Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Disapointed with Paladin

Why can't you pick a deity? With no deity the paladin is only paladin in name. The cleric feels more paladin. Without a deity whenever you say something about your oath I'm always like "What oath? What do you believe in? Who are you fighting for?" You could have literally just copy pasted the cleric deities and corresponding deity dialog and it would have been better than this. The least you could have done was have a few different oaths to pick from so you actually knew what you were fighting for.

all the effort went into the reaction system... Larian has a deadline so be grateful you arn't a Monk player

Counter question:

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.

The Deity selection is disabled (there is a mod that enable it). The Paladin in the early access is defaulted to Lolth which is hilarious to me. There are a few dialogues that reference her (and Ethel mock you based on Lolth too).

I believe thats the problem ... its a small difference.

I mean, if we are exchanging our personal deffinitions ...
I thought the difference is that Cleric is a person who have quite litteral link to his deity ... basicaly can talk to them (within reason ofc.)
While Paladin dont, and yet he sworn to devote his life to some standards his God / Goddess / or "just" some (not necesarily holy) Order he belongs to demands ...

Meaning source of magic for Cleric is his deity ... litteraly.
Source of Paladin is his own devotion "to the cause", whatever that cause is.

Thats why im not really sure if Paladins "need" a deity ... would be nice touch to have that option, no argues about it ... but i see no reason why Paladins couldnt simply serve some ... not really sure how to put it ... lets say Philosophical purpose, rather than actual deity.

Something like Paladins in WoW ... they worship "light" ...
Light in Warcraft universe is no entity (there are beings of Light, but that is different story), its more like type of energy they channel ... and they can channel it as long as they uphold some rules ... rules that can be twisted as wielder of that power see fit tho.

Pretty much how I see it as well.

I decided, since this topic keeps coming up, to go back through the edition handbooks I have and actually check Paladin's deity-requiring status. Because I was sure that paladin never actually required a deity, and people were thinking of divine champions, which definitely do require a patron deity.

This is what I found: Paladins have never been required to have a patron deity, going back to 2e. They dedicate themselves to the forces of good and law and divine power is granted via your dedication to these principals (in the same way a druid gets power from dedication to nature, but not worship of gods or spirits). Paladins can be and often are also devout members of their churches, but it isn't specifically their devoutness that gives them powers.

But that's exactly the point people are making. Sure, they aren't required to follow a deity. But they have always had that option available to them. And in the vast majority of stories coming out of the Forgotten Realms setting at least (this is a setting-specific point), paladins have followed a deity and have been treated as holy warriors.

Every other class also has an option to be devoted to a deity. Should they hardcode that option for every class? No, they shouldn't.

This is actually accurate (src). That's why I'm not going to much against the idea of adding the choice.
I just hope that if it's added, then there should be an option to pick none.

Yes, I'm in favour of it being an option, I'd like it if everyone could pick a deity, but at this point I've seen more than a couple people try to say that paladins require a patron deity and without one then they aren't paladins, and it's just starting to remind me of some bad ttrpg players I once knew.

Frankly, I've never come in contact with a Paladin in tabletop or any other media that isn't a Paladin of 'Insert Deity'. In the Forgotten realms it's usually Tyr, sometimes Torm, very rarely Helm or others. But always they're attached to a particular deity. So, this seems to be a rather reasonable request.

Why not?

Its just matter of one invisible tag.

Started a paladin playthrough. I have to say, the first [paladin] dialogue being to lie isn't exactly promising. Why on earth wouldn't I tell the tieflings the trust about Lae'zel? that she helped me escape captivity, and that we're traveling together? That whole scenario is bizarre if you fail that dialogue, you're forced to just sit by and watch if you don't want to murder either side, and it forces you into combat against Lae'zel regardless.

If azarhal is right and the Paladin is defaulted to being Lothe sworn in early access that would make a bit more sense as to why you can lie so freely. Except the moral options are all over the place. Like if you're Lothe Sworn then your Goddess would want you to slaughter the tieflings and if you saved Lae'zel in the process all the better, but instead it punishes you for doing just that. So your deity must be good, right? Yet, you are allowed to lie, a lot... So your deity is not good? Which is it? Or are they a neutral God? If so then how could you possibly know what they want or don't want you to do? Being neutral would make their desires extremely vague without the context of which deity it is that you follow.

and if it's not even a diety you follow, but just a personal oath, what is that oath, and why is it okay to lie to avoid a bad situation when telling the truth to avoid it would be a better solution? Unless our Paladin's aren't interested in being honest, it's a bit odd.

The [Deception] choice to have the Tielfing leave? It's not a new choice. I think when those line have class prefix that the DC is easier or bypassed. Also, I personally think it should be labelled Persuasion since once the tieflings are gone what you do with Lae'zel it up to you. Free her, tell her to leave/join, kill her (doesn't cause oath breaking despite her being non hostile on Of the Ancient) or leave her in the cage.

Telling the tieflings to lower the cage and killing Lae'zel doesn't cause any oath breaking either, only switching side once Lae'zel is free does.

Attacking the Tieflings straight up leads to oathbreaking.

That deception line isn't really even a lie; it's just ambiguous.

'She is too dangerous, leave her to me.'

I mean that's true. Leaving Lae'zel's fate to a paladin who's equipped to deal with problems like this _is_ a good idea. The only way it's deceptive is that you know they want to kill her, and your answer leaves open the possibility that you may or may not.

And that's totally wrong from actual Faerun lore standpoint. A cleric is a person who's so immersed in or important for their god's cause, that the god provides them pretty cool powers. Paladins never reach same divine-magic capability. Real life example would be Moses for Cleric and Paladin for a Nun.