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.
You don't need a deity to decide, if the paladin isn't following their oath, they lack the devotion necessary to create their power.
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.
I think you've got it right there, and its a good analogy for why paladins don't need a god. MJ didn't cut a deal with a god (that we know of), he put in the work. He literally devoted his life to the game, practicing and practicing to an extent that few people would be willing to do. Like a paladin making and keeping a vow to an extent that few people would be willing to do. There was nothing supernatural or superhuman about MJ's ability beyond his willingness to keep going. About the only way to get that good is to make a promise to yourself that you are going to do it, and to refuse to allow something to stop you. It really works for any person at the top of their field. Yes, there's some biology involved, and no small amount of luck. But the dedication is what separates the top people from the journeymen. And that's why a pally can cure diseases and someone else can't. Other people might say they want to do a thing, but the pally actually follows through and does it and lives it in a way that few are willing to.
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.
You don't need a deity to decide, if the paladin isn't following their oath, they lack the devotion necessary to create their power.
I agree, in that case, it's the oath and their lack of devotion to the cause, that is the problem, not the lack of a deity.
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.
I think you've got it right there, and its a good analogy for why paladins don't need a god. MJ didn't cut a deal with a god (that we know of), he put in the work. He literally devoted his life to the game, practicing and practicing to an extent that few people would be willing to do. Like a paladin making and keeping a vow to an extent that few people would be willing to do. There was nothing supernatural or superhuman about MJ's ability beyond his willingness to keep going. About the only way to get that good is to make a promise to yourself that you are going to do it, and to refuse to allow something to stop you. It really works for any person at the top of their field. Yes, there's some biology involved, and no small amount of luck. But the dedication is what separates the top people from the journeymen. And that's why a pally can cure diseases and someone else can't. Other people might say they want to do a thing, but the pally actually follows through and does it and lives it in a way that few are willing to.
The difference here, though, is the point I mentioned earlier about Lay on Hands, which is an ability accessible to ALL Paladins, from level 1. The cure ANY disease aspect of this is worth thousands of gold just by itself. You don't need to devote your entire life to The Path of Righteousness/Domination/etc. to get and retain those powers. The ease with which a PC can multi-class from Paladin to Paladin/Warlock or Paladin/Fighter and take Way more levels in the Warlock or Fighter class while also retaining their Paladin powers invites breaking of the narrative. If all of a Paladin's powers come from unwavering devotion to the Oath and Not from ANY other source, isn't making a sweet deal with a sentient weapon a sign of wavering from that devotion?
The difference between M. Jordan and other basketball players isn't just one of practice and dedication. Many pro basketball players devote just as much or more passion to the game as M. Jordan, but they don't get as far. You said it yourself - there is a genetic component at work. That sounds a lot more Sorcercer magic (powers based in part on genetics) than "I swore an oath and I will always follow this oath" and - Voila! - saint-like powers for the rest of their lives.
well a book i just recently finished lightly delt with an order of essentially paladin wizards. suposedly in order to be granted their powers you must dedicate your life to fighting evil and darkness and the posses killed 1/3rd of the people who try. but as it turns out the main character gained them without doing that by chance and atleast 1 member was proven to not have pure intentions. it became horrifyingly clear that anyone could become like them even if they were evil and that even the 1/3rd deaths may be fabricated to dissuade villains from trying. so why not similar for dnd anyone can but between secretive orders obscuring the truths and process's most and peoples own self doubts most assume its simply not possible for then to achieve.
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.
nothing in the oath itself talks about them being protectors of nature per se, more of them as protectors of everything that is beautiful. Overhunting an rare and exotic species of colourful bird would be against the oath, defiling an beautiful river or grove would be against the oath, viping out an species vital to an local ecosystem would be against it, killing a random boar would not. Shure if they are shown to have no respect for the beauty of nature whatsoever and no high regards for the value of life then it is reasonable to say they are breaking their oath quite a lot
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
I definitely wouldn't rule a paladin had to have a deity or even an oath.
Some people are trying to make something which isn't a paladin *coughswordmagecough*, and are having to just reflavor the paladin as it's the closest class mechanically because 5e sucks for certain types of character.
They wield divine power. When something goes horribly wrong, it makes sense that they would have to fix things through a manager, so to speak.
That being said, an atheist or non-devout paladin doesn't make much sense. It would be hard to be an atheist the first time you walk around a city and see a cleric or Paladin with no natural magic talent cast a spell or channel divinity. Even being non-devout as a Paladin would be a bit hard to justify, since they've spent their life training and devoting themselves to serving the goals of the divine. Maybe they could be burnt out and on the edge of losing their devotion because of something, but someone doesn't just become a Paladin the same way a Warlock just makes a pact.
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?
Not being tied to a deity won't make being paladins easier. They still have to swear an oath and uphold it. They still have to be an exceptional member of society. They still have to train in armor, shields, weapon and practice their magic. It's the same as any other NPC version of a PC class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
i guess really the bottom line is that the power comes from some where you just got to define it harder for atheists ect. like drawing on the powers of a powerful artifact ect.
I think that you can become a paladin as an atheist, but not as a faithless person. You have to believe in something so strongly that the ideals come from your religion. I actually think a atheist paladin would be more devoted to their oath than a religious one, because they are truly serving the tenets of the oath and not working through a proxy of a god.
I think that you can become a paladin as an atheist, but not as a faithless person You have to believe in something so strongly that the ideals come from your religion. I actually think a atheist paladin would be more devoted to their oath than a religious one, because they are truly serving the tenets of the oath and not working through a proxy of a god.
Why do you think this; that an atheist would have greater devotion to their oath? Since their oath is only to themselves, and an atheist doesn't believe there is something greater in the universe than themselves, why would this constitute a greater bond than a paladin that swore an oath as an agreement with their deity who they believe holds greater power and virtue than themselves?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I think that you can become a paladin as an atheist, but not as a faithless person You have to believe in something so strongly that the ideals come from your religion. I actually think a atheist paladin would be more devoted to their oath than a religious one, because they are truly serving the tenets of the oath and not working through a proxy of a god.
Why do you think this; that an atheist would have greater devotion to their oath? Since their oath is only to themselves, and an atheist doesn't believe there is something greater in the universe than themselves, why would this constitute a greater bond than a paladin that swore an oath as an agreement with their deity who they believe holds greater power and virtue than themselves?
Because an oath is all the atheist has. They don't believe in those ideals because a god told them to. They believe in the ideals because they think they are right. I'm trying to interpret your post correctly, but if I make mistakes, please tell me. You think that since a deity has "greater power and virtue" than a paladin, they are more qualified to dictate what to believe in. But in D&D, gods are fallible. They die and make mistakes. So if you only believe in something because someone else told you to, are you really believing in it? I think you should have to justify why you think something is right and wrong. And if you are atheistic and all of your conviction lies in your oath, than that is powerful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I don't think an atheist paladin's devotion would be any stronger then a religious one. Sure, gods a fallible.....but so are mortals. Whether you believe in a higher power, a sovereign nation, the oath of a paladin order or just your own personal oath, it's ultimately how strong each paladin's own devotion to whatever they place that devotion to that matters. So basically, I feel that both an atheist and a religious paladin can both be truly devout to what they believe in, it's all a matter of each individual's belief and how strongly they adhere to it.
Also consider: As alluded to much earlier in this thread, the existence of Oathbreaker Paladins is very questionable if the only force that produces a Paladin's powers is their own devotion. How and why would a lack of devotion turn a regular Paladin into what is effectively a Death Knight? (WoW reference.) There is no justification for that in the lore unless (most) Paladins get their powers from a divine source; or at the very least, from some font of weave-shaping energy tied directly to one of the non-Material Planes. So then the lore becomes inconsistent with itself.
Also consider: As alluded to much earlier in this thread, the existence of Oathbreaker Paladins is very questionable if the only force that produces a Paladin's powers is their own devotion. How and why would a lack of devotion turn a regular Paladin into what is effectively a Death Knight? (WoW reference.) There is no justification for that in the lore unless (most) Paladins get their powers from a divine source; or at the very least, from some font of weave-shaping energy tied directly to one of the non-Material Planes. So then the lore becomes inconsistent with itself.
If faith and devotion in an ideal can cause someone to gain so much power, I see no reason why perversion of those ideals can't make someone can a different brand of power.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I think that you can become a paladin as an atheist, but not as a faithless person You have to believe in something so strongly that the ideals come from your religion. I actually think a atheist paladin would be more devoted to their oath than a religious one, because they are truly serving the tenets of the oath and not working through a proxy of a god.
