Tenets of the Oath of Devotion and Chill Touch

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

 

Your statement about RAW was completely false.

You made a RAW statement about fluff text. There is no actual requirement for a Paladin to follow a god or angel, not by RAW.

Sure, you are 100% right that the words many and others in the text do not imply RAW, as Many + Others does not mean All — there’s 100% no disagreement here.  I see it now :)

The point I was trying to make is that A ∨ (¬A → B) is a valid logical statement.

I wasn’t 100% sure about my strong reading being RAW, so I included a fallback from the beginning. My reading was that:

(A) My understanding is that RAW, a Devotion Paladin must follow a god’s ethos or angelic ideals. And if that reading is too strong or incorrect (as it was), then at minimum
(B) the text suggests that many Devotion Paladins adopt these approaches as a common model for their oath.

And your (correct) critique of my strong reading (A) doesn’t affect the fallback (B), which remains a valid observation based on the text.

What I probably should have written is:

“I might be wrong, but my reading of the rule text is that all Devotion Paladins do one of these 2 thing. But if my reading is incorrect, it is at least clear that many of them do.”

Quote from Jayce_Danathar >>

Sure, you are 100% right that the words many and others in the text do not imply RAW, as Many + Others does not mean All — there’s 100% no disagreement here.  I see it now :)

The point I was trying to make is that A ∨ (¬A → B) is a valid logical statement.

I wasn’t 100% sure about my strong reading being RAW, so I included a fallback from the beginning. My reading was that:

(A) My understanding is that RAW, a Devotion Paladin must follow a god’s ethos or angelic ideals. And if that reading is too strong or incorrect (as it was), then at minimum
(B) the text suggests that many Devotion Paladins adopt these approaches as a common model for their oath.

And your (correct) critique of my strong reading (A) doesn’t affect the fallback (B), which remains a valid observation based on the text.

What I probably should have written is:

“I might be wrong, but my reading of the rule text is that all Devotion Paladins do one of these 2 thing. But if my reading is incorrect, it is at least clear that many of them do.”

The issue is that it's not really rules text and it is misleading to treat it as such. The mechanics of the subclass at level 3 consists of the rules for Oath of Devotion Spells and Sacred Weapon. It doesn't matter if the statement is technically logically correct; you've injected the assertion that the section is rules text and accepting the statement with that assertion validates an invalid assumption.

Quote from jl8e >>

It seems unlikely that a Devotion paladin could hold to their oath and still be describable as "evil", but I'd consider that a challenge, not an impossibility. (One possibility that immediately springs to mind is somebody who is vicious and cruel by inclination but, for some reason, is desperately trying to hold to the oath. The tension is the heart of the character, and mucking with the character's class would be ruining the fun.)

 

Hmm

The Oath of Devotion binds Paladins to the ideals of justice and order. These Paladins meet the archetype of the knight in shining armor. They hold themselves to the highest standards of conduct, and some—for better or worse—hold the rest of the world to the same standards.

These paladins share the following tenets:

• Let your word be your promise.
• Protect the weak and never fear to act.
• Let your honorable deeds be an example.

- a paladin sworn to service to the failson of the previous (now deceased) king, who the paladin revered. The character isn't going to break their word to the old king to look after their son, and following their new lord's commands definitely qualifies as maintaining order, but the "justice" and "honorable" parts start to get murkier and murkier

- a paladin who doesn't realize they're on the wrong side of a genocidal war, having been indoctrinated since they were young to see the enemy as monsters, and their own citizens as the "weak" who need protecting

Definitely not an impossible challenge

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

The issue is that it's not really rules text and it is misleading to treat it as such. The mechanics of the subclass at level 3 consists of the rules for Oath of Devotion Spells and Sacred Weapon. 

 This is very relevant info to me, as I confess that I genuinely assumed that the tenets were part of the rules.

This ties well with what Xalthu said earlier

Quote from Xalthu >>

First, you are very right that there is no clear demarcation. This gets especially challenging in some spell descriptions. It's pretty annoying and was something I'd been hoping they'd clean up when 5.5 came out, but here we are.

As far as the tenets, it's basically the same thing. It's always going to come down to a table-by-table and case-by-case choice about what kinds of behaviors are out of bounds.

 Does that mean that there is no real code of conduct (in the rules) for any paladin? And that, more in general, everything before the description of a Lev power is purely flavor/guidelines? 

Because I read

These paladins share the following tenets:

 

a line that is repeated identical for each subclass and seemed quite rule-like, so to speak, so I assumed "that's a rule".

What demarcates a rule from flavor text? 

Then it could be easy to play an Evil Devotion Paladin, as the tenets are just an indication and can be tailored. 

Quote from Jayce_Danathar >>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

The issue is that it's not really rules text and it is misleading to treat it as such. The mechanics of the subclass at level 3 consists of the rules for Oath of Devotion Spells and Sacred Weapon. 

 This is very relevant info to me, as I confess that I genuinely assumed that the tenets were part of the rules.

The delineation is not always clear, but the sections on the abilities you get for the level.

This is also not rules text:

Paladins are united by their oaths to stand against the forces of annihilation and corruption. Whether sworn before a god’s altar, in a sacred glade before nature spirits, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witnesses, a Paladin’s oath is a powerful bond. It is a source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion.

Paladins train to learn the skills of combat, mastering a variety of weapons and armor. Even so, their martial skills are secondary to the magical power they wield: power to heal the injured, smite their foes, and protect the helpless and those who fight at their side.

Almost by definition, the life of a Paladin is an adventuring life, for every Paladin lives on the front lines of the cosmic struggle against annihilation. Fighters are rare enough among the ranks of a world’s armies, but even fewer people can claim the calling of a Paladin. When they do receive the call, these blessed folk turn from their former occupations and take up arms and magic.

Quote from Jayce_Danathar >>

Does that mean that there is no real code of conduct (in the rules) for any paladin? And that, more in general, everything before the description of a Lev power is purely flavor/guidelines?  

There is no mechanically mandated or enforced code of conduct.

Quote from Jayce_Danathar >> 

Then it could be easy to play an Evil Devotion Paladin, as the tenets are just an indication and can be tailored. 

Correct. You may find that certain DMs will enforce the tenets as requirements or create to their own, but they are not mechanically required or enforced in the RAW.

Quote from Jayce_Danathar>>

 Does that mean that there is no real code of conduct (in the rules) for any paladin? And that, more in general, everything before the description of a Lev power is purely flavor/guidelines? 

Because I read

These paladins share the following tenets:

a line that is repeated identical for each subclass and seemed quite rule-like, so to speak, so I assumed "that's a rule".

What demarcates a rule from flavor text? 

 It's admittedly not always clear, and in some cases flavor text is relevant to ruling on edge cases, but in this case, it's not a rule because it doesn't engage with the game mechanics in any way. There's no "if they don't, then <consequenses>".

Similarly, nothing forces Warlocks to serve their patrons' interests, or Clerics to serve their gods, or Druids to defend nature. By the book, they still keep their powers, even if they're working against everything the source stands for.

Then it could be easy to play an Evil Devotion Paladin, as the tenets are just an indication and can be tailored. 

They can certainly be tailored in conversation with the GM to create a customized version of the oath that better fits your character, but just because there are no mechanical consequences, doesn't mean there are no consequences. If you're a part of an established order, they may hunt you down. NPCs that have heard of you will distrust you. Etc.

But also, a paladin (or any class with roleplay elements to their powers) that's consistently breaking their tenets ought to prompt a conversation with the DM. Not as a "straighten up or else" thing, but a "how do you see your character going from here, and should we make mechanical changes to represent it"? Now, sometimes this will produce a "I don't care, and don't want any change" result, but that's a roleplay issue, and bad roleplaying cannot be solved mechanically. More often, the player will have an in-character reason, and will be happy to work out some plans for acts of repentance, oath-changing, or whatever. And sometimes there won't be anything in-game needed -- the player hasn't realized they're breaking the oath, or the two of you need to straighten out a disagreement on what it means.

But crises of faith, paladins who have problems holding their oath, warlocks rebelling against their patrons, etc. -- these are all legitimate roleplaying.

Quote from Jayce_Danathar >>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

The issue is that it's not really rules text and it is misleading to treat it as such. The mechanics of the subclass at level 3 consists of the rules for Oath of Devotion Spells and Sacred Weapon. 

 This is very relevant info to me, as I confess that I genuinely assumed that the tenets were part of the rules.

This ties well with what Xalthu said earlier

Quote from Xalthu >>

First, you are very right that there is no clear demarcation. This gets especially challenging in some spell descriptions. It's pretty annoying and was something I'd been hoping they'd clean up when 5.5 came out, but here we are.

As far as the tenets, it's basically the same thing. It's always going to come down to a table-by-table and case-by-case choice about what kinds of behaviors are out of bounds.

 Does that mean that there is no real code of conduct (in the rules) for any paladin? And that, more in general, everything before the description of a Lev power is purely flavor/guidelines? 

Because I read

These paladins share the following tenets:

 

a line that is repeated identical for each subclass and seemed quite rule-like, so to speak, so I assumed "that's a rule".

What demarcates a rule from flavor text? 

Then it could be easy to play an Evil Devotion Paladin, as the tenets are just an indication and can be tailored. 

 I like to use the tenets as written. But what I’d meant was more, it’s going to a judgment call if you’ve violated one or not. I’m some cases, yes, it will be very clear, but other times there’s real gray areas. And some DMs might be fine with some behaviors while others are not ok with the same stuff.

It’s a good conversation to have with your DM. If you want to hold to some different tenets, or add or subtract from the ones listed, or just make them up from whole cloth. What really matters is that both of you are on the same page as far just what your paladin’s oath is, and what might be the consequences for breaking it.