Dont forget though, paladins in 5e dont have to be religious, they can be fighters for justice or just about anything else. So donations to churches wouldnt mean much if hes running around slaying bandits and evil lords
I really laugh when people try to make this claim. The entire aspect of where a Paladin gets its power from is directly connected to a diety. Anyone can make an Oath. An oath does not give one powers. A Paladin makes a Sacred Oath and receives Divine powers.
So let's look at the specific words that are used in connection with the Paladin class in 5e.
Sacred - connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.
Divine - of, from, or like God or a god.
Paladin core abilities
Divine Health
Divine Sense
Divine Smite
Sacred Oath
Yup absolutely nothing to do with religion, or deity's in any regards at all. Do not mistake the removable of the requirement to give your money to a church or the lack of the word church to mean Paladins do not get their powers from a deity. While a specific Paladin doesn't have to be religious they get their powers directly from divine entities.
According to the books, you are completely incorrect. There is as much (or rather, as little) need for a Paladin to be religious as there is for a a Rune Knight to be a knighted noble. Judge Dredd, Batman and Frank Castle are all examples of characters who could easily be paladins.
The fact that you claim the bolded part is especially funny since, in 5E, that is exactly what gives a paladin their powers. :)
You are mistaking one being religious with one getting powers from the divine. These are two completely different things. Which I physically stated in my post.
Every power a Paladin receives is from the divine. A Paladin does not have to be religious to recieve these powers. The SACRED Oath ties it to that deity whether the Paladin is religious or not the Deity believes in the Oath and grants the Paladin divine Powers.
Under your arguement every man at arms that swears an Oath to a King, Lord, Barron, Duke, etc. is then a Paladin. If it is infact the Oath that gives a Paladin its powers. The key difference is that Paladins get their powers from the Divine and not from swearing an Oath. The Deity that bestows upon the Paladin its powers based on the Sacred Oath that the Paladin has sworn then holds the Paladin to task on maintaining that Oath or the Paladins powers be stripped from them.
Dont forget though, paladins in 5e dont have to be religious, they can be fighters for justice or just about anything else. So donations to churches wouldnt mean much if hes running around slaying bandits and evil lords
I really laugh when people try to make this claim. The entire aspect of where a Paladin gets its power from is directly connected to a diety. Anyone can make an Oath. An oath does not give one powers. A Paladin makes a Sacred Oath and receives Divine powers.
So let's look at the specific words that are used in connection with the Paladin class in 5e.
Sacred - connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.
Divine - of, from, or like God or a god.
Paladin core abilities
Divine Health
Divine Sense
Divine Smite
Sacred Oath
Yup absolutely nothing to do with religion, or deity's in any regards at all. Do not mistake the removable of the requirement to give your money to a church or the lack of the word church to mean Paladins do not get their powers from a deity. While a specific Paladin doesn't have to be religious they get their powers directly from divine entities.
According to the books, you are completely incorrect. There is as much (or rather, as little) need for a Paladin to be religious as there is for a a Rune Knight to be a knighted noble. Judge Dredd, Batman and Frank Castle are all examples of characters who could easily be paladins.
The fact that you claim the bolded part is especially funny since, in 5E, that is exactly what gives a paladin their powers. :)
You are mistaking one being religious with one getting powers from the divine. These are two completely different things. Which I physically stated in my post.
Every power a Paladin receives is from the divine. A Paladin does not have to be religious to recieve these powers. The SACRED Oath ties it to that deity whether the Paladin is religious or not the Deity believes in the Oath and grants the Paladin divine Powers.
Under your arguement every man at arms that swears an Oath to a King, Lord, Barron, Duke, etc. is then a Paladin. If it is infact the Oath that gives a Paladin its powers. The key difference is that Paladins get their powers from the Divine and not from swearing an Oath. The Deity that bestows upon the Paladin its powers based on the Sacred Oath that the Paladin has sworn then holds the Paladin to task on maintaining that Oath or the Paladins powers be stripped from them.
I agree with your view of the paladin, as a religious warrior with powers from a deity, but this isn't how 5e sees it anymore. Their powers can come from their oath or a deity, kind of depending on how the players want to play it. The game designers end up with a lot of mixed signals, since they want to keep the older edition flavor that you and I like, but also try to remove paladins from religious necessity. I think in 5e, you just have to have the power of conviction in your oath and justice, to be a paladin. There is plenty of verbiage both explicitly and implicitly saying the paladin gets their powers from a deity, still in the class, as you point out.
Ok let me just say something about the hole becoming an Oathbreaker. One does not simply just break their Oath and is at least level 3 and becomes an Oath Breaker. In fact the PHB clearly stats that If a Paladin breaks their Oath they loose their powers. They can seek redemption and regain their powers, or choose another class to become. In order for a Paladin to become an Oath Breaker they have to have no regards for their Oath and have to have zero desire to seek atonement for breaking their Oath.
