Paladin switching deities

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
F

fred

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
916
0
18,980
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I am currently running an adventure for 2 paladins. They're fresh out of
paladin school (currently 2nd level) and doing a term of service for the
temple of Pelor.

The problem? One of the PCs is far more suited to being a paladin of
Heironeous. He's into jousting, wants to be a cavalier, etc. Basically,
the player just chose Pelor without thinking much about it during
character creation, largely because the town I had ready was run by a
temple of Pelor. Now, he'd like to change to Heironeous.

We've come up with a cover story for his character: His mother was cured
of a deadly disease by priests of Pelor, so his father insisted he enter
their service to repay the debt. Being lawful, the priests of Heironeous
will insist he first complete the term of service he committed to for
Pelor and then send him on a quest before his switch is "official."

Does this sound reasonable? How do you think the temple of Pelor would
react? Should he suffer any penalties for his change?
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Fred wrote:
> I am currently running an adventure for 2 paladins. They're fresh out
of
> paladin school (currently 2nd level) and doing a term of service for
the
> temple of Pelor.
>
> The problem? One of the PCs is far more suited to being a paladin of
> Heironeous. He's into jousting, wants to be a cavalier, etc.
Basically,
> the player just chose Pelor without thinking much about it during
> character creation, largely because the town I had ready was run by a

> temple of Pelor. Now, he'd like to change to Heironeous.

There's actually plenty of good stuff here. Options: just leave him as
a paladin of Pelor and have it be a crisis of faith. The fact that he
is mildly atypical for a paladin of pelor doesn't mean that he doesn't
venerate teh god and that he isn't capable of perforning as a paladin.
He'll just get along really well with paladin types of heronious.
What's wrong with that.

I don't see why his love of jousting and horses equals a shift of
faith.

OTOH, if the character suddenly feels like he's loving Heronious, then
have him lose his paladin abilities. pelor knows he's not devout
anymore. And then he can atone to the temple of heronious. Done deal.
But don't have him change religions because he likes horses. That's
unrealistic to the extreme.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Fred" <wildhuntr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:200503121601.j2CDJB2j085642@budah.vif.com...
> I am currently running an adventure for 2 paladins. They're fresh out of
> paladin school (currently 2nd level) and doing a term of service for the
> temple of Pelor.
>
> The problem? One of the PCs is far more suited to being a paladin of
> Heironeous. He's into jousting, wants to be a cavalier, etc. Basically,
> the player just chose Pelor without thinking much about it during
> character creation, largely because the town I had ready was run by a
> temple of Pelor. Now, he'd like to change to Heironeous.
>
> We've come up with a cover story for his character: His mother was cured
> of a deadly disease by priests of Pelor, so his father insisted he enter
> their service to repay the debt. Being lawful, the priests of Heironeous
> will insist he first complete the term of service he committed to for
> Pelor and then send him on a quest before his switch is "official."
>
> Does this sound reasonable? How do you think the temple of Pelor would
> react? Should he suffer any penalties for his change?

"Reality Shift". He always WAS a Paladin of Heironeous. Done.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> I vote for Heironious giving the jousting paladin an offer: switch to

> me, and you'll stay a paladin AND get X specific special mount when
you
> reach a certain level.

Oooh! Signing bonus!

> You can simply explain it as "the gods sat down over a beer
> and traded paladins."

And Pelor gets the first round draft pick at the next go round.

Hmmm... free agent paladins?
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

It would be fun if he got to meet (or briefly adventure with) the other
paladin involved in the trade: a paladin of Heironious that *hates*
horses.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Anivair wrote:

> Fred wrote:
>
>>I am currently running an adventure for 2 paladins. They're fresh out
>
> of
>
>>paladin school (currently 2nd level) and doing a term of service for
>
> the
>
>>temple of Pelor.
>>
>>The problem? One of the PCs is far more suited to being a paladin of
>>Heironeous. He's into jousting, wants to be a cavalier, etc.
>
> Basically,
>
>>the player just chose Pelor without thinking much about it during
>>character creation, largely because the town I had ready was run by a
>
>
>>temple of Pelor. Now, he'd like to change to Heironeous.
>
>
> There's actually plenty of good stuff here. Options: just leave him as
> a paladin of Pelor and have it be a crisis of faith. The fact that he
> is mildly atypical for a paladin of pelor doesn't mean that he doesn't
> venerate teh god and that he isn't capable of perforning as a paladin.
> He'll just get along really well with paladin types of heronious.
> What's wrong with that.
>
> I don't see why his love of jousting and horses equals a shift of
> faith.
>
> OTOH, if the character suddenly feels like he's loving Heronious, then
> have him lose his paladin abilities. pelor knows he's not devout
> anymore. And then he can atone to the temple of heronious. Done deal.
> But don't have him change religions because he likes horses. That's
> unrealistic to the extreme.
>

I vote for Heironious giving the jousting paladin an offer: switch to
me, and you'll stay a paladin AND get X specific special mount when you
reach a certain level.

