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)
Nope. You are de-contextualizing my point. For Clerics, their power is expliictly granted by their god (or pantheon of gods). IOW, superbeings that are immortal supply them with power and therefore aslo limit there power. An ideal is based on nothing but an set of ideas in somebody's head. For this to be strong enough by itself to cast spells like 9th levels spells? Ot limits. It is therefore completely narrative breaking.
Power come Let me explain this another way. Power comes from somewhere does it not? Plants get their power to grow from interaction of chlorophyll with the sun. Animals get teir power from eating plants or other animals (mostly). Now, in D&D, magical power is explained as "manipulation of the weave," with Sorcerers using what would be called mutant powers from a Marvel comics sense to do so, Wizards using experimentation with complex words and gestures and practice, Druids and Rangers through being "one with nature" or something like that, and Warlocks do it by signing a contract with a demi-god. An ideal has no connection to the weave. If it did, then literally anyone with a strong ideology would and couble be a Paladin and have access to the OP Lay on Hands ability. It becomes nonsense for Paladins because ideas themselves are not powerful - they require creatures who are fed on plants or flesh or whatever for energy in order to make them happen. Furthermore, if all it took was an ideology to get access to Paladin powers, then shouldn't most clerics also have Paladin powers?
You just misunderstood what JoeltheWalrus was saying. From what I read, you thought that, "They (the paladins) believe in the ideals (tenets) because they think they (the paladin) are right" when the true interpretation is "They (the paladins) believe in the ideals (tenets) because they think that they (the tenets/ideals) are right." You misunderstood them, and I'm merely showing you where you were mistaken.
They can believe in their ideals and think that the ideals are correct and something to strive for without being a pyschopath. I agree with Joel. A paladin who doesn't have a god to serve that instead only serves and upholds their oath would be more likely to be more devoted to their oath, because they don't also have to serve a god. In short, they have more devotion to go around than one that has to serve their oath and deity.
An atheist (in D&D terms, an atheist most likely knows the god exists, but chooses not to worship them, like the Iconoclasts from MOoT) that is a paladin would not be anymore sure in themselves than a typical god-following paladin. Both would strive to follow what they believe is the correct way of living, but it's not a pride or psychopath driven goal. You are completely mistaken. They can be prideful and all "holier than thou" but that is not a given or prerequisite to either way of playing a paladin.
In short, a paladin that has no god that they worship or follow is no more inclined to prejudices, pride, psychopathy, or any other negative connotations. If clerics don't have to worship deities, paladins are even more inclined to not worship a deity.
An atheist is not somebody who does not like gods. You are using an incorrect definition. An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existance of any god or gods whatsoever. That's pretty difficult when you have a bunch of Clerics walking around doing things are would be impossible without magic and claiming to be representatives of particular gods and even have explicit abilities that enable to ask questions of their god(s).
Again, people are de-contexualizing and misunderstanding the point made earlier, which is not about whether atheists are psychopaths. It is that magic power stemming from adherence to an ideal, with no checks and balances on it could easily lead to a bunch of Paladins running around claiming themselves to be gods. Why not? All they have to do is be devout to their ideals? If their power springs solely from the devoutness to that ideal and from NO OTHER SOURCE (I'm not arguing that it Has to be a god) then there are checks and balances to that power. It follows the saying: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." That was the point, not that atheism somehow is more likely to cratte psychopaths. In contrast to this idea of Paladins getting power from devotion to ideals, power available to most magic-users in D&D universe is controlled by how much their deity/fiend/genie/nature spirit is willing to provide them.
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)
Nope. You are de-contextualizing my point. For Clerics, their power is expliictly granted by their god (or pantheon of gods). IOW, superbeings that are immortal supply them with power and therefore aslo limit there power. An ideal is based on nothing but an set of ideas in somebody's head. For this to be strong enough by itself to cast spells like 9th levels spells? Ot limits. It is therefore completely narrative breaking.
Power come Let me explain this another way. Power comes from somewhere does it not? Plants get their power to grow from interaction of chlorophyll with the sun. Animals get teir power from eating plants or other animals (mostly). Now, in D&D, magical power is explained as "manipulation of the weave," with Sorcerers using what would be called mutant powers from a Marvel comics sense to do so, Wizards using experimentation with complex words and gestures and practice, Druids and Rangers through being "one with nature" or something like that, and Warlocks do it by signing a contract with a demi-god. An ideal has no connection to the weave. If it did, then literally anyone with a strong ideology would and couble be a Paladin and have access to the OP Lay on Hands ability. It becomes nonsense for Paladins because ideas themselves are not powerful - they require creatures who are fed on plants or flesh or whatever for energy in order to make them happen. Furthermore, if all it took was an ideology to get access to Paladin powers, then shouldn't most clerics also have Paladin powers?