Simply put becoming an Oath Breaker is about intent of the Character and happens after the fact of the Paladin already loosing their Paladin powers.
Oathbreaker is not an actual subclass available to player characters in any Wizards of the Coast literature. It's a DMG subclass designed for an NPC available to the DM, as the villain of a campaign.
Torvald99 this is actually a very false statement. The following is a direct quote from the PHB compendium on the Paladin. Take special note to the very last paragraph.
"BREAKING YOUR OATH
A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a paladin to transgress his or her oath.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide."
Nowhere is Oathbreaker listed as a playable character class, outside of saying "perhaps" they could take an NPC subclass and homebrew it into a playable class. DM Fiat is always an option. But outside of DM Fiat, the Oathbreaker is not a playable player character subclass.
Don't believe me? Would you believe the lead designer for DnD 5e, Jeremy Crawford?
'"What about the Oathbreaker? It says you have to be evil." The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!" - Jeremy Crawford
p.s. Saying something is a "false statement" is quite aggressive. Just state why you disagree and show your evidence. I view us all and friends of a sort, or at least "friendly" based off our common interest of DnD. :)
Stating something is a false has no intent you are reading emotion into that yourself. If you really think that is aggressive you have no actual understanding of what aggression really is. It is a statement nothing more. If I had called you a liar, or a vast amount of other insults one could put while denoting a false statement that would be aggressive. I did not do that as I have no animosity toward you and have had several good discussions with you.
Is the Oathbreaker subclass not listed in any book other than the DMG and was designed to be an NPC villian? Yes.
Is the Oathbreaker directly mentioned in the PHB as an option that DMs have to directly give a player? Yes.
The statement that :
Oathbreaker is not an actual subclass available to player characters in any Wizards of the Coast literature.
Given that it is a subclass available to player characters at DM discression due to choices that a player makes and is clearly spelled out in the PHB this is statement isn't something that is a "disagreement" this statement itself is categorically false.
Is it correct in the notion that it is not an option that players can just take? yes.
However, it still remains a false statement given the context of the discussion. The fact that I clearly stated there is an actual path one has to take and just doesnt become an Oathbreaker is evidence of the intent.
Additionally my post had zero to do with why the Oathbreaker was designed or a supposed required alignment. Nor did my response say anything as much either. Jeremy Crawfords post dealt directly with character alignment and mentioned why the Oathbreaker was made. That being said they also included the Oathbreaker as an option that DMs could allow players in the PHB. Or are you also implying that other things that are not necessarily allowed by standard rules but are listed in the PHB but under discretion of the DM is now according to you "as perhaps they could homebrew it". If that is so well man the entire FEAT section isnt rules but instead DM fiat and is thus homebrew even though it is clearly stated in the PHB.
Finally the fact you use this quote from Jeremy Crawford on me, who's only post deals with the path to Oathbreaker, instead of the overall group of people in this thread is wholly ironic. Given that it completely defeats any arguement any one has made in regards to alignment requirements.
Crawford clearly is referring to the Oathbreaker being an NPC subclass, not a player character subclass. You can be any alignment with a player character subclass. The question is what about Oathbreaker, which requires them to be evil. Crawford responds to that question:
"The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!" - Jeremy Crawford
Which is yet another indicator that this is not originally intended as a playable subclass. It may very well become so in future books, given the popularity of it. But this is clearly not a RAW situation, but a DM Fiat. The DM has to say "yes, I will let you play a class that was intended for an NPC."
Yes, Oathbreaker is mentioned as in the PHB, but in a clear DM Fiat situation where it's saying how the DM may or may not want to handle it. The feats are DM optional, no doubt. But they are not DM Fiat, they are there as optional rules with feats FOR player characters. The Oathbreaker subclass is NOT there for player characters, but as an NPC subclass. The two situations are not comparable. The DM may allow for an NPC subclass to be a playable subclass through??? DM Fiat.
Torvald Crawfords entire series of tweets that is connected to is addressing character alignment. The Oathbreaker is brought up because it says it has to be Evil.
I honestly dont know why you continuously keep bringing up this tweet. No one here argued it wasn't designed to be used by NPC's.
You are the one that falsly made the statement that no where in Wizard of the Coast literature does it say it can be used by players. It directly does in the PHB.
You know this is funny you are treating the Oathbreaker as if its directly comparable to the Death Cleric as solely an NPC class. The very fact that it puts it as an option in the PHB puts intent towards the player using it. The Death Cleric is not mentioned anywhere else besides the DMG.
You know I can also capitalize words. The DM makes the decision that they have to choose a different class or use the Oathbreaker FOR the player. Much like the DM decides FOR the players that feats are not used. It is a fiat nonetheless you are playing semantics.
Further the way it is stated in the PHB the exact same way that Variant Human is put in the PHB.