Since Heironous and Pelor should be considered allies, this shouldn't be
a problem. You can simply explain it as "the gods sat down over a beer
and traded paladins." They are both lawful (doing things by rules and
consensus), and good (wanting good for the world). This falls well
within that.

CH
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Fred wrote:
> I am currently running an adventure for 2 paladins. They're fresh out
> of paladin school (currently 2nd level) and doing a term of service
> for the temple of Pelor.
>
> The problem? One of the PCs is far more suited to being a paladin of
> Heironeous. He's into jousting, wants to be a cavalier, etc.
> Basically, the player just chose Pelor without thinking much about it
> during character creation, largely because the town I had ready was
> run by a temple of Pelor. Now, he'd like to change to Heironeous.
>
> We've come up with a cover story for his character: His mother was
> cured of a deadly disease by priests of Pelor, so his father insisted
> he enter their service to repay the debt. Being lawful, the priests
> of Heironeous will insist he first complete the term of service he
> committed to for Pelor and then send him on a quest before his switch
> is "official."
>
> Does this sound reasonable? How do you think the temple of Pelor would
> react? Should he suffer any penalties for his change?

No way would someone who's only serving with Pelor's priesthood to repay a
debt have the depth of faith required to become a full-fledged Paladin. And
no way would someone who did have that degree of faith suddenly jump ship to
Heironeous simply because it suited his personality better.

The only way to play this out with any realism is as a major crisis of faith
for the character - i.e. he does something due to his personal beliefs that
seriously goes against his Paladin code of conduct with Pelor (but wouldn't
have violated his oath if he'd been with Heironeous), gets stripped of his
powers, and then spends some time finding his new faith, atoning for his
previous breach of trust, and performing some great deed before being
accepted as a Paladin by Heironeous.

--
Mark.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

alordofchaos@yahoo.com wrote:

>>I vote for Heironious giving the jousting paladin an offer: switch to
>
>
>>me, and you'll stay a paladin AND get X specific special mount when
>
> you
>
>>reach a certain level.
>
>
> Oooh! Signing bonus!
>
>
>>You can simply explain it as "the gods sat down over a beer
>>and traded paladins."
>
>
> And Pelor gets the first round draft pick at the next go round.
>
> Hmmm... free agent paladins?
>

You know, that's a fun game mechanic. You don't get a god until you hit
X level of paladin. Then, several gods give you offers and neat perks.
Heironeous might give you a baby griffin that will eventually grow into
a full griffon, while Pelor might give you a talking warhorse that gains
fighter levels. The player then gets to pick. That's fun!!!

CH
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Fred wrote:
> I am currently running an adventure for 2 paladins. They're fresh out
of
> paladin school (currently 2nd level) and doing a term of service for
the
> temple of Pelor.

So far, OK.

> The problem? One of the PCs is far more suited to being a paladin of
> Heironeous. He's into jousting, wants to be a cavalier, etc.
Basically,

No, the problem is that paladins are NOT paladins "of"
any particular god. Their powers stem from their faith
in the philosophy of LG itself. Therefore, there is no
hangup whatsoever for a paladin changing gods, by the
rules as they are written.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I concur that just because he likes to ride horses and joust doesn't
mean he can't serve Pelor. Paladins are entitled to their own quirks.
They are not clones of each other within a faith.

What matters is the characters faith of purpose. Will he go out of his
way in pursuit of Justice and fight the good fight against Evil
(Heironeous) or will be more an inspirational motivator who while of
course is vigorous against Evil and takes up arms against it is more
willing to let others who are capable to fight that fight and see to
the care of those who can't fight that fight on their own (Pelor)?
Liking horses has nothing to do with it.

However, the game just started. It really is no big deal to say he was
always a Paladin of Heironeous. Back in my 2E days when it was common
in my experience for players to play a character from one campaign into
a completely different world/campaign with GM tweaks I played a Paladin
for a GM made world for a GM created goddess names Ashtar, the godess
of Protection, Healing, Love, Peace, Community, etc. When I was able to
play him in a different campaign with a different GM that had no
connection to the original game, he was using Forgotten Realms pantheon
and Torm seem most fitting for my character. Voila, I was now playing
a Paladin of Torm. No D&D police arrived.

