseech an intermediary god for it?

Analytica

2011-07-05, 02:12 PM

But if you start with the principle that Wee Jas is the guy granting your spells/powers, and that you only fall when you start doing things that he doesn't like, you don't really have much of a conflict. The only question is when the DM replaces your powers with Paladin of Tyranny. It isn't like 3.5 paladin is so amazingly strong that he needs a limiting code to keep him from dominating the game.

Alternately, if you are a "Paladins are only LG" purist... Wee Jas no longer has paladins. He covers that slot with crusaders, clerics, and RKVs.

From the SRD (and in turn from Deities and Demigods):

Grant Spells

A deity automatically grants spells and domain powers to mortal divine spellcasters who pray to it. Most deities can grant spells from the cleric spell list, the ranger spell list, and from three or more domains. Deities with levels in the druid class can grant spells from the druid spell list, and deities with paladin levels can grant spells from the paladin spell list. A deity can withhold spells from any particular mortal as a free action; once a spell has been granted, it remains in the mortal’s mind until expended.

Most published deities ignore this rule it seems, though...

Analytica

2011-07-05, 02:17 PM

That's also the idea behind things like the Ur-Priest in Complete Divine.

Not really according to the class description. The default Ur-Priest intercepts spells granted by deities and steals them. A little like an e-mail scammer... :smallsmile:

hamishspence

2011-07-05, 02:29 PM

But if you start with the principle that Wee Jas is the guy granting your spells/powers, and that you only fall when you start doing things that he doesn't like, you don't really have much of a conflict.

Alternately, if you are a "Paladins are only LG" purist... Wee Jas no longer has paladins. He covers that slot with crusaders, clerics, and RKVs.

It tends to contradict the existing D&D fiction though- where in some cases the paladin- being more devoted to both Good and Law than their deity is- refuses to obey their deity's order to help them commit an evil act.

Alefiend

2011-07-05, 02:29 PM

I don't know if it's still material to the discussion, but the AD&D paladin didn't require anything more than strict LG alignment and adherence to a set of rules in the PHB. Deities are mentioned twice; once in discussing receiving an atonement spell after committing a chaotic act, and the other in terms of tithing:

An immediate tithe (10%) of all income - be it treasure, wages, or whatever - must be given to whatever charitable religious institution (not a clerical player character) of lawful good alignment the paladin selects.
Note that it says "charitable religious institution," not necessarily a church itself—it could be the Salvation Army (which is a church, but work with me here) or the Shriners. So even back then, the paladin didn't have to associate with a specific god except to dispose of excess cash or to say "Oops, I screwed up."

Analytica

2011-07-05, 02:39 PM

It tends to contradict the existing D&D fiction though- where in some cases the paladin- being more devoted to both Good and Law than their deity is- refuses to obey their deity's order to help them commit an evil act.

In these cases, when the paladin's powers are used, are they usually described as being of the deity or as coming from the ideal of law or justice itself?

hamishspence

2011-07-05, 02:50 PM

The deity did say "How dare you disobey me and risk falling from my grace?" implying that the grace of the deity, is in fact a factor.

It was a NG deity though.

Gnaeus

2011-07-05, 03:45 PM

The deity did say "How dare you disobey me and risk falling from my grace?" implying that the grace of the deity, is in fact a factor.

It was a NG deity though.

That doesn't actually contradict my point, then. The paladin risks falling from grace because he isn't following WWMD, even if his personal code makes him more LG than his deity.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-07-05, 03:54 PM

hamishspence

2011-07-05, 05:01 PM

That doesn't actually contradict my point, then. The paladin risks falling from grace because he isn't following WWMD, even if his personal code makes him more LG than his deity.

It comes separately from the obligation to not do evil acts.

As it turns out the god ended up accepting that the paladin was right- and that she stopped him from making a big moral mistake.

Cerlis

2011-07-05, 09:23 PM

Well, other than homebrewn world, forgotten realms seems to me the most mentioned setting on this board. but i could be wrong.

Gnaeus

2011-07-06, 07:19 AM

As it turns out the god ended up accepting that the paladin was right- and that she stopped him from making a big moral mistake.

That isn't actually very relevant. If the story had been written differently, it could just as easily have been the god that was right. Furthermore, if you want to accept all the D&D fiction as persuasive proof in "does this make him fall" discussions, you add dozens more sources, all written by different authors, with different understandings of what alignment means. The more sources you add, the more complicated the already difficult discussion of "is x an evil act, and is it enough to make y fall" becomes, and the more attractive that the simple Would this act hack off your god? becomes by comparison.

hamishspence

2011-07-06, 07:49 AM

The more sources you add, the more complicated the already difficult discussion of "is x an evil act, and is it enough to make y fall" becomes, and the more attractive that the simple Would this act hack off your god? becomes by comparison.

It might be more attractive- but it tends to undermine the general principle that traditional paladins are loyal to Good & Law first, their deity (if any) second, that seems to have been present for a long time in D&D.