if all it took to become a paladin was patronage from a god, then also would not every cleric also become a paladin? also side note here about clerics and gods from the book i just mentioned "In certain campaigns, a cleric might instead serve a cosmic force, such as love, peace or one of the nine alignments [...] talk to your DM about the divine options available in your world". And from the third edition PHB (that is less relevant but still) we get the following:
"some clerics devote themselves not to a god but to a cause or a source of divine power. These characters wield magic the way clerics devoted to individual gods do, but they are not associated with any religious institution or any particular practice of worship. A cleric devoted to good and law, for example, may be on friendly terms with the clerics of lawful and good deities and may extol the virtues of a good and lawful life, but he is not a functionary in a church hierarchy [...] Choose a deity for your cleric. Sample deities are listed on Table 3–7: Deities and described on page 106–108. The cleric’s deity influences his alignment, what magic he can perform, his values, and how others see him. You may also choose for your cleric to have no deity [...] If your cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, you still select two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities. The restriction on alignment domains still applies".
Both of these sources make it clear that bodiless, mindless sources can still be the source of tangible divine power.
Also both the player's handbook in 5e and the player's handbook in 3.5e talk about paladins reciving some kind of "calling", that it is somehow this phenomenon that turns an paladin into a paladin, it is not just that you need devotion, but rather you need this special spark that not everyone recives, comming presumably from ether from certain gods in some cases or simply the universe itself or some result of your incredible devotion, or just something you are kind of born with
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
Quote fromn, better educated and set in their career path, ...?
An atheist is not somebody who does not like gods. You are using an incorrect definition. An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existance of any god or gods whatsoever. That's pretty difficult when you have a bunch of Clerics walking around doing things are would be impossible without magic and claiming to be representatives of particular gods and even have explicit abilities that enable to ask questions of their god(s).
This discussion was already had. I believe (and a few other people on this thread) believe that an atheist in the Forgotten Realms would acknowledge the existence of gods, but not worship or pay homage. Or they would not think that they are truly absolutely powerful gods, but rather powerful supernatural beings.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Again, people are de-contexualizing and misunderstanding the point made earlier, which is not about whether atheists are psychopaths. It is that magic power stemming from adherence to an ideal, with no checks and balances on it could easily lead to a bunch of Paladins running around claiming themselves to be gods. Why not? All they have to do is be devout to their ideals? If their power springs solely from the devoutness to that ideal and from NO OTHER SOURCE (I'm not arguing that it Has to be a god) then there are checks and balances to that power. It follows the saying: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." That was the point, not that atheism somehow is more likely to cratte psychopaths. In contrast to this idea of Paladins getting power from devotion to ideals, power available to most magic-users in D&D universe is controlled by how much their deity/fiend/genie/nature spirit is willing to provide them.
The Paladin's aren't getting infinite power. And I think that the type of faith it takes to become a true paladin isn't something anyone can do. It is the kind that completely defines your worldview, something that is so ingrained in your mind that to break it is to destroy yourself. This isn't something can get in an afternoon. This is the kind of discipline that takes years of training and understanding. If someone is just going take this as an excuse to claim that they are a god, then they would not even posses the power of a paladin.
The last line in this quote is wrong. Wizards control how much power they receive, and not all of them end up as egomaniacal psychopaths.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Again, people are de-contexualizing and misunderstanding the point made earlier, which is not about whether atheists are psychopaths. It is that magic power stemming from adherence to an ideal, with no checks and balances on it could easily lead to a bunch of Paladins running around claiming themselves to be gods. Why not? All they have to do is be devout to their ideals? If their power springs solely from the devoutness to that ideal and from NO OTHER SOURCE (I'm not arguing that it Has to be a god) then there are checks and balances to that power. It follows the saying: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." That was the point, not that atheism somehow is more likely to cratte psychopaths. In contrast to this idea of Paladins getting power from devotion to ideals, power available to most magic-users in D&D universe is controlled by how much their deity/fiend/genie/nature spirit is willing to provide them.
The Paladin's aren't getting infinite power. And I think that the type of faith it takes to become a true paladin isn't something anyone can do. It is the kind that completely defines your worldview, something that is so ingrained in your mind that to break it is to destroy yourself. This isn't something can get in an afternoon. This is the kind of discipline that takes years of training and understanding. If someone is just going take this as an excuse to claim that they are a god, then they would not even posses the power of a paladin.
