BTW. how do you reconcile getting spells from your oath when you take the oath at 3rd level but Divine sense at 1st and Divine Smite and spells at 2nd? :D
BTW. how do you reconcile getting spells from your oath when you take the oath at 3rd level but Divine sense at 1st and Divine Smite and spells at 2nd? :D
What is there to reconcile? The name of one class feature does not have to imply anything about a different feature. Barbarians getting danger sense at level 2 does not mean their primal path at level 3 is dangerous. Bards get song of rest at level 2, but that doesn’t mean their college involves singing. Paladins get divine smite at level 2, that doesn’t mean their oath involves divinity.
What is there to reconcile? The name of one class feature does not have to imply anything about a different feature. Barbarians getting danger sense at level 2 does not mean their primal path at level 3 is dangerous. Bards get song of rest at level 2, but that doesn’t mean their college involves singing. Paladins get divine smite at level 2, that doesn’t mean their oath involves divinity.
I get what you are saying but it doesn't really explain the spells, does it?
I agree with IamSposta, it is a design problem where they probably wanted to adhere to some historical context of previous edition Paladin's and then they thought "hey, let's not make it so that they have to choose if they don't want to".
Anyway, for me it depends on the setting. You play in FR, you pick a deity, you play anywhere else, by all means, get your spells from your sense of righteousness.
BTW. how do you reconcile getting spells from your oath when you take the oath at 3rd level but Divine sense at 1st and Divine Smite and spells at 2nd? :D
Does divine power have to directly come from worshipping a god? Divine Soul Sorcerers and Aasimar exist, but they don't have to worship a god. Your magic may come from divine parts of the multiverse, but you don't have to worship a deity to receive it, just uphold your oath.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
BTW. how do you reconcile getting spells from your oath when you take the oath at 3rd level but Divine sense at 1st and Divine Smite and spells at 2nd? :D
Does divine power have to directly come from worshipping a god? Divine Soul Sorcerers and Aasimar exist, but they don't have to worship a god. Your magic may come from divine parts of the multiverse, but you don't have to worship a deity to receive it, just uphold your oath.
well both of those are examples of angelic bloodlines interlacing with mortals, or from an god blessing an particular mortal with arcane power and thus they are not good examples. On the other hand rangers get their divine spells from nature without having any connection whatsoever to any deity, and most druids might respect nature gods, but few will actually serve them as it is nature itself to whom they owe their power
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
BTW. how do you reconcile getting spells from your oath when you take the oath at 3rd level but Divine sense at 1st and Divine Smite and spells at 2nd? :D
Does divine power have to directly come from worshipping a god? Divine Soul Sorcerers and Aasimar exist, but they don't have to worship a god. Your magic may come from divine parts of the multiverse, but you don't have to worship a deity to receive it, just uphold your oath.
well both of those are examples of angelic bloodlines interlacing with mortals, or from an god blessing an particular mortal with arcane power and thus they are not good examples. On the other hand rangers get their divine spells from nature without having any connection whatsoever to any deity, and most druids might respect nature gods, but few will actually serve them as it is nature itself to whom they owe their power
From what I remember druids and rangers in FR specifically don't get their powers from nature itself but by adhering the nature order they get their powers by proxy from deities and powers connected to nature.
A Druid or a Ranger on Toril might not directly pray to Silvanus or Chauntea but they will give them divine spells regardless because by acting as nature's champions they are indirectly furthering their goals anyway.
It's all Forgotten Realms though, like I said before. When I DM in that setting I don't need a druid to worship a specific deity but their spells will come from that deity anyway, behind the scenes under the guise of "mother nature". Those spells will also utilize the Weave (like arcane spellcasters) because that's how divine magic works on Toril.
In other setting and homebrew, like I said, a Paladin can get their spells from their conviction and oath, be my guest, druids and rangers can get it from "nature's order" etc.
I mean - it is the mark of a setting that you take something extremely broad (5e rules in vacuum) and interpret them in a specific way.
it reminds me of vampire the masquerade. in their lore there is a story about a man who repelled a vampire with his wallet. having mistaken the vampire for a mugger his faith in the power of money (by giving the mugger what he wanted) was so strong it acted like a cross essentially. and i think that's where 5e is at the moment; even if the divine is backing it it faith that creates the connection. hence why devils and demons might instill doubt in a paladin to break their faith as they know that's all you really need.