Gnaeus

2011-07-06, 08:16 AM

It might be more attractive- but it tends to undermine the general principle that traditional paladins are loyal to Good & Law first, their deity (if any) second, that seems to have been present for a long time in D&D.

Well, as other people have pointed out, many people see that fluff as being inherently inconsistent with the fluff that it is usually the gods, not the power of Good and Law, that grants their spells.

And that fluff was tied to what was, at that time, a tier 1 class, one of the strongest in the game. A class that was clearly, unarguably, better at fighting than the fighters, which themselves weren't too bad at the time. If you are trying to drown someone who can't swim, you don't need to chain them to the anvil. There were LOTS of general principles of 1st and 2nd ed that were thrown away in 3.0/3.5 (Hey guys, watch me gank this mage by throwing 8 darts per round at him to strip his stoneskin and then do stupid damage). Paladin code is (in my opinion only) a dinosaur.

If you want to make paladins wade through the muck that is the alignment system, AT LEAST make them high tier 2 to compensate them for the pain.

hamishspence

2011-07-06, 08:34 AM

If you want to make paladins wade through the muck that is the alignment system, AT LEAST make them high tier 2 to compensate them for the pain.

I agree with this bit. Making the alignment system fairly easy to handle (a few very basic principles, + taking a generous interpretation when it's in the grey areas)

as well as taking a generous approach to what happens when they do fall (fairly easy atonement, amount of divine power lost being proportional to the severity of the offense)

might help to reduce the unenjoyable moments.

Alefiend

2011-07-06, 11:25 AM

I agree with this bit. Making the alignment system fairly easy to handle (a few very basic principles, + taking a generous interpretation when it's in the grey areas)

as well as taking a generous approach to what happens when they do fall (fairly easy atonement, amount of divine power lost being proportional to the severity of the offense)

might help to reduce the unenjoyable moments.

I'm all for reducing unenjoyable moments. There are two real problems with paladins and their conduct. The first, and probably older, one is players who seek to justify bad behavior as sticking to the letter of their alignment and code. This is likely why there has always been a mechanic for stripping paladins of their powers and status. If you give in to pride, if you do what is convenient rather than what is just, if you don't nourish goodness as well as smiting evil, then you fall.

The second, and apparently more common, problem comes when the GM builds alignment traps—forcing paladins to make impossible choices where anything they do will cause a breach of their code. Paladins are interesting because they choose the greatest good for the most beings, unlike LG outsiders who are physical manifestations of their alignments. Tough choices are supposed to be part of the fun of roleplaying, not a means of forcing players to do what you want or screwing their characters.

At the end of the day, paladins uphold law and good. The question to ask is not whether they obeyed a god, but whether they did their best to spread justice, prevent the spread of evil, and bring good to the most people. Nitpicking too far beyond that makes paladins afraid to do anything for fear of committing evil.

For excellent examples of paladins in a modern setting, I recommend reading any book from The Dresden Files where the Knights of the Cross appear. One of them—Sanya—is an atheist. Yet he was chosen by an archangel to wield a holy sword that bears one of the nails from the crucifixion. He remains an atheist, and one of the most powerful mortal forces for good in the world. If that's not a great example of serving good before serving a god, I don't know what is.

Gnaeus

2011-07-06, 02:46 PM

The second, and apparently more common, problem comes when the GM builds alignment traps—forcing paladins to make impossible choices where anything they do will cause a breach of their code. Paladins are interesting because they choose the greatest good for the most beings, unlike LG outsiders who are physical manifestations of their alignments. Tough choices are supposed to be part of the fun of roleplaying, not a means of forcing players to do what you want or screwing their characters.

Oh, I agree. So why do paladins have this hurdle, but not clerics? Clerics are more powerful by virtually every standard. A LG cleric is more closely tied to his LG god than is a paladin. But that cleric can shift to LN or NG without having as much as an interruption in his divine power supply. The cleric can violate his gods code, as long as it isn't a gross violation (Whatever that means), so he can perform evil acts, as long as they aren't gross violations, and his alignment doesn't actually shift to evil.

Paladin, on the other hand, "loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act". Frack! WTF does that mean? Willingly = Knowingly? Willingly includes under duress? (Put this poison on your weapon or I murder this little girl, Mr. Paladin!)? Roleplaying hard ethical choices is wonderful, I approve. Roleplaying hard ethical choices while second guessing what makes you a tier 6 warrior is the pits.

hamishspence

2011-07-06, 03:09 PM

It was worse in older editions (3.0, 2nd ed, and before) since the paladin could never get their powers back, unless the act was "under magical compulsion" or "unwitting" (and they still fell for those).

3.5 ed at least dialed back a bit on that- making it possible for those who'd willingly committed the evil act to redeem themselves.

Analytica

2011-07-06, 03:09 PM

At the end of the day, paladins uphold law and good. The question to ask is not whether they obeyed a god, but whether they did their best to spread justice, prevent the spread of evil, and bring good to the most people. Nitpicking too far beyond that makes paladins afraid to do anything for fear of committing evil.

