I'll answer your question with a question: WHO determines whether a Wizard or Druid can do magic? Why can't a Druid or Wizard choose to cast 9th level spells at will at 1st level? Surely some non-PC entity or intelligence (not necessarily a god) making that determination, or they would be able to choose their power level, right? There would be no limit to the power of these spellcasters unless someone determined that they could only have a certain amount of power and spells per their experience level.
well in the specific case of the wizard it is the case that the wizard does not have any 9th level spells recorded into their spellbook, and even if they did have them the 9th level spells would be too complicated for them to even begin to understand
But what makes that complexity? Who decided that Wizard magic works like mathematics or science in the D&D worlds? What forces or beings chose that intelligence can be used to draw and create spells from the Weave of Magic? If D&D worlds have rules regarding the ways you can draw magic from studying arcane texts and being one with nature, why can't you just draw magical power from your devotion to your oath? I see no difference between how a druid draws magic and how a paladin does. It doesn't make sense how they get it, because its a different magical world that is make-believe. In real life, devoting your life to nature or a strict moral code will not give you magical powers, but for whatever reason, in D&D worlds it will.
first of all, nobody is saying that the path of the paladin does not require an fair amount of training, those armor and weapon proficiencies and your fighting style did not come from devotion or piety but actiual martial training, who is to say that channeling the divine energies you posses do not require similar amounts of training
If your character is channeling "divine energy" then you are saying that your character gets energy from a divine source, i.e. a god or a group of them. You are contradicting yourself.
I'll answer your question with a question: WHO determines whether a Wizard or Druid can do magic? Why can't a Druid or Wizard choose to cast 9th level spells at will at 1st level? Surely some non-PC entity or intelligence (not necessarily a god) making that determination, or they would be able to choose their power level, right? There would be no limit to the power of these spellcasters unless someone determined that they could only have a certain amount of power and spells per their experience level.
well in the specific case of the wizard it is the case that the wizard does not have any 9th level spells recorded into their spellbook, and even if they did have them the 9th level spells would be too complicated for them to even begin to understand
for that "oathbreakers make no sense" thing, when the devotion paladin starts lying their ass of for personal gain and when the ancients paladin starts destroying art and nature for no reason it becomes clear that they themselves no longer truly believe in what their oaths stand for, and for lesser transgressions if they cannot keep the promises that they made to themselves and they have no regret for doing so nor make ay attempts to better their behavior then they arent really that devoted to those ideals, thus they slowly over time loose connection with the divine source of power they used previously and instead become oathbreaker
You are still not answering the essential question: WHO determines that an Oath has been so violated that now the Paladin is now an Oathbreaker? Any judgement requires some form of intelligence, correct? Intelligence generally means consciousness. WHO or WHAT is wielding this consciousness to remove power from the once-devoted Paladin?
"divine" does not nessesarily mean the power is directly given by a god, see the druid, ranger (and clerics who do not worship a god, a thing that exists in 5e and also prior editions), and as for how an non-god paladin would become an oathbreaker, it is not an decision or an sudden transformation, more a gradual thing, as you are willingly breaking your oath or trying to find small loopholes in the exact wording of it, you are clearly showing how little you really care about the oath, and since these powers are being fueled by your devotion to your oath not being as devoted to the oath is what turns you into an oathbreaker, actually breaking the oath is more a symptom than the actual cause. Being forced to break your oath becuase you were in an situation where the oath contradicted itself or becuase you were forced to under a dominate person spell never turns you into an oathbreaker, rather it is your willingness to break the oath that does the deed, gradually loosing faith in the oath and what it stands for will eventiually make you an oathbreaker.
Ether that or there are highly powerful solars and gods who can turn paladins into oathbreakers even if they themselves did not give them their power, or such matters are determined in mechanus by inevetables who scribe down every paladin oath and determine if one has been broken,
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
This kind of discussion could've been totally avoided if the PHB said that the Paladin's source of power is setting specific. And then list some examples.
People here keep mentioning rangers and druids as examples for non-deific magic source but AFAIK in Forgotten Realms even they get their powers from deities. There is no such concept as "I get my spells from nature" - there are various nature deities like Silvanus, Mielikki, Eldath, Elhonna and Chauntea and even if druids/rangers did not specifically pray to one of those, by advancing their goals, the spells get funneled by proxy anyway.
The main problem here is that PHB states stuff like "you don't have to worship a deity" as an undisputable fact regardless of the setting you play in and then players try to impose the same ruleset into specific world.
