Paladins with no Diety?

[Knightmage Bael]

Aren't Paladins obligated to select a diety normally? Did they just decide Cause + Diety would be too specific of a customization option?

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

No, Paladins are fueled by their Oath, which could be to a Deity, or something else.

Ain't no deity, ain't no piety. That's just how we roll.

[Knightmage Bael]

Originally posted by Pan Darius Kairos:

No, Paladins are fueled by their Oath, which could be to a Deity, or something else.

Ain't no deity, ain't no piety. That's just how we roll.

Heh.

I thought a Diety is how they got their powers.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Originally posted by Archmage_Bael:

Originally posted by Pan Darius Kairos:

No, Paladins are fueled by their Oath, which could be to a Deity, or something else.

Ain't no deity, ain't no piety. That's just how we roll.

Heh.

I thought a Diety is how they got their powers.

In older editions. Now it's just an Oath. Deity optional. Terms and limitations apply. See your local Paladin dealer for details.

[Tootsy]

I don't think 5e requires it, though strangely there is dialogue referencing getting power from your "goddess" (i believe its with Wyll). Thematically I think it was a really big mistake to remove a deity from the Paladin, but that is a 5E issue not a BG3 issue. Playing a Paladin in "Wrath of the Righteous" feels way better thematically in my opinion.

[Dis Lexic]

Personally, I quite like the fact that they draw their power from their oath rather than a deity. It opens up more options than just 'FOR THE <Insert deity of choice here>' style of holy knight. You could very easily run a hella edgy Oath of Vengeance Paladin who is full on, balls to the wall, ♥♥♥♥ everything but my mission without causing problems.

[Lλmbdλ]

Nope
But have the option to follow a deity for everyone would be a good one

[GrandMajora]

Originally posted by Dis Lexic:

Personally, I quite like the fact that they draw their power from their oath rather than a deity. It opens up more options than just 'FOR THE <Insert deity of choice here>' style of holy knight. You could very easily run a hella edgy Oath of Vengeance Paladin who is full on, balls to the wall, ♥♥♥♥ everything but my mission without causing problems.

Well I don't like it. Without a deity, you're basically saying that anyone can swear a vow with such conviction that it grants them divine powers, only for them to break that vow and then spontaneously obtain unholy powers as a replacement.

It's just very weird, when you consider the implications of that.

[id795078477]

.. no-deity paladins is another reason for my dislike of 5e. Basically anyone can become a paladin, they just need to "really want it" and "really believe in themselves". It's giving off those vibes of an anime-MC that bends the plot with his willpower (and loud yelling) when things go south.

[YIT-Meta]

Originally posted by GrandMajora:

Originally posted by Dis Lexic:

Personally, I quite like the fact that they draw their power from their oath rather than a deity. It opens up more options than just 'FOR THE <Insert deity of choice here>' style of holy knight. You could very easily run a hella edgy Oath of Vengeance Paladin who is full on, balls to the wall, ♥♥♥♥ everything but my mission without causing problems.

Well I don't like it. Without a deity, you're basically saying that anyone can swear a vow with such conviction that it grants them divine powers, only for them to break that vow and then spontaneously obtain unholy powers as a replacement.

It's just very weird, when you consider the implications of that.

As a D&D veteran, this is how it always was in Greyhawk.
A Cleric did not need a deity, having a specific belief/faith in x was enough. Including moral code.

Forgotten Realms was the only D&D setting where all Divine Magic came from Deities. This included Druids and Rangers, too. Yes, Druids and Rangers in Forgotten Realms needed a Deity to have magic. Same as Paladins and Clerics.

Sadly, 5e really ruined a lot, despite doing a lot of good too.
Replacing Blackguards with evil Oath paladin just isn't the same.
Nor is forcing Warlocks to Pacts. Ugh.

[id795078477]

Originally posted by YIT-Meta:

Sadly, 5e really ruined a lot, despite doing a lot of good too.
Replacing Blackguards with evil Oath paladin just isn't the same.
Nor is forcing Warlocks to Pacts. Ugh.

