Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Paladin class NEEDS Deity Choice!

Hi
Dear Larian, Im a veteran D&D tabletop player. I have played clerics and Paladins among other classes. Clerics and Paladins get their divine powers through the deity they have sworn to follow. Now whilst Paladins are not as strict on it (rules as written) its quite obvious where they get their powers from. You dont just walk up to a temple, or bow down in the woods and swear an oath into thin air and get powers. Those powers are given by a deity (or deities possibly in some cases, example a cleric/paladin serving the Triad (the gods Ilmater, Tyr and Torm).

I have played through your game 2 full times and another 2 halfway. And Im loving every second.
However Paladin is my favourite class from tabletop, Ive been looking forward to playing it. Today was finally the day I was going to try out the Paladin, but to my horror I saw there was no choice for deity like Cleric. This whilst not game breaking, is certainly immersion breaking and then some for me.

I therefore plead you to add that at least as an option for the Paladin class. Or alternatively and even better yet, add it as a general option for all classes (like the cleric). The gods in Faerun are real in that world whether or not the people there believe in/worship them or not. And the people in faerun actively offer prayers to different gods.

Im an atheist in RL so no religious bias on this btw. I do however often roleplay clerics/Paladins in rpgs among others, and when I do I go into it 100%. To me oathbreaking is not just breaking the oath youve sworn, it can also be breaking the tenets of the deity. Example: Desecrate fallen enemies (Tyr).

Anyway, Im not alone on having this view on Paladins. Its true WoTC have downplayed the deity part on Paladins in 5E but its still very real, and most tabletop players choose a deity in addition to their Oath. Its just common sense, they dont get their divine magic from thin air
So if its not tooo much trouble please implement this. I wont be able to play my favourite class otherwise (however silly people might deem my stance).

Ah - the Ipse Dixit fallacy. I do love the classics. An assertion claimed to be self evident without any proof.

There is also just a smidge of appeal to emotion there as well.

Worry not - despite the PHB pretty clearly laying out that a Paladins Oaths not being specifically linked to Gods - I have no doubt Larian or a modder will get you what you need.

By the way Druids also gave divine magic - they get it from nature and don’t need to worship any Gods.

However, You are not the first to make this request.

So any thoughts on who you will choose as your God? May I suggest Bane?

Getting divine magical powers from "ideals" could very well be the stupidest concept ever conceived in a fantasy setting. Why do Clerics need a deity or Wizards need a spellbook then? Since we are on a "whatever" level with logic where the player can just decide where their character's magic comes from.

And there are Paladins of Tyr in BG3. Can we make it any more messy?

While Paladins in 5e, post Second Sundering do not need to worship any divinity directly in order to draw on divine power, and following a god is no longer necessary for a paladin at all, I absolutely support there being an option to tell the game what deity you do follow, if you follow one - the option must also allow a choice of no specific deity, however, as that's an equally valid choice in the setting in its present state.

For Varangian's peace of mind... You don't just 'decide' you want magic because you 'like' promoting inner and outer beauty in all things... but Sune may like what you're doing and send you a little love off the books, as long as you keep doing it; a paladin that doesn't follow or worship a deity is still tapping divine power - which is to say that their power is still being channelled to them through a divine intermediary. This can mean that various gods, or possibly one specific one, whose personal ideals align with the individual paladin's oaths and practices 'sponsors' them; they don't force the paladin to worship them, and the paladin may not even really know about them (or even that they exist at all in the case of cultural dissonance) in such a situation - the paladin may be a poor fit for the deity sponsoring them as a whole, and any intercession on the gods behalf would only push them away - but the deity still sees fit to sponsor them in their current purpose and their practice because that behaviour indirectly upholds things that are the domain of the deity, and the upholding of those ideals thus indirectly helps strengthen that deity's position. In other cases, the paladin may draw divine power directly from the divine portfolio itself - one that is held and controlled by a deity, but not the deity itself; they have the capacity for a divine connection, and forge one, but without it being directed towards a specific deity on the other side they connect directly with the divine folios that they uphold.

Yeah that's just too vague to really mean anything. They wanted to fix something in 5e that wasn't broken. Why create a large pantheon that unquestionably exists and influences mortals just to downplay them when Paladins' use of Divine Magic is concerned? The Oaths should at least be fleshed out MUCH more. Who wrote them down? Who do you swear them to? Which gods oversee said tenets? They are so structured there should clearly be an Order. Or did you find a shopping list of tenets on a piece of paper somewhere and swore it to the wind?

