Paladins have to follow a sacred oath. This happens independently of having a god. Lacking a god is not some sort of Easy Mode for a Paladin. All it does is mean that you're not part of a specific church.
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).
That's kind of the point of playing a non-theistic paladin. That is, the point of doing so is to not have to worship a deity to get your power. More often than not, being a paladin without a deity is just a matter of roleplay, not mechanics. If someone at my table wants to play a devout knight who swears an oath to avenge the destruction of his hometown, I'm not going to force their character to worship a deity, especially in settings where deities aren't as present as the Forgotten Realms or Theros (Dark Sun, Eberron, Ravnica). I don't know what the definition of a paladin was in previous editions, but in 5e it is just a divine warrior whose power originates from their strict following of their oath. I can understand if that definition doesn't make sense or feel right to you, but I actually find it more interesting for a paladin's power to come directly from their strict lifestyle than just coming from a deity. That's what sets them apart from Clerics, in my mind. Clerics have to devote themselves to a deity or a fundamental part of D&D's cosmology to get their divine magic, while paladins have to obey an oath in order to get a different type of divine power.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I see paladins as capable of falling under one of a few very common themes.
A crusader or champion of a given deity/deities. (Your old school Paladin)
A holy knights or champion is service to a sovereign or nation. (The Crown Paladin fits this really well)
A Personification of an ideal like justice, mercy, glory or vengeance. (Devotion, Redemption, Glory, and Vengeance Paladins)
A warrior acting as a last bastion against forces beyond what mere mortals can handle, or as a Bastion protecting something from said forces. (Ancients and the UA Watchers Paladins fit this)
Your Dark Crusaders/Blackguards. Anti-holy warriors. (Conquest, Oathbreakers and the UA Treachery Paladins for you.)
Obviously these different subclasses don't have to be played in these stereotypical ways but I think they do a good job of showcasing how one can easily play a non-theistic paladin and it making sense RP-wise.
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.
But the question needs to be asked: WHO determines whether the oath has been broken? If there is not a non-PC entity or intelligence (not necessarily a god) making that determination, then there is nobody to hold the Paladin accountable as a holder of Paladin power, correct? There is no counterweight to the person's ego and image of themselves as "doing the right thing" except themselves, which is generally pretty unreliable.
I know that some people will read this and say: well, that's what the DM is for, isn't it? But IF that's the case, isn't the DM intervening as a meta-narrative God, more powerful than all the other deities? So in the end, you still have a form of divine intervention taking place to punish the Paladin for breaking her/his oaths.
But the question needs to be asked: WHO determines whether the oath has been broken? If there is not a non-PC entity or intelligence (not necessarily a god) making that determination, then there is nobody to hold the Paladin accountable as a holder of Paladin power, correct? There is no counterweight to the person's ego and image of themselves as "doing the right thing" except themselves, which is generally pretty unreliable.
I know that some people will read this and say: well, that's what the DM is for, isn't it? But IF that's the case, isn't the DM intervening as a meta-narrative God, more powerful than all the other deities? So in the end, you still have a form of divine intervention taking place to punish the Paladin for breaking her/his oaths.
You could see it that way, or you could interpret it as the paladin's superego, or there's some cosmic force at work, not unlike the force that limits the powers of the gods themselves.
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.
But the question needs to be asked: WHO determines whether the oath has been broken? If there is not a non-PC entity or intelligence (not necessarily a god) making that determination, then there is nobody to hold the Paladin accountable as a holder of Paladin power, correct? There is no counterweight to the person's ego and image of themselves as "doing the right thing" except themselves, which is generally pretty unreliable.
I know that some people will read this and say: well, that's what the DM is for, isn't it? But IF that's the case, isn't the DM intervening as a meta-narrative God, more powerful than all the other deities? So in the end, you still have a form of divine intervention taking place to punish the Paladin for breaking her/his oaths.
I'll answer your question with a question: WHO determines whether a Wizard or Druid can do magic? Why can't a Druid or Wizard choose to cast 9th level spells at will at 1st level? Surely some non-PC entity or intelligence (not necessarily a god) making that determination, or they would be able to choose their power level, right? There would be no limit to the power of these spellcasters unless someone determined that they could only have a certain amount of power and spells per their experience level.
I know that some will read this and say: well, that's just how the rules were written and how the worlds of D&D work. Exactly. It's how the game is balanced, and every part of how the classes get their power and whether or not deities are involved or if it is just the universe deciding upon certain rules doesn't really matter.
To actually answer your gotcha questions, maybe in the Forgotten Realms Ao determines the rules of whether or not non-devout paladins broke their oaths. Or, it could just be up to the Weave of Magic or Mystra. In all, it is up to the DM, but I would rule that if you do something obviously contrary to your tenets and oath, you break the oath. That's just how paladins work.
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.
But the question needs to be asked: WHO determines whether the oath has been broken? If there is not a non-PC entity or intelligence (not necessarily a god) making that determination, then there is nobody to hold the Paladin accountable as a holder of Paladin power, correct? There is no counterweight to the person's ego and image of themselves as "doing the right thing" except themselves, which is generally pretty unreliable.
I know that some people will read this and say: well, that's what the DM is for, isn't it? But IF that's the case, isn't the DM intervening as a meta-narrative God, more powerful than all the other deities? So in the end, you still have a form of divine intervention taking place to punish the Paladin for breaking her/his oaths.
I'll answer your question with a question: WHO determines whether a Wizard or Druid can do magic? Why can't a Druid or Wizard choose to cast 9th level spells at will at 1st level? Surely some non-PC entity or intelligence (not necessarily a god) making that determination, or they would be able to choose their power level, right? There would be no limit to the power of these spellcasters unless someone determined that they could only have a certain amount of power and spells per their experience level.
I know that some will read this and say: well, that's just how the rules were written and how the worlds of D&D work. Exactly. It's how the game is balanced, and every part of how the classes get their power and whether or not deities are involved or if it is just the universe deciding upon certain rules doesn't really matter.