Although in actuality, druids received their power directly from their patron deities, they often thought of this power as coming through nature. Only deities with a direct tie to nature could provide spell power to druids.
The source is Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting to 3rd ed. and Faiths and Pantheons.
This kind of discussion could've been totally avoided if the PHB said that the Paladin's source of power is setting specific. And then list some examples.
People here keep mentioning rangers and druids as examples for non-deific magic source but AFAIK in Forgotten Realms even they get their powers from deities. There is no such concept as "I get my spells from nature" - there are various nature deities like Silvanus, Mielikki, Eldath, Elhonna and Chauntea and even if druids/rangers did not specifically pray to one of those, by advancing their goals, the spells get funneled by proxy anyway.
The main problem here is that PHB states stuff like "you don't have to worship a deity" as an undisputable fact regardless of the setting you play in and then players try to impose the same ruleset into specific world.
Although in actuality, druids received their power directly from their patron deities, they often thought of this power as coming through nature. Only deities with a direct tie to nature could provide spell power to druids.
The source is Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting to 3rd ed. and Faiths and Pantheons.
I agree, there should have been a line about the source of power that is basically "based on the campaign setting as determined by the DM."
This kind of discussion could've been totally avoided if the PHB said that the Paladin's source of power is setting specific. And then list some examples.
People here keep mentioning rangers and druids as examples for non-deific magic source but AFAIK in Forgotten Realms even they get their powers from deities. There is no such concept as "I get my spells from nature" - there are various nature deities like Silvanus, Mielikki, Eldath, Elhonna and Chauntea and even if druids/rangers did not specifically pray to one of those, by advancing their goals, the spells get funneled by proxy anyway.
The main problem here is that PHB states stuff like "you don't have to worship a deity" as an undisputable fact regardless of the setting you play in and then players try to impose the same ruleset into specific world.
Although in actuality, druids received their power directly from their patron deities, they often thought of this power as coming through nature. Only deities with a direct tie to nature could provide spell power to druids.
The source is Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting to 3rd ed. and Faiths and Pantheons.
I also agree. It should have been more setting specific, as a non-theistic paladin makes more sense in some settings than it does in others. Same with clerics.
There is also the interpretation that the gods are not a source of the "divine" energy but are merely tapping into it on a larger scale than mortal practitioners. The fact that some non-divine characters have undergone apotheosis lends some weight to this idea.
So while gods may be able to channel this energy into their followers, imbuing it with their essence in the process, they are ultimately not the source of the raw form of the energy.
The dictionary definition of "divine" is that it is something originating from or related to a deity, a god. So now you're going to argue that dictionary definitions should be redefined, is that it?
The dictionary definition of "divine" is that it is something originating from or related to a deity, a god. So now you're going to argue that dictionary definitions should be redefined, is that it?
And the dictionary definition of arcane is an unknowable piece of knowledge, or a secret. I'm saying that the dictionary definition doesn't always (or even normally) match up with the D&D definition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The dictionary definition of "divine" is that it is something originating from or related to a deity, a god. So now you're going to argue that dictionary definitions should be redefined, is that it?
If divine power refers to "the power used by gods" it still relates to deities.
The dictionary definition of "divine" is that it is something originating from or related to a deity, a god. So now you're going to argue that dictionary definitions should be redefined, is that it?
If divine power refers to "the power used by gods" it still relates to deities.
Sorry, what? Of course "divine power" is related to deities. That is why I linked an official definition of the word "divine." What exactly is your position/argument here?
The dictionary definition of "divine" is that it is something originating from or related to a deity, a god. So now you're going to argue that dictionary definitions should be redefined, is that it?
If divine power refers to "the power used by gods" it still relates to deities.
Sorry, what? Of course "divine power" is related to deities. That is why I linked an official definition of the word "divine." What exactly is your position/argument here?
Probably, by following the quote train (though I could be wrong here) that the power doesn't need to originate from a deity in order to be called divine. If a power is everywhere to be tapped from and the deity is harnessing it, distilling it and giving it back to mortals, it's still divine because it's used by gods even if it doesn't come from gods.
As for whether I agree with the sentiment - again, depends on the setting.
Here is how it works in Forgotten Realms according to its creator and published works for 2nd and 3rd edition:
1. The gods are the source of Divine energy. They grant spells to all divine spellcasters. The concepts of "Nature" as a source goes only as far as calling the deities like Silvanus or Chauntea the manifestations of Nature. Whatever druids want to call it, they get their spells from gods.