Gerald Katz
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Fred <wildhuntr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am currently running an adventure for 2 paladins. They're fresh out of
> paladin school (currently 2nd level) and doing a term of service for the
> temple of Pelor.
>
> The problem? One of the PCs is far more suited to being a paladin of
> Heironeous. He's into jousting, wants to be a cavalier, etc. Basically,
> the player just chose Pelor without thinking much about it during
> character creation, largely because the town I had ready was run by a
> temple of Pelor. Now, he'd like to change to Heironeous.
>
> We've come up with a cover story for his character: His mother was cured
> of a deadly disease by priests of Pelor, so his father insisted he enter
> their service to repay the debt. Being lawful, the priests of Heironeous
> will insist he first complete the term of service he committed to for
> Pelor and then send him on a quest before his switch is "official."

That sounds like it could be reasonable.

Me, I'm lazy. Depending what you mean by 'paladin school' (is it
*Pelor's* paladin school? Or do all paladins train here regardless of
faith?) I might be willing to just say 'he was a paladin of H. from the
start'. In core D&D it makes no difference to his abilities.

OTOH, I often allow some minor tweaking of characters after the fact, as
long as they stick to the same general design. Adjust a few feats,
change the class taken in a couple of levels, etc. (usually not items
since they're actually 'visible'). The other DMs in my last group would
do the same thing.

> Does this sound reasonable? How do you think the temple of Pelor would
> react? Should he suffer any penalties for his change?

One day before your novitiate was complete, you were called to a
meeting with the Training Master.

"You came to us for training and to swear service to Pelor. Your
skill at arms is sufficient for the Oathtaking, your honor is not in
question, but your heart seems troubled.

"Your instructors have been watching you, as they watch all paladins
in training. We feel that while you will be a worthy paladin, that
you may serve and thrive better as a paladin of Heironeous than of
Pelor.

"Your training is complete. If you wish, we will release you from
your training oaths and you may take service with Sir Antrew of
Heironeous, a paladin returning from quest to their Hall. This will
give you both an opportunity to learn of each other, and he may be
willing to sponsor you in Heironeous' service."

I suspect that someone better-suited to service with another god would
be noticed and perhaps encouraged (at least by a good church) to switch
over before the final oaths. As a result, in this case the paladin may
be Pelor-trained, but sworn to Heironeous instead.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Klassen wrote:
>
> Fred wrote:

>
> > The problem? One of the PCs is far more suited to being a paladin of
> > Heironeous. He's into jousting, wants to be a cavalier, etc.
> Basically,
>
> No, the problem is that paladins are NOT paladins "of"
> any particular god. Their powers stem from their faith
> in the philosophy of LG itself. Therefore, there is no
> hangup whatsoever for a paladin changing gods, by the
> rules as they are written.

I was beginning to wonder if anyone was going to hit on
the *correct* response to this post.

Well done, David.

-Bluto
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Clawhound wrote:
> Anivair wrote:
>
>> Fred wrote:
>>
>>> I am currently running an adventure for 2 paladins. They're fresh
>>> out
>>
>> of
>>
>>> paladin school (currently 2nd level) and doing a term of service for
>>
>> the
>>
>>> temple of Pelor.
>>>
>>> The problem? One of the PCs is far more suited to being a paladin of
>>> Heironeous. He's into jousting, wants to be a cavalier, etc.
>>
>> Basically,
>>
>>> the player just chose Pelor without thinking much about it during
>>> character creation, largely because the town I had ready was run by
>>> a
>>
>>
>>> temple of Pelor. Now, he'd like to change to Heironeous.
>>
>>
>> There's actually plenty of good stuff here. Options: just leave him
>> as a paladin of Pelor and have it be a crisis of faith. The fact
>> that he is mildly atypical for a paladin of pelor doesn't mean that
>> he doesn't venerate teh god and that he isn't capable of perforning
>> as a paladin. He'll just get along really well with paladin types of
>> heronious. What's wrong with that.
>>
>> I don't see why his love of jousting and horses equals a shift of
>> faith.
>>
>> OTOH, if the character suddenly feels like he's loving Heronious,
>> then have him lose his paladin abilities. pelor knows he's not
>> devout anymore. And then he can atone to the temple of heronious.
>> Done deal. But don't have him change religions because he likes
>> horses. That's unrealistic to the extreme.
>>
>
> I vote for Heironious giving the jousting paladin an offer: switch to
> me, and you'll stay a paladin AND get X specific special mount when
> you reach a certain level.