This is one way to do it. Clearly it has support in both some old and new rulebooks, setting books, and game fiction/fluff, and it might provide the ideal solution for a number of campaigns, settings and gaming groups.

The alternate solution, which is basically making paladins the holy warriors of lawful good deities (with some other classes or variants taking this role for other deities), also seems to have support in a variety of rulebooks, setting books, and game/fiction fluff, and there seems to be campaigns, settings and gaming groups where it is a better solution.

This is also why I do not find it strange or problematic that gaming forum discussions might equally well assume that paladins are servants of deities, granted holy power from them, than that they may assume that paladins are independent agents channelling an abstract force of divine good and law beyond the deities.

For excellent examples of paladins in a modern setting, I recommend reading any book from The Dresden Files where the Knights of the Cross appear. One of them—Sanya—is an atheist. Yet he was chosen by an archangel to wield a holy sword that bears one of the nails from the crucifixion. He remains an atheist, and one of the most powerful mortal forces for good in the world. If that's not a great example of serving good before serving a god, I don't know what is.

It could be argued that these examples might not necessarily be relevant for D&D paladins though. Certainly you can DM or play a D&D game inspired by Sanya, and it might make for a good game, but I wouldn't say it can be assumed to be a valid case of inspiration for every D&D game.

Alefiend

2011-07-06, 05:11 PM

It could be argued that these examples might not necessarily be relevant for D&D paladins though. Certainly you can DM or play a D&D game inspired by Sanya, and it might make for a good game, but I wouldn't say it can be assumed to be a valid case of inspiration for every D&D game.

I should have pointed out one of the others too, in that case: Michael Carpenter. Devout Catholic, and utterly committed to his faith—not just the forms of religion, but the sentiments behind it. Rescued the woman who would become his wife from a dragon. A literal holy terror against evil. Also loving, loyal, tolerant, and able to forgive others' lapses in judgment. Likeable but steadfast—you wind up being more willing to do things his way because you see that it will hurt him to watch you do wrong, but he's also willing to see reason.

All of which brings up another point, regarding why so many people tie paladinhood to worship of a particular deity. [WARNING: possible religious triggers ahead. I apologize, and this isn't my religion anyway.]

For most of us, the image of a holy warrior is of a Christian holy warrior. Even plain old knighthood required a vigil and vows taken in a church. In Europe, there was no choice of gods; it was the Holy Trinity or nothing. Service to God and the Church was unquestioned and unquestioning, as that was the only bastion of good against the sinners, heathens, pagans, and other "evil" forces. All evidence and belief was that the Abrahamic God was the one true path, so it all blended together in life and in literature.

The paladin is drawn from that literature, but we have to allow for our own fantasy worlds, where there is clear and objective proof that there are many gods, actual divine beings, some with overlapping personalities and powers. When this is the case, while there is more basis for faith in gods, there is less likelihood of an unshakeable belief that only one god is Always Right And True. Pantheons have to cover a wide range of portfolios and behaviors. One god's interests don't always apply; a harvest deity doesn't care what happens in a dungeon five miles under the surface, unless it poses a direct threat to worshipers.

I'm going to stop here, because I'm in danger of rambling (if I'm not already doing that). Hopefully I've made some points you find useful, even if only as something to dissect.

Lady Serpentine

2011-07-06, 08:43 PM

Without the divine, there is no such thing as Good or Evil. If you want to have absolute morality, there needs to be an absolute moral authority.

Maybe. Who says that a paladin has absolute morality (As I understand you to mean)? Is there some reason that s/he can't simply be gaining his/her power from either inherent arcane ability fueled by their intense commitment to whatever code they follow, or from the general aid of all of the deities who's causes they indirectly support, and follow some highly personal code?

Lady Serpentine

2011-07-06, 08:53 PM

That's a good point. It might help, I think, to define terms before continuing, since I may be interpreting absolute morality differently than either of you.

I was thinking of the term as meaning "Absolute surety of the morality of your actions", whereas it seems like you (Swiftmongoose) might be using it to mean "Morality as a binary system".

(Edit: I saw a response by Swiftmongoose, and now it's gone. Huh?)

NecroRick

2011-07-06, 09:23 PM

If you want to play the ACF for Paladins that removes the stick from their butt, try one devoted to Moral Relativism and Utilitarianism :D

Hiro Protagonest

2011-07-06, 09:25 PM

Analytica

2011-07-06, 09:26 PM

I should have pointed out one of the others too, in that case: Michael Carpenter. Devout Catholic, and utterly committed to his faith—not just the forms of religion, but the sentiments behind it. Rescued the woman who would become his wife from a dragon. A literal holy terror against evil. Also loving, loyal, tolerant, and able to forgive others' lapses in judgment. Likeable but steadfast—you wind up being more willing to do things his way because you see that it will hurt him to watch you do wrong, but he's also willing to see reason.