Which is why during the Avatar Crysis every divine spellcaster lost the ability to cast magic unless in the presence of the avatar of their respective deity.
2. Gods have the ability to shape reality in various ways. The most common, the least draining and most efficient way is to use the Weave. Which is why when the Weave collapses or is denied in some form (like a Dead Magic Zone), it still nullifies divine magic. The Weave is the "rider" for the divine spells.
The gods can choose not to use the Weave and use their "divine spark" as the source of power in order to manipulate reality but its very draining. They can do it and will do it if necessary but as a last resort.
3. Apotheosis is only permissible by the Overgod who has absolute control over Deities. The notion that someone can kill a god and immediately steal a portfolio is a misconception. Even Karsus' spell was designed to channel the divine power from a chosen god for a limited time.
The dictionary definition of "divine" is that it is something originating from or related to a deity, a god. So now you're going to argue that dictionary definitions should be redefined, is that it?
If divine power refers to "the power used by gods" it still relates to deities.
Sorry, what? Of course "divine power" is related to deities. That is why I linked an official definition of the word "divine." What exactly is your position/argument here?
Probably, by following the quote train (though I could be wrong here) that the power doesn't need to originate from a deity in order to be called divine. If a power is everywhere to be tapped from and the deity is harnessing it, distilling it and giving it back to mortals, it's still divine because it's used by gods even if it doesn't come from gods.
As for whether I agree with the sentiment - again, depends on the setting.
Here is how it works in Forgotten Realms according to its creator and published works for 2nd and 3rd edition:
1. The gods are the source of Divine energy. They grant spells to all divine spellcasters. The concepts of "Nature" as a source goes only as far as calling the deities like Silvanus or Chauntea the manifestations of Nature. Whatever druids want to call it, they get their spells from gods.
Which is why during the Avatar Crysis every divine spellcaster lost the ability to cast magic unless in the presence of the avatar of their respective deity.
2. Gods have the ability to shape reality in various ways. The most common, the least draining and most efficient way is to use the Weave. Which is why when the Weave collapses or is denied in some form (like a Dead Magic Zone), it still nullifies divine magic. The Weave is the "rider" for the divine spells.
The gods can choose not to use the Weave and use their "divine spark" as the source of power in order to manipulate reality but its very draining. They can do it and will do it if necessary but as a last resort.
3. Apotheosis is only permissible by the Overgod who has absolute control over Deities. The notion that someone can kill a god and immediately steal a portfolio is a misconception. Even Karsus' spell was designed to channel the divine power from a chosen god for a limited time.
Other settings? Things can and are different.
this begs the question, in one of the most well-established of dnd settings, what truly sets apart an druid from an cleric of the nature domain? is the druid just an older version of the faith? is the nature cleric more devoted to how society interacts with nature? is the druid an sentinel protecting the wilds from within the wilds while the nature cleric is an crusader for the wilds and the more precise doctrines of their deity?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The dictionary definition of "divine" is that it is something originating from or related to a deity, a god. So now you're going to argue that dictionary definitions should be redefined, is that it?
If divine power refers to "the power used by gods" it still relates to deities.
Sorry, what? Of course "divine power" is related to deities. That is why I linked an official definition of the word "divine." What exactly is your position/argument here?
Probably, by following the quote train (though I could be wrong here) that the power doesn't need to originate from a deity in order to be called divine. If a power is everywhere to be tapped from and the deity is harnessing it, distilling it and giving it back to mortals, it's still divine because it's used by gods even if it doesn't come from gods.
As for whether I agree with the sentiment - again, depends on the setting.
Here is how it works in Forgotten Realms according to its creator and published works for 2nd and 3rd edition:
1. The gods are the source of Divine energy. They grant spells to all divine spellcasters. The concepts of "Nature" as a source goes only as far as calling the deities like Silvanus or Chauntea the manifestations of Nature. Whatever druids want to call it, they get their spells from gods.
Which is why during the Avatar Crysis every divine spellcaster lost the ability to cast magic unless in the presence of the avatar of their respective deity.
2. Gods have the ability to shape reality in various ways. The most common, the least draining and most efficient way is to use the Weave. Which is why when the Weave collapses or is denied in some form (like a Dead Magic Zone), it still nullifies divine magic. The Weave is the "rider" for the divine spells.
The gods can choose not to use the Weave and use their "divine spark" as the source of power in order to manipulate reality but its very draining. They can do it and will do it if necessary but as a last resort.