Tolvard your arguement is simply just wrong. No one has in this entire thread argued that it wasn't designed to be used as an NPC but it was also intended to be used as players due to its direct reference as such in the PHB. As Jeremy Crawfords tweet does not address this inclusion it is irrelevant to my point.
OK, then we agree that the Oathbreaker is an NPC class, not designed for players. As also witnessed by the alignment restriction for Oathbreaker, which a player designed class does not have. Crawford's tweet is threefold: 1. Oathbreaker is an NPC class, not a player class 2. if you are using Oathbreaker, you are "experimental" i.e. homebrew or whatever 3. with DM Fiat, you can do what you want, to your "bliss."
I think we are mostly agreeing here. I didn't realize the PHB had Oathbreaker NPC subclass as one possible option for paladins who break their oath. You taught me that. I see that as an aside and something that is just DM Fiat brainstorming as to possible options.
I do think you are mixing "apples and oranges" comparing feats and VHuman optional rule with Oathbreaker. Variant Human was designed as a possible option for player characters. Oathbreaker was designed as an NPC option for DMs. Feats are optional, but also designed for the player characters. One is merely allowing an optional rule. Variant Human, if allowed, is doing what it was designed to be doing. A feat is doing what it was intended to be doing. Oathbreaker would be doing something other than what it was designed for.
players handbook within the DDB "create character" utilized by players to create there character listed under the 3rd level paladin class amongst all the vows can be selected (yes you guessed it) "Oathbreaker". No other DMG options are seen which means it is not only an npc selection, players can use it to define there character along the guidelines provided by the said selection "Oathbreaker".
On another issue as far as I can tell, paladins are no longer restricted by there alignment, so on a technicality said player could in fact choose an evil alignment and then under the class details in the character builder then choose oathbreaker for there vow (so to speak).
Does not matter what jeremy crawford has said, garry gygax the creator of D&D stated paladin are human lawful good, and D&D is based on good defeating evil and here we are now.
So if it wasnt meant to be a player choice then it would not be in DDB paladin 3rd level vow selections
And no.. I'm not using any homebrew and all but eberon is deselected
Just saying...
DnD Beyond is going to give you what character options people desire, not necessarily what's RAW. The Oathbreaker subclass is mentioned in the DMG as a potential NPC under something like "villainous options" for the DM to use. The class isn't balanced for player use imo, hence something like the Aura of Hate with a potential +5 to damage for the evil paladin and all undead/fiends in the aura radius. As Khal has pointed out, it also has a one sentence mention as to what a DM may wish to do, if a player abandons or does not conform to their regular paladin oath, in the PHB. But I think Khal would agree with me, per the RAW, there is no way to begin as a first level Oathbreaker paladin. But you could do that in DnD Beyond. :)
Dont forget though, paladins in 5e dont have to be religious, they can be fighters for justice or just about anything else. So donations to churches wouldnt mean much if hes running around slaying bandits and evil lords
I really laugh when people try to make this claim. The entire aspect of where a Paladin gets its power from is directly connected to a diety. Anyone can make an Oath. An oath does not give one powers. A Paladin makes a Sacred Oath and receives Divine powers.
So let's look at the specific words that are used in connection with the Paladin class in 5e.
Sacred - connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.
Divine - of, from, or like God or a god.
Paladin core abilities
Divine Health
Divine Sense
Divine Smite
Sacred Oath
Yup absolutely nothing to do with religion, or deity's in any regards at all. Do not mistake the removable of the requirement to give your money to a church or the lack of the word church to mean Paladins do not get their powers from a deity. While a specific Paladin doesn't have to be religious they get their powers directly from divine entities.
According to the books, you are completely incorrect. There is as much (or rather, as little) need for a Paladin to be religious as there is for a a Rune Knight to be a knighted noble. Judge Dredd, Batman and Frank Castle are all examples of characters who could easily be paladins.
The fact that you claim the bolded part is especially funny since, in 5E, that is exactly what gives a paladin their powers. :)
You are mistaking one being religious with one getting powers from the divine. These are two completely different things. Which I physically stated in my post.
Every power a Paladin receives is from the divine. A Paladin does not have to be religious to recieve these powers. The SACRED Oath ties it to that deity whether the Paladin is religious or not the Deity believes in the Oath and grants the Paladin divine Powers.
Under your arguement every man at arms that swears an Oath to a King, Lord, Barron, Duke, etc. is then a Paladin. If it is infact the Oath that gives a Paladin its powers. The key difference is that Paladins get their powers from the Divine and not from swearing an Oath. The Deity that bestows upon the Paladin its powers based on the Sacred Oath that the Paladin has sworn then holds the Paladin to task on maintaining that Oath or the Paladins powers be stripped from them.
Well, that sure was a lot of strawmanning and peculiar statements (how does one "physically" state something? And what is the opposite? "Metaphysically" stating something? Anyway). Let's start from the top.