All of which brings up another point, regarding why so many people tie paladinhood to worship of a particular deity. [WARNING: possible religious triggers ahead. I apologize, and this isn't my religion anyway.]

For most of us, the image of a holy warrior is of a Christian holy warrior. Even plain old knighthood required a vigil and vows taken in a church. In Europe, there was no choice of gods; it was the Holy Trinity or nothing. Service to God and the Church was unquestioned and unquestioning, as that was the only bastion of good against the sinners, heathens, pagans, and other "evil" forces. All evidence and belief was that the Abrahamic God was the one true path, so it all blended together in life and in literature.

The paladin is drawn from that literature, but we have to allow for our own fantasy worlds, where there is clear and objective proof that there are many gods, actual divine beings, some with overlapping personalities and powers. When this is the case, while there is more basis for faith in gods, there is less likelihood of an unshakeable belief that only one god is Always Right And True. Pantheons have to cover a wide range of portfolios and behaviors. One god's interests don't always apply; a harvest deity doesn't care what happens in a dungeon five miles under the surface, unless it poses a direct threat to worshipers.

I'm going to stop here, because I'm in danger of rambling (if I'm not already doing that). Hopefully I've made some points you find useful, even if only as something to dissect.

I agree, the paladin archetype comes from stories being told about monotheistic religions. This is arguably why early D&D saw no problem in stating that the holy warrior must be lawful good. I personally think 4E did the right thing in making paladins tied to the ethos of their particular deity rather than just lawful good.

Then again, the game settings usually do imply that clergymembers (clerics, druids, rangers, paladins, blackguards...) see the dogma of their deity as ultimate and supreme. Not describing every facet of the world, maybe, but the facet that matters the most to them.

With that, you could well have TN Paladins of the Harvest Regnant who would fall for walking on a tilled field, but have no problems butchering prisoners of war to make fertilizer. In fact, I kind of like that idea. :smallsmile:

hamishspence

2011-07-07, 02:41 AM

I agree, the paladin archetype comes from stories being told about monotheistic religions. This is arguably why early D&D saw no problem in stating that the holy warrior must be lawful good. I personally think 4E did the right thing in making paladins tied to the ethos of their particular deity rather than just lawful good.

They also made it impossible for paladins to fall though- disobeying the tenets of the deity might get you the wrath of other paladins and clerics- but it won't lose you your powers.

Analytica

2011-07-07, 08:36 AM

Midnight_v

2011-07-07, 09:01 AM

They also made it impossible for paladins to fall though- disobeying the tenets of the deity might get you the wrath of other paladins and clerics- but it won't lose you your powers.

Well thats the good part. No more playing "gotcha" with the paladin. It was the one thing about that class that I hated. Them saying "I can't/won't/have to, or I'll lose my powers" and Dm's trying to force them into situations where they feel they have to say those things. Its a double edged sword.
Best thing about 4th edition, I've ever heard.

hamishspence

2011-07-07, 09:38 AM

Agreed on that. Moral dilemma stories work better without the OOC pressure of fear of losing character abilities.

Did the 0th ed clerics (and paladins) not have a Falling mechanic? I don't have the book immediately to hand.

Coidzor

2011-07-11, 02:15 AM

Without the divine, there is no such thing as Good or Evil. If you want to have absolute morality, there needs to be an absolute moral authority.

Which the Gods, as they're presented in D&D, ain't. They're not so much moral authorities as overpowered ex-PCs. :smallconfused:

That's... actually always been my biggest problem with D&D gods granting power to Paladins, considering that Paladins are supposed to be agents of ultimate goodness. Powerful Archons and Good Outsiders have more of a claim to being moral authorities (or at least of being wellsprings of absolute goodness and all that jazz, being actually comprised of and shaped by the will of the component of the multiverse where goodness originates/ends up/forms) than half of the gods, and that's discounting the ones that eat babies.

Unless you're playing in Forgotten Realms, in which case you absolutely do require a deity as a paladin.

The Gods of FR as a source of Paladinhood becomes problematic if one applies the alignment system to their actions after learning about the Fugue Plane and their history with it, I've always found.

Especially as their moral authority in FR derives from the Fugue Plane for the most part when it doesn't derive from the principle of might makes right and/or just ganking their predecessor in order to take the job.

Actually, in general, it seems the more one examines the fluff and history of the deities in official D&D, the more misotheism seems like the appropriate response & the more sense Ur-Priests make.

SITB

2011-07-11, 04:32 AM

Except Planescape. Having the terms 'Good' and 'Evil' being defined by shared belief, where Paladins could be powered by the essence of Good itself, and still act relatively consistent (since Good is defined by the majority of belief).

EDIT: I would be hard pressed to define most of the FR 'goodly' gods as 'Good' with the Wall and all the drama surrounding it. How can they claim to serve the forces of good when the Wall exists because they demanded it so?

hamishspence

2011-07-11, 04:49 AM

And in 3rd ed it says "Good and evil are the forces that define the cosmos".

