Is "The Wall of the Faithless" still a thing in Forgotten Worlds? If so then that's a pretty good reason for *everybody* to have a deity, not just Paladins.
We don't know. WoTC removed mention of it some time into 5e but didn't mention if it was retconned away, it's still there but not something WoTC want's to promote as a feature of the afterlife, or if something actually happened to it. Ironic considering they stopped Obsidian from putting an option into NWN MoTB to destroy the wall. Hopefully something that's addressed in BG3 in some capacity, since Myrkul is back, and the Wall was IIRC the only thing keeping him around in any capacity since his other contingency didn't pan out. There was a particular cosmic house of cards that the Wall was supporting that prevented the Fugue Plane from turning into an absolute mess.
Anyways, even without the Wall, you'd likely just be resigned to the same fate as the false, if another god didn't try to 'claim' you as under their domain (something they can do, apparently, with Kelemvor's permission) or you got snatched by demons while wandering the plane.
Is "The Wall of the Faithless" still a thing in Forgotten Worlds? If so then that's a pretty good reason for *everybody* to have a deity, not just Paladins.
We don't know. WoTC removed mention of it some time into 5e but didn't mention if it was retconned away, it's still there but not something WoTC want's to promote as a feature of the afterlife, or if something actually happened to it. Ironic considering they stopped Obsidian from putting an option into NWN MoTB to destroy the wall. Hopefully something that's addressed in BG3 in some capacity, since Myrkul is back, and the Wall was IIRC the only thing keeping him around in any capacity since his other contingency didn't pan out. There was a particular cosmic house of cards that the Wall was supporting that prevented the Fugue Plane from turning into an absolute mess.
Anyways, even without the Wall, you'd likely just be resigned to the same fate as the false, if another god didn't try to 'claim' you as under their domain (something they can do, apparently, with Kelemvor's permission) or you got snatched by demons while wandering the plane.
Or rescued by Kaelyn.
Like Kaelyn, I **really** wanted to destroy the wall! However, I think it is a huge mistake for WotC to get rid of it. Tearing down the wall is like killing Cthulu, or defeating the Reapers with a magic god child. It makes for a really bad story.
And if this is intended to be inclusive (at the expense of the setting and lore) than it falls flat, because it actively excludes those who *do* want to play a paladin follower of a deity, as is traditional for the Realms.
Yes...you would have to allow Deity selection with none as a choice to include everyone.
loucrotta
From a code standpoint-as you put it- it actually looks like they made *more* work for themselves if this is indicative of the final state because they did a large amount of work giving paladins dialogue options comparable to the clerics and then completely removed them and started from scratch.
My biggest frustration for them...their "As built" approach. Successful projects do tremendous amounts of front end planning...but hey, lets throw the RAW out while we're at it and build a whole new untested version called what?...5f?
dwig
Is "The Wall of the Faithless" still a thing in Forgotten Worlds? If so then that's a pretty good reason for *everybody* to have a deity, not just Paladins.
A lore addition in NWN2..."All in all your just a 'nother brick in the wall".
This is nothing new man. The FR wiki and SCAG conflict on so much, nevermind other source material like Descent to Avernus.
Like, I'm putting together an Eltural based adventure and lore conflicts abound. I have to make judgment calls about what truth I'm going to implement for our game.
It's hard to follow canon where previous authors have diverged or mistyped and the next author before you has carried the mistake. Heck, I read the whole Companion sun over Elturel thing was one author simply muddling names.
This reminded me of a rundown of the textual history of Elturel from thealexandrian. It's fun to see how dysfunctional the continuity can work in FR, and yes the Companion is a result of an author conflating two cities in a book, Elversult and Elturel. Of course mistakes can just be grist for the good tales.
Really ? You can literally play Light Domain Cleric of Shar and when SH reveals shes a Sharrite, main char goes "or really, tell me about it, im tolerant !" same as when playing any other class.
I have played BG, BG2, expansions, enchanced editions, IWD, IWD2, NWN, NWN2 with exansions, than there is Pathfinder and Pillar of Eternity... And i the only effect of choosing diety is a buff to dieties favorite weapon. All else, meaningless. RP value zero, just character creation and some alligment limitations.