No, there is literally nothing that says that a paladins power has to come from the divine. The names they have in the rules are just the name of the mechanics that the players of this game uses. In game they can be something completely different. Or can you point me to a section of the PHB (page and paragraph, please) where it explains that "he Deity believes in the Oath and grants the Paladin divine Powers"?
The Paladin, a creature that is some special that is something more than a mere commoner, more than even most NPCs has sworn an oath to a cause and it is the power of that special being's oath that grants the Paladin their power. Or, to simply show that you are wrong by quoting page 82 of the PHB "Whether sworn before a god's altar and the witness of a priest, in a sacred glade before nature spirits and fey being, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin's oath [emphasis mine] is a powerful bond. It is a source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion." - Nowhere does it say that it has to be a a god or Deity that blesses them or provides this power. This is shown again just a few sentences on: "a paladin's power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god."
In short, if you want to play it in your setting that paladins' powers comes from deities you can of course do so. However, it is not a requirement from the game itself. If you want a divine warrior fighting for a specific deity, that position is filled by the Cleric in D&D 5E.
Yes let's quote all the Paragraphs on descriptions and take every little word to heart, but when we get to mechanics ..... well let's absolutely ignore every single term used in the mechanics that directly connects it to a Divine being because that doesnt fit my narrative.
Yes let's quote all the Paragraphs on descriptions and take every little word to heart, but when we get to mechanics ..... well let's absolutely ignore every single term used in the mechanics that directly connects it to a Divine being because that doesnt fit my narrative.
This is literally your arguement.
Not really, but you are free to interpret it that way if you don't want to go what's actually in the book. You are aware of the thing called gameplay and story separation, right? Just because something is called something in the rules doesn't mean that's what it actually is in the setting, it's just a name for the rule.
But yes, when discussing a game it is often best to refer to the game itself instead of just personal opinions.
Yes let's quote all the Paragraphs on descriptions and take every little word to heart, but when we get to mechanics ..... well let's absolutely ignore every single term used in the mechanics that directly connects it to a Divine being because that doesnt fit my narrative.
This is literally your arguement.
Not really, but you are free to interpret it that way if you don't want to go what's actually in the book. You are aware of the thing called gameplay and story separation, right? Just because something is called something in the rules doesn't mean that's what it actually is in the setting, it's just a name for the rule.
But yes, when discussing a game it is often best to refer to the game itself instead of just personal opinions.
Ok bud I was really hopping you brought up the setting as an argument I really was. Do you even fully understand the Faerun setting? I'm going to guess not because there is a very Special place that those who don't worship the gods go. When beings die that have no faith in the gods they become mortar for the Wall of the Faithless. A wall built around the City of the Dead and is directly mentioned in Sword Coast Adventures, Neverwinter Nights, a novel published by Wizards of the Coast called Waterdeep, in 3.5's Players Guide to Faerun, and in 2nd editions Faith & Avatars.
So sorry no cherry pick wording all you want you are the one nit picking words with out knowing the setting.
Yes let's quote all the Paragraphs on descriptions and take every little word to heart, but when we get to mechanics ..... well let's absolutely ignore every single term used in the mechanics that directly connects it to a Divine being because that doesnt fit my narrative.
This is literally your arguement.
Not really, but you are free to interpret it that way if you don't want to go what's actually in the book. You are aware of the thing called gameplay and story separation, right? Just because something is called something in the rules doesn't mean that's what it actually is in the setting, it's just a name for the rule.
But yes, when discussing a game it is often best to refer to the game itself instead of just personal opinions.
Ok bud I was really hopping you brought up the setting as an argument I really was. Do you even fully understand the Faerun setting? I'm going to guess not because there is a very Special place that those who don't worship the gods go. When beings die that have no faith in the gods they become mortar for the Wall of the Faithless. A wall built around the City of the Dead and is directly mentioned in Sword Coast Adventures, Neverwinter Nights, a novel published by Wizards of the Coast called Waterdeep, in 3.5's Players Guide to Faerun, and in 2nd editions Faith & Avatars.
So sorry no cherry pick wording all you want you are the one nit picking words with out knowing the setting.
Fareun is irrelevant. 5E has no fixed setting so we have to go by the PHB. If you want to make things up to fit your own playstyle that is of course fine. But it has nothing to do with the how the class is written in the current edition.
Yes let's quote all the Paragraphs on descriptions and take every little word to heart, but when we get to mechanics ..... well let's absolutely ignore every single term used in the mechanics that directly connects it to a Divine being because that doesnt fit my narrative.
This is literally your arguement.
Not really, but you are free to interpret it that way if you don't want to go what's actually in the book. You are aware of the thing called gameplay and story separation, right? Just because something is called something in the rules doesn't mean that's what it actually is in the setting, it's just a name for the rule.
But yes, when discussing a game it is often best to refer to the game itself instead of just personal opinions.