I can see a Humanist Paladin being easy to do in most settings without having to change anything of import. Maybe, like in most Mythologies, the gods are worshipped because they are powerful and not because they deserve to be. In many tales deities are pretty shitty and having a person wanting to heal and tend to the spiritual needs of humanity without soiling himself by dealing with such beings could be cool character to play.
There are also several real world religions that are completely non-theistic but have priests and what not.
Oddly enough, out of all the topics, on the paladin forum, that people make comments about, this one, seems to elicit some of the stronger reactions. I tend to be a traditionalist and think that paladins SHOULD have a deity, but I also realize that this isn't the case in 5e. I don't DM, but even if I did, I would never tell somebody that they had to have a deity, to be a paladin.
I think we have, mostly, focused on the religious aspects of the paladin i.e. deity or no deity. On the "devout" part, we haven't actually focused as much. But I think that is where the paladin is really made or broken. You have to be "devout," in your belief, oath and cause, whether it has a deity or not. An Oath of Ancients paladin, who has a cause and commitment to protecting nature and the natural world, should be devoted, in the sense of completely committed his belief. His/her powers come from their commitment to defending nature.
So, no deity is ok (begrudgingly, in my case ;) ), but you have to be "devout" to whatever your cause or oath is. imo.
Oddly enough, out of all the topics, on the paladin forum, that people make comments about, this one, seems to elicit some of the stronger reactions. I tend to be a traditionalist and think that paladins SHOULD have a deity, but I also realize that this isn't the case in 5e. I don't DM, but even if I did, I would never tell somebody that they had to have a deity, to be a paladin.
I think we have, mostly, focused on the religious aspects of the paladin i.e. deity or no deity. On the "devout" part, we haven't actually focused as much. But I think that is where the paladin is really made or broken. You have to be "devout," in your belief, oath and cause, whether it has a deity or not. An Oath of Ancients paladin, who has a cause and commitment to protecting nature and the natural world, should be devoted, in the sense of completely committed his belief. His/her powers come from their commitment to defending nature.
So, no deity is ok (begrudgingly, in my case ;) ), but you have to be "devout" to whatever your cause or oath is. imo.
with devout i sort of just meant "this paladin does not believe in this deity, just pays them lip service" or whatnot, of course an paladin has to be devout in what they Believe in
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
Oddly enough, out of all the topics, on the paladin forum, that people make comments about, this one, seems to elicit some of the stronger reactions. I tend to be a traditionalist and think that paladins SHOULD have a deity, but I also realize that this isn't the case in 5e. I don't DM, but even if I did, I would never tell somebody that they had to have a deity, to be a paladin.
I think we have, mostly, focused on the religious aspects of the paladin i.e. deity or no deity. On the "devout" part, we haven't actually focused as much. But I think that is where the paladin is really made or broken. You have to be "devout," in your belief, oath and cause, whether it has a deity or not. An Oath of Ancients paladin, who has a cause and commitment to protecting nature and the natural world, should be devoted, in the sense of completely committed his belief. His/her powers come from their commitment to defending nature.
So, no deity is ok (begrudgingly, in my case ;) ), but you have to be "devout" to whatever your cause or oath is. imo.
with devout i sort of just meant "this paladin does not believe in this deity, just pays them lip service" or whatnot, of course an paladin has to be devout in what they Believe in
My point was a RP one. They can believe what they want, but there has to be SOMETHING that they are consistently devoted to. If they are an Oath of Ancients paladin, committed to nature, but want to strip mine the mountain...there is an issue. :)
And the DM should have penalties, if they don't adhere to their oath/cause.
Something has been lost in translation now that everyone wants to roll extra d8s for damage. I mean, I'm no paladin in real life so who am I to say what's what, but something feels off about the story of the paladin when you just make it about how the character just really feels convicted enough to be a paladin. I enjoy the concept of not only cultivating strength but also being bestowed with power by supernatural forces for being in alignment as a servant knight. The story turns from the holy knight into the personal knight, the self-argument knight, the "it's how I feel" knight... Ha but you know I guess that's how most people are today anyways.
Well chivalry came from myth, now it just turns back into myth as well. Nothing lost for most people I suppose.
Something has been lost in translation now that everyone wants to roll extra d8s for damage. I mean, I'm no paladin in real life so who am I to say what's what, but something feels off about the story of the paladin when you just make it about how the character just really feels convicted enough to be a paladin. I enjoy the concept of not only cultivating strength but also being bestowed with power by supernatural forces for being in alignment as a servant knight. The story turns from the holy knight into the personal knight, the self-argument knight, the "it's how I feel" knight... Ha but you know I guess that's how most people are today anyways.