The last line in this quote is wrong. Wizards control how much power they receive, and not all of them end up as egomaniacal psychopaths.
according to the fluff, warlocks also derive a lot of their power from their own arcane research as well, including all lot of their eldrich invocations, however nobody ever plays a warlock like that
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
Power come Let me explain this another way. Power comes from somewhere does it not? Plants get their power to grow from interaction of chlorophyll with the sun. Animals get teir power from eating plants or other animals (mostly). Now, in D&D, magical power is explained as "manipulation of the weave," with Sorcerers using what would be called mutant powers from a Marvel comics sense to do so, Wizards using experimentation with complex words and gestures and practice, Druids and Rangers through being "one with nature" or something like that, and Warlocks do it by signing a contract with a demi-god. An ideal has no connection to the weave. If it did, then literally anyone with a strong ideology would and couble be a Paladin and have access to the OP Lay on Hands ability. It becomes nonsense for Paladins because ideas themselves are not powerful - they require creatures who are fed on plants or flesh or whatever for energy in order to make them happen. Furthermore, if all it took was an ideology to get access to Paladin powers, then shouldn't most clerics also have Paladin powers?
Clerics in 5e no longer have to worship a deity, so there is absolutely no reason why a Paladin has to. Additionally, paladins don't get their power from deities, they get it from upholding their oath.
Devotion and worship has real magical power in D&D. The more worshippers a deity has, the stronger it is. The more the worshippers are devoted to it, the more power the deity has. That is how worship in D&D functions. Paladins aren't granted their powers by a deity, instead they get their powers from devoting themselves to their oath, strictly following their tenets. In D&D, if devotion is a way of giving magical power, strictly upholding an oath literally can give you power.
The reason paladins and clerics aren't the same is because clerics that are "atheists" devote themselves to a concept or ideology that has power in and of itself (Death, Arcana, Life, Light, etc), while a paladin that is "atheist" devotes themselves to a strict code and way of living. Clerics don't have to do that. A Grave Cleric that devotes themselves to the passage of life into death and destroying undeath occasionally chooses to kill someone who shouldn't have died, they don't lose their powers. If a Redemption Paladin chooses to kill an innocent person with full knowledge that what they're doing is wrong, they will become an Oathbreaker Paladin, as they have broke their oath and their devotion to their specific way of life and moral code ceases to give them power.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
An atheist is not somebody who does not like gods. You are using an incorrect definition. An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existance of any god or gods whatsoever. That's pretty difficult when you have a bunch of Clerics walking around doing things are would be impossible without magic and claiming to be representatives of particular gods and even have explicit abilities that enable to ask questions of their god(s).
Atheists in this thread and D&D worlds are different from real world atheists. In this thread and most D&D worlds with the obvious presence of deities, an atheist is someone who doesn't worship a deity. The premise of this thread is whether or not a paladin has to worship a deity to get their powers, not whether they have to believe in the existence of the deities. Both a true real world definition of an atheist and a D&D world definition of atheist could be a paladin, because believing in/worshipping a deity is not a prerequisite for being a paladin. If it was, the PHB would say that it was.
Again, people are de-contexualizing and misunderstanding the point made earlier, which is not about whether atheists are psychopaths. It is that magic power stemming from adherence to an ideal, with no checks and balances on it could easily lead to a bunch of Paladins running around claiming themselves to be gods. Why not? All they have to do is be devout to their ideals? If their power springs solely from the devoutness to that ideal and from NO OTHER SOURCE (I'm not arguing that it Has to be a god) then there are checks and balances to that power. It follows the saying: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." That was the point, not that atheism somehow is more likely to cratte psychopaths. In contrast to this idea of Paladins getting power from devotion to ideals, power available to most magic-users in D&D universe is controlled by how much their deity/fiend/genie/nature spirit is willing to provide them.
How is a paladin getting their power from only their devotion any more risky for psychopathy/narcissism than a Bard, Sorcerer, or Wizard just pulling their magic from the Weave? Most power that magic-users get do not come from higher powers. That last statement is horse-crap.
Also, it is not easy to be a paladin. You have to follow a strict moral code and tenets in order to get your power. If you've tried going on a diet or been in a religion with a strict set of standard you would know that it is not easy to keep from breaking that self-imposed ruleset 100% of the time.
I want to remind everything that while discussions of atheistic paladins, clerics etc in a D&D context is an acceptable topic of discussion, bringing in real life faiths, beliefs and spiritual leanings are not. Please keep things on topic and do not bring inappropriate topics into the mix.
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)
Nope. You are de-contextualizing my point. For Clerics, their power is expliictly granted by their god (or pantheon of gods). IOW, superbeings that are immortal supply them with power and therefore aslo limit there power. An ideal is based on nothing but an set of ideas in somebody's head. For this to be strong enough by itself to cast spells like 9th levels spells? Ot limits. It is therefore completely narrative breaking.