I dont remember selecting diety having ANY value to character generation in BGs and IWDs outside me reading about the diety to have a feeling of good or evil party. For this purpouse you can pretend you are Ilmathers or Tyrs or whatever.
IWD, NWN and the rest set one standard for their divine casters. BG III another. Paladins are failing to live up to the standard they set *themselves* with the cleric.. 'Pretend you are playing a cleric of Illmater Tyr whatever' is a terrible 'solution', when the solution is right there-*was* right there with the cleric, with the cut [tag]s.
Continuing, to Leucrotta (I was away from the computer for several days ^.^);
(The conversation has moved on a bit, so spoiler-tagging the discussion)
Up front, I don't intend to be argumentative or confrontational here; I'm speaking in good humour and don't wish to offend or attack - this is purely academic, and earnest, I promise. Please forgive me if I reiterate or come off harshly in places, it's not my intention.
==
A reference to an order of knights that can give direct devotion to multiple deities without conflict is an interesting case - but it does not say anything about the idea that all paladins must follow a deity, and so the point - that the official word is "Most", not "All" still stands - nothing presented here indicates that all paladins must follow a deity. Not a single thing. Where is your evidence, other than your personal opinion and feelings on the matter? Your personal opinions and feelings on the matter are valid, but they are not canonically true.
I asked you to show me the material that you're drawing this opinion from - a vague "Oh there's lots of it" doesn't achieve anything in the discussion; I say there is not any such material, so please show me some.
Quote
Not all settings require deities for divine magic, but the Realms is a case where that is very much explicitly the case.
No, it isn't. It isn't explicitly the case at all, not in any way, shape or form. If I am incorrect, please feel free to share with me the official material that you are referencing when you make that claim - show me where it is explicitly stated, as you claim that it is. You are claiming that it is explicitly stated - Show me; it wold genuinely help a lot if I could read what you're referencing this opinion from, and if it's legitimate it's something I'll take into consideration and maybe revise my own stance.
We do not have a Forgotten Realms source book, as we have an Eberron one or a Theros one, etc. The reason we don't have a Forgotten Realms campaign book is because the PHB, DMG and MM ARE the Realms-accurate source books. The realms are the default space, and the books are the default books - they note that there are many realms and that things are different across them, but they don't talk about those other realms where things are different - they talk about the default, which is functionally synonymous with the forgotten realms. These three books are our campaign guide to the realms, or as close to one as we actually have - SCAG is a tiny thin paperslip of a book which counts only as support material, and while it's avalid soruce book, in terms of the hierarchy, it's not a campaign guide in itself. So, in lieu of an official Forgotten Realms campaign book, the PHB, DMG and MM are what we use as the truest source for the rules of the realms. To be clear, I would welcome Wizards publishing an official Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide - I truly would, since it would put all of these sorts of debates to bed much more comfortably... because you're not wrong, in that having the core source books stand in as the default books that represent the Realms is awkward and leads to arguments... it's not great.
Quote
For official word? I'd say read the novels, read the sourcebooks, play the games. There is a wealth of material touching on this matter.
Such as? Please feel free to show me some material that backs up what you want to say - because unless you do, all you have is your opinion of how you feel it should be, and I don't want to be disrespectful of that, but it's not something you can stake an argument on. I have read the source books - I quoted you direct passages from them that state, explicitly, that following a deity is optional. The official material says that following a deity is optional. You have yet to show me anything, anywhere that says otherwise - you've just asserted that it is, and that the material that backs you up 'exists' - well, show me. Where? Because all I can see is official material that says that it is optional. I want to understand where you're coming from, and I want to see what sources have guided and influenced your opinion on this matter. I don't want to come across as hostile, and I'm genuinely not intending to; I just want to understand where you're getting this from.