3. Apotheosis is only permissible by the Overgod who has absolute control over Deities. The notion that someone can kill a god and immediately steal a portfolio is a misconception. Even Karsus' spell was designed to channel the divine power from a chosen god for a limited time.
Other settings? Things can and are different.
this begs the question, in one of the most well-established of dnd settings, what truly sets apart an druid from an cleric of the nature domain? is the druid just an older version of the faith? is the nature cleric more devoted to how society interacts with nature? is the druid an sentinel protecting the wilds from within the wilds while the nature cleric is an crusader for the wilds and the more precise doctrines of their deity?
I guess a cleric would be more interested in spreading the faith and, like you said, be more interested in the society's relation to nature. Building temples and shrines, inviting new followers, spreading the word etc.
Druids would be considered more or less as "pure practitioner". Don't care how many followers Silvanus or Chauntea have, the important thing is that the natural order is protected and adhered to.
A fine example of a Nature Cleric establishment in FR could be Goldenfields - called the "Granary of the North" are a huge farmland AND an abbey to the goddess Chauntea. It's well structured, provides crops for many cities, is run by priests of the goddess of Nature. Not exactly a "druidic establishment" though druids are welcomed there obviously. Sure, the NPC's have usually "NPC classes" and are not Nature Clerics verbatim but this is how I would see the difference.
Druids don't have to worship anything to get their powers in 5e, they just have to revere nature and are basically embodiments of nature.
Clerics of Nature have to worship a nature deity or the aspect of nature to get their divine abilities. They want to spread the faith of nature, while druids are nature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
XGtE have oath of the Crown specifially for a Palading whose power stems from the commitment to the law and his country, not god.
In Eberron the existance of Gods is a murky subject with no clear answer, and clerics and paladins can derive power from beliefs in weird things like Blood of Vol faithful believing in the divininty inside themelves, Elves believing in their ancestors (who are definitrly not gods) or even Blades terrorists believing in their very mortal and corporeal leader with such fervour it lets them cast spells. My last Palladin in Eberron, ex-guardsman Warforged Granit, while technically serving Aureon, the god of Law and Knowledge didn't really worship him and instead saw him as his higherst ranking commander. So his "morning prayer" is him reading his daily report on the duties he fulfilled in the previous day - priests had told him thar prayer is the most sure way of contacting Aureon, and Granit is not about to do the job without filing regular reports for his boss.
Ultimately it is up to the DM running the group how a Paladin gets their holy power. A paladin in my group will always have to be devoted to some deity. It runs completely counter to the lore of a Paladin to not have a devotion to some deity. That being said, again it is up to the DM. This is the fun of being the DM in D&D you decide.
Ultimately it is up to the DM running the group how a Paladin gets their holy power. A paladin in my group will always have to be devoted to some deity. It runs completely counter to the lore of a Paladin to not have a devotion to some deity. That being said, again it is up to the DM. This is the fun of being the DM in D&D you decide.
While I agree with the general sentiment of or post, I don't think it is contrary to the lore that a Paladin does not have a deity. A paladin serves ideals, and if a god embodies those ideals, then the paladin will likely serve them. But in worlds were the gods are distant or corrupt, or one that conforms to the paladin's ideologies doesn't exist, then I doubt that the paladin would worship one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Ultimately it is up to the DM running the group how a Paladin gets their holy power. A paladin in my group will always have to be devoted to some deity. It runs completely counter to the lore of a Paladin to not have a devotion to some deity. That being said, again it is up to the DM. This is the fun of being the DM in D&D you decide.
While I agree with the general sentiment of or post, I don't think it is contrary to the lore that a Paladin does not have a deity. A paladin serves ideals, and if a god embodies those ideals, then the paladin will likely serve them. But in worlds were the gods are distant or corrupt, or one that conforms to the paladin's ideologies doesn't exist, then I doubt that the paladin would worship one.
That is fine. Then the paladin is not a paladin. A paladin cast spells..holy spells.. they are not Eldritch knights, they are not fighters/cavaliers/knights who don’t cast spell. You are not blessed with powers from the “nothing”. Something has to empower the paladin. At the very least in a universe you create that contains nothing but evil deities, you have to have something that opposes them(not just simple mortals).. Think of a scientific approach to our universe. Is Light and Dark both real and measurable? Same with heat and cold? You might think that indeed light/dark and heat/cold are all real and measurable things, but dark and cold are not real things. Dark is nothing but a definition to explain the absence of light. Same with cold.. it is a definition to describe the displacement of heat. I’m not saying you cannot create a totally abstract universe for a unique D&D experience, I’m just trying to show logically how/why a paladin is what it is.
