Someone's going to come in here and tell you a paladin doesn't need a god and they get their power from their oath, but that's baloney. Any fighter with a grudge can make an oath but that does not make them a paladin. It is the divine influence of a supernatural presence that grants divine magic, divine strike, lay on hands, etc. In fact, the paladin has divine abilities as early as level 1 and 2 and they don't even have an oath until 3rd level.
But let's just call the oath a pledge to a god (to use your vernacular). The consequences of breaking this oath are spelled out in the paladin's class description (tl;dr it's up to the DM)
BREAKING YOUR OATH
A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a paladin to transgress his or her oath.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
Paladins in this edition get their power from their oaths. Gods are not required. Losing the favor of a god would not have to have an impact if they maintain their oaths.
Paladins in this edition get their power from their oaths. Gods are not required. Losing the favor of a god would not have to have an impact if they maintain their oaths.
but who is the oath to? Who upholds the other end if not a god or divine entity? the oath is not a sentient, its an oath. Similar to warlocks. a warlocks power comes from its pact, but the pact, just like an oath, is between two parties. In the warlocks case the other party is a patron, in a paladin's it is usually a god. and like warlocks, some paladins might not know who their oath was accepted by, but that doesn't mean the oath itself is granting the power.
Now, you are correct in that favor and upholding the oath are different things, and one can lose favor but keep the oath (and thus your paladin powers), but to say the oath is by itself the source and grantor of that power is the same as saying a contract enforces itself in the real world, which is ludicrous.
Since it is a game and your worlds may play by different perspectives, another method may be the way we are looking at the oath vs. bargain mechanic. A bargain (cleric, warlock, etc) is a direct tie to a power which is granting the character attachment by willful execution. An oath is a personal bond forcing/tethering to a force/entity without its cordial invitation. The force/entity is bound by its own nature/portfolio to be accessed in this way, but it does not mean it cannot cast influence upon the character. Going against a god and falling out of favor may not break the gods bearing to allow access to its personal font of power, but it does not have to grant favor to events working against the character and might even work to thwart the character directly. But then again, what are mortals to a god?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
IMHO, Earthdawn is still the best fantasy realm, Shadowrun is the best Sci-Fi realm, and Dark Sun is the best D&D realm.
5E does indeed say the oath is itself, the source of the power. Yes it's ludicrous but this is Dungeons and Dragons get used to it.
"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."
Their faith in their oath is what grants them power, thus the other parties are me, myself and I. You are in charge of upholding your oath, and if you feel like you failed, then you decide if you are worthy enough to continue. Most paladins feel like they need a cleric or some divine being to tell them this, but that's them deciding that they are worthy when they can get someone else to tell them they are.
Edit: Grammar, also now I have the idea of making a paladin who is so committed to his oath that he doesn't notice when he breaks it, thus no loss of oath.
Someone's going to come in here and tell you a paladin doesn't need a god and they get their power from their oath, but that's baloney...
it me, hi. Paladins get their strength from their fanatical convictions and strength of personality..., which certainly can be in service of a god, but need not be. Forsaken by their god, a fanatic might just as well start a splinter cult to overthrow the church, rather than humbly accept the possibility that their actions were wrong. History is full of em.
Once you tap into the divine energy and tithe your soul to it through your oath, you are bound to access its power freely. You in essence become a tap to control that power, unlike other casters which rely on a divine entity to channel the energy. Without your oath there is nothing for the energy to travel through and it becomes impossible for you to turn on the tap.
Think of your oath and force of personality being a hand in control of a faucet. As you gain in power, that hand turns the water up and you have greater access if you want it. Others do not control the hand, they just ask for more or less flow and hope the hand provides. The gods are not static sources of energy either, they draw power from other sources, so a paladin has figured out by creating and abiding by their own personal oath, they can access that same wellspring of energy. Many gods must adhere to a particular portfolio in the Forgotten Realms, the oath is more-or-less the same thing on a much smaller scale. It does not mean a paladin can't give this control over to a diety, just that they do not need to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
IMHO, Earthdawn is still the best fantasy realm, Shadowrun is the best Sci-Fi realm, and Dark Sun is the best D&D realm.