Ok bud I was really hopping you brought up the setting as an argument I really was. Do you even fully understand the Faerun setting? I'm going to guess not because there is a very Special place that those who don't worship the gods go. When beings die that have no faith in the gods they become mortar for the Wall of the Faithless. A wall built around the City of the Dead and is directly mentioned in Sword Coast Adventures, Neverwinter Nights, a novel published by Wizards of the Coast called Waterdeep, in 3.5's Players Guide to Faerun, and in 2nd editions Faith & Avatars.
So sorry no cherry pick wording all you want you are the one nit picking words with out knowing the setting.
Fareun is irrelevant. 5E has no fixed setting so we have to go by the PHB. If you want to make things up to fit your own playstyle that is of course fine. But it has nothing to do with the how the class is written in the current edition.
Continue to be very selective and ignoring things that directly contradict what you're saying. You brought up the setting and now you dismiss it. Faerun is absolutely relevant as it is the D&D universe and lore. Just because you can use the rules in other settings doesnt remove the intent or the relevance of the core setting. At this rate I'm done discussing anything with you anyways as you are completely subjective and accuse others of doing the very things you do.
Yes let's quote all the Paragraphs on descriptions and take every little word to heart, but when we get to mechanics ..... well let's absolutely ignore every single term used in the mechanics that directly connects it to a Divine being because that doesnt fit my narrative.
This is literally your arguement.
Not really, but you are free to interpret it that way if you don't want to go what's actually in the book. You are aware of the thing called gameplay and story separation, right? Just because something is called something in the rules doesn't mean that's what it actually is in the setting, it's just a name for the rule.
But yes, when discussing a game it is often best to refer to the game itself instead of just personal opinions.
Ok bud I was really hopping you brought up the setting as an argument I really was. Do you even fully understand the Faerun setting? I'm going to guess not because there is a very Special place that those who don't worship the gods go. When beings die that have no faith in the gods they become mortar for the Wall of the Faithless. A wall built around the City of the Dead and is directly mentioned in Sword Coast Adventures, Neverwinter Nights, a novel published by Wizards of the Coast called Waterdeep, in 3.5's Players Guide to Faerun, and in 2nd editions Faith & Avatars.
So sorry no cherry pick wording all you want you are the one nit picking words with out knowing the setting.
Fareun is irrelevant. 5E has no fixed setting so we have to go by the PHB. If you want to make things up to fit your own playstyle that is of course fine. But it has nothing to do with the how the class is written in the current edition.
Continue to be very selective and ignoring things that directly contradict what you're saying. You brought up the setting and now you dismiss it. Faerun is absolutely relevant as it is the D&D universe and lore. Just because you can use the rules in other settings doesnt remove the intent or the relevance of the core setting. At this rate I'm done discussing anything with you anyways as you are completely subjective and accuse others of doing the very things you do.
I'm not ignoring anything, I'm pointing out that your claims lack any kind of support in reality. The books on which the game is based say that you are wrong. The rules say that you are wrong. Multiple settings say that you are wrong. Heck, since the current edition of Faerun uses the rules for paladins from the PHB, one could even argue that Faerun says you are wrong.
You just saying "you are ignoring stuff!" doesn't change any of these facts since you still haven't shown us any rules that say tupport your claims. You haven't even given us a page number so that we can look for ourselves.
So, I will admit to not having read all of you two's back and forth. But are you arguing if paladins need a deity? Or are you arguing if their powers come from a deity?
I don't think there is anything in the rules requiring that you have a deity in 5e. So you can be an atheist paladin, if you wish to be. Not clear on where their powers come from? I would say a deity, but by rules, this is unclear. 5e would say it comes from the power of your oath. Jeremy Crawford would say the powers come from your oath. Really, it's up to your DM to decide. Most of this would fall under DM Fiat i.e. you and your DM coming to an agreement that's satisfactory to both of you.
In older editions of DnD, it was more clear that paladins had a deity, like clerics. But in older editions, paladins had to be lawful good, also. So, there have been changes. In 5e, they have changed paladins...but old habits and a class that was lore wise the same for many editions, still has much of the language, color and flavor of being religious. The mere words "divine" on so many spells and abilities, lets you know this comes from God (or the god of your choice). But maybe you are an unwilling tool of a god, serving his/her ends, even though that was never your intent? Who knows?
I like paladins having a deity and being the holy warriors of a particular faith. So my paladin has Lathander as his god. Others may not wish to have a god, but as long as they and their DMs are happy, then more power to them. There is no right way or wrong way, in matters like this. :)
Well, goes along with 5e's focus on being "easy" or "safe" mode. No real consequences for breaking anything. Just do whatever you want. I will not thank anyone for that. Thank Solus Prime for DM discretion and OSRs.
Well, goes along with 5e's focus on being "easy" or "safe" mode. No real consequences for breaking anything. Just do whatever you want. I will not thank anyone for that. Thank Solus Prime for DM discretion and OSRs.