To actually answer your gotcha questions, maybe in the Forgotten Realms Ao determines the rules of whether or not non-devout paladins broke their oaths. Or, it could just be up to the Weave of Magic or Mystra. In all, it is up to the DM, but I would rule that if you do something obviously contrary to your tenets and oath, you break the oath. That's just how paladins work.
The Druid does actually have deities, they are the deities of nature. Rather than worshipping and serving a specific deity, though, Druids serve whatever Nature-related deities or subset thereof that exist.
Wizards study for their power. Their power is limited by the difficulty of rearranging the weave in particular ways to pull off ever more powerful effects, which is established by level. The complexity of manipulating the weave goes up the more powerful of an effect the Wizard is trying to achieve (ignoring a few very poorly written spells). This makes sense if you related something like wizardry to mathematics. Making sense of the Theory of Relativity on a mathematical level is not possible without relying a great period of study of simpler mathematics to form one's intellectual foundation.
You are still basically just saying that the DM is the deity, though. That's a meta-narrative answer to a problem of in-narrative logic. "This is the way D&D is"? That's just avoiding the question of why this humanoid acquired superpowers. There is a reason why superheroes in comic books almost always have a source of power that comes from beyond themselves. Radioactive spiders, gamma rays, being born on a different planet and then being exposed to an different kind of sunlight, experimentation by top secret organizations, a quirk in their genetic code, a bargain with super powerful alien lifeform, etc.
The Druid does actually have deities, they are the deities of nature. Rather than worshipping and serving a specific deity, though, Druids serve whatever Nature-related deities or subset thereof that exist.
They do not have to get their power from the deities of nature, though, just like a Paladin. Quote from the Druid section of the PHB:
Druids revere nature above all, gaining their spells and other magical powers either from the force of nature itself or from a nature deity.
Druids can get their power from nature and only nature. If nature is magical in D&D and the magic that nature gives druids is limited, why can't paladins only draw their magic from their devotion to their oaths with no deity involved? Devotion and nature can both be magical in the D&D multiverse in and of themselves, granting magical power to PCs, creatures, and other beings.
Wizards study for their power. Their power is limited by the difficulty of rearranging the weave in particular ways to pull off ever more powerful effects, which is established by level. The complexity of manipulating the weave goes up the more powerful of an effect the Wizard is trying to achieve (ignoring a few very poorly written spells). This makes sense if you related something like wizardry to mathematics. Making sense of the Theory of Relativity on a mathematical level is not possible without relying a great period of study of simpler mathematics to form one's intellectual foundation.
But what makes that complexity? Who decided that Wizard magic works like mathematics or science in the D&D worlds? What forces or beings chose that intelligence can be used to draw and create spells from the Weave of Magic? If D&D worlds have rules regarding the ways you can draw magic from studying arcane texts and being one with nature, why can't you just draw magical power from your devotion to your oath? I see no difference between how a druid draws magic and how a paladin does. It doesn't make sense how they get it, because its a different magical world that is make-believe. In real life, devoting your life to nature or a strict moral code will not give you magical powers, but for whatever reason, in D&D worlds it will.
You are still basically just saying that the DM is the deity, though. That's a meta-narrative answer to a problem of in-narrative logic. "This is the way D&D is"? That's just avoiding the question of why this humanoid acquired superpowers. There is a reason why superheroes in comic books almost always have a source of power that comes from beyond themselves. Radioactive spiders, gamma rays, being born on a different planet and then being exposed to an different kind of sunlight, experimentation by top secret organizations, a quirk in their genetic code, a bargain with super powerful alien lifeform, etc.
I'm saying it is up to the DM, as the core rules aren't clear on this front. My answer was correct. This is the way D&D is. Paladins and Clerics can get magical powers from devoting themselves to an oath or concept. Worshipping a deity gives that deity power. Devoting your life to following an oath will give you magical power. D&D works differently from comic-books and the real world.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
But what makes that complexity? Who decided that Wizard magic works like mathematics or science in the D&D worlds? What forces or beings chose that intelligence can be used to draw and create spells from the Weave of Magic? If D&D worlds have rules regarding the ways you can draw magic from studying arcane texts and being one with nature, why can't you just draw magical power from your devotion to your oath? I see no difference between how a druid draws magic and how a paladin does. It doesn't make sense how they get it, because its a different magical world that is make-believe. In real life, devoting your life to nature or a strict moral code will not give you magical powers, but for whatever reason, in D&D worlds it will.
True, there is no direct relation between science and wizardry. What I am arguing though, is that it's plausible that a class which gets its powers via arduous study would need to spend a lot of time studying and practicing to improve on that skillset to become more effective at it. A person who gets powers through a promise made to nobody else but themselves, with no limits to that power whatsoever is the cheat code version of an RPG, though, because the Devotion in 5th edition is so broad that you can very well have Evil Paladins following their Oath. All you need is Devotion, after all, not hard work, to get your Pally powers.
There is no "strict moral code" required. You have a bunch of subclasses, all of which are devoted to different things. There is the generality of the "Joy and Light" of the Ancients Paladin, to the "Serve the Country" of the Crown Paladin, to "Justice is Revenge" of the Vengeance Paladin. All of these concepts can be interpreted quite a number of ways. Without some non-PC intelligence and judge to rule on what is or is not in adherence to "the Moral Code", then its impossible for Paladins to fall and become Oathbreakers, thus Oathbreakers make no sense.
And the reason I bring up superheroes in comic books is because they illustrate that every professional writer knows that you just can't have a character make a promise to themselves and get superpowers b/c that dilutes the value of superpowers in the universe in which those characters exist. Getting superpowers via a promise would change the rules of the world so that almost anyone who claims a devotion to whatever ideal can get a superpower. Terrorists who believe in their cause? Superpowers. Any priest of a religion that extolls of certain set of values and follows the tennets? Superpowers. An apartment manager who watches a lot of kung fu movies and devotes themselves to the Way of Whatever? Superpowers. If every 10th person gets superpowers just by being "devoted" and not having to answer to anyone, then the narrative weight of having a few Superheroes becomes weak and the world quickly stops resembling in any shape or form the one that the reader lives in.