5E does indeed say the oath is itself, the source of the power. Yes it's ludicrous but this is Dungeons and Dragons get used to it.
"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."
Their faith in their oath is what grants them power, thus the other parties are me, myself and I. You are in charge of upholding your oath, and if you feel like you failed, then you decide if you are worthy enough to continue. Most paladins feel like they need a cleric or some divine being to tell them this, but that's them deciding that they are worthy when they can get someone else to tell them they are.
Edit: Grammar, also now I have the idea of making a paladin who is so committed to his oath that he doesn't notice when he breaks it, thus no loss of oath.
the "as much" would imply an equal balance, but logistically I guess this is true, although the mechanics of an oathbreaker and the fact the oath doesn't actually kick in until 3rd level would imply some sort of outside force at work, whether divine or otherwise.
I mean, I don't necessarily hold my players to a divine relationship with paladins, but "force of personality = powers" doesn't make sense to me given how other spellcasters access magic, the weave, and divine powers.
Paladins in this edition get their power from their oaths. Gods are not required. Losing the favor of a god would not have to have an impact if they maintain their oaths.
but who is the oath to? Who upholds the other end if not a god or divine entity?
Whatever (not necessarily whoever) you and your DM decide. It can be a god. I'd be willing to wager most people see it as a god, and honestly, to me in a lot of cases, a god makes the most sense. but in spite of all that, it doesn't have to be a god. You can choose for it to be a god, but RAW you (with DM approval, either way, of course) have the flexibility to make it be something else. And then when you look oath by oath, it gets more clear.
Oath of devotion, probably pretty much is to a god, yes. But it could easily just be to being a good person. Redemption is fairly similar, could be to a god, could just be to the idea of helping evil people turn their lives around..
Oath of the Crown. It pretty much says your oath is to the concept of civilization.
Oath of Glory, which says your oath is basically to be an awesome, kind of famous badass.
And Oath of the ancients is to the "side of light" and preserving beauty. Could be a god, could be nature, could be the concept of beauty, but any way "light" is pretty ambiguous.
Then you have Oath of Conquest which says "those who swear this oath gather into grim orders that serve gods or philosophies of war and well-ordered might." It specifically mentions you might not be serving a god, but instead a philosophy.
Vengeance could be sworn to a god, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say most of the good gods aren't going to be too keen on exterminating people and not showing mercy. And in the general class description is says you are going "to stand with the good things of the world against the encroaching darkness." Personally, I find it difficult to reconcile those statements. If a god is involved, it get more complicated. I can't imagine a good god condoning the kind of extreme measures a vengeance paladin is sworn to take (of course, this could change table by table as people interpret established gods, or make up new one to fill this role).
So, again, lots of them could be to gods, but many also make sense if they are made to a concept, or "the multiverse" to yourself.
the "as much" would imply an equal balance, but logistically I guess this is true, although the mechanics of an oathbreaker and the fact the oath doesn't actually kick in until 3rd level would imply some sort of outside force at work, whether divine or otherwise.
I mean, I don't necessarily hold my players to a divine relationship with paladins, but "force of personality = powers" doesn't make sense to me given how other spellcasters access magic, the weave, and divine powers.
If it makes you feel better, there are explanations for this. Sorcerer and Warlock uses the same force of personality excuse (CHA casters).
The oathbreaker is explained as a paladin so dark not only did they reject their oath, they made a commitment to seek out dark powers. Any goodwill left in them destroyed in the process. Their commitment to destroying the light is so intense, you could call it an oath.
Difference between a paladin and a sorcerer, is that one uses their force of personality to bend the weave to your will, and the other uses their force of personality to make a commitment so intense it grants them a divine aura which they mold to smite and cast spells. Granted I have to admit I prefer having a divine being as a paladin, since rp potential and it feels weird to be accountable to only yourself.
Sorcerer proof (Spellcasting Modifier): "Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your sorcerer spells, since the power of your magic relies on your ability to project your will into the world."