Power come Let me explain this another way. Power comes from somewhere does it not? Plants get their power to grow from interaction of chlorophyll with the sun. Animals get teir power from eating plants or other animals (mostly). Now, in D&D, magical power is explained as "manipulation of the weave," with Sorcerers using what would be called mutant powers from a Marvel comics sense to do so, Wizards using experimentation with complex words and gestures and practice, Druids and Rangers through being "one with nature" or something like that, and Warlocks do it by signing a contract with a demi-god. An ideal has no connection to the weave. If it did, then literally anyone with a strong ideology would and couble be a Paladin and have access to the OP Lay on Hands ability. It becomes nonsense for Paladins because ideas themselves are not powerful - they require creatures who are fed on plants or flesh or whatever for energy in order to make them happen. Furthermore, if all it took was an ideology to get access to Paladin powers, then shouldn't most clerics also have Paladin powers?
if all it took to become a paladin was patronage from a god, then also would not every cleric also become a paladin? also side note here about clerics and gods from the book i just mentioned "In certain campaigns, a cleric might instead serve a cosmic force, such as love, peace or one of the nine alignments [...] talk to your DM about the divine options available in your world". And from the third edition PHB (that is less relevant but still) we get the following:
"some clerics devote themselves not to a god but to a cause or a source of divine power. These characters wield magic the way clerics devoted to individual gods do, but they are not associated with any religious institution or any particular practice of worship. A cleric devoted to good and law, for example, may be on friendly terms with the clerics of lawful and good deities and may extol the virtues of a good and lawful life, but he is not a functionary in a church hierarchy [...] Choose a deity for your cleric. Sample deities are listed on Table 3–7: Deities and described on page 106–108. The cleric’s deity influences his alignment, what magic he can perform, his values, and how others see him. You may also choose for your cleric to have no deity [...] If your cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, you still select two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities. The restriction on alignment domains still applies".
Both of these sources make it clear that bodiless, mindless sources can still be the source of tangible divine power.
We ... are actually not disagreeing about anything in these two paragraphs. My point was that yes, Paladins and Clerics are distinct classes for a narrative reason, not just a mechanical one and also that supernatural power in D&D usually has a source beyond the creature themselves, IOW from something or someone that they have little direct control over except through the years of work and adventuring that are meta-game-referenced as "leveling up". However, if the only reason for Paladin to have power is through an Oath, then narratively speaking (not mechanically), a person with Paladin powers can basically have unlimited powers, take on whatever class of spells they want to because there would be no force or entity stopping them from doing so. IOW, there would be no narrative reason why a Paladin would need to stop at 5th level spells or to stop a Paladin from taking Wizard spells or Warlock spells without multi-classing if their Oath says that they can.
I never argued that the Only valid source of magic for Paladins should be from deities. An amorphous power source can be from another plane, an ancestral link to a super artifact from a previous extinct civilization, or a special boon granted by demon in exchange for their parents' service, etc., etc. My point is that an ideal or devotion all by itself is a very flimsy narrative reason on which to base magical powers on.
The correct term would probably be non-theist, or non-theistic, for paladins and clerics that don't follow a specific god, especially in fantasy worlds where empirical evidence can be produced to prove that, at minimum, such beings do exist.
If they feel that the gods are powerful but ultimately not worthy of being worshiped they could be maltheists.
If they believed that religion itself was a destructive force to be opposed they could be anti-theists.
...oh, and all Paladins derive their power from The Players Handbook.
I assume this has been pointed out but The Players Handbook actually states exactly where a Paladin's powers come from;
"Different paladins focus on various aspects of the cause of righteousness, but all are bound by the oaths that grant them power to do their sacred work. Although many paladins are devoted to gods of good, a paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god."
Likely an unpopular opinion, but a non-theist paladin has never made much sense to me, especially in a setting where the gods are very real. In Forgotten Realms, for example, most Faerunians are polytheistic, praying to a number of deities throughout their lives, eventually leaning towards one above the other. Others, such as paladins, have a defined patron. Maybe in some cases that patron--let's use Tyr as an example--chose them, but a paladin will swear an oath to Tyr not just because "the god said so", but because the paladin wants to uphold the dogma of Tyr--ie, it resonates with him. I'm not particularly religious irl, but in D&D, where the gods are indeed real, atheism really doesn't make sense to me (though in D&D, true atheism in the way we think of it is likely very rare. Most "atheists" would acknowledge the gods exist, but don't worship them).
Regardless of your real-world beliefs (or non-beliefs), it's fantasy, explore it! We have dragons, elves, magic, gnomes, dwarves, unicorns, and all other manner of fantastical things. No one seems to have a problem with that, but bring in the gods, and suddenly, people take issue. To me, this is sometimes at the core of the argument people make for the godless paladin, which is why I bring it up (not making a jab at atheists, just pointing out it is something I have noticed). People want the "perks" of being a paladin, but don't want to follow a deity. Same deal with clerics. Religion isn't automatically a negative thing.
