I didn't want to post a response in the DM board, so I'm posting this here...hope Professor Death doesn't mind.

Professor Death I've been perusing the boards for EFU-specific info on proper paladining, but haven't seen these addressed and I'd like to before I get into interacting with others:

Let's say you have a non-human paladin whose God is the sworn protector of his race.

Would this paladin be expected to provide aid (gratuitous curing) to individuals not of the race? I'm not talking about life/death situations here, but about the kind of "let's all heal up before we move on" kind of curing.

How would the deity feel about him if he DID provide gratuitous curing and use of the paladinly powers to a non-racial unbeliever?

How would a deity feel about the potion brewing paladin selling his wares (obviously never to t evil), but perhaps to non-racial unbelievers?

Faced with a mission such as the brewery, would it be acceptable to engage the defenders with intent to kill, or should he be trying to peaceably subdue and bring them to justice? What about a mission (cannot think of one offhand) where the defenders are not monstrous, but not of his race?

I suppose the underlying theme here is about whether a nonhuman paladin might have something of a double standard....

Finally, I cannot remember seeing a post addressing this issue: Knowing that paladins cannot/should not willingly travel with evil, would they be expected to automatically scan everyone they "might" be traveling with, and does this "scan" have ingame visibility to others (for instance, a ranger kneels when tracking".

Not trying to be annoying here with the long list, but I've never played LG paladin types before who weren't, well, "generic" in their approaches. I'm hoping that playing a non-human paladin offers a chance for capturing some racial flavoring of the class.

As for my answer, what god are you talking about? Arvoreen of the halfling pantheon matches the description you have there. I'm sure there are elven gods of similar goals too.

I currently play a character in this position. One of the oaths is to protect your kinsmen and never back down until they are safe - even at the cost of your own life if necessary.

The unusual situation I've found myself in once or twice is in regards to evil members of my race. It poses an interesting moral dilemma to the player. Do you smite your kin since they are evil and you are a paladin? Or do you protect them as they are your kin still and you swore an oath to save them? Or do you save them, THEN smite them?

I won't tell you what choices I made or what you should make either. Just let the situation dictate what's best and see how your god would react.

As far as your question about healing, I would say yes, you should aid your kinsmen first, other races/friends of your respect next. Always aid them when they ask, unless you have a good reason not to.

Though you are a paladin, not a cleric, I don't know if 'gratuitous curing' is really their purpose. Though it's definitely not outside the realm of possibility...just keep in mind paladins are basically holy warriors and frontlinesmen - they'll usually be NEEDING the healing.

As to the question about 'scanning' everyone, there are a number of topics on the forums dealing with Detect Evil and it's use. just use the Search feature to find them.

I wouldn't think ANY one should provide gratuitous healing. Healing is a divine gift, not a free gift. It should come at some cost, usually a service, donation, or at the very least prayer unless your god has a dogma that stresses healing every wounded person as a matter of function.

I'm not aware of such a god either.

Oroborous I wouldn't think ANY one should provide gratuitous healing. Healing is a divine gift, not a free gift. It should come at some cost, usually a service, donation, or at the very least prayer unless your god has a dogma that stresses healing every wounded person as a matter of function.

I'm not aware of such a god either.

Ilmater?

Also, I'de think that while a paladin would choose to help those of their race first, that does not mean they would not help others out side of their race, I mean if they served a god in a way that -only- helped those of their race they sound more like clerics then paladins.

Ilmater includes suffering and endurance in his dogma, hardly sounds like a bunny hugger eager to rush out there and ameliorate all suffering for free. If he did that, it'd defeat the whole "endurance" aspect of his "suffering" dogma.

So, nope! 8)

You could interpret Ilmater to be like that... but then you'd be playing a very Chaotic kind of Good. And Ilmater is LG.

I think you are mistaken because of the bold sentence (putting up the rest for the sake of reference/context):

Help all who hurt, no matter who they are. The truly holy take on the suffering of others. If you suffer in his name, Ilmater is there to support you. Stick to your cause if it is right, whatever the pain or peril. There is no shame in a meaningful death. Stand up to all tyrants, and allow no injustice to go unchallenged. Emphasize the spiritual nature of life over the existence of the material body.

All it says is "Help". That's very open to different interpretations. Does Ilmater really want his followers to spend every ounce of energy they have at every waking moment to apply herbs to anything with so much as a papercut, and all his clergy should spend all of their granted powers on healing, even healing their enemies in combat? Of course not! OOC rules aside, it's not logical IC. How to make such a wild statement as "Help everyone." is up to the player to decide!