Warlocks use their force of personality to convince others to grant them powers, mainly because play-testers didn't like INT-locks. At least I think so, I wasn't there. Probably a thread in the warlock forums somewhere, most people agree there should be some way to make a INT-lock. However this is what we have now and this is getting off-topic.
Edit: Missed the level 3 bit, the game brushes it off as your official swearing of the oath. My preferred explanation is that all oaths start out being similar (they all smite, they all can cast spells), but once you hit a certain point your oath fully forms and branches off from the others.
A Paladin’s Oath is to themselves and the universe, and it is so intense that the universe bestows upon them the power to fulfill that Oath. Sometimes it’s a god or gods that do it, sometimes it isn’t.
Depends again of course on your setting, but for me it is as follows:
Paladin uses Channel Divinity / other divinity based features, check
Paladin uses Holy Symbol as focus, check
And the sentence in the discription of the class goes "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.", so this is an "... as much as...".
For me and my campaigns Paladins are Champions of the Gods, however their personality might vary as much as the Gods are different in their behavior.
It is up to the DM pssibly with discussions with the player.
RAW there are some inconsistancies withthe paladin in the move to make the paladin draw their power from their oath. You power comes from your oath, but you get spell casting abilities before you make the oath.
In fact the whole spell casting "You have learned to draw on divine magic through meditation and prayer to cast spells as a cleric does." A cleric gets their power from a god and they prey each morning for access to particular spells.
Also compare therse two quotes from the PHB A paladin’s oath is a powerful bond. It is a source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion. A paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god.
While the first implies the oath is the sole source ot the paladins power the second implies that a god is just as important.
On the assumption that a paladin is an agent for a particular god if they fall out with their God as a DM I would rule that it impacts what they can do. Options would be to prevent them spellcasting (but being able to use paladin features including smites, or make them unable to change the spelss they have prepared. I wopuld rthen find a way for them to either regain the favour of their god or for another god to imbue them with their powers again.
My edit isn't showing up for me, so I'll post it here since some of you are still getting confused about the relevant topic.
Edit: Missed the level 3 bit, the game brushes it off as your official swearing of the oath. My preferred explanation is that all oaths start out being similar (they all smite, they all can cast spells), but once you hit a certain point your oath fully forms and branches off from the others.
I prefer my explanation, but sadly it's not RAW. RAW, levels 1 and 2 is you preparing to take your oath, making relevant spell-casting choices and the such. You still have all the commitment and force of will that gives paladin features, just preparing to make the oath itself. In a similar vein, not sure why losing their oath should be solely connected to losing spellcasting. While yes, it's up to the DM, it doesn't really make any sense lore-wise. That's like saying if a Cleric loses favor with their god they lose spell-casting but keep Divine Intervention.
As for the god thing, I think RAI is that Paladins can take a oath to a god rather than a idea, but that doesn't make you more/less powerful than one who makes a oath to a concept despite you having a god on your side. I still stand by what I said earlier, that being accountable to only yourself feels weird to me, so I prefer having a god. Others may have their own ideas though, and I can see a paladin not having a god be just good as one with a god.
Edit: Every message I make will at least one grammar correction that I have to edit in. Maybe I should just install grammary, not like anyone reads these for the grammar anyways.
I know it is intended to be allowed but I would really struggle to play / GM an athieist Paladin. Spending time each morning for access to particular spells makes sense if they are being provided by a god, if your Oath is to an idea it feels having limited known spells like a warlock or wizard would make more sense. Divine magic by definition comes from a god but RAW for a paladin it doesn't.
What I meant was in fact he oppositre to losing their oath is solely connected to losing spellcasting.
Losing their oath is dealt with RAW in the character becomes an Oathbreaker Paladin
Losing the favor of a God while maintaining their Oath is not covered in rules. To make a Paladin playable in this condition while still having an impact for the player denying their access to spells (or changing spells) seemsreasonable, Smites and martail prowess seem to make more sense to be connected to the Oath but I admit is is all my idea for an occurrance where the rules are silent.
I know it is intended to be allowed but I would really struggle to play / GM an athieist Paladin. Spending time each morning for access to particular spells makes sense if they are being provided by a god....