Similiarly, if every 10th person in D&D-universe could become a Paladin just by making a pinkie swear, why wouldn't they? There should be Paladins running around all over the place assuming that the lore is consistent and applied equally to everyone rather than some meta-narrative reason of "because the game rules say so" - which again, is poor world-building.
I'll answer your question with a question: WHO determines whether a Wizard or Druid can do magic? Why can't a Druid or Wizard choose to cast 9th level spells at will at 1st level? Surely some non-PC entity or intelligence (not necessarily a god) making that determination, or they would be able to choose their power level, right? There would be no limit to the power of these spellcasters unless someone determined that they could only have a certain amount of power and spells per their experience level.
well in the specific case of the wizard it is the case that the wizard does not have any 9th level spells recorded into their spellbook, and even if they did have them the 9th level spells would be too complicated for them to even begin to understand
But what makes that complexity? Who decided that Wizard magic works like mathematics or science in the D&D worlds? What forces or beings chose that intelligence can be used to draw and create spells from the Weave of Magic? If D&D worlds have rules regarding the ways you can draw magic from studying arcane texts and being one with nature, why can't you just draw magical power from your devotion to your oath? I see no difference between how a druid draws magic and how a paladin does. It doesn't make sense how they get it, because its a different magical world that is make-believe. In real life, devoting your life to nature or a strict moral code will not give you magical powers, but for whatever reason, in D&D worlds it will.
True, there is no direct relation between science and wizardry. What I am arguing though, is that it's plausible that a class which gets its powers via arduous study would need to spend a lot of time studying and practicing to improve on that skillset to become more effective at it. A person who gets powers through a promise made to nobody else but themselves, with no limits to that power whatsoever is the cheat code version of an RPG, though, because the Devotion in 5th edition is so broad that you can very well have Evil Paladins following their Oath. All you need is Devotion, after all, not hard work, to get your Pally powers.
There is no "strict moral code" required. You have a bunch of subclasses, all of which are devoted to different things. There is the generality of the "Joy and Light" of the Ancients Paladin, to the "Serve the Country" of the Crown Paladin, to "Justice is Revenge" of the Vengeance Paladin. All of these concepts can be interpreted quite a number of ways. Without some non-PC intelligence and judge to rule on what is or is not in adherence to "the Moral Code", then its impossible for Paladins to fall and become Oathbreakers, thus Oathbreakers make no sense.
And the reason I bring up superheroes in comic books is because they illustrate that every professional writer knows that you just can't have a character make a promise to themselves and get superpowers b/c that dilutes the value of superpowers in the universe in which those characters exist. Getting superpowers via a promise would change the rules of the world so that almost anyone who claims a devotion to whatever ideal can get a superpower. Terrorists who believe in their cause? Superpowers. Any priest of a religion that extolls of certain set of values and follows the tennets? Superpowers. An apartment manager who watches a lot of kung fu movies and devotes themselves to the Way of Whatever? Superpowers. If every 10th person gets superpowers just by being "devoted" and not having to answer to anyone, then the narrative weight of having a few Superheroes becomes weak and the world quickly stops resembling in any shape or form the one that the reader lives in.
Similiarly, if every 10th person in D&D-universe could become a Paladin just by making a pinkie swear, why wouldn't they? There should be Paladins running around all over the place assuming that the lore is consistent and applied equally to everyone rather than some meta-narrative reason of "because the game rules say so" - which again, is poor world-building and easily game-breaking.
first of all, nobody is saying that the path of the paladin does not require an fair amount of training, those armor and weapon proficiencies and your fighting style did not come from devotion or piety but actiual martial training, who is to say that channeling the divine energies you posses do not require similar amounts of training
for that "oathbreakers make no sense" thing, when the devotion paladin starts lying their ass of for personal gain and when the ancients paladin starts destroying art and nature for no reason it becomes clear that they themselves no longer truly believe in what their oaths stand for, and for lesser transgressions if they cannot keep the promises that they made to themselves and they have no regret for doing so nor make ay attempts to better their behavior then they arent really that devoted to those ideals, thus they slowly over time loose connection with the divine source of power they used previously and instead become oathbreaker
and as for your whole nonsense about everyone having superpowers, it clearly requires a lot of devotion to become a paladin, much more than what an typical commoner could muster, and besides that clearly requires you to dedicate your whole life (or at least an rather significant portion of it) to spreading and upholding these ideals as well as most importantly opposing those that would stand against those ideals. Not every bank teller or farming peasant could just go out on a crusade and be an adventurer 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
There is no "strict moral code" required. You have a bunch of subclasses, all of which are devoted to different things. There is the generality of the "Joy and Light" of the Ancients Paladin, to the "Serve the Country" of the Crown Paladin, to "Justice is Revenge" of the Vengeance Paladin. All of these concepts can be interpreted quite a number of ways. Without some non-PC intelligence and judge to rule on what is or is not in adherence to "the Moral Code", then its impossible for Paladins to fall and become Oathbreakers, thus Oathbreakers make no sense.
And the reason I bring up superheroes in comic books is because they illustrate that every professional writer knows that you just can't have a character make a promise to themselves and get superpowers b/c that dilutes the value of superpowers in the universe in which those characters exist. Getting superpowers via a promise would change the rules of the world so that almost anyone who claims a devotion to whatever ideal can get a superpower. Terrorists who believe in their cause? Superpowers. Any priest of a religion that extolls of certain set of values and follows the tennets? Superpowers. An apartment manager who watches a lot of kung fu movies and devotes themselves to the Way of Whatever? Superpowers. If every 10th person gets superpowers just by being "devoted" and not having to answer to anyone, then the narrative weight of having a few Superheroes becomes weak and the world quickly stops resembling in any shape or form the one that the reader lives in.
Similiarly, if every 10th person in D&D-universe could become a Paladin just by making a pinkie swear, why wouldn't they? There should be Paladins running around all over the place assuming that the lore is consistent and applied equally to everyone rather than some meta-narrative reason of "because the game rules say so" - which again, is poor world-building and easily game-breaking.