==
On that matter - The order of lore priority for D&D goes: Official Source Books > Novels > Comics > Video Games > Something A Developer Said On Twitter Once. What this means is that if there is a situation where two sources of information conflict, the more prior source is the one that is treated as accurate, while the statement by the latter is considered non-canonical. They are all given canonical credibility when there are no conflicts, of course - this is just about resolving lore conflicts when they arise. What this means, however, is that if one person has a novel written by R. A. Salvatore, and it says that all drow have giant ears, and and another person has a source book published by WotC which says that some drow have giant ears... then canonically speaking, the 'truth' is "some drow have giant ears, and others don't"; the books' statement, in direct contradiction with the source book, is considered non-canonical on that score.
So... what are you showing me that says that all paladins in the realms must follow a deity? Because you have not shown me anything to that extent yet, and I've shown you several sections of official material that state otherwise - that it is not essential at all, just the majority case.
Evidence of individual divine casters getting their power from gods is meaningless - no-one is debating that. We're not looking for "Do divine casters get their powers from gods", of course many, most even, of them do so! - we're looking for "Must divine casters get their powers from gods", which is a much stronger statement, and one which does not have any backing other than individual personal opinions of how it 'should' be in their eyes.
Quote
and if Larian and/or WoTC want to be contrarian to that, then that's an unfortunate retcon and not anything I would in any way applaud.
To be clear - it's not a retcon. There was a time where deities were essential for divine casters to use as intermediaries to the weave, and no-one is pretending that that time didn't exist, or trying to erase it, which would be a retcon (Short for Retroactive Continuity - which means to retroactively change the lore and continuity and pretend that it was always like that; this is not what happened). Simply changing the way the world works as they move forward is not a retcon, it's just a change in the world. Post Second Sundering, when Deities became notably less overt and less prominently present on the face of the Realms, we shifted to a situation where they were no longer strictly necessary for tapping divine power. Most still do, in the realms, but it's not necessary any more. This isn't a retcon, it's just a change in the world... and its a change that happened fifteen years ago in our time, so if your mind is still operating in 'the world as it was fifteen years ago', that's your call - but please don't try to press that onto the world as it currently is; it's not that way any more, and hasn't been for a long time. This is not to say that you can't play your own games in that past time period where the rules were different - more power to you if you want to - but we're talking about the 'present day' realms in this discussion.
All due respect to Ed Greenwood - but his opinion on twitter is not a canonical statement of lore; sorry. Even if we do take it seriously, that particular conversation read to me as him saying that Paladins serve gods in the same manner that literally everyone in the realms believes in the gods; as long as they uphold their oaths (which are oaths that have the support of various gods in principle and action) and are doing the right things, they are serving the interests of the gods whose domains and beliefs they align with - and just like every mortal in the realms, those gods may single them out directly with instruction, which, of course, it would be unwise to ignore... it is not a statement that those paladins must acknowledge, worship or follow a deity themselves directly, just that their oaths naturally do so. So, I would say that his opinion on this matter supports what I'm saying, but not what you are saying, which would be a much stronger claim.
My Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide says that in FR all paladins have a patron deity granting them divine power. It then goes on to say that most paladins are devoted to a particular deity, leaving open the possibility of some having several or none. That doesn't necessarily refute the statement that it still takes a deity somewhere to grant divine power, but it also leaves open the possibility of a direct connection to the divine.
No idea what previous source books say, but the PHB is a sourcebook too and it's legit to have its lore take precedence.
Personally, in a world with music-magic, I'm perfectly fine with oath-sworn tapping the divine directly. So if Larian lets paladins choose a deity or opt none, it's all within reason imo.
Yeah I'm sorry, but this is a non starter. Don't patronize me by dismissing my claims as 'opinions and feelings'. Ed Greenwood is not 'some developer on twitter'. I cited the Time of Troubles and the Silence of Lolth as specific events in FR history in which the source of divine power and the consequences for the death or incapacity of deities is clearly laid out. If you don't want to acknowledge that as specific examples, well-established in FR history, then we don't really have anything to talk about. You yourself still can't find a specific passage that explicitly spells out that deities in FR are completely optional or else you would have cited it yourself, but expect me to throw away decades of lore established through the novels, video games, sourcebooks, and writings of the man who made the setting to take on this assumption of yours that contradicts them? Not a chance.