Well chivalry came from myth, now it just turns back into myth as well. Nothing lost for most people I suppose.
I would argue that all faith is nothing more than "it's how I feel", even in a pantheistic universe.
The real problem comes in, though, from a world-building perspective: a level 1 Paladin has access to Lay on Hands, which is effectively either a low level heal or Lesser Restoration, which eliminates ANY disease. If all you really need is devotion, but not worship of a deity and no connection to any deity, why shouldn't a bunch of people become low level Paladins just for the free healing and disease curing? Conventional plagues shouldn't be able to get a foothold anywhere where people are "strong of heart" or whatever. This would pretty much ruin any attempts to keep the gods out usual happenings in the game world since Every disease outbreak would need to be by divine fiat to kill any large number of people. In which case, wouldn't they also be meddling in the lives of the PCs, including that of the deity-less Paladin?
If I'm not mistaken, the Oath of the crown allows you to choose a sovereign to swear yourself to instead of a deity. Personally I like the idea of a paladin with a god, but a paladin with an oath so powerful they gain supernatural power is also very flavourful. It is important to note that in the context of D&D where the gods actually exist and have a physical presence and effect on the world, an atheist paladin, or really just an atheist character doesn't really make sense. I mean sure you can have someone who is a madman adamant on the fact that gods don't exist, "Cleric, your powers do not come from a god, you are merely weaving arcane magic and using it to prove the existence of your imaginary friend!" But keep in mind that there is a marked difference between worshipping a deity, and acknowledging they exist. You don't see many people in D&D praying to the whole pantheon, that doesn't mean they don't acknowledge the existence of all the other gods. I think a non-devout paladin is fine, entirely possible, and there's flavour to be had. An atheist paladin is hard to justify, but if your setting and DM allow it then go wild.
If I'm not mistaken, the Oath of the crown allows you to choose a sovereign to swear yourself to instead of a deity. Personally I like the idea of a paladin with a god, but a paladin with an oath so powerful they gain supernatural power is also very flavourful. It is important to note that in the context of D&D where the gods actually exist and have a physical presence and effect on the world, an atheist paladin, or really just an atheist character doesn't really make sense. I mean sure you can have someone who is a madman adamant on the fact that gods don't exist, "Cleric, your powers do not come from a god, you are merely weaving arcane magic and using it to prove the existence of your imaginary friend!" But keep in mind that there is a marked difference between worshipping a deity, and acknowledging they exist. You don't see many people in D&D praying to the whole pantheon, that doesn't mean they don't acknowledge the existence of all the other gods. I think a non-devout paladin is fine, entirely possible, and there's flavour to be had. An atheist paladin is hard to justify, but if your setting and DM allow it then go wild.
It's about where I am. I think a paladin should have a god, but also am not bent if in somebody else's campaign, they don't. If you are the DM, set up the world you want and find players for it.
The real problem comes in, though, from a world-building perspective: a level 1 Paladin has access to Lay on Hands, which is effectively either a low level heal or Lesser Restoration, which eliminates ANY disease. If all you really need is devotion, but not worship of a deity and no connection to any deity, why shouldn't a bunch of people become low level Paladins just for the free healing and disease curing? Conventional plagues shouldn't be able to get a foothold anywhere where people are "strong of heart" or whatever. This would pretty much ruin any attempts to keep the gods out usual happenings in the game world since Every disease outbreak would need to be by divine fiat to kill any large number of people. In which case, wouldn't they also be meddling in the lives of the PCs, including that of the deity-less Paladin?
Because people with character classes are rare and exceptional. Many people try, few succeed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The real problem comes in, though, from a world-building perspective: a level 1 Paladin has access to Lay on Hands, which is effectively either a low level heal or Lesser Restoration, which eliminates ANY disease. If all you really need is devotion, but not worship of a deity and no connection to any deity, why shouldn't a bunch of people become low level Paladins just for the free healing and disease curing? Conventional plagues shouldn't be able to get a foothold anywhere where people are "strong of heart" or whatever. This would pretty much ruin any attempts to keep the gods out usual happenings in the game world since Every disease outbreak would need to be by divine fiat to kill any large number of people. In which case, wouldn't they also be meddling in the lives of the PCs, including that of the deity-less Paladin?
Because people with character classes are rare and exceptional. Many people try, few succeed.
If there's nothing to hang a hat on, why doesn't it just fall on the floor? If everybody could dunk like Michael Jordan just because of a promise made and a promise kept, there should be thousands of Michael Jordan-ability players already. IOW, there is no in-world gatekeeper for dat Paladin mojo at all. Wizards have to study for years. Warlocks have to make a contract with a demi-god. Sorcerers are "just born with it". Clerics depend on the special favor of their deities. Druids and Rangers need to collaborate with the life force of the Earth or something similar to have their powers and probably have some rituals that are implied in the PHB but for some reason aren't mentioned for Rangers (that's a little weird).
Yeah, the "because PCs are just special" argument only goes so far with me. When I see a player with an Oath of the Ancients Paladin acting like a murderhobo towards any beast just b/c "More XP" and still retaining all their Pally powers, it feels like there is a major narrative-player-mechanic disconnect. And on top of that, the DM has a hard time justifying reigning in the Paladin's non-devout set of behaviors because there are no deities to fall back on as the source of that power.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
BTW. how do you reconcile getting spells from your oath when you take the oath at 3rd level but Divine sense at 1st and Divine Smite and spells at 2nd? :D
Poor design by WotC.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
What is there to reconcile?
The name of one class feature does not have to imply anything about a different feature.
Barbarians getting danger sense at level 2 does not mean their primal path at level 3 is dangerous.
Bards get song of rest at level 2, but that doesn’t mean their college involves singing.
Paladins get divine smite at level 2, that doesn’t mean their oath involves divinity.
I get what you are saying but it doesn't really explain the spells, does it?
I agree with IamSposta, it is a design problem where they probably wanted to adhere to some historical context of previous edition Paladin's and then they thought "hey, let's not make it so that they have to choose if they don't want to".
Anyway, for me it depends on the setting. You play in FR, you pick a deity, you play anywhere else, by all means, get your spells from your sense of righteousness.
Supposedly if you philosophy hard enough and stay dedicated to it that counts sometimes
Does divine power have to directly come from worshipping a god? Divine Soul Sorcerers and Aasimar exist, but they don't have to worship a god. Your magic may come from divine parts of the multiverse, but you don't have to worship a deity to receive it, just uphold your oath.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
well both of those are examples of angelic bloodlines interlacing with mortals, or from an god blessing an particular mortal with arcane power and thus they are not good examples. On the other hand rangers get their divine spells from nature without having any connection whatsoever to any deity, and most druids might respect nature gods, but few will actually serve them as it is nature itself to whom they owe their power
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
From what I remember druids and rangers in FR specifically don't get their powers from nature itself but by adhering the nature order they get their powers by proxy from deities and powers connected to nature.
A Druid or a Ranger on Toril might not directly pray to Silvanus or Chauntea but they will give them divine spells regardless because by acting as nature's champions they are indirectly furthering their goals anyway.
It's all Forgotten Realms though, like I said before. When I DM in that setting I don't need a druid to worship a specific deity but their spells will come from that deity anyway, behind the scenes under the guise of "mother nature". Those spells will also utilize the Weave (like arcane spellcasters) because that's how divine magic works on Toril.
In other setting and homebrew, like I said, a Paladin can get their spells from their conviction and oath, be my guest, druids and rangers can get it from "nature's order" etc.
I mean - it is the mark of a setting that you take something extremely broad (5e rules in vacuum) and interpret them in a specific way.
it reminds me of vampire the masquerade. in their lore there is a story about a man who repelled a vampire with his wallet. having mistaken the vampire for a mugger his faith in the power of money (by giving the mugger what he wanted) was so strong it acted like a cross essentially. and i think that's where 5e is at the moment; even if the divine is backing it it faith that creates the connection. hence why devils and demons might instill doubt in a paladin to break their faith as they know that's all you really need.
I can see a Humanist Paladin being easy to do in most settings without having to change anything of import. Maybe, like in most Mythologies, the gods are worshipped because they are powerful and not because they deserve to be. In many tales deities are pretty shitty and having a person wanting to heal and tend to the spiritual needs of humanity without soiling himself by dealing with such beings could be cool character to play.
There are also several real world religions that are completely non-theistic but have priests and what not.
Abide.
Oddly enough, out of all the topics, on the paladin forum, that people make comments about, this one, seems to elicit some of the stronger reactions. I tend to be a traditionalist and think that paladins SHOULD have a deity, but I also realize that this isn't the case in 5e. I don't DM, but even if I did, I would never tell somebody that they had to have a deity, to be a paladin.
I think we have, mostly, focused on the religious aspects of the paladin i.e. deity or no deity. On the "devout" part, we haven't actually focused as much. But I think that is where the paladin is really made or broken. You have to be "devout," in your belief, oath and cause, whether it has a deity or not. An Oath of Ancients paladin, who has a cause and commitment to protecting nature and the natural world, should be devoted, in the sense of completely committed his belief. His/her powers come from their commitment to defending nature.
So, no deity is ok (begrudgingly, in my case ;) ), but you have to be "devout" to whatever your cause or oath is. imo.
with devout i sort of just meant "this paladin does not believe in this deity, just pays them lip service" or whatnot, of course an paladin has to be devout in what they Believe in
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
My point was a RP one. They can believe what they want, but there has to be SOMETHING that they are consistently devoted to. If they are an Oath of Ancients paladin, committed to nature, but want to strip mine the mountain...there is an issue. :)
And the DM should have penalties, if they don't adhere to their oath/cause.
Something has been lost in translation now that everyone wants to roll extra d8s for damage. I mean, I'm no paladin in real life so who am I to say what's what, but something feels off about the story of the paladin when you just make it about how the character just really feels convicted enough to be a paladin. I enjoy the concept of not only cultivating strength but also being bestowed with power by supernatural forces for being in alignment as a servant knight. The story turns from the holy knight into the personal knight, the self-argument knight, the "it's how I feel" knight... Ha but you know I guess that's how most people are today anyways.
Well chivalry came from myth, now it just turns back into myth as well. Nothing lost for most people I suppose.
I would argue that all faith is nothing more than "it's how I feel", even in a pantheistic universe.
Abide.
The real problem comes in, though, from a world-building perspective: a level 1 Paladin has access to Lay on Hands, which is effectively either a low level heal or Lesser Restoration, which eliminates ANY disease. If all you really need is devotion, but not worship of a deity and no connection to any deity, why shouldn't a bunch of people become low level Paladins just for the free healing and disease curing? Conventional plagues shouldn't be able to get a foothold anywhere where people are "strong of heart" or whatever. This would pretty much ruin any attempts to keep the gods out usual happenings in the game world since Every disease outbreak would need to be by divine fiat to kill any large number of people. In which case, wouldn't they also be meddling in the lives of the PCs, including that of the deity-less Paladin?
If I'm not mistaken, the Oath of the crown allows you to choose a sovereign to swear yourself to instead of a deity. Personally I like the idea of a paladin with a god, but a paladin with an oath so powerful they gain supernatural power is also very flavourful. It is important to note that in the context of D&D where the gods actually exist and have a physical presence and effect on the world, an atheist paladin, or really just an atheist character doesn't really make sense. I mean sure you can have someone who is a madman adamant on the fact that gods don't exist, "Cleric, your powers do not come from a god, you are merely weaving arcane magic and using it to prove the existence of your imaginary friend!" But keep in mind that there is a marked difference between worshipping a deity, and acknowledging they exist. You don't see many people in D&D praying to the whole pantheon, that doesn't mean they don't acknowledge the existence of all the other gods. I think a non-devout paladin is fine, entirely possible, and there's flavour to be had. An atheist paladin is hard to justify, but if your setting and DM allow it then go wild.
It's about where I am. I think a paladin should have a god, but also am not bent if in somebody else's campaign, they don't. If you are the DM, set up the world you want and find players for it.
Because people with character classes are rare and exceptional. Many people try, few succeed.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If there's nothing to hang a hat on, why doesn't it just fall on the floor? If everybody could dunk like Michael Jordan just because of a promise made and a promise kept, there should be thousands of Michael Jordan-ability players already. IOW, there is no in-world gatekeeper for dat Paladin mojo at all. Wizards have to study for years. Warlocks have to make a contract with a demi-god. Sorcerers are "just born with it". Clerics depend on the special favor of their deities. Druids and Rangers need to collaborate with the life force of the Earth or something similar to have their powers and probably have some rituals that are implied in the PHB but for some reason aren't mentioned for Rangers (that's a little weird).
Yeah, the "because PCs are just special" argument only goes so far with me. When I see a player with an Oath of the Ancients Paladin acting like a murderhobo towards any beast just b/c "More XP" and still retaining all their Pally powers, it feels like there is a major narrative-player-mechanic disconnect. And on top of that, the DM has a hard time justifying reigning in the Paladin's non-devout set of behaviors because there are no deities to fall back on as the source of that power.