It's not really 'do what you want' so much as the morality of the paladin is more based on the oath subclass now rather than a general 'lawful good' default. It's always been up to the DM whether or not there are consequences for things like acting out of alignment, it's always been in their hands to punish the character or not etc.
Hi Zev I think they have abandoned strict LG alignment for Paladins in 5e although they don't explain this in the write up. The Oath of Conquest actually reads to me like it is LE.
Thing with the Oaths there are three perspectives.
Your personal perspective i.e. how the character reads what the oath means. You have to be honest OK but hey Obiwan it is OK to tell a direct lie if one can surmise "it is True from a certain point of view". This is subjective from other's viewpoint but objective to your character i.e. the character sees no problem with his interpretation.
Then there is the perspective of the general populace which can vary from culture to culture. This is whether or not the people you meet are going to accept that you are following your oath because of how they see your actions. This can be very subjective.
Then there is the most important perspective which is the deity you follow or the over-arching principle if your character is not devoted to a deity. This is either way a very objective standard. Things are either right or wrong and that is that. However, you character won't know that automatically. He will get clues from priests and superiors he deals with, omens or messages from the deity, his powers stop working or he has some curse from the deity or parables or a bible of sorts that tells him what action is supposed to be right. Usually however the gods are subtle about these things but if you go into the monastery and kill everyone including the children because you were having bad nightmares about you wife dying a deity might be a little more than subtle in how to handle the matter.
I am not sure if this is still the case but it used to be the rule as I remember it from 3e and before that Paladins had to be the alignment of their deity and clerics had to be at least one away so that a LG deity could have priests that are LN, NG as well as LG. I am not conversant with 5e to tell you if this is still the case.
Chaotic Neutral can very easily go for Vengeance, yes.
Not sure I agree. A vengeance paladin is hyper focused on his sworn enemy. Focus implies some form of order. The typical chaotic neutral is all over the place. Hates and wants to kill you one day. Wants to be your drinking buddy the next.
Chaotic Neutral can very easily go for Vengeance, yes.
Not sure I agree. A vengeance paladin is hyper focused on his sworn enemy. Focus implies some form of order. The typical chaotic neutral is all over the place. Hates and wants to kill you one day. Wants to be your drinking buddy the next.
Being Chaotic does not mean being stupid, it means not following order. This is why the scrupulous attitude is Chaotic Good. You want to do what is right and you are willing to do what is right no matter what even if you have to break a few laws yourselves.
Oath of Vengeance could be played lawfully as I infer you are suggesting where a person is dedicated to get his man aka Eliot Ness but that person could also follow the law in his pursuit. However, the person could easily become so obsessed with what he sees as his goal which is stopping the threat, evil overlord, group or just anyone he sees violating his precepts that he will just go out and do whatever it takes to achieve his vengeance. This type of person would very much follow his own interpretation which could change in their mind but this would be his judgment of what was done as opposed to the ideal for them. This is evident in the tale of the 47 Ronin who set out to stop the Daimyo even though it meant violating several tenets of Bushido in order to save Bushido and when they had won committed Seppuku because they too had failed Bushido in what they did and so now that the task was accomplished they too had to die.
This is very much Chaotic Neutral. These men were willing to violate their own codes and commit evil in order to avenge their Daimyo and right a wrong according to how they interpreted the code of Bushido but when complete understood they too violated the code and so must destroy themselves to protect their code. This does not mean they are being random, they were not, they were very focused. Chaotic from a philosophical view meant willing to break order and the rule of order. This can be done while following personal principles.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You are mistaking one being religious with one getting powers from the divine. These are two completely different things. Which I physically stated in my post.
Every power a Paladin receives is from the divine. A Paladin does not have to be religious to recieve these powers. The SACRED Oath ties it to that deity whether the Paladin is religious or not the Deity believes in the Oath and grants the Paladin divine Powers.
Under your arguement every man at arms that swears an Oath to a King, Lord, Barron, Duke, etc. is then a Paladin. If it is infact the Oath that gives a Paladin its powers. The key difference is that Paladins get their powers from the Divine and not from swearing an Oath. The Deity that bestows upon the Paladin its powers based on the Sacred Oath that the Paladin has sworn then holds the Paladin to task on maintaining that Oath or the Paladins powers be stripped from them.
I agree with your view of the paladin, as a religious warrior with powers from a deity, but this isn't how 5e sees it anymore. Their powers can come from their oath or a deity, kind of depending on how the players want to play it. The game designers end up with a lot of mixed signals, since they want to keep the older edition flavor that you and I like, but also try to remove paladins from religious necessity. I think in 5e, you just have to have the power of conviction in your oath and justice, to be a paladin. There is plenty of verbiage both explicitly and implicitly saying the paladin gets their powers from a deity, still in the class, as you point out.