So, the good deities serve the Force of Good- but they are fallible themselves.

Alleran

2011-07-11, 06:17 AM

EDIT: I would be hard pressed to define most of the FR 'goodly' gods as 'Good' with the Wall and all the drama surrounding it. How can they claim to serve the forces of good when the Wall exists because they demanded it so?
Because the Wall has to exist to maintain the Balance. Prior to the Time of Troubles nobody really cared, and hordes of followers were left to rot on the Fugue Plane. The ignorance given by the gods to Torilian followers annoyed Ao, so he fixed things. After that, the Wall became more important.

When Kelemvor removed it and made the city of the dead a city of crystal spires and a pleasant afterlife, people became more willing to trust in him giving them a cushy eternity than they were in staying alive and honouring their own deities. So he had to turn his city back into a dull, lifeless place (not evil, just lifeless) and reinstate the Wall. He was wrecking the Balance.

SITB

2011-07-11, 06:38 AM

Because the Wall has to exist to maintain the Balance. Prior to the Time of Troubles nobody really cared, and hordes of followers were left to rot on the Fugue Plane. The ignorance given by the gods to Torilian followers annoyed Ao, so he fixed things. After that, the Wall became more important.

When Kelemvor removed it and made the city of the dead a city of crystal spires and a pleasant afterlife, people became more willing to trust in him giving them a cushy eternity than they were in staying alive and honouring their own deities. So he had to turn his city back into a dull, lifeless place (not evil, just lifeless) and reinstate the Wall. He was wrecking the Balance.

No it's not. The Wall was created by Myrkul to make surre more mortals would believe in gods (And consequently him), Kelemvoer took it down because he thought it was unjust and then judged each non-believer soul by himself. Then the rest of the gods went to bitch to Ao about how mortals stopped bothering to believe in them because Kelemvor made certain each soul got it's due.

It's literally the god whining because they get less powerful because there wasn't a threat to coercer mortals into worshipping them.

Alleran

2011-07-11, 07:25 AM

No it's not. The Wall was created by Myrkul to make surre more mortals would believe in gods (And consequently him), Kelemvoer took it down because he thought it was unjust and then judged each non-believer soul by himself. Then the rest of the gods went to bitch to Ao about how mortals stopped bothering to believe in them because Kelemvor made certain each soul got it's due.

It's literally the god whining because they get less powerful because there wasn't a threat to coercer mortals into worshipping them.
Myrkul had it up to punish the Faithless and the False.

Kelemvor took it down during his goody-two-shoes phase, when people were screwing things up and trusting him (the Avatar series, books 4-5), because they believed (and knew) that even if they were Faithless or False, Kelemvor would treat them well if they "died honourably" and so they were running to him. At the end of book 5, he turned his city dark again, dull and lifeless, because he was accused of being "guilty by reason of humanity" or something in terms of why he was being derelict with his duties.

Because he was being too nice and wasn't impartial in his judgments (which are supposed to be 1. were you Faithless and 2. were you False; whether that person had lived in accordance with their deity's wishes and dogma was up to the deity to determine), he was skewing the Balance, drawing the faithful of other deities towards him. Except he wasn't doing it by following the rules, he was doing it by abusing his position (unknowingly - he wasn't aware that it was happening, after all) in the natural order of things. And that is where the distinction lies.

Mystra had the exact same charge levied against her because she was restricting the use of the Weave and battle magic when it was by people who she didn't approve of. And she was told to open up the Weave to everybody equally.

Mystra and Kelemvor can be whatever alignment they want, and treat their followers however they want (and promote whatever ideals they want). But if that interferes with their duties of administering their roles equally to all (and it was, because they were still "too human" - likely because they were newly raised and still adapting, of course), then they're going to be pulled up short for it.

If Tyr was abusing his position as a god of justice to skew the Balance, then he'd get exactly the same talking to. If Talos was deliberately targeting some things for his storms rather than administering it equally, he would likewise be pulled up short.

Cyric was drawn up in that same series for a similar issue. Except rather than selectively administering his duties as Mystra and Kelemvor were, he wasn't doing them at all. To literally anybody. The only dissension was within his own followers, and that was again something that couldn't be allowed. Yes, even Tyr and all the other goodly gods said that he had to be administering strife, lies and so on to everybody. Including their own followers. They might not like it, and oppose him out of principle, but it has to be done.

Coidzor

2011-07-11, 12:04 PM

Because the Wall has to exist to maintain the Balance.

And that excuses them from the moral weight of their actions, how, exactly?

Just because the plague villagers have to be killed to keep the entire country from going up in smoke doesn't make it not an evil act to murder the faces off of babies.