I can understand that from a narrative and storytelling standpoint, something like a "fallen paladin" could be interesting, but overall, godless paladin just doesn't make sense to me. I realize many are probably going to disagree, but those are my two cents.
Then again, reading some other comments (I have not read through the entire thread, admittedly), I am reminded of classes like grave cleric, and I know paladins can swear oaths to something. Generally, though (at least in my experience), even a cleric who worships something like life, death, etc, also has a deity they follow. Same with a paladin swearing an oath to something like justice.
I tend to agree, but I have been playing since 1e. So I already have a concept of what a paladin IS and have had it for 40 years or more. But in 5e, paladins have been expanded to encapsulate a lot more than that. But meh, whatever...it's their game and they should play it the way they want. My paladin will have a god and religious order to adhere to, that's how I want to play it. Others may have a totally different concept. We all don't need to march to the same drummer. As long as their happy and their DM is ok with it, then go, be happy and play it how you like! :)
The rules are clear for most Paladins, but the setting can cause the existence of Paladins to break the immersive believability of game world and the absolution part of Oathbreaker Paladins contradicts the rules for non-deity pledged Paladins.
Likely an unpopular opinion, but a non-theist paladin has never made much sense to me, especially in a setting where the gods are very real. In Forgotten Realms, for example, most Faerunians are polytheistic, praying to a number of deities throughout their lives, eventually leaning towards one above the other. Others, such as paladins, have a defined patron. Maybe in some cases that patron--let's use Tyr as an example--chose them, but a paladin will swear an oath to Tyr not just because "the god said so", but because the paladin wants to uphold the dogma of Tyr--ie, it resonates with him. I'm not particularly religious irl, but in D&D, where the gods are indeed real, atheism really doesn't make sense to me (though in D&D, true atheism in the way we think of it is likely very rare. Most "atheists" would acknowledge the gods exist, but don't worship them).
Regardless of your real-world beliefs (or non-beliefs), it's fantasy, explore it! We have dragons, elves, magic, gnomes, dwarves, unicorns, and all other manner of fantastical things. No one seems to have a problem with that, but bring in the gods, and suddenly, people take issue. To me, this is sometimes at the core of the argument people make for the godless paladin, which is why I bring it up (not making a jab at atheists, just pointing out it is something I have noticed). People want the "perks" of being a paladin, but don't want to follow a deity. Same deal with clerics. Religion isn't automatically a negative thing.
I can understand that from a narrative and storytelling standpoint, something like a "fallen paladin" could be interesting, but overall, godless paladin just doesn't make sense to me. I realize many are probably going to disagree, but those are my two cents.
Then again, reading some other comments (I have not read through the entire thread, admittedly), I am reminded of classes like grave cleric, and I know paladins can swear oaths to something. Generally, though (at least in my experience), even a cleric who worships something like life, death, etc, also has a deity they follow. Same with a paladin swearing an oath to something like justice.
Why would it be easier to be a paladin without a deity than with one? I don't understand that. Multiple people have stated that "people want the benefits of being a paladin without any of the work" which is a complete strawman and false statement. Non-theistic paladins still have to follow their oaths. It is no easier to be a godless paladin than a paladin with a deity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Why would it be easier to be a paladin without a deity than with one? I don't understand that. Multiple people have stated that "people want the benefits of being a paladin without any of the work" which is a complete strawman and false statement. Non-theistic paladins still have to follow their oaths. It is no easier to be a godless paladin than a paladin with a deity.
In fact, I would say it's probably harder, as there isn't a god around to decide that your oathbreaking was in their best interest.
Likely an unpopular opinion, but a non-theist paladin has never made much sense to me, especially in a setting where the gods are very real. In Forgotten Realms, for example, most Faerunians are polytheistic, praying to a number of deities throughout their lives, eventually leaning towards one above the other. Others, such as paladins, have a defined patron. Maybe in some cases that patron--let's use Tyr as an example--chose them, but a paladin will swear an oath to Tyr not just because "the god said so", but because the paladin wants to uphold the dogma of Tyr--ie, it resonates with him. I'm not particularly religious irl, but in D&D, where the gods are indeed real, atheism really doesn't make sense to me (though in D&D, true atheism in the way we think of it is likely very rare. Most "atheists" would acknowledge the gods exist, but don't worship them).
Regardless of your real-world beliefs (or non-beliefs), it's fantasy, explore it! We have dragons, elves, magic, gnomes, dwarves, unicorns, and all other manner of fantastical things. No one seems to have a problem with that, but bring in the gods, and suddenly, people take issue. To me, this is sometimes at the core of the argument people make for the godless paladin, which is why I bring it up (not making a jab at atheists, just pointing out it is something I have noticed). People want the "perks" of being a paladin, but don't want to follow a deity. Same deal with clerics. Religion isn't automatically a negative thing.