OK, then we agree that the Oathbreaker is an NPC class, not designed for players. As also witnessed by the alignment restriction for Oathbreaker, which a player designed class does not have. Crawford's tweet is threefold: 1. Oathbreaker is an NPC class, not a player class 2. if you are using Oathbreaker, you are "experimental" i.e. homebrew or whatever 3. with DM Fiat, you can do what you want, to your "bliss."
I think we are mostly agreeing here. I didn't realize the PHB had Oathbreaker NPC subclass as one possible option for paladins who break their oath. You taught me that. I see that as an aside and something that is just DM Fiat brainstorming as to possible options.
I do think you are mixing "apples and oranges" comparing feats and VHuman optional rule with Oathbreaker. Variant Human was designed as a possible option for player characters. Oathbreaker was designed as an NPC option for DMs. Feats are optional, but also designed for the player characters. One is merely allowing an optional rule. Variant Human, if allowed, is doing what it was designed to be doing. A feat is doing what it was intended to be doing. Oathbreaker would be doing something other than what it was designed for.
Have a good day, Khal. Enjoyed the discussion.
DnD Beyond is going to give you what character options people desire, not necessarily what's RAW. The Oathbreaker subclass is mentioned in the DMG as a potential NPC under something like "villainous options" for the DM to use. The class isn't balanced for player use imo, hence something like the Aura of Hate with a potential +5 to damage for the evil paladin and all undead/fiends in the aura radius. As Khal has pointed out, it also has a one sentence mention as to what a DM may wish to do, if a player abandons or does not conform to their regular paladin oath, in the PHB. But I think Khal would agree with me, per the RAW, there is no way to begin as a first level Oathbreaker paladin. But you could do that in DnD Beyond. :)
Well, that sure was a lot of strawmanning and peculiar statements (how does one "physically" state something? And what is the opposite? "Metaphysically" stating something? Anyway). Let's start from the top.
No, there is literally nothing that says that a paladins power has to come from the divine. The names they have in the rules are just the name of the mechanics that the players of this game uses. In game they can be something completely different. Or can you point me to a section of the PHB (page and paragraph, please) where it explains that "he Deity believes in the Oath and grants the Paladin divine Powers"?
The Paladin, a creature that is some special that is something more than a mere commoner, more than even most NPCs has sworn an oath to a cause and it is the power of that special being's oath that grants the Paladin their power. Or, to simply show that you are wrong by quoting page 82 of the PHB "Whether sworn before a god's altar and the witness of a priest, in a sacred glade before nature spirits and fey being, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin's oath [emphasis mine] is a powerful bond. It is a source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion." - Nowhere does it say that it has to be a a god or Deity that blesses them or provides this power. This is shown again just a few sentences on: "a paladin's power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god."
In short, if you want to play it in your setting that paladins' powers comes from deities you can of course do so. However, it is not a requirement from the game itself. If you want a divine warrior fighting for a specific deity, that position is filled by the Cleric in D&D 5E.
Yes let's quote all the Paragraphs on descriptions and take every little word to heart, but when we get to mechanics ..... well let's absolutely ignore every single term used in the mechanics that directly connects it to a Divine being because that doesnt fit my narrative.
This is literally your arguement.
Not really, but you are free to interpret it that way if you don't want to go what's actually in the book. You are aware of the thing called gameplay and story separation, right? Just because something is called something in the rules doesn't mean that's what it actually is in the setting, it's just a name for the rule.
But yes, when discussing a game it is often best to refer to the game itself instead of just personal opinions.
Ok bud I was really hopping you brought up the setting as an argument I really was. Do you even fully understand the Faerun setting? I'm going to guess not because there is a very Special place that those who don't worship the gods go. When beings die that have no faith in the gods they become mortar for the Wall of the Faithless. A wall built around the City of the Dead and is directly mentioned in Sword Coast Adventures, Neverwinter Nights, a novel published by Wizards of the Coast called Waterdeep, in 3.5's Players Guide to Faerun, and in 2nd editions Faith & Avatars.
So sorry no cherry pick wording all you want you are the one nit picking words with out knowing the setting.
Fareun is irrelevant. 5E has no fixed setting so we have to go by the PHB. If you want to make things up to fit your own playstyle that is of course fine. But it has nothing to do with the how the class is written in the current edition.
Continue to be very selective and ignoring things that directly contradict what you're saying. You brought up the setting and now you dismiss it. Faerun is absolutely relevant as it is the D&D universe and lore. Just because you can use the rules in other settings doesnt remove the intent or the relevance of the core setting. At this rate I'm done discussing anything with you anyways as you are completely subjective and accuse others of doing the very things you do.
I'm not ignoring anything, I'm pointing out that your claims lack any kind of support in reality. The books on which the game is based say that you are wrong. The rules say that you are wrong. Multiple settings say that you are wrong. Heck, since the current edition of Faerun uses the rules for paladins from the PHB, one could even argue that Faerun says you are wrong.