I have an elfin paladin (Correllon) and I simply prioritize pragmatically in ways that don't cause conflict with alignment first, race second and finally the tenets of her military order and training. (Paladins aren't lone actors presumably, but members of companies in their surface life. Adapting to the vicissitudes and circumstance of the Underdark is what makes them a challenge to play, but that's another thread.

I had to just completely make up a mystical order of knights for her to belong to. Forgotten Realms being what it is, I imagine I'm walking all over some canon information. I am glad to take recommendations.

I agree completely about gratuitous healing.

I doubt my interpretation is chaotic, in fact, chaotic means you can interpret that statement.

:P

I'm sure some argue it, but the way Ilmater is presented in the Realms lore is not as someone who thinks all pain should be eliminated, but rather that it is better to endure as much as you can.

Some cults of Ilmater feel that there is a finite amount of pain in the world, and that the best solution to that is to spread the suffering as evenly as possible; thereby they focus on aiding those who suffer most-rather than doing gratuitous healing and help all over.

I can't think of a single Ilmateri interpretation that supports gratuitous healing though. Although, it is a very fractious Church with several major factions that each interpret the lines you wrote differently--but none interpret it to mean erase all suffering.

http://www.davidcwood.com/adnd/campaign/bloodstone/ilmater.php

Consider the information there, which is almost entirely canon-the author is fairly good about pointing out the points that aren't. No sect though wants to remove suffering entirely, most believe you are closest to Ilmater *only* when you suffer but that your suffering must not be torturous.

Yo Oro,

"Let's say you have a non-human paladin whose God is the sworn protector of his race. "

Gorm Gulthyn, or Helm with a beard.

Grizzly Adams does have a beard.

Frankly, paladins should be a human only class.

:twisted:

Oroborous Frankly, paladins should be a human only class.

:twisted:

that's old school . I'm so old, I remember those days. Back when "dwarf" was a class too.

Paladin being a human only class isn't -that- old.

Oroborous Frankly, paladins should be a human only class.

:twisted:

Ehhh . . . I find that racist . . . well speciest anyway. To say that only humans can become paladins, is well contrary to usual paladin morals. To state that in this subject would be to suggest that humans have no race or speicies based prejudice . . . even in D&D humans have their own fill of 'race wars'. (Orcs any one? Other humans even!) I honestly can't see a paladin choosing to help some one first or over another person based apong race only, that is -not- a good thing. I could see maybe a lower level paladin doing so, but as he/she progressed in the levels would grow beyond such trivial things. Now before any one posts telling me that paladins are not perfect, I know. What makes a paladin a paladin, and not just some sword wielding zealot who happens to be persuasive, is that they can handle the evil in them and come to terms with it, that is what makes a good will save after all (in their case).

Now what would be awsome to see is a paladin who decided that only their race matters and became some kind of lawful-evil blackguard! :P

The point of paladin class originally was that it represented a kind of overzealous religiosity that you would *only* find in human culture. It was suppose to be a reflection of the wide range of human emotion and adaptability that was suppose to be a hallmark of that race.

Meanwhile, the gods of the other races did not seek to instill an over-weaning religiosity in their followers. Elves were all chaotic, dwarves too focused on simplicity, gnomes too chaotic and focused on nature, halflings too chaotic, half-orcs weren't a race yet you could play.

The overall point was, that their was something unique to each race-only elves could multiclass as fighter/wizard/thief for example back then. All that really happened, was that WotC decided that every race should be able to be every class so they could sell more books and have more happy players who could play weird concepts that didn't always make sense--why ARE monks in the Forgotten Realms? Before that, dwarves couldn't even be wizards.

This left paladins rare, something unique, something amazing to come across in a fantasy world. We've lost that sense of the special about paladins...(he waxes over-eloquent).

I do agree that yes, paladins have lost the special fealing about them . . . (Error: Paladin overload, too many paladins!)

But it wasn't -just- the zelousness that made them the paladin, it was their determination focused on doing good for goodness' sake. To be a paladin doesn't mean you are focused on ideals, gods, races, or combat. To be a paladin means you are using all of the above to further the cause of all that is good in the world. This is part of the reason that paladins should be less common is that just because you follow a religion zelously dosn't make you a true paladin, it just makes you a tough fighter with a great will save.

If you ask me paladin should be a prestige class and not a core class, as it is too easy for some one to play a paladin but not role play a paladin.