I can understand that from a narrative and storytelling standpoint, something like a "fallen paladin" could be interesting, but overall, godless paladin just doesn't make sense to me. I realize many are probably going to disagree, but those are my two cents.
Then again, reading some other comments (I have not read through the entire thread, admittedly), I am reminded of classes like grave cleric, and I know paladins can swear oaths to something. Generally, though (at least in my experience), even a cleric who worships something like life, death, etc, also has a deity they follow. Same with a paladin swearing an oath to something like justice.
Why would it be easier to be a paladin without a deity than with one? I don't understand that. Multiple people have stated that "people want the benefits of being a paladin without any of the work" which is a complete strawman and false statement. Non-theistic paladins still have to follow their oaths. It is no easier to be a godless paladin than a paladin with a deity.
I didn't say it would be easier, but it does indeed seem (to me) that people want the "perks" of being a paladin (or cleric) without having to have a deity, because for one reason or another, they don't want to deal with the deities, but still want the "benefits" of being a paladin. I'm sorry if it's a strawman argument, but it's certainly the impression I have gotten. Sure, non-theistic paladins still have to follow their oaths, but the very idea of a non-theistic paladin makes little sense to me, is my point (of course, this will vary by the setting you are playing in, too. Eberron and Dark Sun are less god-heavy, for example, so a non-theistic paladin as an option makes more sense for those settings).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Nope. You are de-contextualizing my point. For Clerics, their power is expliictly granted by their god (or pantheon of gods). IOW, superbeings that are immortal supply them with power and therefore aslo limit there power. An ideal is based on nothing but an set of ideas in somebody's head. For this to be strong enough by itself to cast spells like 9th levels spells? Ot limits. It is therefore completely narrative breaking.
Power come Let me explain this another way. Power comes from somewhere does it not? Plants get their power to grow from interaction of chlorophyll with the sun. Animals get teir power from eating plants or other animals (mostly). Now, in D&D, magical power is explained as "manipulation of the weave," with Sorcerers using what would be called mutant powers from a Marvel comics sense to do so, Wizards using experimentation with complex words and gestures and practice, Druids and Rangers through being "one with nature" or something like that, and Warlocks do it by signing a contract with a demi-god. An ideal has no connection to the weave. If it did, then literally anyone with a strong ideology would and couble be a Paladin and have access to the OP Lay on Hands ability. It becomes nonsense for Paladins because ideas themselves are not powerful - they require creatures who are fed on plants or flesh or whatever for energy in order to make them happen. Furthermore, if all it took was an ideology to get access to Paladin powers, then shouldn't most clerics also have Paladin powers?
An atheist is not somebody who does not like gods. You are using an incorrect definition. An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existance of any god or gods whatsoever. That's pretty difficult when you have a bunch of Clerics walking around doing things are would be impossible without magic and claiming to be representatives of particular gods and even have explicit abilities that enable to ask questions of their god(s).
Again, people are de-contexualizing and misunderstanding the point made earlier, which is not about whether atheists are psychopaths. It is that magic power stemming from adherence to an ideal, with no checks and balances on it could easily lead to a bunch of Paladins running around claiming themselves to be gods. Why not? All they have to do is be devout to their ideals? If their power springs solely from the devoutness to that ideal and from NO OTHER SOURCE (I'm not arguing that it Has to be a god) then there are checks and balances to that power. It follows the saying: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." That was the point, not that atheism somehow is more likely to cratte psychopaths. In contrast to this idea of Paladins getting power from devotion to ideals, power available to most magic-users in D&D universe is controlled by how much their deity/fiend/genie/nature spirit is willing to provide them.
if all it took to become a paladin was patronage from a god, then also would not every cleric also become a paladin? also side note here about clerics and gods from the book i just mentioned "In certain campaigns, a cleric might instead serve a cosmic force, such as love, peace or one of the nine alignments [...] talk to your DM about the divine options available in your world". And from the third edition PHB (that is less relevant but still) we get the following:
"some clerics devote themselves not to a god but to a cause or a source of divine power. These characters wield magic the way clerics devoted to individual gods do, but they are not associated with any religious institution or any particular practice of worship. A cleric devoted to good and law, for example, may be on friendly terms with the clerics of lawful and good deities and may extol the virtues of a good and lawful life, but he is not a functionary in a church hierarchy [...] Choose a deity for your cleric. Sample deities are listed on Table 3–7: Deities and described on page 106–108. The cleric’s deity influences his alignment, what magic he can perform, his values, and how others see him. You may also choose for your cleric to have no deity [...] If your cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, you still select two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities. The restriction on alignment domains still applies".