You just saying "you are ignoring stuff!" doesn't change any of these facts since you still haven't shown us any rules that say tupport your claims. You haven't even given us a page number so that we can look for ourselves.
So, I will admit to not having read all of you two's back and forth. But are you arguing if paladins need a deity? Or are you arguing if their powers come from a deity?
I don't think there is anything in the rules requiring that you have a deity in 5e. So you can be an atheist paladin, if you wish to be. Not clear on where their powers come from? I would say a deity, but by rules, this is unclear. 5e would say it comes from the power of your oath. Jeremy Crawford would say the powers come from your oath. Really, it's up to your DM to decide. Most of this would fall under DM Fiat i.e. you and your DM coming to an agreement that's satisfactory to both of you.
In older editions of DnD, it was more clear that paladins had a deity, like clerics. But in older editions, paladins had to be lawful good, also. So, there have been changes. In 5e, they have changed paladins...but old habits and a class that was lore wise the same for many editions, still has much of the language, color and flavor of being religious. The mere words "divine" on so many spells and abilities, lets you know this comes from God (or the god of your choice). But maybe you are an unwilling tool of a god, serving his/her ends, even though that was never your intent? Who knows?
I like paladins having a deity and being the holy warriors of a particular faith. So my paladin has Lathander as his god. Others may not wish to have a god, but as long as they and their DMs are happy, then more power to them. There is no right way or wrong way, in matters like this. :)
Well, goes along with 5e's focus on being "easy" or "safe" mode. No real consequences for breaking anything. Just do whatever you want. I will not thank anyone for that. Thank Solus Prime for DM discretion and OSRs.
It's not really 'do what you want' so much as the morality of the paladin is more based on the oath subclass now rather than a general 'lawful good' default. It's always been up to the DM whether or not there are consequences for things like acting out of alignment, it's always been in their hands to punish the character or not etc.
Hi Zev
I think they have abandoned strict LG alignment for Paladins in 5e although they don't explain this in the write up. The Oath of Conquest actually reads to me like it is LE.
Thing with the Oaths there are three perspectives.
Your personal perspective i.e. how the character reads what the oath means. You have to be honest OK but hey Obiwan it is OK to tell a direct lie if one can surmise "it is True from a certain point of view". This is subjective from other's viewpoint but objective to your character i.e. the character sees no problem with his interpretation.
Then there is the perspective of the general populace which can vary from culture to culture. This is whether or not the people you meet are going to accept that you are following your oath because of how they see your actions. This can be very subjective.
Then there is the most important perspective which is the deity you follow or the over-arching principle if your character is not devoted to a deity. This is either way a very objective standard. Things are either right or wrong and that is that. However, you character won't know that automatically. He will get clues from priests and superiors he deals with, omens or messages from the deity, his powers stop working or he has some curse from the deity or parables or a bible of sorts that tells him what action is supposed to be right. Usually however the gods are subtle about these things but if you go into the monastery and kill everyone including the children because you were having bad nightmares about you wife dying a deity might be a little more than subtle in how to handle the matter.
I am not sure if this is still the case but it used to be the rule as I remember it from 3e and before that Paladins had to be the alignment of their deity and clerics had to be at least one away so that a LG deity could have priests that are LN, NG as well as LG. I am not conversant with 5e to tell you if this is still the case.
I would say talk to your DM.
Not sure I agree. A vengeance paladin is hyper focused on his sworn enemy. Focus implies some form of order. The typical chaotic neutral is all over the place. Hates and wants to kill you one day. Wants to be your drinking buddy the next.
Being Chaotic does not mean being stupid, it means not following order. This is why the scrupulous attitude is Chaotic Good. You want to do what is right and you are willing to do what is right no matter what even if you have to break a few laws yourselves.
Oath of Vengeance could be played lawfully as I infer you are suggesting where a person is dedicated to get his man aka Eliot Ness but that person could also follow the law in his pursuit. However, the person could easily become so obsessed with what he sees as his goal which is stopping the threat, evil overlord, group or just anyone he sees violating his precepts that he will just go out and do whatever it takes to achieve his vengeance. This type of person would very much follow his own interpretation which could change in their mind but this would be his judgment of what was done as opposed to the ideal for them. This is evident in the tale of the 47 Ronin who set out to stop the Daimyo even though it meant violating several tenets of Bushido in order to save Bushido and when they had won committed Seppuku because they too had failed Bushido in what they did and so now that the task was accomplished they too had to die.
This is very much Chaotic Neutral. These men were willing to violate their own codes and commit evil in order to avenge their Daimyo and right a wrong according to how they interpreted the code of Bushido but when complete understood they too violated the code and so must destroy themselves to protect their code. This does not mean they are being random, they were not, they were very focused. Chaotic from a philosophical view meant willing to break order and the rule of order. This can be done while following personal principles.