And a cappucino machine?

--
Mark.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <yPCdnc3iV8v3uaXfRVn-rg@comcast.com>,
Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Fred" <wildhuntr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:200503121601.j2CDJB2j085642@budah.vif.com...
>> I am currently running an adventure for 2 paladins. They're fresh out of
>> paladin school (currently 2nd level) and doing a term of service for the
>> temple of Pelor.
>>
>> The problem? One of the PCs is far more suited to being a paladin of
>> Heironeous.
>>[snip]
>> Does this sound reasonable? How do you think the temple of Pelor would
>> react? Should he suffer any penalties for his change?
>
>"Reality Shift". He always WAS a Paladin of Heironeous. Done.

IMC I let people redo their characters at 3rd level, to better match how they
now perceived their characters. The changes typically weren't all that big.
I think I'd treat the Paladin issue the same way -- essentially a reality
shift as Jeff suggests.

Some players are DAS (design at start) and wouldn't want a significant change;
others are DIP (develop in play) and expect to change their character as they
understand them better. The various answers you get will probably be
influenced by whether the authors prefer DAS or DIP.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

alordofchaos@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Clawhound wrote:
>
>> I vote for Heironious giving the jousting paladin an offer:
>> switch to me, and you'll stay a paladin AND get X specific
>> special mount when you reach a certain level.
>
> Oooh! Signing bonus!
>
>> You can simply explain it as "the gods sat down over a beer
>> and traded paladins."
>
> And Pelor gets the first round draft pick at the next go round.
>
> Hmmm... free agent paladins?

Heironeous should have to pay a transfer fee.

If it's good enough for professional soccer clubs...


Arivne
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"KertDawg" <kertishenderson@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1110992988.076951.31530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> It would be fun if he got to meet (or briefly adventure with) the other
> paladin involved in the trade: a paladin of Heironious that *hates*
> horses.
>

The order of Pelor sending him as an ambassador to the order of Heironious
(where he would be expected to take part in 'horseplay') seems to me the
ideal solution: he doesn't offend his God, but gets to exercise his
passions.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
> David Klassen wrote:
>>
>> Fred wrote:
>
>>
>> > The problem? One of the PCs is far more suited to being a paladin of
>> > Heironeous. He's into jousting, wants to be a cavalier, etc.
>> Basically,
>>
>> No, the problem is that paladins are NOT paladins "of"
>> any particular god. Their powers stem from their faith
>> in the philosophy of LG itself. Therefore, there is no
>> hangup whatsoever for a paladin changing gods, by the
>> rules as they are written.
>
> I was beginning to wonder if anyone was going to hit on
> the *correct* response to this post.
>
> Well done, David.

This one's setting-dependent. While the RAW say 'you can be a paladin
of the philosophy of lawful good', I know a lot of compaigns where you
can't be a paladin or priest *without* serving a particular god.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Keith Davies wrote:
<snip>
| This one's setting-dependent. While the RAW say 'you can be a paladin
| of the philosophy of lawful good', I know a lot of compaigns where you
| can't be a paladin or priest *without* serving a particular god.
|
|
| Keith

The general house rule over here is that you can be a "vanilla" paladin,
with the advantage that you don't have a church or a god to answer to.
Of course, this also means that you don't have a church to give you
bankroll, guidance, etc. either.

Susan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCOP3u4Fc1/EucZj4RAr92AJ9EhPZsSNg6c/mnrS+UZLbSLuyN8wCdFSeg
X7TQlVO4SW4E4OdJs0nWyXk=
=DLZq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
> > David Klassen wrote:
> >>
> >> Fred wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > The problem? One of the PCs is far more suited to being a
paladin of
> >> > Heironeous. He's into jousting, wants to be a cavalier, etc.
> >> Basically,
> >>
> >> No, the problem is that paladins are NOT paladins "of"
> >> any particular god. Their powers stem from their faith
> >> in the philosophy of LG itself. Therefore, there is no
> >> hangup whatsoever for a paladin changing gods, by the
> >> rules as they are written.
> >
> > I was beginning to wonder if anyone was going to hit on
> > the *correct* response to this post.
> >
> > Well done, David.
>
> This one's setting-dependent.

You are free to use rule-0 to further restrict your
paladins in any way you wish.