Both of these sources make it clear that bodiless, mindless sources can still be the source of tangible divine power.
Also both the player's handbook in 5e and the player's handbook in 3.5e talk about paladins reciving some kind of "calling", that it is somehow this phenomenon that turns an paladin into a paladin, it is not just that you need devotion, but rather you need this special spark that not everyone recives, comming presumably from ether from certain gods in some cases or simply the universe itself or some result of your incredible devotion, or just something you are kind of born with
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 discussion was already had. I believe (and a few other people on this thread) believe that an atheist in the Forgotten Realms would acknowledge the existence of gods, but not worship or pay homage. Or they would not think that they are truly absolutely powerful gods, but rather powerful supernatural beings.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
The Paladin's aren't getting infinite power. And I think that the type of faith it takes to become a true paladin isn't something anyone can do. It is the kind that completely defines your worldview, something that is so ingrained in your mind that to break it is to destroy yourself. This isn't something can get in an afternoon. This is the kind of discipline that takes years of training and understanding. If someone is just going take this as an excuse to claim that they are a god, then they would not even posses the power of a paladin.
The last line in this quote is wrong. Wizards control how much power they receive, and not all of them end up as egomaniacal psychopaths.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
according to the fluff, warlocks also derive a lot of their power from their own arcane research as well, including all lot of their eldrich invocations, however nobody ever plays a warlock like that
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
Clerics in 5e no longer have to worship a deity, so there is absolutely no reason why a Paladin has to. Additionally, paladins don't get their power from deities, they get it from upholding their oath.
Devotion and worship has real magical power in D&D. The more worshippers a deity has, the stronger it is. The more the worshippers are devoted to it, the more power the deity has. That is how worship in D&D functions. Paladins aren't granted their powers by a deity, instead they get their powers from devoting themselves to their oath, strictly following their tenets. In D&D, if devotion is a way of giving magical power, strictly upholding an oath literally can give you power.
The reason paladins and clerics aren't the same is because clerics that are "atheists" devote themselves to a concept or ideology that has power in and of itself (Death, Arcana, Life, Light, etc), while a paladin that is "atheist" devotes themselves to a strict code and way of living. Clerics don't have to do that. A Grave Cleric that devotes themselves to the passage of life into death and destroying undeath occasionally chooses to kill someone who shouldn't have died, they don't lose their powers. If a Redemption Paladin chooses to kill an innocent person with full knowledge that what they're doing is wrong, they will become an Oathbreaker Paladin, as they have broke their oath and their devotion to their specific way of life and moral code ceases to give them power.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Atheists in this thread and D&D worlds are different from real world atheists. In this thread and most D&D worlds with the obvious presence of deities, an atheist is someone who doesn't worship a deity. The premise of this thread is whether or not a paladin has to worship a deity to get their powers, not whether they have to believe in the existence of the deities. Both a true real world definition of an atheist and a D&D world definition of atheist could be a paladin, because believing in/worshipping a deity is not a prerequisite for being a paladin. If it was, the PHB would say that it was.
How is a paladin getting their power from only their devotion any more risky for psychopathy/narcissism than a Bard, Sorcerer, or Wizard just pulling their magic from the Weave? Most power that magic-users get do not come from higher powers. That last statement is horse-crap.
Also, it is not easy to be a paladin. You have to follow a strict moral code and tenets in order to get your power. If you've tried going on a diet or been in a religion with a strict set of standard you would know that it is not easy to keep from breaking that self-imposed ruleset 100% of the time.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorI want to remind everything that while discussions of atheistic paladins, clerics etc in a D&D context is an acceptable topic of discussion, bringing in real life faiths, beliefs and spiritual leanings are not. Please keep things on topic and do not bring inappropriate topics into the mix.
Thank you
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
We ... are actually not disagreeing about anything in these two paragraphs. My point was that yes, Paladins and Clerics are distinct classes for a narrative reason, not just a mechanical one and also that supernatural power in D&D usually has a source beyond the creature themselves, IOW from something or someone that they have little direct control over except through the years of work and adventuring that are meta-game-referenced as "leveling up". However, if the only reason for Paladin to have power is through an Oath, then narratively speaking (not mechanically), a person with Paladin powers can basically have unlimited powers, take on whatever class of spells they want to because there would be no force or entity stopping them from doing so. IOW, there would be no narrative reason why a Paladin would need to stop at 5th level spells or to stop a Paladin from taking Wizard spells or Warlock spells without multi-classing if their Oath says that they can.