Alleran

2011-07-11, 11:08 PM

And that excuses them from the moral weight of their actions, how, exactly?
I seriously doubt that the goodly gods liked having to leave Cyric in power to spread strife and lies among their followers. But that wasn't the purpose of his trial. The purpose was to determine if he was derelict in his duties. He cleaned up his act (became sane again, that is). In which case, they had to let him go free, to spread more strife and lies. Was that a good action by the measure of most D&D players? No. Was it required by whatever rules that they follow amongst themselves? You bet it was.

It excuses them because the gods have to operate within a set of rules and regulations (that are largely unknown to mortals). They aren't supposed to operate exactly by the measure of a D&D player. Kelemvor taking down the Wall and accidentally abusing his position was a "good" act by the measure of most, but it also started messing up the Balance. So the others had to drag him back into line because he was guilty of breaking the rules. And he was guilty by reason of his humanity. He was doing what a mortal would do, not what a god was supposed to do.

Coidzor

2011-07-11, 11:27 PM

I seriously doubt that the goodly gods liked having to leave Cyric in power to spread strife and lies among their followers. Yes, that's totally what I was talking about. :smalltongue: Not at all that even for the "good" gods, their motivation for the Wall of the Faithless was laziness so they could avoid more work and selfish cruelty.

Was that a good action by the measure of most D&D players? No. Was it required by whatever rules that they follow amongst themselves? You bet it was.

So following some kind of rules or code renders it impossible for what one does to have moral weight? I was just following orders?

It excuses them because the gods have to operate within a set of rules and regulations (that are largely unknown to mortals). They aren't supposed to operate exactly by the measure of a D&D player. Kelemvor taking down the Wall and accidentally abusing his position was a "good" act by the measure of most, but it also started messing up the Balance. So the others had to drag him back into line because he was guilty of breaking the rules. And he was guilty by reason of his humanity. He was doing what a mortal would do, not what a god was supposed to do.

Morality is morality, especially as D&D operates under absolute morality and the gods do not have some special sense of it beyond mortals, as evidenced by Cyric and Kelemvor lacking this sense of morality beyond mortality to which you are alluding. What they have instead in that setting is Lord Ao, who mostly runs things via strongarming and might makes right for his own amusement anyway.

They only have to operate within a set of rules because of the caprice of Lord Ao, but that is not sufficient to free them from the burdens of moral agency.

So, in order to prove your premise, you would need to show how the gods' regulations supersede the alignment system.

Alleran

2011-07-12, 12:21 AM

especially as D&D operates under absolute morality and the gods do not have some special sense of it beyond mortals,
Regular D&D, yes. It breaks down here. Trying to apply hard-coded game mechanics to beings that are story-driven in the first place is troublesome enough, especially when FR is supposed to run on Black And Grey Morality. The code of ethics (and public opinion, which was one of the driving forces of the removal of the Assassin class from 1E-2E back in the day - resulting in Bane killing them all off in the ToT trilogy) just happens to get in the way.
"Mystra believes that the ultimate good comes from the proliferation of magic and its widespread use, being put into all hands, for good or for ill...so the Chosen are judged on how much they hurl magic around, give it to others, teach others, and work against tyrants-of-magic like the Zhents, not because the Zhents are "evil," but because they try to restrict control of magic to themselves, and not let potential foes have it. The Chosen who are Mystra's daughters also had (under the 'old' Mystra, their mother) a special status, which Elminster (her lover) also enjoyed...the new Mystra is changing things. Watch what we do in the years ahead with The Magister (I've turned in an FOR-style sourcebook on that office and what its holders do) and with Khelben, the most 'ungood' of "good" Chosen. It's wrong to see the Chosen as necessarily good...it's more accurate to see them as the veteran-killer-American-GI or Wild West gunslinger who does good, or fights for 'good,' but in doing so is twisted far from good him- or herself.

Part of my writing goals have been to underscore the following things: "do-gooders" often do more harm than good, for the best of motives (Elaine's also been playing with this one); 'good' to one party is not 'good' to another (the old saying, "for one man to gain freedom, another must lose it"); and the best meddlers are those who can see farthest, not the brute-force-right-now brigade (which is what most PC parties of necessity are, and therefore their punishments/reward are immediate).

One postscript I almost forgot: with Elminster in particular and all of the Chosen, Steven and I (at least) are delving into "how insane do you go from living so long with godly power and gods messing with your mind?" Everything El and the other Chosen do should be read in this light; they're NOT sane. I've been hinting at this for a long time, but you have to catch the hints (like the good/happy endings, this was a Code of Ethics thing, which is why we can't show villains poisoning, or succeeding, or telling you their detailed plans that someone in the real world might copy or claim as inspiration, etc.)." ~Ed Greenwood

as evidenced by Cyric and Kelemvor lacking this sense of morality beyond mortality to which you are alluding.
Correct. They didn't have it. Cyric didn't have it because he was insane, and Kelemvor didn't have it because he was too human. Mystra didn't have it for the same reason as Kelemvor. Once they actually shaped up and started doing their jobs, things went back to normal. It required that they become less human, more distant from mortal understanding and mortal interpretation of belief. You're not supposed to be able to directly understand every action that a god might undertake, certainly not in the context of mortal understanding.
"On the other hand, mortals can never perfectly understand the gods, because mortals can only see things with mortal perceptions and senses." - Ed Greenwood on May 1st 2004 responding to a question about Mystra's Chosen