The power of the gods in D&D (or at least in the Forgotten Realms) is based on faith. If no one believes in a god, it eventually dies and becomes a vestige. A paladin taps into raw faith- the thought and belief of millions of mortals and other entities. They are dealing with divine power, but not always with a divine intermediary.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
They wouldn't get their power from "nothing", they would get it from their devotion to their oath. In D&D, devotion is magical and can grant/create power. Why shouldn't a paladin be able to give themselves power through a strict moral code?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
"divine" does not nessesarily mean the power is directly given by a god, see the druid, ranger (and clerics who do not worship a god, a thing that exists in 5e and also prior editions), and as for how an non-god paladin would become an oathbreaker, it is not an decision or an sudden transformation, more a gradual thing, as you are willingly breaking your oath or trying to find small loopholes in the exact wording of it, you are clearly showing how little you really care about the oath, and since these powers are being fueled by your devotion to your oath not being as devoted to the oath is what turns you into an oathbreaker, actually breaking the oath is more a symptom than the actual cause. Being forced to break your oath becuase you were in an situation where the oath contradicted itself or becuase you were forced to under a dominate person spell never turns you into an oathbreaker, rather it is your willingness to break the oath that does the deed, gradually loosing faith in the oath and what it stands for will eventiually make you an oathbreaker.
Ether that or there are highly powerful solars and gods who can turn paladins into oathbreakers even if they themselves did not give them their power, or such matters are determined in mechanus by inevetables who scribe down every paladin oath and determine if one has been broken,
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
This kind of discussion could've been totally avoided if the PHB said that the Paladin's source of power is setting specific. And then list some examples.
People here keep mentioning rangers and druids as examples for non-deific magic source but AFAIK in Forgotten Realms even they get their powers from deities. There is no such concept as "I get my spells from nature" - there are various nature deities like Silvanus, Mielikki, Eldath, Elhonna and Chauntea and even if druids/rangers did not specifically pray to one of those, by advancing their goals, the spells get funneled by proxy anyway.
The main problem here is that PHB states stuff like "you don't have to worship a deity" as an undisputable fact regardless of the setting you play in and then players try to impose the same ruleset into specific world.
The source is Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting to 3rd ed. and Faiths and Pantheons.
I agree, there should have been a line about the source of power that is basically "based on the campaign setting as determined by the DM."
I also agree. It should have been more setting specific, as a non-theistic paladin makes more sense in some settings than it does in others. Same with clerics.
There is also the interpretation that the gods are not a source of the "divine" energy but are merely tapping into it on a larger scale than mortal practitioners. The fact that some non-divine characters have undergone apotheosis lends some weight to this idea.
So while gods may be able to channel this energy into their followers, imbuing it with their essence in the process, they are ultimately not the source of the raw form of the energy.
Abide.
The dictionary definition of "divine" is that it is something originating from or related to a deity, a god. So now you're going to argue that dictionary definitions should be redefined, is that it?
And the dictionary definition of arcane is an unknowable piece of knowledge, or a secret. I'm saying that the dictionary definition doesn't always (or even normally) match up with the D&D definition.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
If divine power refers to "the power used by gods" it still relates to deities.
And a druid is a Celtic priest.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Sorry, what? Of course "divine power" is related to deities. That is why I linked an official definition of the word "divine." What exactly is your position/argument here?
Probably, by following the quote train (though I could be wrong here) that the power doesn't need to originate from a deity in order to be called divine. If a power is everywhere to be tapped from and the deity is harnessing it, distilling it and giving it back to mortals, it's still divine because it's used by gods even if it doesn't come from gods.
As for whether I agree with the sentiment - again, depends on the setting.
Here is how it works in Forgotten Realms according to its creator and published works for 2nd and 3rd edition:
1. The gods are the source of Divine energy. They grant spells to all divine spellcasters. The concepts of "Nature" as a source goes only as far as calling the deities like Silvanus or Chauntea the manifestations of Nature. Whatever druids want to call it, they get their spells from gods.
Which is why during the Avatar Crysis every divine spellcaster lost the ability to cast magic unless in the presence of the avatar of their respective deity.
2. Gods have the ability to shape reality in various ways. The most common, the least draining and most efficient way is to use the Weave. Which is why when the Weave collapses or is denied in some form (like a Dead Magic Zone), it still nullifies divine magic. The Weave is the "rider" for the divine spells.