I know it is intended to be allowed but I would really struggle to play / GM an athieist Paladin. Spending time each morning for access to particular spells makes sense if they are being provided by a god....
I'm someone that thinks the paladin, cleric, and warlock classes have a bit of an edge in the D&D 5E world, and their oath, connection to a deity, or pact with a patron should be a counterweight to balance their class's power. For me these classes have an effect on a group and game that is different than other classes, and these powerful ties with a greater power is something to be constantly used to keep these characters in check. I'm not suggesting to handcuff the players. I am suggesting that it SHOULD factor into the character's decisions and there SHOULD be consequences for not holding up their end of the particular arrangement. Don't like the restraints? Then be a fighter, ranger, wizard, or sorcerer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Are oath of paladin connected to thier gods?
If my paladin loses favor from his god would he lose his oath? Or would just be his magic?
Someone's going to come in here and tell you a paladin doesn't need a god and they get their power from their oath, but that's baloney. Any fighter with a grudge can make an oath but that does not make them a paladin. It is the divine influence of a supernatural presence that grants divine magic, divine strike, lay on hands, etc. In fact, the paladin has divine abilities as early as level 1 and 2 and they don't even have an oath until 3rd level.
But let's just call the oath a pledge to a god (to use your vernacular). The consequences of breaking this oath are spelled out in the paladin's class description (tl;dr it's up to the DM)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Paladins in this edition get their power from their oaths. Gods are not required. Losing the favor of a god would not have to have an impact if they maintain their oaths.
but who is the oath to? Who upholds the other end if not a god or divine entity? the oath is not a sentient, its an oath. Similar to warlocks. a warlocks power comes from its pact, but the pact, just like an oath, is between two parties. In the warlocks case the other party is a patron, in a paladin's it is usually a god. and like warlocks, some paladins might not know who their oath was accepted by, but that doesn't mean the oath itself is granting the power.
Now, you are correct in that favor and upholding the oath are different things, and one can lose favor but keep the oath (and thus your paladin powers), but to say the oath is by itself the source and grantor of that power is the same as saying a contract enforces itself in the real world, which is ludicrous.
Since it is a game and your worlds may play by different perspectives, another method may be the way we are looking at the oath vs. bargain mechanic. A bargain (cleric, warlock, etc) is a direct tie to a power which is granting the character attachment by willful execution. An oath is a personal bond forcing/tethering to a force/entity without its cordial invitation. The force/entity is bound by its own nature/portfolio to be accessed in this way, but it does not mean it cannot cast influence upon the character. Going against a god and falling out of favor may not break the gods bearing to allow access to its personal font of power, but it does not have to grant favor to events working against the character and might even work to thwart the character directly. But then again, what are mortals to a god?
IMHO, Earthdawn is still the best fantasy realm, Shadowrun is the best Sci-Fi realm, and Dark Sun is the best D&D realm.
5E does indeed say the oath is itself, the source of the power. Yes it's ludicrous but this is Dungeons and Dragons get used to it.
"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."
Their faith in their oath is what grants them power, thus the other parties are me, myself and I. You are in charge of upholding your oath, and if you feel like you failed, then you decide if you are worthy enough to continue. Most paladins feel like they need a cleric or some divine being to tell them this, but that's them deciding that they are worthy when they can get someone else to tell them they are.
Edit: Grammar, also now I have the idea of making a paladin who is so committed to his oath that he doesn't notice when he breaks it, thus no loss of oath.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Someone's going to come in here and tell you a paladin doesn't need a god and they get their power from their oath, but that's baloney...
it me, hi. Paladins get their strength from their fanatical convictions and strength of personality..., which certainly can be in service of a god, but need not be. Forsaken by their god, a fanatic might just as well start a splinter cult to overthrow the church, rather than humbly accept the possibility that their actions were wrong. History is full of em.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Once you tap into the divine energy and tithe your soul to it through your oath, you are bound to access its power freely. You in essence become a tap to control that power, unlike other casters which rely on a divine entity to channel the energy. Without your oath there is nothing for the energy to travel through and it becomes impossible for you to turn on the tap.