"It's hard for mortals to know the motives of gods. All we can do is endlessly examine and speculate about their actions (or what we're TOLD are their actions), and draw our own conclusions." - Ed Greenwood on May 4th 2004 responding to a question regarding Elves and their deities

"Very well said, Faraer! I have heard Ed and many other writers (usually at panels at various conventions) talk about the art of what should be left out of the story when writing fiction, and although this runs directly counter to the fan's lust for details (doubled in gamers, for obvious reasons of play utility), usually the writer's instincts regarding what's left unsaid SHOULD win." - THO on April 13th 2010

"In the case of the gods, Beowulf has hit upon Ed's approach: eschew the Graeco-Roman view of making the gods "larger than life mortals with very human foibles" in favour of keeping them VERY mysterious. .... Ed prefers manifestations rather than avatars striding around talking and doing things. An example of a manifestation: a worshipper of Lathander wonders aloud if an action is right, or a battle should be joined - and a rosy glow appears out of nowhere to surround their weapon, or point the way. Keeping things mystical avoids all of the problems of disrespect or incorrect divine details Beowulf mentions, makes for better roleplaying, and really makes us regard the gods as special." - THO on July 20, 2004

"The short answer to all of your questions, I'm afraid, is that "no one knows." Mortals in the Realms only know what priests, seers, sages, and various mad-wits tell them about matters cosmological, and as I've said before: even the gods lie.

We don't KNOW the origin of Ao or any of the "elder" gods, or what they did or didn't do or create. We have been TOLD some things, a few of them contradictory and none of them verified by any measure that doesn't involve (at some point) faith.

What's more, wise mortals have long ago realized that they can never know the truth. That is, they have no way of learning more except by trusting a tale told by someone, at some point.

To underline this:
There are sages of Faerûn who believe that the Inner and Outer Planes were around long before any of the gods (and uber-beings, like Ao) we have heard of.

There are Faerûnian scholars of matters divine who believe Shar is a relatively "young" or recent deity, and much of what is now said of her "dawn doings" are more or less flattering falsehoods put about by her priests to make her seem more powerful, or somehow "essential."

There are sages of Faerûn who believe that all deities create stars or moons or other celestial bodies, because they define godhood as the enacted ability to successfully carry off such creations (working alone). There are other sages who dismiss this notion as pure fantasy, and assert divinity has nothing (necessarily) to do with such activities at all.

Similar disputes mar almost every tale of the deeds of gods, particularly when interacting with other gods. The priests of Lathander see this event far differently than the clergy of Shar do, while the priests of Umberlee offer as "gospel truth" a tale about a particular storm that contradicts entirely a similar "gospel truth" tale told by the clergy of Talos . . . and so on, for literally hundreds of instances.

So we simply don't know.

If you're asking me as creator of the Realms what the "truth" is, I'm sorry, but I'm deliberately leaving that mysterious (as I always have done). I'm no longer the sole designer of the Realms, and haven't been for some twenty-five years; that mystery is part of the essential "design room" that all designers need to tell future tales.

None of us know the truth (in any detail) about the origins of the real universe, yet we live our lives anyway, in spite of that - - and, I think, richer lives BECAUSE of that. We all need mystery and wonder, and part of providing Realmslore here at the Keep and since I started writing about the Realms back in 1966 has been a "slow tease" of revealing this little bit and then that little bit, but clinging to an air of mystery.

It's what inspires gamers such as Eric Boyd and Steven Schend and George Krashos and Brian Cortijo to "fill in gaps yet provide us with new mysteries," and allows fiction writers like Elaine Cunningham and Bob Salvatore and Erik Scott de Bie and Paul Kemp and dozens more the room they need to bring their own new characters to life, and at the same time enrich the shared sandbox for us all.

Not that I'm faulting you for asking. We all ache to know the truths behind existence, the origins of places and things we love, to be "in the know." I'd LOVE to give you full and exhaustive answers to your questions.

Yet I can't. If you love the glorious play of light through a magnificent stained glass window, do you smash that window just to see what's on the other side of it?

Well, we all have to arrive at our own answers to that one, but: * I * don't.

Sorry.
Truly." - Ed Greenwood answering a question about the cosmology of the Realms on February 25th 2011

Coidzor

2011-07-12, 12:37 AM

You're not supposed to be able to directly understand every action that a god might undertake, certainly not in the context of mortal understanding.

I'm pretty sure I AM supposed to, as the writer is trying to sell the story to me as a reader as one worth reading and to, y'know, shape my understanding of realmslore in a way that will make me want to use this particular bit of realmslore rather than discarding it, and, well, considering we're generally reading from the perspective of limited omniscience, relying on the inherent inscrutability of deities to mortals to explain the lack of structure provided for us as consumers is a sign of weak storytelling.

