I would argue that Sanya has complete and utter faith.  It is just faith in the cause he is fighting for and not who his giving him the power to do it.  

Definition one, complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

He doesn't believe in God, but he believes in the job.  He is doing the right thing.  He is helping people.  He is defeating evil things, thwarting wiles, and saving people from terrible fates.  

It just doesn't matter if it is God giving him the power or not.  He has absolute faith in the brings he deals with, even if he doesn't believe they are what iconography says they are.

And they don't have the vanity or ego that needs to correct him.

Quote from: Manic Modron;1129122I would argue that Sanya has complete and utter faith.  It is just faith in the cause he is fighting for and not who his giving him the power to do it.  

Definition one, complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

He doesn't believe in God, but he believes in the job.  He is doing the right thing.  He is helping people.  He is defeating evil things, thwarting wiles, and saving people from terrible fates.  

It just doesn't matter if it is God giving him the power or not.  He has absolute faith in the brings he deals with, even if he doesn't believe they are what iconography says they are.

And they don't have the vanity or ego that needs to correct him.

So to win the argument you choose the definition that doesn't have anything to do with supernatural beings? Okay, you win.

I think the idea here, and I've seen it creep into D&D as well, is that the Paladin is somehow self-powered and that his power comes from belief in a cause.  5e specifies that it is a "paladin's quest" and his "oath" that makes him a paladin.  There is a very fast and loose use of religious terminology ("holy", "evil", "divine" etc) but also examples given of paladins who are not at all tied to anything like a monotheistic faith, or in fact ANY faith.  IMO, this is a product of trying to retain all the "cool classes" while also turning them into general categories. You end up with obvious nonsense like "atheist paladins".

Quote from: Brendan;1129126I think the idea here, and I've seen it creep into D&D as well, is that the Paladin is somehow self-powered and that his power comes from belief in a cause.  5e specifies that it is a "paladin's quest" and his "oath" that makes him a paladin.  There is a very fast and loose use of religious terminology ("holy", "evil", "divine" etc) but also examples given of paladins who are not at all tied to anything like a monotheistic faith, or in fact ANY faith.  IMO, this is a product of trying to retain all the "cool classes" while also turning them into general categories. You end up with obvious nonsense like "atheist paladins".

I liked the 1e AD&D Anti-paladin, published in Dragon, for this very reason. Very clearly a villain in the Dark Lord mode; a fantasy Ming the Merciless or OT Darth Vader; a scalable nemesis for a well-played Paladin.

And then there's his undead counterpart, the pre-Dragonlance Death Knight, courtesy of the 1e Fiend Folio; and their leader, again from Dragon, St. Kargoth.

Quote from: Brendan;1129126I think the idea here, and I've seen it creep into D&D as well, is that the Paladin is somehow self-powered and that his power comes from belief in a cause.  5e specifies that it is a "paladin's quest" and his "oath" that makes him a paladin.  There is a very fast and loose use of religious terminology ("holy", "evil", "divine" etc) but also examples given of paladins who are not at all tied to anything like a monotheistic faith, or in fact ANY faith.  IMO, this is a product of trying to retain all the "cool classes" while also turning them into general categories. You end up with obvious nonsense like "atheist paladins".

I find that D&D 5E paladin concept disturbing because if you buy into that, you could pretty successfully argue that the 9/11 terrorist hijackers were paladins.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129112The Warlock is an anti-paladin yes.

I thought they were a full or hybrid caster.  I'll have to check.  Paladins are semicasters.

The Warlock is the guy who can talk your faith away.

One thing I have never understood in modern Social Politics and its influence on media is why do RPG SJWs have such an obsession with eliminating conflict from their worlds?  Conflict drives stories.

The whole raison d'tre for having places like Cheliax be evil slave drivers is to create conflict which the PCs resolve.   It's to point to the slavery and say "this is bad."

Torque2100...  SJWs hate anything that remotely challenges them, or is a threat to their mary sues.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129125So to win the argument you choose the definition that doesn't have anything to do with supernatural beings? Okay, you win.

No, I'm not trying to win anything.  It is just a point of view.

The second definition is common parlance, sure, but ultimately irrelevant in how I view deities.  

As an admittedly rough analogy, objectively existing gods need worshippers like politicians need votes.  It won't kill them if they don't have them, but they are needed to advance agendas, maintain authority, and generally keep things they way they like them to be kept.  And there is probably no small satisfaction in having a fan base like that.

Just like voters and politicians, if worshippers lose faith in their objectively real gods it isn't a matter if if they exist or not, just whether or not they should be followed.  

While I realize that I'd have to change tone if I was talking about a specific setting like Discworld or American Gods, those ideas are not going to be how any setting I run operates.

The only question of faith necessary is if your cleric/paladin trusts a god enough to be able to expect assistance when asked for or needed and if the god trusts the champion enough to provide it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129111But we're not talking about the fantasy you consume, we're talking about the setting of fantasy game worlds, and it makes no sense if in your fantasy the gods interfere in mortal affairs constantly.

I agree that atheism makes no sense in a world where gods intervene directly. I don't agree that the fantasy worlds we play in have to include that element. You don't even need to posit direct divine intervention to have clerics. Of course, it's equally nonsensical for a cleric or paladin themselves to be an atheist, regardless of the conceits of the world, but other people certainly could be.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129111How can a holly warrior introduce moral relativism? Gods and Demons are real, they do intervene good and bad are objective not subjective in the game world. And if you're gonna introduce stand point "theory" then you'd need to have characters thinking the gods are the demons and the demons the gods, it doesn't work it throws all the worlds preconceptions to the trash.

Not sure what you're getting at here. The point is that if you can be a "holy" warrior of a beneficent god just as easily as can you can be "holy" warrior of an evil demon, then you have departed from the Christian archetype from which these character classes originate. Now, literally anything can be "holy" or "sacred" or have a "religious purpose" -- just make up an appropriate deity. You could have a cleric of the Divine Cheesecake Recipe whose sacred duty is to bake the perfect dessert. Once you give up the archetype for a generic "holy whatever knight" it's not far away to "holy atheism".

Quote from: Torque2100;1129147One thing I have never understood in modern Social Politics and its influence on media is why do RPG SJWs have such an obsession with eliminating conflict from their worlds?  Conflict drives stories.

The whole raison d'tre for having places like Cheliax be evil slave drivers is to create conflict which the PCs resolve.   It's to point to the slavery and say "this is bad."

Is Cheliax really no longer a slave state?  That does seem pretty fucked up if so.   The other nations that were ostensibly run by the goddess of light and goodness and healing and all that were slave holders was a bit of a disconnect, but Cheliax was solid in the villain category.

Quote from: jeff37923;1129139I find that D&D 5E paladin concept disturbing because if you buy into that, you could pretty successfully argue that the 9/11 terrorist hijackers were paladins.

Agreed.

For SJWs, that's a feature, not a bug.

Quote from: Manic Modron;1129155Is Cheliax really no longer a slave state?  That does seem pretty fucked up if so.   The other nations that were ostensibly run by the goddess of light and goodness and healing and all that were slave holders was a bit of a disconnect, but Cheliax was solid in the villain category.

Cheliax has slaves in the official books but I think not in S'mons home game.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129114But, wouldn't the heretics be persecuted? And exactly my point, if the deity grants you your powers how the fuck would it allow you to think it's just a very powerful alien?

  Supernatural pacts like in GURPS and DCC, the gods in question seem to not care about worshippers so much as creating chaos.  A person who swears against the gods or crosses them are in all sorts of mythologies and are often cursed.  I could take atheist as being people who know there are powerful entities, but feel they are not gods.  A paladin, can not and should not ever be one of those people.

Quote from: Brendan;1129126I think the idea here, and I've seen it creep into D&D as well, is that the Paladin is somehow self-powered and that his power comes from belief in a cause.  5e specifies that it is a "paladin's quest" and his "oath" that makes him a paladin.  There is a very fast and loose use of religious terminology ("holy", "evil", "divine" etc) but also examples given of paladins who are not at all tied to anything like a monotheistic faith, or in fact ANY faith.  IMO, this is a product of trying to retain all the "cool classes" while also turning them into general categories. You end up with obvious nonsense like "atheist paladins".

Paladins been self-powered since ADnD.  There was never anything tieing them to a Monotheistic faith, all the book talks about is Law and Good.