The Radiant Heart

[Darvins]

Jan 8, 2016 16:34:55 GMT -5 thedran said:

As for beheading, it is referring to fallen Paladins or someone who is removed from the order for cause.

Just as a question I am assuming here by Fallen you mean 'No hope of making amends, go directly to jail, do not pass go' not just a Paladin who has to undergo an atonement quest, but one who does something really terrible?

[Deleted]

The only reference I find is to a second edition source via the Complete Paladin's Handbook.  It isn't mentioned in any 3.5 source, especially not the Champions of Valor (which lists multiple 3.5 orders or associations).  So, I'm leaning toward the order either having broken up into other orders or not existing anymore.

[Fire Wraith]

You can always just invent a player order of your own on similar lines. Really, we're not straightjacketed by the setting to that degree (although if you want it to be part of some large existing Order, then yes, you do limit yourself in that sense).

[destinysdesire]

I would think that there should be some open room to debate such a decision, an order be it Paladin or Priestly is a point where all members input is valued equally, if there is 30 priests and 20 paladins and 15 of the paladins say no, thats not a really good reason to give them a Veto, generally in D&D from my understanding, priests are generally seen as the word of the gods, speaking for them as needed as a form of guide (( While never truly knowing the gods will)), as to the Paladin who is the enforcer of said will and ideals. If the priests are saying one thing and the Paladins are saying no, perhaps there needs to be an examination as to why both sides are saying no, rehash out the issues, then revote again as well.

[Darvins]

Jan 8, 2016 20:35:18 GMT -5 destinysdesire said:

I would think that there should be some open room to debate such a decision, an order be it Paladin or Priestly is a point where all members input is valued equally, if there is 30 priests and 20 paladins and 15 of the paladins say no, thats not a really good reason to give them a Veto, generally in D&D from my understanding, priests are generally seen as the word of the gods, speaking for them as needed as a form of guide (( While never truly knowing the gods will)), as to the Paladin who is the enforcer of said will and ideals. If the priests are saying one thing and the Paladins are saying no, perhaps there needs to be an examination as to why both sides are saying no, rehash out the issues, then revote again as well.

There could also be very good reasons for the difference that comes down to different goals, the Pally in many ways is the sword, their goals are not the same as the Clerics, and this is meant to be a Pally order, I could see some checks being put in so that every time the two disagree the pallys don't auto win, but having some method for extreme cases where the pallys in the pally order can over rule the others? Yeah I could see that making sense.

Maybe have it need a supra majority, or if you have rankings the highest ranked pally has to stand down and make room for another to take their place. Something that carried real weight as a consequence would limit the use of a Veto while acknowledging that in a Paladin order, the ways of Paladins will take precedence.

Still I have no real ducks in this fight not having a Pally and being unlikely to gen one up, so take what I have to say on it with a pinch or two of salt.

[Misty]

Depending what form this takes, might be interested with Valeria. She'd have been 100% excluded from the original order sounds like, heh

[onivel]

As would Bastion since he is not a "Paladin" class despite holding to ideals as strict if not stricter than theirs.