The gods can choose not to use the Weave and use their "divine spark" as the source of power in order to manipulate reality but its very draining. They can do it and will do it if necessary but as a last resort.
3. Apotheosis is only permissible by the Overgod who has absolute control over Deities. The notion that someone can kill a god and immediately steal a portfolio is a misconception. Even Karsus' spell was designed to channel the divine power from a chosen god for a limited time.
Other settings? Things can and are different.
this begs the question, in one of the most well-established of dnd settings, what truly sets apart an druid from an cleric of the nature domain? is the druid just an older version of the faith? is the nature cleric more devoted to how society interacts with nature? is the druid an sentinel protecting the wilds from within the wilds while the nature cleric is an crusader for the wilds and the more precise doctrines of their deity?
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I guess a cleric would be more interested in spreading the faith and, like you said, be more interested in the society's relation to nature. Building temples and shrines, inviting new followers, spreading the word etc.
Druids would be considered more or less as "pure practitioner". Don't care how many followers Silvanus or Chauntea have, the important thing is that the natural order is protected and adhered to.
A fine example of a Nature Cleric establishment in FR could be Goldenfields - called the "Granary of the North" are a huge farmland AND an abbey to the goddess Chauntea. It's well structured, provides crops for many cities, is run by priests of the goddess of Nature. Not exactly a "druidic establishment" though druids are welcomed there obviously. Sure, the NPC's have usually "NPC classes" and are not Nature Clerics verbatim but this is how I would see the difference.
Druids don't have to worship anything to get their powers in 5e, they just have to revere nature and are basically embodiments of nature.
Clerics of Nature have to worship a nature deity or the aspect of nature to get their divine abilities. They want to spread the faith of nature, while druids are nature.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
XGtE have oath of the Crown specifially for a Palading whose power stems from the commitment to the law and his country, not god.
In Eberron the existance of Gods is a murky subject with no clear answer, and clerics and paladins can derive power from beliefs in weird things like Blood of Vol faithful believing in the divininty inside themelves, Elves believing in their ancestors (who are definitrly not gods) or even Blades terrorists believing in their very mortal and corporeal leader with such fervour it lets them cast spells. My last Palladin in Eberron, ex-guardsman Warforged Granit, while technically serving Aureon, the god of Law and Knowledge didn't really worship him and instead saw him as his higherst ranking commander. So his "morning prayer" is him reading his daily report on the duties he fulfilled in the previous day - priests had told him thar prayer is the most sure way of contacting Aureon, and Granit is not about to do the job without filing regular reports for his boss.
Ultimately it is up to the DM running the group how a Paladin gets their holy power. A paladin in my group will always have to be devoted to some deity. It runs completely counter to the lore of a Paladin to not have a devotion to some deity. That being said, again it is up to the DM. This is the fun of being the DM in D&D you decide.
While I agree with the general sentiment of or post, I don't think it is contrary to the lore that a Paladin does not have a deity. A paladin serves ideals, and if a god embodies those ideals, then the paladin will likely serve them. But in worlds were the gods are distant or corrupt, or one that conforms to the paladin's ideologies doesn't exist, then I doubt that the paladin would worship one.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
That is fine. Then the paladin is not a paladin. A paladin cast spells..holy spells.. they are not Eldritch knights, they are not fighters/cavaliers/knights who don’t cast spell. You are not blessed with powers from the “nothing”. Something has to empower the paladin. At the very least in a universe you create that contains nothing but evil deities, you have to have something that opposes them(not just simple mortals).. Think of a scientific approach to our universe. Is Light and Dark both real and measurable? Same with heat and cold? You might think that indeed light/dark and heat/cold are all real and measurable things, but dark and cold are not real things. Dark is nothing but a definition to explain the absence of light. Same with cold.. it is a definition to describe the displacement of heat. I’m not saying you cannot create a totally abstract universe for a unique D&D experience, I’m just trying to show logically how/why a paladin is what it is.
The power of the gods in D&D (or at least in the Forgotten Realms) is based on faith. If no one believes in a god, it eventually dies and becomes a vestige. A paladin taps into raw faith- the thought and belief of millions of mortals and other entities. They are dealing with divine power, but not always with a divine intermediary.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
They wouldn't get their power from "nothing", they would get it from their devotion to their oath. In D&D, devotion is magical and can grant/create power. Why shouldn't a paladin be able to give themselves power through a strict moral code?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms