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.
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.
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.
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.