I never argued that the Only valid source of magic for Paladins should be from deities. An amorphous power source can be from another plane, an ancestral link to a super artifact from a previous extinct civilization, or a special boon granted by demon in exchange for their parents' service, etc., etc. My point is that an ideal or devotion all by itself is a very flimsy narrative reason on which to base magical powers on.
The correct term would probably be non-theist, or non-theistic, for paladins and clerics that don't follow a specific god, especially in fantasy worlds where empirical evidence can be produced to prove that, at minimum, such beings do exist.
If they feel that the gods are powerful but ultimately not worthy of being worshiped they could be maltheists.
If they believed that religion itself was a destructive force to be opposed they could be anti-theists.
...oh, and all Paladins derive their power from The Players Handbook.
Abide.
I assume this has been pointed out but The Players Handbook actually states exactly where a Paladin's powers come from;
"Different paladins focus on various aspects of the cause of righteousness, but all are bound by the oaths that grant them power to do their sacred work. Although many paladins are devoted to gods of good, a paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god."
(Emphasis mine)
So...that's the Paladin Question settled.
Abide.
Likely an unpopular opinion, but a non-theist paladin has never made much sense to me, especially in a setting where the gods are very real. In Forgotten Realms, for example, most Faerunians are polytheistic, praying to a number of deities throughout their lives, eventually leaning towards one above the other. Others, such as paladins, have a defined patron. Maybe in some cases that patron--let's use Tyr as an example--chose them, but a paladin will swear an oath to Tyr not just because "the god said so", but because the paladin wants to uphold the dogma of Tyr--ie, it resonates with him. I'm not particularly religious irl, but in D&D, where the gods are indeed real, atheism really doesn't make sense to me (though in D&D, true atheism in the way we think of it is likely very rare. Most "atheists" would acknowledge the gods exist, but don't worship them).
Regardless of your real-world beliefs (or non-beliefs), it's fantasy, explore it! We have dragons, elves, magic, gnomes, dwarves, unicorns, and all other manner of fantastical things. No one seems to have a problem with that, but bring in the gods, and suddenly, people take issue. To me, this is sometimes at the core of the argument people make for the godless paladin, which is why I bring it up (not making a jab at atheists, just pointing out it is something I have noticed). People want the "perks" of being a paladin, but don't want to follow a deity. Same deal with clerics. Religion isn't automatically a negative thing.
I can understand that from a narrative and storytelling standpoint, something like a "fallen paladin" could be interesting, but overall, godless paladin just doesn't make sense to me. I realize many are probably going to disagree, but those are my two cents.
Then again, reading some other comments (I have not read through the entire thread, admittedly), I am reminded of classes like grave cleric, and I know paladins can swear oaths to something. Generally, though (at least in my experience), even a cleric who worships something like life, death, etc, also has a deity they follow. Same with a paladin swearing an oath to something like justice.
I tend to agree, but I have been playing since 1e. So I already have a concept of what a paladin IS and have had it for 40 years or more. But in 5e, paladins have been expanded to encapsulate a lot more than that. But meh, whatever...it's their game and they should play it the way they want. My paladin will have a god and religious order to adhere to, that's how I want to play it. Others may have a totally different concept. We all don't need to march to the same drummer. As long as their happy and their DM is ok with it, then go, be happy and play it how you like! :)
https://twitter.com/theedverse/status/1105133525118976001
This is what the creator of FR has to say about Paladins in his setting, if anyone is interested :)
The rules are clear as to where a Paladin gets their power, but anyone can house-rule anything they want, it is their game after all.
Abide.
The rules are clear for most Paladins, but the setting can cause the existence of Paladins to break the immersive believability of game world and the absolution part of Oathbreaker Paladins contradicts the rules for non-deity pledged Paladins.
Why would it be easier to be a paladin without a deity than with one? I don't understand that. Multiple people have stated that "people want the benefits of being a paladin without any of the work" which is a complete strawman and false statement. Non-theistic paladins still have to follow their oaths. It is no easier to be a godless paladin than a paladin with a deity.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
In fact, I would say it's probably harder, as there isn't a god around to decide that your oathbreaking was in their best interest.
I love Ed. Thanks for sharing! I follow him on Twitter, but I'm not on there that much, so I miss a lot of his tweets.
I didn't say it would be easier, but it does indeed seem (to me) that people want the "perks" of being a paladin (or cleric) without having to have a deity, because for one reason or another, they don't want to deal with the deities, but still want the "benefits" of being a paladin. I'm sorry if it's a strawman argument, but it's certainly the impression I have gotten. Sure, non-theistic paladins still have to follow their oaths, but the very idea of a non-theistic paladin makes little sense to me, is my point (of course, this will vary by the setting you are playing in, too. Eberron and Dark Sun are less god-heavy, for example, so a non-theistic paladin as an option makes more sense for those settings).