Niara
I strongly disagree, it is absolutely necessary. I cant really think of any paladin Ive read about who didnt have a deity, on the other hand every Paladin, Paladin order etc I have seen mentioned are dedicated to a deity. In the case of Paladin orders, there are sometimes a mix of worship, but they all worship 1 deity. Just because WoTC have gone mad doesnt mean Larian should.

Heck the paladins at the raided tavern in BG3 are Paladins of "Tyr" and/or someone else (wont spoil it here).

In terms of Spell Focus they NEED a spell focus unless they go around collecting ingredients. Guess what that spell focus is? Its a HOLY SYMBOL! Ie. Holy symbol of Lathander, Torm, Waukeen etc.

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. Even if you havent chosen a deity (i.e character isnt aware) you are still granted powers by a deity, that deity should still be chosen either by the player or by the DM.

PS: Oathbreaking in my experience is not just breaking the oath youve chosen it can just as easily be breaking the tenets of the Deity or the Paladin virtues multiple times. Those are not Rules directly in 5E anymore, but they are certainly implied.

While we are on the subject, paying 2000 gold to redeem your Oath is all kinds of wrong.

A broken Oath, if anything, is something you can't simply buy back with gold. It undermines the entire concept of an oath, or faith. I sincerely hope this "feature" is only in because the oath breaking is very much unfinished at the moment.

A warrior who swears an Oath but doesn't channel a divinity directly = Fighter (with appropriate subclass). I hope they sort this mess in One DnD.

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.

Okay so I did some light reading on the wiki for this. All magic has to come from SOMEWHERE. We must reject "ex nihilo" arguments concerning magic.

The first class of magic is arcane magic, seemingly tied to the Weave, its variants, and other planar/otherwordly forces and covers Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks. Wizards study this material/substance/realm/entity to gain power over its usage, sorcerers are born with innate ability to manipulate it, and Warlocks get the ability to use it through pacts with otherworldly entities. It seems like INT and SOME (but not all) CHA casting occurs here. Also bard?

The other class of magic is Divine Magic, which seems to get its power from a "deity" or potentially some sort of other divine force, and covers Clerics (obviously deity-based), Paladin (questionable), Druid (???), and Ranger (also ???). It seems like WIS and some CHA casting occurs here.

Instead of viewing the paladin like a cleric, we can view it as a cross between a druid (Divine Magic user) and a bard/warlock (CHA casters). Druids apparently don't NEED deities for their abilities, but derive their powers from a devotion to a certain thing, like nature and its aspects. That doesn't stop Druids from revering certain deities and gaining power from them, though, as seen with Sylvanus. Warlocks have pacts with otherworldly entities, and their commitment to these pacts is what allows them power. So paladins don't NEED a deity, but it makes sense that one might revere one for power. Also, it needs to be explained HOW the paladin's oath grants them power, as that is not clear. How does devotion to a particular code open a path to Divine Magic?

Edit: According to Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd Edition, it seems that Druids only THINK that their powers come from nature, when in fact they are drawn from deities relevant to that aspect of nature. I think this helps to explain Paladins... perhaps they THINK they are drawing power from their oaths, but they are in fact drawing divine magic from relevant divine beings which overlap with the nature and content of the oath. With Helm's significant status and relevance to Ao, and Helm's status as a God of paladins and protectors, it is possible that Paladins gain their significant power simply through drawing on Helm's nature.

Edit 2: It is also implied that Druids who revere nature could be drawing their unique magic through SEVERAL deities at once, despite potentially not revering one, as their devotion to nature has overlapping qualities. Paladins can be the same. Revering the thing a deity represents, and not the deities themselves, and all that.

while it's in the rules, it's another one of the problems with removing alignment.

Paladins without deities aren't paladins. Period. They're just stoic warriors, I don't care what the rules lawyers say.

I don’t see any necessary connection between alignment and paladins’ relationship to their gods, plus Niara has already clarified in another thread to a similar point you made that alignment hasn’t been removed from 5e.

And you’re of course free to head canon/homebrew paladins as only godsworn warriors if you like but the fact is the rules are what they are, and however much you disagree it’s at least neither lawful nor good to want to go against them to deny others the enjoyment of playing different kinds of paladin if they wish.

All magic in D&D has a source.
Rules as written is one thing. But thats partly because classes in 5E are made so that you can use them in your own setting.

However if you are going to have The setting be Forgotten Realms/Faerun then you cant ignore The lore. BG3 is set in The forgotten realms. The lore quite clearly states that their powers comes from a deity or deities. Warlocks get their power from their patrons. Sorcerors are basically born with it (sources differ, but all subclasses basically share that fact). Clerics = deity, Wizards study and tap into arcane magic. Rangers and Druids tap it from «Nature» But its actually deities there as well, they are just not necesarilly aware of it. And its The same with Paladins (aware or unaware their powers are given by deity/deities, and they are usually aware).