Think of your oath and force of personality being a hand in control of a faucet. As you gain in power, that hand turns the water up and you have greater access if you want it. Others do not control the hand, they just ask for more or less flow and hope the hand provides. The gods are not static sources of energy either, they draw power from other sources, so a paladin has figured out by creating and abiding by their own personal oath, they can access that same wellspring of energy. Many gods must adhere to a particular portfolio in the Forgotten Realms, the oath is more-or-less the same thing on a much smaller scale. It does not mean a paladin can't give this control over to a diety, just that they do not need to.
IMHO, Earthdawn is still the best fantasy realm, Shadowrun is the best Sci-Fi realm, and Dark Sun is the best D&D realm.
the "as much" would imply an equal balance, but logistically I guess this is true, although the mechanics of an oathbreaker and the fact the oath doesn't actually kick in until 3rd level would imply some sort of outside force at work, whether divine or otherwise.
I mean, I don't necessarily hold my players to a divine relationship with paladins, but "force of personality = powers" doesn't make sense to me given how other spellcasters access magic, the weave, and divine powers.
Whatever (not necessarily whoever) you and your DM decide. It can be a god. I'd be willing to wager most people see it as a god, and honestly, to me in a lot of cases, a god makes the most sense. but in spite of all that, it doesn't have to be a god. You can choose for it to be a god, but RAW you (with DM approval, either way, of course) have the flexibility to make it be something else. And then when you look oath by oath, it gets more clear.
Oath of devotion, probably pretty much is to a god, yes. But it could easily just be to being a good person. Redemption is fairly similar, could be to a god, could just be to the idea of helping evil people turn their lives around..
Oath of the Crown. It pretty much says your oath is to the concept of civilization.
Oath of Glory, which says your oath is basically to be an awesome, kind of famous badass.
And Oath of the ancients is to the "side of light" and preserving beauty. Could be a god, could be nature, could be the concept of beauty, but any way "light" is pretty ambiguous.
Then you have Oath of Conquest which says "those who swear this oath gather into grim orders that serve gods or philosophies of war and well-ordered might." It specifically mentions you might not be serving a god, but instead a philosophy.
Vengeance could be sworn to a god, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say most of the good gods aren't going to be too keen on exterminating people and not showing mercy. And in the general class description is says you are going "to stand with the good things of the world against the encroaching darkness." Personally, I find it difficult to reconcile those statements. If a god is involved, it get more complicated. I can't imagine a good god condoning the kind of extreme measures a vengeance paladin is sworn to take (of course, this could change table by table as people interpret established gods, or make up new one to fill this role).
So, again, lots of them could be to gods, but many also make sense if they are made to a concept, or "the multiverse" to yourself.
If it makes you feel better, there are explanations for this. Sorcerer and Warlock uses the same force of personality excuse (CHA casters).
The oathbreaker is explained as a paladin so dark not only did they reject their oath, they made a commitment to seek out dark powers. Any goodwill left in them destroyed in the process. Their commitment to destroying the light is so intense, you could call it an oath.
Difference between a paladin and a sorcerer, is that one uses their force of personality to bend the weave to your will, and the other uses their force of personality to make a commitment so intense it grants them a divine aura which they mold to smite and cast spells. Granted I have to admit I prefer having a divine being as a paladin, since rp potential and it feels weird to be accountable to only yourself.
Sorcerer proof (Spellcasting Modifier): "Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your sorcerer spells, since the power of your magic relies on your ability to project your will into the world."
Warlocks use their force of personality to convince others to grant them powers, mainly because play-testers didn't like INT-locks. At least I think so, I wasn't there. Probably a thread in the warlock forums somewhere, most people agree there should be some way to make a INT-lock. However this is what we have now and this is getting off-topic.