I have already stated this many times, but a paladin takes dedication. You can't just become one because you believe in something. This belief has to encompass the paladin's entire life. And you could say the exact same thing about clerics. All you have to do for superpowers is just pray!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
True, there is no direct relation between science and wizardry. What I am arguing though, is that it's plausible that a class which gets its powers via arduous study would need to spend a lot of time studying and practicing to improve on that skillset to become more effective at it. A person who gets powers through a promise made to nobody else but themselves, with no limits to that power whatsoever is the cheat code version of an RPG, though, because the Devotion in 5th edition is so broad that you can very well have Evil Paladins following their Oath. All you need is Devotion, after all, not hard work, to get your Pally powers.
I think anyone in the real world who has a PHD would feel like getting spellcasting for studying and practicing the science of magic for years of their life would feel like that's a "cheat code." In real life, studying does not give you magical power anymore than devotion to the conquest of your enemies does. But, D&D is not real life. In D&D, studying magic is as viable a way to receive magical powers as devoting yourself to vengeance. Also, paladins need more than devotion to become a paladin, they need years of rigorous physical training.
There is no "strict moral code" required. You have a bunch of subclasses, all of which are devoted to different things. There is the generality of the "Joy and Light" of the Ancients Paladin, to the "Serve the Country" of the Crown Paladin, to "Justice is Revenge" of the Vengeance Paladin. All of these concepts can be interpreted quite a number of ways. Without some non-PC intelligence and judge to rule on what is or is not in adherence to "the Moral Code", then its impossible for Paladins to fall and become Oathbreakers, thus Oathbreakers make no sense.
There is a strict moral code required. You must swear an oath to keep your tenets, and if you break them you become an Oathbreaker. That's pretty strict. The subclasses are relatively vague in order to make diversity between the different individual paladins of the same oath. If the subclass was strict, then every paladin of that subclass would be the exact same character. "Serve the Country" is strict for an individual paladin. Think of Okoye from Black Panther. She is completely and strictly devoted to serve her country, no matter who the leader is. A Crown paladin might have the same dilemma she has in the Black Panther movie. "Justice is Revenge" is a strict tenet for an individual paladin. Think of Batman. He swore vengeance and justice to all who severely break the law. If a Batman-like paladin was in a situation where a good person murdered an evil person, they would have to decide between becoming an Oathbreaker and letting them go or staying a Vengeance paladin and slaying the murderer. Paladins can become Oathbreakers without having a deity in charge of them. It is up to the DM and the player what warrants breaking their oath.
And the reason I bring up superheroes in comic books is because they illustrate that every professional writer knows that you just can't have a character make a promise to themselves and get superpowers b/c that dilutes the value of superpowers in the universe in which those characters exist. Getting superpowers via a promise would change the rules of the world so that almost anyone who claims a devotion to whatever ideal can get a superpower. Terrorists who believe in their cause? Superpowers. Any priest of a religion that extolls of certain set of values and follows the tennets? Superpowers. An apartment manager who watches a lot of kung fu movies and devotes themselves to the Way of Whatever? Superpowers. If every 10th person gets superpowers just by being "devoted" and not having to answer to anyone, then the narrative weight of having a few Superheroes becomes weak and the world quickly stops resembling in any shape or form the one that the reader lives in.
D&D campaigns are not professional writing. Unless you are a paid DM or livestream your D&D games, the main reasons that you are playing D&D is for personal enjoyment, social interaction, and fun. For some, it is more fun to have simple clear cut rules about where your "superpowers" come from as a character, while for others they're just there to play and couldn't care less about the realism of having magical powers and just want to play the game. In D&D, devotion can give you spells and other magical powers. However, it is not easy to become a paladin.
Similiarly, if every 10th person in D&D-universe could become a Paladin just by making a pinkie swear, why wouldn't they? There should be Paladins running around all over the place assuming that the lore is consistent and applied equally to everyone rather than some meta-narrative reason of "because the game rules say so" - which again, is poor world-building and easily game-breaking.
You are incorrect in your assumption that making a paladin's "promise" is an easy thing to do and is a simple way to get paladin powers. Here's a quote from the paladin section of the PHB:
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.
Paladins train for years to learn the skills of combat, mastering a variety of weapons and armor.
The first part shows that a paladin can just a viably be a non-theistic holy knight as one that serves a deity. The second part shows that paladins have to train in mastering the skills of combat, taking years to do so. It later says that fighters are uncommon in D&D worlds, but paladins are even rarer. It is difficult to become a paladin, even if they can draw their power solely from their devotion to their oaths.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
PHB page 83: "Fighters are rare enough among the ranks of the militias and armies of the world, but even fewer people can claim the true calling of a paladin."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
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).
That's kind of the point of playing a non-theistic paladin. That is, the point of doing so is to not have to worship a deity to get your power. More often than not, being a paladin without a deity is just a matter of roleplay, not mechanics. If someone at my table wants to play a devout knight who swears an oath to avenge the destruction of his hometown, I'm not going to force their character to worship a deity, especially in settings where deities aren't as present as the Forgotten Realms or Theros (Dark Sun, Eberron, Ravnica). I don't know what the definition of a paladin was in previous editions, but in 5e it is just a divine warrior whose power originates from their strict following of their oath. I can understand if that definition doesn't make sense or feel right to you, but I actually find it more interesting for a paladin's power to come directly from their strict lifestyle than just coming from a deity. That's what sets them apart from Clerics, in my mind. Clerics have to devote themselves to a deity or a fundamental part of D&D's cosmology to get their divine magic, while paladins have to obey an oath in order to get a different type of divine power.
Which is why I pointed out that it will vary a bit by setting (a non-theistic paladin in a setting like Dark Sun would make more sense than it would in FR). Overall, wanting the "benefits" of being a paladin, but, for whatever reason not wanting to "deal" with a deity still makes little sense to me--don't like the gods, don't play a paladin. It's kind of like a non-theistic cleric (which I've seen arguments for). Just makes little sense. But, I guess I could understand it from a roleplaying standpoint, such as the knight who swore to avenge the destroyed village you mentioned. I think it ultimately depends on setting (in a setting like Forgotten Realms, it really would make little sense, but in one such as Dark Sun, it's more understandable), and maybe they're providing the option so that it's easier for people to homebrew, too. To me, "divine warrior" in itself implies divinity is involved, so a non-theistic paladin still seems a bit like a cop-out, but I guess I can understand from a roleplaying standpoint.
To actually answer your gotcha questions, maybe in the Forgotten Realms Ao determines the rules of whether or not non-devout paladins broke their oaths. Or, it could just be up to the Weave of Magic or Mystra. In all, it is up to the DM, but I would rule that if you do something obviously contrary to your tenets and oath, you break the oath. That's just how paladins work.
Not overly important here, but I just wanted to point out that Ao is highly unlikely to concern himself with a fallen paladin. He rarely, if ever, is concerned with mortals (he's more the gods god). Mystra is also unlikely, unless it heavily involved magic. While the non-theistic paladin is still weird to me, perhaps a paladin who swears an oath--I'll use the oath of justice as an example--but not to a specific deity, either will still "answer" to a deity of justice (depending on setting, as I said above), or the "universe at large", so to speak. Even in a setting where the gods are very far removed, if present at all, there is usually some cosmic force. Maybe the force of the oath itself binds the paladin, either to a deity of justice, such as Torm or Tyr, or to the cosmos itself (kind of like a Jedi, maybe?).
I'll answer your question with a question: WHO determines whether a Wizard or Druid can do magic? Why can't a Druid or Wizard choose to cast 9th level spells at will at 1st level? Surely some non-PC entity or intelligence (not necessarily a god) making that determination, or they would be able to choose their power level, right? There would be no limit to the power of these spellcasters unless someone determined that they could only have a certain amount of power and spells per their experience level.
well in the specific case of the wizard it is the case that the wizard does not have any 9th level spells recorded into their spellbook, and even if they did have them the 9th level spells would be too complicated for them to even begin to understand
But what makes that complexity? Who decided that Wizard magic works like mathematics or science in the D&D worlds? What forces or beings chose that intelligence can be used to draw and create spells from the Weave of Magic? If D&D worlds have rules regarding the ways you can draw magic from studying arcane texts and being one with nature, why can't you just draw magical power from your devotion to your oath? I see no difference between how a druid draws magic and how a paladin does. It doesn't make sense how they get it, because its a different magical world that is make-believe. In real life, devoting your life to nature or a strict moral code will not give you magical powers, but for whatever reason, in D&D worlds it will.
first of all, nobody is saying that the path of the paladin does not require an fair amount of training, those armor and weapon proficiencies and your fighting style did not come from devotion or piety but actiual martial training, who is to say that channeling the divine energies you posses do not require similar amounts of training
If your character is channeling "divine energy" then you are saying that your character gets energy from a divine source, i.e. a god or a group of them. You are contradicting yourself.
I'll answer your question with a question: WHO determines whether a Wizard or Druid can do magic? Why can't a Druid or Wizard choose to cast 9th level spells at will at 1st level? Surely some non-PC entity or intelligence (not necessarily a god) making that determination, or they would be able to choose their power level, right? There would be no limit to the power of these spellcasters unless someone determined that they could only have a certain amount of power and spells per their experience level.
well in the specific case of the wizard it is the case that the wizard does not have any 9th level spells recorded into their spellbook, and even if they did have them the 9th level spells would be too complicated for them to even begin to understand
for that "oathbreakers make no sense" thing, when the devotion paladin starts lying their ass of for personal gain and when the ancients paladin starts destroying art and nature for no reason it becomes clear that they themselves no longer truly believe in what their oaths stand for, and for lesser transgressions if they cannot keep the promises that they made to themselves and they have no regret for doing so nor make ay attempts to better their behavior then they arent really that devoted to those ideals, thus they slowly over time loose connection with the divine source of power they used previously and instead become oathbreaker
You are still not answering the essential question: WHO determines that an Oath has been so violated that now the Paladin is now an Oathbreaker? Any judgement requires some form of intelligence, correct? Intelligence generally means consciousness. WHO or WHAT is wielding this consciousness to remove power from the once-devoted Paladin?
There is a strict moral code required. You must swear an oath to keep your tenets, and if you break them you become an Oathbreaker. That's pretty strict. The subclasses are relatively vague in order to make diversity between the different individual paladins of the same oath. If the subclass was strict, then every paladin of that subclass would be the exact same character. "Serve the Country" is strict for an individual paladin. Think of Okoye from Black Panther. She is completely and strictly devoted to serve her country, no matter who the leader is. A Crown paladin might have the same dilemma she has in the Black Panther movie. "Justice is Revenge" is a strict tenet for an individual paladin. Think of Batman. He swore vengeance and justice to all who severely break the law. If a Batman-like paladin was in a situation where a good person murdered an evil person, they would have to decide between becoming an Oathbreaker and letting them go or staying a Vengeance paladin and slaying the murderer. Paladins can become Oathbreakers without having a deity in charge of them. It is up to the DM and the player what warrants breaking their oath.
And the reason I bring up superheroes in comic books is because they illustrate that every professional writer knows that you just can't have a character make a promise to themselves and get superpowers b/c that dilutes the value of superpowers in the universe in which those characters exist. Getting superpowers via a promise would change the rules of the world so that almost anyone who claims a devotion to whatever ideal can get a superpower. Terrorists who believe in their cause? Superpowers. Any priest of a religion that extolls of certain set of values and follows the tennets? Superpowers. An apartment manager who watches a lot of kung fu movies and devotes themselves to the Way of Whatever? Superpowers. If every 10th person gets superpowers just by being "devoted" and not having to answer to anyone, then the narrative weight of having a few Superheroes becomes weak and the world quickly stops resembling in any shape or form the one that the reader lives in.
D&D campaigns are not professional writing. Unless you are a paid DM or livestream your D&D games, the main reasons that you are playing D&D is for personal enjoyment, social interaction, and fun. For some, it is more fun to have simple clear cut rules about where your "superpowers" come from as a character, while for others they're just there to play and couldn't care less about the realism of having magical powers and just want to play the game. In D&D, devotion can give you spells and other magical powers. However, it is not easy to become a paladin.
Similiarly, if every 10th person in D&D-universe could become a Paladin just by making a pinkie swear, why wouldn't they? There should be Paladins running around all over the place assuming that the lore is consistent and applied equally to everyone rather than some meta-narrative reason of "because the game rules say so" - which again, is poor world-building and easily game-breaking.
The first part shows that a paladin can just a viably be a non-theistic holy knight as one that serves a deity. The second part shows that paladins have to train in mastering the skills of combat, taking years to do so. It later says that fighters are uncommon in D&D worlds, but paladins are even rarer. It is difficult to become a paladin, even if they can draw their power solely from their devotion to their oaths.
Again, you are using meta-narrative to answer what are in-universe questions. If you are watching a movie and the unarmed protagonist is trapped in a barn that has never been shown before that is about to be stormed by werewolves and the protagonist finds a gun with silver bullets inside, thus enabling her to kill the werewolves, wouldn't you say that is sloppy writing? When there no logical connection between the barn and the presence of the tool/weapon that is suddenly there to solve the problem, that generally called bad storytelling. If your Paladin turns into an Oathbreaker without a reason why except that a bolt appears out of nowhere and now the character can't use their previous Paladin mojo, with no explanation for where that transformation energy came from, it's the same thing. That is a sign that the game world you are playing in is inconsistent and sloppily written, isn't it?
You are still not answering the essential question: WHO determines that an Oath has been so violated that now the Paladin is now an Oathbreaker? Any judgement requires some form of intelligence, correct? Intelligence generally means consciousness. WHO or WHAT is wielding this consciousness to remove power from the once-devoted Paladin?
Since you refuse to stop asking this question, I will try a different answer that could be a satisfying explanation.
Maybe its not that a deity or entity is actively deciding whether or not certain things qualify as "breaking your oath," but instead a deity or entity did so thousands of years ago. They could have created rules for the universe deciding exactly what constitutes as turning a paladin into an Oathbreaker. Ao or Torm/Tyr/Helm could have done this in the Forgotten Realms. Paladine could have done this in Dragonlance, Iroas did in Theros, the Silver Flame/Siberys did so in Eberron, and so on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You are still not answering the essential question: WHO determines that an Oath has been so violated that now the Paladin is now an Oathbreaker? Any judgement requires some form of intelligence, correct? Intelligence generally means consciousness. WHO or WHAT is wielding this consciousness to remove power from the once-devoted Paladin?
Since you refuse to stop asking this question, I will try a different answer that could be a satisfying explanation.
Maybe its not that a deity or entity is actively deciding whether or not certain things qualify as "breaking your oath," but instead a deity or entity did so thousands of years ago. They could have created rules for the universe deciding exactly what constitutes as turning a paladin into an Oathbreaker. Ao or Torm/Tyr/Helm could have done this in the Forgotten Realms. Paladine could have done this in Dragonlance, Iroas did in Theros, the Silver Flame/Siberys did so in Eberron, and so on.
IOW, the Paladin whether or not she is devoted to a deity, would still be subject to divine influence, even if indirectly.
IOW, the Paladin whether or not she is devoted to a deity, would still be subject to divine influence, even if indirectly.
Of course they will. The class is described as being divine. I know the definition of divine in the real world is relating to at least one deity, but in D&D worlds that isn't always true. Angels in Eberron are divine without being created by a deity. Druids have a kind of divine magic (primal magic) that doesn't directly come from deities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I would argue that when you reach level three in the paladin class, you swear an actual oath. The words of this oath dictate how you will act. If later in your life you start acting astray from your oath, you become an oathbreaker.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Paladins have to follow a sacred oath. This happens independently of having a god. Lacking a god is not some sort of Easy Mode for a Paladin. All it does is mean that you're not part of a specific church.
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.
That's kind of the point of playing a non-theistic paladin. That is, the point of doing so is to not have to worship a deity to get your power. More often than not, being a paladin without a deity is just a matter of roleplay, not mechanics. If someone at my table wants to play a devout knight who swears an oath to avenge the destruction of his hometown, I'm not going to force their character to worship a deity, especially in settings where deities aren't as present as the Forgotten Realms or Theros (Dark Sun, Eberron, Ravnica). I don't know what the definition of a paladin was in previous editions, but in 5e it is just a divine warrior whose power originates from their strict following of their oath. I can understand if that definition doesn't make sense or feel right to you, but I actually find it more interesting for a paladin's power to come directly from their strict lifestyle than just coming from a deity. That's what sets them apart from Clerics, in my mind. Clerics have to devote themselves to a deity or a fundamental part of D&D's cosmology to get their divine magic, while paladins have to obey an oath in order to get a different type of divine power.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I see paladins as capable of falling under one of a few very common themes.
Obviously these different subclasses don't have to be played in these stereotypical ways but I think they do a good job of showcasing how one can easily play a non-theistic paladin and it making sense RP-wise.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
But the question needs to be asked: WHO determines whether the oath has been broken? If there is not a non-PC entity or intelligence (not necessarily a god) making that determination, then there is nobody to hold the Paladin accountable as a holder of Paladin power, correct? There is no counterweight to the person's ego and image of themselves as "doing the right thing" except themselves, which is generally pretty unreliable.
I know that some people will read this and say: well, that's what the DM is for, isn't it? But IF that's the case, isn't the DM intervening as a meta-narrative God, more powerful than all the other deities? So in the end, you still have a form of divine intervention taking place to punish the Paladin for breaking her/his oaths.
You could see it that way, or you could interpret it as the paladin's superego, or there's some cosmic force at work, not unlike the force that limits the powers of the gods themselves.
I'll answer your question with a question: WHO determines whether a Wizard or Druid can do magic? Why can't a Druid or Wizard choose to cast 9th level spells at will at 1st level? Surely some non-PC entity or intelligence (not necessarily a god) making that determination, or they would be able to choose their power level, right? There would be no limit to the power of these spellcasters unless someone determined that they could only have a certain amount of power and spells per their experience level.
I know that some will read this and say: well, that's just how the rules were written and how the worlds of D&D work. Exactly. It's how the game is balanced, and every part of how the classes get their power and whether or not deities are involved or if it is just the universe deciding upon certain rules doesn't really matter.
To actually answer your gotcha questions, maybe in the Forgotten Realms Ao determines the rules of whether or not non-devout paladins broke their oaths. Or, it could just be up to the Weave of Magic or Mystra. In all, it is up to the DM, but I would rule that if you do something obviously contrary to your tenets and oath, you break the oath. That's just how paladins work.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The Druid does actually have deities, they are the deities of nature. Rather than worshipping and serving a specific deity, though, Druids serve whatever Nature-related deities or subset thereof that exist.
Wizards study for their power. Their power is limited by the difficulty of rearranging the weave in particular ways to pull off ever more powerful effects, which is established by level. The complexity of manipulating the weave goes up the more powerful of an effect the Wizard is trying to achieve (ignoring a few very poorly written spells). This makes sense if you related something like wizardry to mathematics. Making sense of the Theory of Relativity on a mathematical level is not possible without relying a great period of study of simpler mathematics to form one's intellectual foundation.
You are still basically just saying that the DM is the deity, though. That's a meta-narrative answer to a problem of in-narrative logic. "This is the way D&D is"? That's just avoiding the question of why this humanoid acquired superpowers. There is a reason why superheroes in comic books almost always have a source of power that comes from beyond themselves. Radioactive spiders, gamma rays, being born on a different planet and then being exposed to an different kind of sunlight, experimentation by top secret organizations, a quirk in their genetic code, a bargain with super powerful alien lifeform, etc.
They do not have to get their power from the deities of nature, though, just like a Paladin. Quote from the Druid section of the PHB:
Druids can get their power from nature and only nature. If nature is magical in D&D and the magic that nature gives druids is limited, why can't paladins only draw their magic from their devotion to their oaths with no deity involved? Devotion and nature can both be magical in the D&D multiverse in and of themselves, granting magical power to PCs, creatures, and other beings.
But what makes that complexity? Who decided that Wizard magic works like mathematics or science in the D&D worlds? What forces or beings chose that intelligence can be used to draw and create spells from the Weave of Magic? If D&D worlds have rules regarding the ways you can draw magic from studying arcane texts and being one with nature, why can't you just draw magical power from your devotion to your oath? I see no difference between how a druid draws magic and how a paladin does. It doesn't make sense how they get it, because its a different magical world that is make-believe. In real life, devoting your life to nature or a strict moral code will not give you magical powers, but for whatever reason, in D&D worlds it will.
I'm saying it is up to the DM, as the core rules aren't clear on this front. My answer was correct. This is the way D&D is. Paladins and Clerics can get magical powers from devoting themselves to an oath or concept. Worshipping a deity gives that deity power. Devoting your life to following an oath will give you magical power. D&D works differently from comic-books and the real world.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
True, there is no direct relation between science and wizardry. What I am arguing though, is that it's plausible that a class which gets its powers via arduous study would need to spend a lot of time studying and practicing to improve on that skillset to become more effective at it. A person who gets powers through a promise made to nobody else but themselves, with no limits to that power whatsoever is the cheat code version of an RPG, though, because the Devotion in 5th edition is so broad that you can very well have Evil Paladins following their Oath. All you need is Devotion, after all, not hard work, to get your Pally powers.
There is no "strict moral code" required. You have a bunch of subclasses, all of which are devoted to different things. There is the generality of the "Joy and Light" of the Ancients Paladin, to the "Serve the Country" of the Crown Paladin, to "Justice is Revenge" of the Vengeance Paladin. All of these concepts can be interpreted quite a number of ways. Without some non-PC intelligence and judge to rule on what is or is not in adherence to "the Moral Code", then its impossible for Paladins to fall and become Oathbreakers, thus Oathbreakers make no sense.
And the reason I bring up superheroes in comic books is because they illustrate that every professional writer knows that you just can't have a character make a promise to themselves and get superpowers b/c that dilutes the value of superpowers in the universe in which those characters exist. Getting superpowers via a promise would change the rules of the world so that almost anyone who claims a devotion to whatever ideal can get a superpower. Terrorists who believe in their cause? Superpowers. Any priest of a religion that extolls of certain set of values and follows the tennets? Superpowers. An apartment manager who watches a lot of kung fu movies and devotes themselves to the Way of Whatever? Superpowers. If every 10th person gets superpowers just by being "devoted" and not having to answer to anyone, then the narrative weight of having a few Superheroes becomes weak and the world quickly stops resembling in any shape or form the one that the reader lives in.
Similiarly, if every 10th person in D&D-universe could become a Paladin just by making a pinkie swear, why wouldn't they? There should be Paladins running around all over the place assuming that the lore is consistent and applied equally to everyone rather than some meta-narrative reason of "because the game rules say so" - which again, is poor world-building.
well in the specific case of the wizard it is the case that the wizard does not have any 9th level spells recorded into their spellbook, and even if they did have them the 9th level spells would be too complicated for them to even begin to understand
first of all, nobody is saying that the path of the paladin does not require an fair amount of training, those armor and weapon proficiencies and your fighting style did not come from devotion or piety but actiual martial training, who is to say that channeling the divine energies you posses do not require similar amounts of training
for that "oathbreakers make no sense" thing, when the devotion paladin starts lying their ass of for personal gain and when the ancients paladin starts destroying art and nature for no reason it becomes clear that they themselves no longer truly believe in what their oaths stand for, and for lesser transgressions if they cannot keep the promises that they made to themselves and they have no regret for doing so nor make ay attempts to better their behavior then they arent really that devoted to those ideals, thus they slowly over time loose connection with the divine source of power they used previously and instead become oathbreaker
and as for your whole nonsense about everyone having superpowers, it clearly requires a lot of devotion to become a paladin, much more than what an typical commoner could muster, and besides that clearly requires you to dedicate your whole life (or at least an rather significant portion of it) to spreading and upholding these ideals as well as most importantly opposing those that would stand against those ideals. Not every bank teller or farming peasant could just go out on a crusade and be an adventurer 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
I have already stated this many times, but a paladin takes dedication. You can't just become one because you believe in something. This belief has to encompass the paladin's entire life. And you could say the exact same thing about clerics. All you have to do for superpowers is just pray!
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I think anyone in the real world who has a PHD would feel like getting spellcasting for studying and practicing the science of magic for years of their life would feel like that's a "cheat code." In real life, studying does not give you magical power anymore than devotion to the conquest of your enemies does. But, D&D is not real life. In D&D, studying magic is as viable a way to receive magical powers as devoting yourself to vengeance. Also, paladins need more than devotion to become a paladin, they need years of rigorous physical training.
There is a strict moral code required. You must swear an oath to keep your tenets, and if you break them you become an Oathbreaker. That's pretty strict. The subclasses are relatively vague in order to make diversity between the different individual paladins of the same oath. If the subclass was strict, then every paladin of that subclass would be the exact same character. "Serve the Country" is strict for an individual paladin. Think of Okoye from Black Panther. She is completely and strictly devoted to serve her country, no matter who the leader is. A Crown paladin might have the same dilemma she has in the Black Panther movie. "Justice is Revenge" is a strict tenet for an individual paladin. Think of Batman. He swore vengeance and justice to all who severely break the law. If a Batman-like paladin was in a situation where a good person murdered an evil person, they would have to decide between becoming an Oathbreaker and letting them go or staying a Vengeance paladin and slaying the murderer. Paladins can become Oathbreakers without having a deity in charge of them. It is up to the DM and the player what warrants breaking their oath.
D&D campaigns are not professional writing. Unless you are a paid DM or livestream your D&D games, the main reasons that you are playing D&D is for personal enjoyment, social interaction, and fun. For some, it is more fun to have simple clear cut rules about where your "superpowers" come from as a character, while for others they're just there to play and couldn't care less about the realism of having magical powers and just want to play the game. In D&D, devotion can give you spells and other magical powers. However, it is not easy to become a paladin.
You are incorrect in your assumption that making a paladin's "promise" is an easy thing to do and is a simple way to get paladin powers. Here's a quote from the paladin section of the PHB:
The first part shows that a paladin can just a viably be a non-theistic holy knight as one that serves a deity. The second part shows that paladins have to train in mastering the skills of combat, taking years to do so. It later says that fighters are uncommon in D&D worlds, but paladins are even rarer. It is difficult to become a paladin, even if they can draw their power solely from their devotion to their oaths.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
PHB page 83: "Fighters are rare enough among the ranks of the militias and armies of the world, but even fewer people can claim the true calling of a paladin."
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Which is why I pointed out that it will vary a bit by setting (a non-theistic paladin in a setting like Dark Sun would make more sense than it would in FR). Overall, wanting the "benefits" of being a paladin, but, for whatever reason not wanting to "deal" with a deity still makes little sense to me--don't like the gods, don't play a paladin. It's kind of like a non-theistic cleric (which I've seen arguments for). Just makes little sense. But, I guess I could understand it from a roleplaying standpoint, such as the knight who swore to avenge the destroyed village you mentioned. I think it ultimately depends on setting (in a setting like Forgotten Realms, it really would make little sense, but in one such as Dark Sun, it's more understandable), and maybe they're providing the option so that it's easier for people to homebrew, too. To me, "divine warrior" in itself implies divinity is involved, so a non-theistic paladin still seems a bit like a cop-out, but I guess I can understand from a roleplaying standpoint.
Not overly important here, but I just wanted to point out that Ao is highly unlikely to concern himself with a fallen paladin. He rarely, if ever, is concerned with mortals (he's more the gods god). Mystra is also unlikely, unless it heavily involved magic. While the non-theistic paladin is still weird to me, perhaps a paladin who swears an oath--I'll use the oath of justice as an example--but not to a specific deity, either will still "answer" to a deity of justice (depending on setting, as I said above), or the "universe at large", so to speak. Even in a setting where the gods are very far removed, if present at all, there is usually some cosmic force. Maybe the force of the oath itself binds the paladin, either to a deity of justice, such as Torm or Tyr, or to the cosmos itself (kind of like a Jedi, maybe?).
If your character is channeling "divine energy" then you are saying that your character gets energy from a divine source, i.e. a god or a group of them. You are contradicting yourself.
You are still not answering the essential question: WHO determines that an Oath has been so violated that now the Paladin is now an Oathbreaker? Any judgement requires some form of intelligence, correct? Intelligence generally means consciousness. WHO or WHAT is wielding this consciousness to remove power from the once-devoted Paladin?
Again, you are using meta-narrative to answer what are in-universe questions. If you are watching a movie and the unarmed protagonist is trapped in a barn that has never been shown before that is about to be stormed by werewolves and the protagonist finds a gun with silver bullets inside, thus enabling her to kill the werewolves, wouldn't you say that is sloppy writing? When there no logical connection between the barn and the presence of the tool/weapon that is suddenly there to solve the problem, that generally called bad storytelling. If your Paladin turns into an Oathbreaker without a reason why except that a bolt appears out of nowhere and now the character can't use their previous Paladin mojo, with no explanation for where that transformation energy came from, it's the same thing. That is a sign that the game world you are playing in is inconsistent and sloppily written, isn't it?
Since you refuse to stop asking this question, I will try a different answer that could be a satisfying explanation.
Maybe its not that a deity or entity is actively deciding whether or not certain things qualify as "breaking your oath," but instead a deity or entity did so thousands of years ago. They could have created rules for the universe deciding exactly what constitutes as turning a paladin into an Oathbreaker. Ao or Torm/Tyr/Helm could have done this in the Forgotten Realms. Paladine could have done this in Dragonlance, Iroas did in Theros, the Silver Flame/Siberys did so in Eberron, and so on.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
IOW, the Paladin whether or not she is devoted to a deity, would still be subject to divine influence, even if indirectly.
Of course they will. The class is described as being divine. I know the definition of divine in the real world is relating to at least one deity, but in D&D worlds that isn't always true. Angels in Eberron are divine without being created by a deity. Druids have a kind of divine magic (primal magic) that doesn't directly come from deities.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I would argue that when you reach level three in the paladin class, you swear an actual oath. The words of this oath dictate how you will act. If later in your life you start acting astray from your oath, you become an oathbreaker.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System