However, by the rules, this is *not* setting dependent.
Paladins are *not* clerics; paladins don't need to be
"of" any particular god whatsoever; a paladin changing
the god-of-worship has absolutley no effect on their
powers, abilities, or character class. Unless a DM
chooses to rule-0 them.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Fred" <wildhuntr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:200503121601.j2CDJB2j085642@budah.vif.com...
> I am currently running an adventure for 2 paladins. They're fresh out of
> paladin school (currently 2nd level) and doing a term of service for the
> temple of Pelor.
>
> The problem? One of the PCs is far more suited to being a paladin of
> Heironeous. He's into jousting, wants to be a cavalier, etc. Basically,
> the player just chose Pelor without thinking much about it during
> character creation, largely because the town I had ready was run by a
> temple of Pelor. Now, he'd like to change to Heironeous.
>
> We've come up with a cover story for his character: His mother was cured
> of a deadly disease by priests of Pelor, so his father insisted he enter
> their service to repay the debt. Being lawful, the priests of Heironeous
> will insist he first complete the term of service he committed to for
> Pelor and then send him on a quest before his switch is "official."
>
> Does this sound reasonable? How do you think the temple of Pelor would
> react? Should he suffer any penalties for his change?
>

That doesn't sound reasonable. If he only went to 'paladin school' to
repay a debt, he wouldn't have enough faith to be a real paladin.

There's nothing wrong with a paladin of Pelor liking jousting etc; they get
a superb horse anyway.

I don't think any god would accept a paladin who would betray his faith so
casually.

Geoff.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
>> David Klassen wrote:
>>>
>>> Fred wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> The problem? One of the PCs is far more suited to being a paladin
>>>> of Heironeous. He's into jousting, wants to be a cavalier, etc.
>>>> Basically,
>>>
>>> No, the problem is that paladins are NOT paladins "of"
>>> any particular god. Their powers stem from their faith
>>> in the philosophy of LG itself. Therefore, there is no
>>> hangup whatsoever for a paladin changing gods, by the
>>> rules as they are written.
>>
>> I was beginning to wonder if anyone was going to hit on
>> the *correct* response to this post.
>>
>> Well done, David.
>
> This one's setting-dependent. While the RAW say 'you can be a paladin
> of the philosophy of lawful good', I know a lot of compaigns where you
> can't be a paladin or priest *without* serving a particular god.

And even in campaigns in which you *can* be a paladin of an ideal, if you
*do* choose to be a paladin of a particular faith, you are bound to that
faith's beliefs by your own lawful nature, and certainly can't just switch
faiths at the drop of a helmet.

--
Mark.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Hadsil" <forumite@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1111015285.346529.180030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> However, the game just started. It really is no big deal to say he was
> always a Paladin of Heironeous.


This gets my vote.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:

> No way would someone who's only serving with Pelor's priesthood to repay a
> debt have the depth of faith required to become a full-fledged Paladin. And
> no way would someone who did have that degree of faith suddenly jump ship to
> Heironeous simply because it suited his personality better.

> The only way to play this out with any realism is as a major crisis of faith
> for the character - i.e. he does something due to his personal beliefs that
> seriously goes against his Paladin code of conduct with Pelor (but wouldn't
> have violated his oath if he'd been with Heironeous), gets stripped of his
> powers, and then spends some time finding his new faith, atoning for his
> previous breach of trust, and performing some great deed before being
> accepted as a Paladin by Heironeous.

I believe there is some precedent for the idea that paladinships
occasionally choose people, and not the other way 'round. I'd say that
the character in question was always destined to be a paladin, but not a
paladin of the order he signed up for. Once this is realized, some sort
of lawful transfer of alliance should be possible, unless the local
churches of Pelor and Heironeous are feuding. He'll probably end up
owing the church of Pelor something in return for his schooling, but
being a PC, I'm sure he'll manage to save the world a few times, so it
should balance out.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"You do your arguments no favor by insulting those you ought persuade."
-Greg Stolze, Rites of the Dragon
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 17 Mar 2005 10:10:57 -0800, "David Klassen" <klassen@rowan.edu> scribed
into the ether:

>However, by the rules, this is *not* setting dependent.
>Paladins are *not* clerics; paladins don't need to be
>"of" any particular god whatsoever; a paladin changing
>the god-of-worship has absolutley no effect on their
>powers, abilities, or character class. Unless a DM
>chooses to rule-0 them.

Or unless the god he changed to was Orcus.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:28:28 -0700, Shawn Wilson wrote:

>
> "Hadsil" <forumite@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:1111015285.346529.180030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> However, the game just started. It really is no big deal to say he was
>> always a Paladin of Heironeous.
>
> This gets my vote.

You could even cover the working for Pelor bit: He did a final bit of
training with the Church of Pelor after he earned his spurs This was part
of a long running deal between the two churches to help their forces work
together when in the field.

--
Phoenix
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom