Originally Posted by Odieman
I strongly disagree, it is absolutely necessary …Wotc didnt say in explicitly in the book because I guess they wanted to give players a choice. Well ok, its a choice that makes absolutely no sense to make imo.

It’s fine if it doesn’t make sense to you to have a paladin without a deity, and everyone I’ve seen here agrees that paladins should be able to pick one. You could then stick to playing traditional holy warriors and not worry about the alternative options.

But the fact you can’t make sense of a paladin not sworn to a god or granted powers by a specific god doesn’t seem a reason to deny those who can the opportunity to play one if they want, and given that it’s within the rules I don’t think there’s any need for them to justify this choice to those wedded to a more limited view of what a paladin can be. I certainly wouldn’t support Larian being more restrictive than WotC on this front: that would seem unnecessarily mean.

"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"