Why do you think this; that an atheist would have greater devotion to their oath? Since their oath is only to themselves, and an atheist doesn't believe there is something greater in the universe than themselves, why would this constitute a greater bond than a paladin that swore an oath as an agreement with their deity who they believe holds greater power and virtue than themselves?
Because an oath is all the atheist has. They don't believe in those ideals because a god told them to. They believe in the ideals because they think they are right. I'm trying to interpret your post correctly, but if I make mistakes, please tell me. You think that since a deity has "greater power and virtue" than a paladin, they are more qualified to dictate what to believe in. But in D&D, gods are fallible. They die and make mistakes. So if you only believe in something because someone else told you to, are you really believing in it? I think you should have to justify why you think something is right and wrong. And if you are atheistic and all of your conviction lies in your oath, than that is powerful.
Joel, the emphasized text gets to the heart of the matter. It seems to me this is the definition of a psychopath. If their belief in themselves provides justification for anything they choose to do, then I believe that is a psychopath. But, do not mistake my observation as a declaration that a paladin that does choose to follow a deity isn't also fallible. If they justify anything they do, and it is an evil act, then we call that Over Zealous.
A paladin that believes a god with greater wisdom and power is worthy of devotion will reflect on whether his actions are truly in keeping with the path of his deity. That seems to be a much more compelling story than "Hey, I know I'm right. I'm virtuous." No struggle. No room for reflection or character development. Heck, I'm already a god, I just wish I had more power so I wouldn't die.
And why would a paladin not think that a deity with more power and wisdom than themselves is worthy of devotion. Don't you look up to some people IRL because they are better than yourself in some facet; a better athlete, a better musician, better educated and set in their career path, ...?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Also consider: As alluded to much earlier in this thread, the existence of Oathbreaker Paladins is very questionable if the only force that produces a Paladin's powers is their own devotion. How and why would a lack of devotion turn a regular Paladin into what is effectively a Death Knight? (WoW reference.) There is no justification for that in the lore unless (most) Paladins get their powers from a divine source; or at the very least, from some font of weave-shaping energy tied directly to one of the non-Material Planes. So then the lore becomes inconsistent with itself.
If faith and devotion in an ideal can cause someone to gain so much power, I see no reason why perversion of those ideals can't make someone can a different brand of power.
But what would cause that? Who determines what is the "perversion"? If there is no being with Intelligence or values determining what is the correct way to be devout, then what would cause those powers to morph into another set of powers?
An ideal is abstraction, a concept. If all it took was belief in an abstraction to get super powers, then why can't a strong enough devotion allow some Paladins to cast the Wish spell? Or True Resurrection? By basing powers on something that is purely abstract, there is no reason for hard limits on those powers.
A paladin that believes a god with greater wisdom and power is worthy of devotion will reflect on whether his actions are truly in keeping with the path of his deity. That seems to be a much more compelling story than "Hey, I know I'm right. I'm virtuous." No struggle. No room for reflection or character development. Heck, I'm already a god, I just wish I had more power so I wouldn't die.
This part is an excellent point. A Paladin whose powers come solely from adherence to an ideal without an outside source of those powers would easily degenerate into a Judge Dread-style enforcer. This is the Egotist who does not believe that he/she is an Egotist, a force of Righteousness that has no checks or balances on their power who slips gradually into a one-note Avatar of "I am Right and my Power proves it!"
Also consider: As alluded to much earlier in this thread, the existence of Oathbreaker Paladins is very questionable if the only force that produces a Paladin's powers is their own devotion. How and why would a lack of devotion turn a regular Paladin into what is effectively a Death Knight? (WoW reference.) There is no justification for that in the lore unless (most) Paladins get their powers from a divine source; or at the very least, from some font of weave-shaping energy tied directly to one of the non-Material Planes. So then the lore becomes inconsistent with itself.
If faith and devotion in an ideal can cause someone to gain so much power, I see no reason why perversion of those ideals can't make someone can a different brand of power.
But what would cause that? Who determines what is the "perversion"? If there is no being with Intelligence or values determining what is the correct way to be devout, then what would cause those powers to morph into another set of powers?
An ideal is abstraction, a concept. If all it took was belief in an abstraction to get super powers, then why can't a strong enough devotion allow some Paladins to cast the Wish spell? Or True Resurrection? By basing powers on something that is purely abstract, there is no reason for hard limits on those powers.
an person beliving in an abstract ideal enough to be able to cast true ressurection or wish is called an cleric, clerics have since 3e been able to worship abstract ideals (there is even a lil' sidebar about it in xanatar's guide to everything)
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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You don't need a deity to decide, if the paladin isn't following their oath, they lack the devotion necessary to create their power.
I think you've got it right there, and its a good analogy for why paladins don't need a god. MJ didn't cut a deal with a god (that we know of), he put in the work. He literally devoted his life to the game, practicing and practicing to an extent that few people would be willing to do. Like a paladin making and keeping a vow to an extent that few people would be willing to do. There was nothing supernatural or superhuman about MJ's ability beyond his willingness to keep going. About the only way to get that good is to make a promise to yourself that you are going to do it, and to refuse to allow something to stop you. It really works for any person at the top of their field. Yes, there's some biology involved, and no small amount of luck. But the dedication is what separates the top people from the journeymen. And that's why a pally can cure diseases and someone else can't. Other people might say they want to do a thing, but the pally actually follows through and does it and lives it in a way that few are willing to.
I agree, in that case, it's the oath and their lack of devotion to the cause, that is the problem, not the lack of a deity.
The difference here, though, is the point I mentioned earlier about Lay on Hands, which is an ability accessible to ALL Paladins, from level 1. The cure ANY disease aspect of this is worth thousands of gold just by itself. You don't need to devote your entire life to The Path of Righteousness/Domination/etc. to get and retain those powers. The ease with which a PC can multi-class from Paladin to Paladin/Warlock or Paladin/Fighter and take Way more levels in the Warlock or Fighter class while also retaining their Paladin powers invites breaking of the narrative. If all of a Paladin's powers come from unwavering devotion to the Oath and Not from ANY other source, isn't making a sweet deal with a sentient weapon a sign of wavering from that devotion?
The difference between M. Jordan and other basketball players isn't just one of practice and dedication. Many pro basketball players devote just as much or more passion to the game as M. Jordan, but they don't get as far. You said it yourself - there is a genetic component at work. That sounds a lot more Sorcercer magic (powers based in part on genetics) than "I swore an oath and I will always follow this oath" and - Voila! - saint-like powers for the rest of their lives.
well a book i just recently finished lightly delt with an order of essentially paladin wizards. suposedly in order to be granted their powers you must dedicate your life to fighting evil and darkness and the posses killed 1/3rd of the people who try. but as it turns out the main character gained them without doing that by chance and atleast 1 member was proven to not have pure intentions. it became horrifyingly clear that anyone could become like them even if they were evil and that even the 1/3rd deaths may be fabricated to dissuade villains from trying. so why not similar for dnd anyone can but between secretive orders obscuring the truths and process's most and peoples own self doubts most assume its simply not possible for then to achieve.
nothing in the oath itself talks about them being protectors of nature per se, more of them as protectors of everything that is beautiful. Overhunting an rare and exotic species of colourful bird would be against the oath, defiling an beautiful river or grove would be against the oath, viping out an species vital to an local ecosystem would be against it, killing a random boar would not. Shure if they are shown to have no respect for the beauty of nature whatsoever and no high regards for the value of life then it is reasonable to say they are breaking their oath quite a lot
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 definitely wouldn't rule a paladin had to have a deity or even an oath.
Some people are trying to make something which isn't a paladin *coughswordmagecough*, and are having to just reflavor the paladin as it's the closest class mechanically because 5e sucks for certain types of character.
They wield divine power. When something goes horribly wrong, it makes sense that they would have to fix things through a manager, so to speak.
That being said, an atheist or non-devout paladin doesn't make much sense. It would be hard to be an atheist the first time you walk around a city and see a cleric or Paladin with no natural magic talent cast a spell or channel divinity. Even being non-devout as a Paladin would be a bit hard to justify, since they've spent their life training and devoting themselves to serving the goals of the divine. Maybe they could be burnt out and on the edge of losing their devotion because of something, but someone doesn't just become a Paladin the same way a Warlock just makes a pact.
Not being tied to a deity won't make being paladins easier. They still have to swear an oath and uphold it. They still have to be an exceptional member of society. They still have to train in armor, shields, weapon and practice their magic. It's the same as any other NPC version of a PC class.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
i guess really the bottom line is that the power comes from some where you just got to define it harder for atheists ect. like drawing on the powers of a powerful artifact ect.
I think that you can become a paladin as an atheist, but not as a faithless person. You have to believe in something so strongly that the ideals come from your religion. I actually think a atheist paladin would be more devoted to their oath than a religious one, because they are truly serving the tenets of the oath and not working through a proxy of a god.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Why do you think this; that an atheist would have greater devotion to their oath? Since their oath is only to themselves, and an atheist doesn't believe there is something greater in the universe than themselves, why would this constitute a greater bond than a paladin that swore an oath as an agreement with their deity who they believe holds greater power and virtue than themselves?
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Because an oath is all the atheist has. They don't believe in those ideals because a god told them to. They believe in the ideals because they think they are right. I'm trying to interpret your post correctly, but if I make mistakes, please tell me. You think that since a deity has "greater power and virtue" than a paladin, they are more qualified to dictate what to believe in. But in D&D, gods are fallible. They die and make mistakes. So if you only believe in something because someone else told you to, are you really believing in it? I think you should have to justify why you think something is right and wrong. And if you are atheistic and all of your conviction lies in your oath, than that is powerful.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I don't think an atheist paladin's devotion would be any stronger then a religious one. Sure, gods a fallible.....but so are mortals. Whether you believe in a higher power, a sovereign nation, the oath of a paladin order or just your own personal oath, it's ultimately how strong each paladin's own devotion to whatever they place that devotion to that matters. So basically, I feel that both an atheist and a religious paladin can both be truly devout to what they believe in, it's all a matter of each individual's belief and how strongly they adhere to it.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
My Greater Will Google Doc
Proud member of the DragonClub! cult.
Also consider: As alluded to much earlier in this thread, the existence of Oathbreaker Paladins is very questionable if the only force that produces a Paladin's powers is their own devotion. How and why would a lack of devotion turn a regular Paladin into what is effectively a Death Knight? (WoW reference.) There is no justification for that in the lore unless (most) Paladins get their powers from a divine source; or at the very least, from some font of weave-shaping energy tied directly to one of the non-Material Planes. So then the lore becomes inconsistent with itself.
If faith and devotion in an ideal can cause someone to gain so much power, I see no reason why perversion of those ideals can't make someone can a different brand of power.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Joel, the emphasized text gets to the heart of the matter. It seems to me this is the definition of a psychopath. If their belief in themselves provides justification for anything they choose to do, then I believe that is a psychopath. But, do not mistake my observation as a declaration that a paladin that does choose to follow a deity isn't also fallible. If they justify anything they do, and it is an evil act, then we call that Over Zealous.
A paladin that believes a god with greater wisdom and power is worthy of devotion will reflect on whether his actions are truly in keeping with the path of his deity. That seems to be a much more compelling story than "Hey, I know I'm right. I'm virtuous." No struggle. No room for reflection or character development. Heck, I'm already a god, I just wish I had more power so I wouldn't die.
And why would a paladin not think that a deity with more power and wisdom than themselves is worthy of devotion. Don't you look up to some people IRL because they are better than yourself in some facet; a better athlete, a better musician, better educated and set in their career path, ...?
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
But what would cause that? Who determines what is the "perversion"? If there is no being with Intelligence or values determining what is the correct way to be devout, then what would cause those powers to morph into another set of powers?
An ideal is abstraction, a concept. If all it took was belief in an abstraction to get super powers, then why can't a strong enough devotion allow some Paladins to cast the Wish spell? Or True Resurrection? By basing powers on something that is purely abstract, there is no reason for hard limits on those powers.
This part is an excellent point. A Paladin whose powers come solely from adherence to an ideal without an outside source of those powers would easily degenerate into a Judge Dread-style enforcer. This is the Egotist who does not believe that he/she is an Egotist, a force of Righteousness that has no checks or balances on their power who slips gradually into a one-note Avatar of "I am Right and my Power proves it!"
an person beliving in an abstract ideal enough to be able to cast true ressurection or wish is called an cleric, clerics have since 3e been able to worship abstract ideals (there is even a lil' sidebar about it in xanatar's guide to everything)
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