In terms of BG3 just make it a damn option is all Im saying. Its not head Cannon, its official lore… Your statement saying my way deprives ppl from playing their own type of paladin is sort of a mute point due to The lore. The way it is now it stops people like me from playing The paladin how we want. Which is The original and lore correct way.

Not saying it has to be a forced choice, But it CERTAINLY needs to be an optional one.

Definitely, paladins should be able to (optionally) pick a deity and we should be able to roleplay the classic holy warrior. As I said above, I’ve not seen anyone who disagrees with this, and it has been discussed in multiple threads. Personally, I think it’s very important that Larian add the option to select a deity, ideally for all characters but especially for divine spellcasters and at the very least for paladins and monks (as well as clerics who already need to specify a deity, of course, though more options would be welcome).

Fixed that for you:

You're free to have your own feelings on the matter, but you're not disagreeing with me - I'm just explaining how the rules and the lore current works in 5e; it's factual to the current 5e lore. Open and shut. Other threads have discussed this at great length, and I'd recommend you take a look in at those so we don't repeat ourselves ad nauseum. You can say you don't like the rules and lore as written, and that you don't think that the 5e lore for the realms post second sundering makes sense to your sensibilities - but you're disagreeing with the system and the lore itself when you say that. The way things work in the realms literally changed after the second sundering, and they work differently now - one of those differences is that the deities are more hands off and they channel their power, and the power of their folios in many more subtle ways. That's just how it is currently.

It's okay to have in your mind, personally, what you think a certain thing 'should' be - and you can even play that way at your table - but if the folks who write the lore write about the way it changes, and you don't want to acknowledge that or move with it, they aren't the ones who are 'wrong' or 'going mad' - you're just going off book because it makes yo happier to disregard the lore and adopt your own. That's fine, it's great, but you're not in a position to act like your definitions are meaningful to anyone but you, or that they are 'proper' or 'correct' - they're not. If you don't like the present day lore and how it's spun, you don't need to use or engage with it, but you can't expect the world to follow you in that - it's your choice, and yours alone. The lore, as you posit, is not, in fact, on your side here - not in the present day realms of 5e, post second sundering.

Like I said, go have a look at the other threads about this - the discussion goes into great detail about the changes, how they work, and how the lore works now; it makes a lot more sense than you're giving it credit for, but anything I say to that tune here and now would just be repeating a discussion that has already happened in great depth elsewhere on the forums.

If I remember from some lore video, paladins get their powers from the gods, but it is because a god decided to "sponsor" them. No worship necessary. At this point, this topic feels rather convoluted.

I certainly get why paladins are the way they are, though. Either druids are the odd class out or it's all unified in one mechanic. So, they unified it.

I think its important to remember that a persons feelings are just as valid as someone's researched facts and that we all just need to respect that going forward /s

I think Larian has enough on their plate coding Clerics as worshiping specific deities without adding everyone else to the mix. Sure, you get a little thing that says you worship Ghaunadaur - God of slime and Ooze - but honestly do we need them to create custom dialogue to support all that?

or just, you know, use the power of imagination.

Look, you can quote that page all you want, it doesn't change that Wizards systematically removed all reference to alignment in official lore and race. I'm sorry that you feel the need to try and insult me because I am talking about one thing and you're continually trying to tell me I am talking about something else.

Having a list of alignments in the PHB doesn't change that the requirement for them was removed. Wizards removed alignment in 5e. It is not part of character creation.

Whether you like it or not, alignment is not just some moral concept in Forgotten Realms, it is a literal physical cosmic entity that guides and shapes reality. The sundering didn't change this, it broke it.

Pedantic rules lawyering doesn't make your argument change my mind. Pretending like my feelings are hurt because I disagree with you doesn't change my mind. Nor does it hurt my feelings.

In fact, I find your insistence on ad hominem approaches to discourse pathetic. "Oh, damn! we're acting like teenagers at lunch break!"

They... and stay with me now... they are left deliberately vague as to who the different tenets belong to, so they can be applied to different deities in different realms as the player/DM wishes, instead of being beholden to the specific deities of the realms.

For example, when I told my DM what kind of character I wanted to play, based on my character selection and where we were in the world, he recommended I make them a member of the Order of Aster, which is part of the church of Lathander. If we had been playing in a different setting, he would have recommended a different order of a different deity that fit with my selection.