Edit: Missed the level 3 bit, the game brushes it off as your official swearing of the oath. My preferred explanation is that all oaths start out being similar (they all smite, they all can cast spells), but once you hit a certain point your oath fully forms and branches off from the others.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
A Paladin’s Oath is to themselves and the universe, and it is so intense that the universe bestows upon them the power to fulfill that Oath. Sometimes it’s a god or gods that do it, sometimes it isn’t.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Depends again of course on your setting, but for me it is as follows:
Paladin uses Channel Divinity / other divinity based features, check
Paladin uses Holy Symbol as focus, check
And the sentence in the discription of the class goes "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.", so this is an "... as much as...".
For me and my campaigns Paladins are Champions of the Gods, however their personality might vary as much as the Gods are different in their behavior.
It is up to the DM pssibly with discussions with the player.
RAW there are some inconsistancies withthe paladin in the move to make the paladin draw their power from their oath. You power comes from your oath, but you get spell casting abilities before you make the oath.
In fact the whole spell casting "You have learned to draw on divine magic through meditation and prayer to cast spells as a cleric does." A cleric gets their power from a god and they prey each morning for access to particular spells.
Also compare therse two quotes from the PHB
A paladin’s oath is a powerful bond. It is a source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion.
A paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god.
While the first implies the oath is the sole source ot the paladins power the second implies that a god is just as important.
On the assumption that a paladin is an agent for a particular god if they fall out with their God as a DM I would rule that it impacts what they can do. Options would be to prevent them spellcasting (but being able to use paladin features including smites, or make them unable to change the spelss they have prepared. I wopuld rthen find a way for them to either regain the favour of their god or for another god to imbue them with their powers again.
My edit isn't showing up for me, so I'll post it here since some of you are still getting confused about the relevant topic.
I prefer my explanation, but sadly it's not RAW. RAW, levels 1 and 2 is you preparing to take your oath, making relevant spell-casting choices and the such. You still have all the commitment and force of will that gives paladin features, just preparing to make the oath itself. In a similar vein, not sure why losing their oath should be solely connected to losing spellcasting. While yes, it's up to the DM, it doesn't really make any sense lore-wise. That's like saying if a Cleric loses favor with their god they lose spell-casting but keep Divine Intervention.
As for the god thing, I think RAI is that Paladins can take a oath to a god rather than a idea, but that doesn't make you more/less powerful than one who makes a oath to a concept despite you having a god on your side. I still stand by what I said earlier, that being accountable to only yourself feels weird to me, so I prefer having a god. Others may have their own ideas though, and I can see a paladin not having a god be just good as one with a god.
Edit: Every message I make will at least one grammar correction that I have to edit in. Maybe I should just install grammary, not like anyone reads these for the grammar anyways.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
I know it is intended to be allowed but I would really struggle to play / GM an athieist Paladin. Spending time each morning for access to particular spells makes sense if they are being provided by a god, if your Oath is to an idea it feels having limited known spells like a warlock or wizard would make more sense. Divine magic by definition comes from a god but RAW for a paladin it doesn't.
What I meant was in fact he oppositre to losing their oath is solely connected to losing spellcasting.
Losing their oath is dealt with RAW in the character becomes an Oathbreaker Paladin
Losing the favor of a God while maintaining their Oath is not covered in rules. To make a Paladin playable in this condition while still having an impact for the player denying their access to spells (or changing spells) seemsreasonable, Smites and martail prowess seem to make more sense to be connected to the Oath but I admit is is all my idea for an occurrance where the rules are silent.
RAW they don’t necessarily become an Oathbreaker. That is just an example of something a DM could do if they wanted.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
How I picture an agnostic Oathbreaker's morning meditations.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That’s... disturbingly plausible....
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
I'm someone that thinks the paladin, cleric, and warlock classes have a bit of an edge in the D&D 5E world, and their oath, connection to a deity, or pact with a patron should be a counterweight to balance their class's power. For me these classes have an effect on a group and game that is different than other classes, and these powerful ties with a greater power is something to be constantly used to keep these characters in check. I'm not suggesting to handcuff the players. I am suggesting that it SHOULD factor into the character's decisions and there SHOULD be consequences for not holding up their end of the particular arrangement. Don't like the restraints? Then be a fighter, ranger, wizard, or sorcerer.