Alleran

2011-07-12, 12:51 AM

I'm pretty sure I AM supposed to
If the gods are supposed to be like "mortals with awesome powers" (i.e. something akin to the Olympian deities and the many stories relating to them) you would be, or at least you would be closer to being supposed to. Except they're not, and you're not.

You're looking at the game world from the perspective of a person who is perceiving it from an inherently mortal perspective. The gods aren't understandable entities to you. They're supposed to be inscrutable, generally distant, to do things for reasons that seem downright baffling (and in some cases, yes, wrong or evil even when they're supposedly good-aligned). The inability of WotC (and TSR before them) to successfully accomplish this in their published material is something you'd be quite right to call a mistake. Or an error, or a problem, or whatever terminology you might use.

Coidzor

2011-07-12, 12:54 AM

If the gods are supposed to be like "mortals with awesome powers" (i.e. something akin to the Olympian deities and the many stories relating to them) you would be, or at least you would be closer to being supposed to. Except they're not, and you're not.

Then the sense of that being conveyed has, quite simply, failed.

You're looking at the game world from the perspective of a person who is perceiving it from an inherently mortal perspective. The gods aren't understandable entities to you.

I would find that both you and I are both looking at the game world from the perspective of entities beyond the petty gods and characters that populate it and even above the original designers because we can take or leave their ideas as it please us.

The gods by necessity have to have some minimum level to which we can understand them so that we can use them in our games to any real extent.

The gods aren't understandable entities to you. They're supposed to be inscrutable, generally distant, to do things for reasons that seem downright baffling (and in some cases, yes, wrong or evil even when they're supposedly good-aligned). The inability of WotC (and TSR before them) to successfully accomplish this in their published material is something you'd be quite right to call a mistake. Or an error, or a problem, or whatever terminology you might use.

And their intent cannot be separated from their execution, especially not at this point, since, as mentioned, both gods and designers lie.

If it talks like an overgrown human, walks like an overgrown human, and makes giant alignment quandraries like an overgrown human, it's probably an overgrown human.

Alleran

2011-07-12, 01:16 AM

Then the sense of that being conveyed has, quite simply, failed. Quite Epicly, despite the insistence of yourself and Mr. Greenwood.
Oh, you're certainly correct.

"The inability of WotC (and TSR before them) to successfully accomplish this in their published material is something you'd be quite right to call a mistake."

On the other hand, it may have succeeded perfectly, because you (as a person) do not understand why the gods have done what they did. Which is in one sense exactly as it should be. You're not supposed to know why. And you don't. And if a god might supposedly tell you (or a novel or sourcebook might give a reason on the page) exactly what happened and why it was done, well... the gods lie. Things are coloured by the viewpoint of the character.

Did Cyric really crystallize the essence of love and caring from Mystra and Kelemvor and drink them during his trial to forever destroy their feelings for one another? Was Amaunator ever really Lathander, or was Lathander just a mask he wore and were the two "gods" simply the same being? What was the Dawn Cataclysm, and what really happened during it? Did Selune and Shar really have a DBZ-esque fight and was Mystra really ripped apart from them during the struggle? Did Araushnee really betray Corellon and the Seldarine in the way we're told she did? Was the fall of the drow a result of her betrayal, or was her betrayal a result of the actions of the drow reflected onto the divine sphere? Why did Mystra really infuse her essence into mortals? Did Ao tell her to do it? Why didn't Mystryl have Chosen... or did she? Just what is Larloch containing? What are his exact plans? Do we know them all?

It's all what we're told. Not all of it is necessarily true, because there is inherent mystery and a lack of understanding about just why some things are the way they are.

I know this may bounce around a bit, but have you ever read some of the setting lore for the Elder Scrolls series? The Monomyth, the Lessons of Vivec, and so on? On the surface, that setting is slightly non-standard fantasy but still has many of the common factors of it. Once you start looking deeper, though, things go all wibbly wobbly topsy turvy, and they go fast.

EDIT:

I would find that both you and I are both looking at the game world from the perspective of entities beyond the petty gods and characters that populate it and even above the original designers because we can take or leave their ideas as it please us.
In one sense, yes. We can take or leave ideas about what happened as we choose, and can even invent entirely new things as we please.

In another, we're still looking at it in a context based on our own understanding, and even that would differ from person to person. Yours is different to mine, and we're both different to John Smith from America and Jane Doe from England.

The gods by necessity have to have some minimum level to which we can understand them so that we can use them in our games to any real extent.
They do have some sort of minimum. Tyr is god of law and justice. Helm is god of guardians. Mystra is goddess of magic. Selune is goddess of the moon. Lathander is god of rebirth and renewal. And so on and so forth. There's a basic understanding of them, but the exact stories and histories? The exact reasons for why they've done what they've done and made the choices they made? As in, the correct, complete truth? It's unknown, cloaked in mystery and lost to vagaries of time.