I know in the paladin description, they mention that their abilities partly come from a devotion to ideals and philosophies as well as a god or goddess. Oathbreaker paladins just seem to have abilities from disobeying the orders and tenants of their gods. Oath of the crown seems to answer to a sovereign which doesn't include a deity unless that sovereign is also some kind of god-king. So would it be possible for a cleric or paladin to instead be devoted to just a general pantheon? Obviously, they'll eventually need to pick a sub-class, but in settings like Eberron they can belong to the silver flame, the blood of Vol, the undying court, etc. In some cases, those religions don't even have specific gods. I suppose that could ultimately come down to the DM's discretion, but personally, I think it sounds like an interesting concept. What do people here think? Am I missing something that would rule out the possibility altogether? Must a paladin or cleric answer to a single deity or even a deity at all? Clerics sound a bit more strict in this sense, but for paladins it sounds like there might be some room for leeway.
IMO, if a player wanted to be devoted to a more general or vague power I'd totally be down for it. If it works with the world (like Eberron) even better, but even in a "stricter" pantheon I feel that so long as the character has a reason they are devout that will be more important than if they outright pray to only one god or entity. I think this also can apply to bending the subclasses a bit. Though it may seem weird at first, why can't a cleric who prays to a god of death be a life domain subclass?
The PHB description focuses most on the "oath" granting powers to a Paladin rather than a divine source. I interpret "... a paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god," to be the power comes from a commitment or a god and not necessarily a commitment and a god.
Multiple times in the PHB, it mentions clerics' devotion to gods, plural. That could mean one god per cleric, but I interpret to allow multiple gods. However if a player wish to be sacred in roleplay and also be pantheist, I would request that each ability they use have a deity identified with the specific ability. I don't think it would be too difficult of an ask given how most pantheons try to cover a wide range of situations.
The cleric must follow the edicts of the deities without contradiction for the powers that the cleric wishes to use. This is only for deities of the specific powers and not all of the pantheon. A little strategizing and research would allow this to work without negative consequence. (It would be too difficult to require a cleric to worship all in a pantheon given the divine infighting one likely would find.)
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
(It would be too difficult to require a cleric to worship all in a pantheon given the divine infighting one likely would find.)
It really wouldn't
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Short answer: No. A Paladin doesn’t need any god or gods in this edition, not unless they break their oat and need to have their powers restored. A Cleric can worship a god/goddess, or an entire pantheon, it’s up to the Cleric.
Sometimes I think they landed on oath-based pallys pretty late in the design process. Mostly because they have several powers with divine in the name. And how their ultimate weapon is a holy avenger. I realize these are carry overs from past editions, it just seems like re-naming those powers could have saved a bit of confusion. Unless the confusion is by design, to make it easy to require a god-based paladin if that’s what a given table wants.
I don't think there's any RAW reason to state a specific deity for a Cleric or "force" behind a Palladin's Oath. It's more a world building and campaign focus thing and should be determined on consult with a DM (to avoid, for instance "I want to be a cleric of Loki" in a world where Loki doesn't exist).
Clerics serve "domains" which are little more focused but still broad in a way reflective of the forces a Paladin swears their oath to. A lot of game worlds do have carefully designed pantheons where a Cleric may choose a god or gods to be explicitly in service of. Nothing's stopping a Paladin's oath to similar specificity. However, a Cleric or Paladin could just as easily handle their devotion for playing the game purposes by simply being in service of "higher powers" (or lower powers), this is probably most efficient for games where game world theology isn't a priority or really something the game or player want to dwell upon. Heck, with Paladins or even Clerics, I wouldn't explode if I learned of a game where the class features' "divinity" was explained as accepting the "blessing" of something akin to a high midichlorian count and the Paladin and Cleric are basically seeing themselves in service of the Light (or Dark) side of the Force. Druids fit in there too. The Bendu was a Druid.
Basically the specificity is immaterial to the RAW but entirely material to the world you're playing in.
Thats one of those things a DM needs to decide at the very beginning. It tends to go along with alignment.
Most players do not play with a specific alignment. So why play with a specific god or pantheon.
Since every race has its own pantheon we just assumed that all pantheons were the same gods with different faces and names. Humans used the Greek/Roman pantheon since we players all knew it best.
Yes Paladins swore an Oath to a specific god. Even though everyone knew all other gods existed. They tried to uphold the ideals of their own god they were just protector warriors for that god and his followers. They would gain specific spells and abilities according to their gods area of influence. Why would a paladin of Lolth get a healing spell? She might grant a poison spell or even web spell.
I think this is a page in the book that needs to be added.