Agreed. 5e did some things right - but I always felt it's just a bland version of older editions, such as 3e/3.5e for instance. The amount of flexibility and depth one has even in pre-epic builds in NWN is just astonishing. And post-epic you can pretty much play for weeks/months if not years and still have some builds to try (of course, depending on what you call "a try").

I never understood the need for all that weave plague (or whatever it was that screwed off magic so badly), they failed to follow an unwritten rule of "don't try to fix that which isn't broken". The AC/DC treadmill could've been fixed without those drastic changes. And so could the pre-cast issue.

P.S. Honestly, I personally never felt the issue with the AC/DC "treadmill". The only bad thing about it were the rather boring "+1/+2" feats. But the higher values like +30 etc gave a feeling of progression. This is why many PW feel like an MMO where you work on your character despite levels only being 1..40 which is nothing by MMO standards.

[Knightmage Bael]

Originally posted by Dellecross:

.. no-deity paladins is another reason for my dislike of 5e. Basically anyone can become a paladin, they just need to "really want it" and "really believe in themselves". It's giving off those vibes of an anime-MC that bends the plot with his willpower (and loud yelling) when things go south.

Yeah that's what annoys me

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

A Paladin's Oath in 5e can still be to a deity, it just isn't required.

This is so that they are setting neutral in the base rules, but they can be adapted any way you want to for a specific setting.

In other words, if you want all Paladins to swear an Oath to a deity in your campaigns, then you can do that.

I don't see the issue. Just play the game the way you want to.

As far as BG3 is concerned, I think the choice to revere a god should be available to all characters for rp'ing purposes.

[KOHb]

Originally posted by YIT-Meta:

As a D&D veteran, this is how it always was in Greyhawk.
A Cleric did not need a deity, having a specific belief/faith in x was enough. Including moral code.

Forgotten Realms was the only D&D setting where all Divine Magic came from Deities. This included Druids and Rangers, too. Yes, Druids and Rangers in Forgotten Realms needed a Deity to have magic. Same as Paladins and Clerics.

Sadly, 5e really ruined a lot, despite doing a lot of good too.
Replacing Blackguards with evil Oath paladin just isn't the same.
Nor is forcing Warlocks to Pacts. Ugh.

They are just trying to simplify what became too complicated.
A lot of Veterans love 3e or 3.5e pathfinder because they used to it.
But for new players pre 5 DnD rules could be a hell pit :)

[Ghost]

Originally posted by GrandMajora:

Well I don't like it. Without a deity, you're basically saying that anyone can swear a vow with such conviction that it grants them divine powers, only for them to break that vow and then spontaneously obtain unholy powers as a replacement.

It's just very weird, when you consider the implications of that.

Seems a bit weird to me too, but that is kinda how belief works in DnD: if you get enough people believing a sock puppet can talk and is a deity, it will start talking and answering prayers. Or Kuo-toa and anything. Like orks in 40k.

Which I guess is what separates the paladins from the random population - their devotion and conviction. Possibly it's siphoning off from some god or another's power, like a neighbour leeching off your gas or electricity, maybe it's some god going 'close enough' and tossing them a handout.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Originally posted by Criminal Horse:

Originally posted by YIT-Meta:

As a D&D veteran, this is how it always was in Greyhawk.
A Cleric did not need a deity, having a specific belief/faith in x was enough. Including moral code.

Forgotten Realms was the only D&D setting where all Divine Magic came from Deities. This included Druids and Rangers, too. Yes, Druids and Rangers in Forgotten Realms needed a Deity to have magic. Same as Paladins and Clerics.

Sadly, 5e really ruined a lot, despite doing a lot of good too.
Replacing Blackguards with evil Oath paladin just isn't the same.
Nor is forcing Warlocks to Pacts. Ugh.

They are just trying to simplify what became too complicated.
A lot of Veterans love 3e or 3.5e pathfinder because they used to it.
But for new players pre 5 DnD rules could be a hell pit :)

Simplification is not the only reason.

Bounded accuracy came about because the power/gear treadmill is really boring and interferes with good storytelling. +1 sword gets replaced by +2 sword, ad nauseam. While there's still a bit of this power treadmill for the progression nerds, it's been scaled way back. That's not simplification, just cutting unnecessary bloat.