THE CAUSE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS A paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness, to stand with the good things of the world against the encroaching darkness, and to hunt the forces of evil wherever they lurk. Different paladins focus on various aspects of the cause of righteousness, but all are bound by the oaths that grant them power to do their sacred work. Although many paladins are devoted to gods of good, a paladin's power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god.
Page 82 of the PHB, the setting of the Player's Handbook is the Forgotten Realms
The Forgotten Realms has been rebooted with every edition of the game, to in-universe explain the different ways classes and magic are handled by the rules. Moreover, an effort to downplay alignment has been worked into the 5th edition which I think has caused the Paladin class to suffer a little, by being the class most intertwined with it, which gives us a bit of cognitive dissonance as far as the class and its theming go.
I will acknowledge your claims as opinions and feelings until you provide a citation or a quote that backs up your opinion with factual reference, Leucrotta, and I mean you no disrespect or ill-will when I say so. I've backed up the claims I've made with direct evidence of the sources I'm drawing those statements from; we have a conflict of opinion, so I'm asking you to do the same. If you have such quotations or citations, they may give me something to think on that I had not considered, and I'm open to changing my view point - but I do so based on evidence, and you have not provided me with any yet - only opinion and feeling.
Originally Posted by Leucrotta
Ed Greenwood is not 'some developer on twitter'.
Yes, he is. A very senior one, but twitter posts from individual creators, no matter how integral to the hobby those individuals may be, are not official canon - or at least their words on twitter do not win out over source book quotes when they come into conflict. If the 5e source book says that paladins can draw directly on divine energy without a divine intermediary, and it's just true that the vast majority do work through a deity, and Ed Greenwood tweeted that, no, all paladins must always work through a deity at all times - then the canonical situation is that deities are optional, and Ed Greenwood simply mistweeted - and until his opinion makes it into a codified source book, his tweet is just that, a tweet, and bears no actual weight. His opinion as the setting's creator can definitely be taken into consideration but, on its own, it's not official and it's not canon.
Quote
I cited the Time of Troubles and the Silence of Lolth as specific events in FR history in which the source of divine power and the consequences for the death or incapacity of deities is clearly laid out.
You nebulously mentioned two novels (or rather, novel series), and the events central to them; that is not a reference or a citation. It's not proof of your stance, or evidence of it - it's you asking the viewer to accept that you have evidence, and that the evidence you claim to have does indeed support your statement, without actually showing the audience any of that supposed evidence. As I said before: Give. Me. A. Quote. Show me a source - don't just say it exists: show it to me. Find me a passage from one of the novels you want to reference, that supports what you say, and show it to me - I can't think of one in any of those books that does so, so you're going to have to help me out and show me where it is.
If you can, then I'll absolutely take it into consideration of my own opinion, but even then - the lore hierarchy puts the novels below the official source books, so where they conflict I still have to favour the source books over the novels. If an independent author writes about the realms and makes all their tieflings red-skinned and horny, but the source book says that tieflings come in many different shades - then the official reality is that tieflings come in many different shades, and the novel's statement that they're all red is considered non-canon. Of course, if the novel is talking about a time period that isn't considered in any source book, and the source book is talking about a time far removed from the novel's timeline, then there is no conflict, and both are considered canonically true. This is just how it works.
Quote
If you don't want to acknowledge that as specific examples, well-established in FR history, then we don't really have anything to talk about.
Quote me a passage - show me a source, and I'll acknowledge it. Don't just nebulously wave at something and claim it proves your point without showing that it does. This is very basic communication: you're making a claim - Back. It. Up. When our opinions came into conflict here, I backed up what I had to say with cited references from the official source books: I respect your opinion and feelings on this matter, but if you want me to accept them as anything more than that, then you need to show me evidence.
Quote
You yourself still can't find a specific passage that explicitly spells out that deities in FR are completely optional or else you would have cited it yourself,
Apart form those Several direct quotes from the actual 5e books that specifically and unequivocally spell out and back up what I'm saying? Those quotes, which I have, indeed, already quoted and referenced?
Quote
but expect me to throw away decades of lore established through the novels, video games, sourcebooks, and writings of the man who made the setting
No, I acknowledge that all those things were true at the time in the setting when they were relevant - which is not now. Now things are different, in universe and out, and have been different for the past fifteen years. Those things were accurate - THEN. They are not the case any more, and have not been for a long time. No-one is saying they weren't the case, and no-one is saying that they should be thrown out or forgotten, but they are not correct in the here and now, and the present day of our current setting. This is not a retcon, as I explained previously - it's just that the rules of the realms have changed as various realms-shaking events have taken place, and the rules right now are different.
HellO! The oath is fine, it is also the essence of the knight classes, but what about the Gods? All the same, it’s impossible without the choice of the gods .. I think that loyalty to the oath is the SECOND! After the Deity.. The mechanics of the oath is excellent, but it will inevitably be clear which is imba and which is garbage .... There are no equally good ones. But it’s impossible without GOD .. why then .. Tyr, Lathander, Ilmater, Helm .... And how many of their knights, oredns were there ??? And according to the plot (Lore) .... You can’t just throw them into the dustbin of history .. replace all interactions, prayers, rituals .... I hope the class concept will be with Gods... and religion as it should be. Just like I was informed by the developer a year ago that there will be some mechanics in the camps. But without Gods..... knight classes. IMPOSSIBLE! (Priest,Paladin,Monk,Ranger)
The paladin makes themselves worthy of a god's blessings while a cleric is deemed worthy by their god. It's a subtle but important difference. A cleric might not know why they are chosen and are rarely given a singular purpose. Rather, they exist as vessels for their gods to manifest their power and will.
Last edited by Street Hero; 10/01/2302:49 PM. Reason: Can't i
STILL WAITING FOR NEW COMPANION AND CUSTOM PARTY WITHOUT MULTIPLAYER. BECAUSE WHY FUCKING NOT???
You claim that Clerics feels more Paladin bcs they have deity ... What difference would there be between Clerics and Paladins, if they would have them aswell?
It's a small difference. I think of it like a Cleric is a believer in their God while a paladin has devoted their whole life to the God. For a real life example. The Christian you see preaching on a street corner would be a Cleric. While the Priest or Nun would be a Paladin.
I don't know if this has been said yet on this thread, for it is too long to read everything, but I think your concept of paladins is a bit off.
Cleric = Priest Paladin = Knight
Though knights often fight for a church, they often fight for rulers, ideals, etc.
I'm disappointed that we have yet another insane burst damage option for making tactical combat even more of a one-sided stomp.
I know it's 5e compliant that you can apply smites to every attack. But BG3 makes this even worse with the abundant Haste potions, new Bonus Action attacks and ridiculous surprise attack rules. You can just unload all your spell slots before the enemy gets a turn, and that's a massive amount of damage.
It's stupid powerful enemies like the Hag can just be chopped down so easily without giving them a turn.
I think Divine Smite should actually be a level 1 spell and follow the only one leveled spell per turn rule, which obviously all spells should for the same alpha strike reason.
Also crit fishing with smites doesn't seem right. It's a bit of a stretch to have time to build up that Divine power after the hit has already landed. It feels really gamey and not immersive to do that. Like exploiting a loophole in the rules. 5e problem, sure. Hope they change that.
I think it's dangerous to balance around the very few that know the ins and outs of abusing a system and then say "omg, this is so easy". The vast majority of players do NOT abuse those systems, or even know how to abuse them. Wrath of the Righteous on core difficulty is a perfect example of it. Hell, even on normal, it assumes that you know a lot of the rules and are able to abuse a lot of the mechanics. I love wotr, but I don't want to see BG3 go that way.
I really don't like the implementation of oaths, it's too easy to break them in a completely illogical way. There is no explanation of what the game expects from you. I hope that the implementation of oath of vengeance will not be as restrictive as the others. It annoys me that for some reason I can't start fighting goblins without breaking my oath. If they don't fix it, well, I guess I'll have to play a different class.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/7GR8yrv.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.redd.it]](https://i.redd.it/cwluhu06xif61.jpg)