But like others have said their is very little said about specific gods and their followers so I can see this as being a DM only call.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I know in the paladin description, they mention that their abilities partly come from a devotion to ideals and philosophies as well as a god or goddess. Oathbreaker paladins just seem to have abilities from disobeying the orders and tenants of their gods. Oath of the crown seems to answer to a sovereign which doesn't include a deity unless that sovereign is also some kind of god-king. So would it be possible for a cleric or paladin to instead be devoted to just a general pantheon? Obviously, they'll eventually need to pick a sub-class, but in settings like Eberron they can belong to the silver flame, the blood of Vol, the undying court, etc. In some cases, those religions don't even have specific gods. I suppose that could ultimately come down to the DM's discretion, but personally, I think it sounds like an interesting concept. What do people here think? Am I missing something that would rule out the possibility altogether? Must a paladin or cleric answer to a single deity or even a deity at all? Clerics sound a bit more strict in this sense, but for paladins it sounds like there might be some room for leeway.
IMO, if a player wanted to be devoted to a more general or vague power I'd totally be down for it. If it works with the world (like Eberron) even better, but even in a "stricter" pantheon I feel that so long as the character has a reason they are devout that will be more important than if they outright pray to only one god or entity. I think this also can apply to bending the subclasses a bit. Though it may seem weird at first, why can't a cleric who prays to a god of death be a life domain subclass?
The PHB description focuses most on the "oath" granting powers to a Paladin rather than a divine source. I interpret "... a paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god," to be the power comes from a commitment or a god and not necessarily a commitment and a god.
Multiple times in the PHB, it mentions clerics' devotion to gods, plural. That could mean one god per cleric, but I interpret to allow multiple gods. However if a player wish to be sacred in roleplay and also be pantheist, I would request that each ability they use have a deity identified with the specific ability. I don't think it would be too difficult of an ask given how most pantheons try to cover a wide range of situations.
The roleplay catch would be: The Pantheist Cleric (YouTube Link)
The cleric must follow the edicts of the deities without contradiction for the powers that the cleric wishes to use. This is only for deities of the specific powers and not all of the pantheon. A little strategizing and research would allow this to work without negative consequence. (It would be too difficult to require a cleric to worship all in a pantheon given the divine infighting one likely would find.)
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
It really wouldn't
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Short answer: No. A Paladin doesn’t need any god or gods in this edition, not unless they break their oat and need to have their powers restored. A Cleric can worship a god/goddess, or an entire pantheon, it’s up to the Cleric.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sometimes I think they landed on oath-based pallys pretty late in the design process. Mostly because they have several powers with divine in the name. And how their ultimate weapon is a holy avenger. I realize these are carry overs from past editions, it just seems like re-naming those powers could have saved a bit of confusion.
Unless the confusion is by design, to make it easy to require a god-based paladin if that’s what a given table wants.
I don't think there's any RAW reason to state a specific deity for a Cleric or "force" behind a Palladin's Oath. It's more a world building and campaign focus thing and should be determined on consult with a DM (to avoid, for instance "I want to be a cleric of Loki" in a world where Loki doesn't exist).
Clerics serve "domains" which are little more focused but still broad in a way reflective of the forces a Paladin swears their oath to. A lot of game worlds do have carefully designed pantheons where a Cleric may choose a god or gods to be explicitly in service of. Nothing's stopping a Paladin's oath to similar specificity. However, a Cleric or Paladin could just as easily handle their devotion for playing the game purposes by simply being in service of "higher powers" (or lower powers), this is probably most efficient for games where game world theology isn't a priority or really something the game or player want to dwell upon. Heck, with Paladins or even Clerics, I wouldn't explode if I learned of a game where the class features' "divinity" was explained as accepting the "blessing" of something akin to a high midichlorian count and the Paladin and Cleric are basically seeing themselves in service of the Light (or Dark) side of the Force. Druids fit in there too. The Bendu was a Druid.
Basically the specificity is immaterial to the RAW but entirely material to the world you're playing in.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This appears to be a creative liberty type of question. The correct answer Poll the actual audience
Yes in Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance.
No in Eberron and Greyhawk.
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
Thats one of those things a DM needs to decide at the very beginning. It tends to go along with alignment.
Most players do not play with a specific alignment. So why play with a specific god or pantheon.
Since every race has its own pantheon we just assumed that all pantheons were the same gods with different faces and names. Humans used the Greek/Roman pantheon since we players all knew it best.
Yes Paladins swore an Oath to a specific god. Even though everyone knew all other gods existed. They tried to uphold the ideals of their own god they were just protector warriors for that god and his followers. They would gain specific spells and abilities according to their gods area of influence. Why would a paladin of Lolth get a healing spell? She might grant a poison spell or even web spell.
I think this is a page in the book that needs to be added.
But like others have said their is very little said about specific gods and their followers so I can see this as being a DM only call.