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

You're arguing with pedantic rules lawyers, Odieman. They have no capacity for nuance or to comprehend that you might think of things differently than them, based on the same primary source information. If you continue, they'll just resort to finding ways to insult you personally.

In my case, they even piled on me in another thread because I said I liked clicking reroll in BG1/2 during character creation. These people are children, and shouldn't be expected to hold adult conversations.

I even explicitly said that I was talking about the removal of alignment from race, lore, and character creation, not just errata. Doesn't matter to them, I'm still "incorrect".

These are the people I wouldn't play D&D with in person either, because they're the worst kinds of people to sit at a table with.

Pachanj, I just read that attribute thread because I was worried I was misremembering it...
Red Queen (with whom Odie is arguing) was on YOUR SIDE in that argument. Red Queen was defending you against Blackheifer. Niara wasn't even part of that conversation (concerning enjoying rerolling, which I enjoy too).

In response to Blackheifer calling you a sucker, Red Queen said:

"Really?! Spending ages rethrowing virtual dice seems a pretty harmless way to get your jollies to me, and not at all deserving of repeated condescension and scorn.

I get that you see nostalgia for elements of the old BG games as symptomatic of a wider negative tendency that over-exaggerates their virtues for the purposes of criticising BG3, and that resists innovation in the name of fidelity to the original franchise. And I also agree that tendency exists, and can be a bit of a downer sometimes on these forums.

But not every instance of fondness for some aspect of the old games is tied to that broader attitude, and implying folk who have some innocent affection for the BG1/2 stat dice-rolling mechanic are losers doesn’t help make the atmosphere any more positive."

EDIT:
I am now just realizing you might be talking about Blackheifer specifically. If so, my bad. Blackheifer can't post anything without a bit of sass in it; that's just who they are. (In case you're reading this, Blackheifer, I'm just making an observation, not trying to pick a fight.)

Did I call someone a sucker? I think that was the other post when I was quoting PT Barnum in relation to obsessive dice rolling and said "there is a sucker born every minute"

I think this is the post about paladin's having Gods.

Honestly, somebody will mod Gods in as a choice for all classes. I don't even know why anyone is arguing except maybe we are bored and need our videy game to be finished so we can play it.

Just checked again. Yeah. Shitty paraphrasing on my part. Gods as an option should be modded in for all classes.
I think we're all just really bored. This is facts.

Umm, let me get this straight. You, who are actually, obviously personally insulting other forum members, are warning someone else that other people, who have to date done no such thing, might in the future do something awful like … personally insult them. Ohhhkay .

In the event that your insult was directed at me, I can assure the OP they need have no fear that I will resort to personal attacks.

I am finding this discussion a bit frustrating, but only because it’s not clear what, if any, substantive point of disagreement remains about what the game should do. It feels as though we have agreed that paladins should be able to select a deity and have this reflected in-game, but that this should be optional given that 5e does not make it mandatory for paladins to have a god. We might not agree in how much we like the elements of the 5e supporting lore that allow for some paladins to not have deities, but fortunately we don’t have to in order to agree on what character choices BG3 should permit.

No, thats possible. But its certainly not the norm, those Paladins are in a minority. The norm is that Paladins Get their power from their chosen deity/deities. Hence if Larian implemented something similar/copy of Cleric its ok to have an option like «none» in my opninion.

Dont think that it has been brought up in this thread. But Ive seen people argue in other threads on this forum on this same topic, as well as on Reddit, that Paladin powers dont come from deities. But rather some random oath force (i.e thin air). Hence my previous post.


This is just a personal theory, but I think The reason why WOTC implemented The whole powers connected to oaths thing, was to give an alternative to the traditional stereotype. They did it to have a more loose system that wasnt as rigid. Also its alot easier to Connect stuff to more general oaths that can cover several deities in one oath. Rather than make specific oaths to each god etc. Thats just my theory though, havent really read up on reason for emphasis change.

Aside from the insults and all that... This forum, by nature, is pedantic. DnD debates are largely pedantic. Lore debates are pedantic. Game mechanics debates are pedantic. We're arguing over a video game. How big picture and broadly trended can you get lmao? Of course we're fretting over minor details! This whole conversation is about a minor detail! We're discussing whether a fictional class in a property owned by a corporation owned by Hasbro necessarily or optionally draws powers from the gods in that world or not! How can this conversation NOT be pedantic?

Edit: Replying to Pachanj and Red Queen here. Just joking around.

In that case, I agree with what you are suggesting and I think much of the forum is in fact in agreement with you. We all just have different ways of expressing it.

Yep, agreed.

I am aware that there are a host of non-PHB paladin oaths/subclasses, some of which sound from the tenets of their oaths to potentially be less necessarily connected to gods than others and it would make sense if part of the (out of universe) explanation for loosening the connection between paladins and gods was to support this greater variety. I suppose the same consideration applies to some extent to Oath of Vengeance even within the PHB.

I’d be interested if anyone here has any evidence that the sources of power for such paladins isn’t still divine in nature, though, even if it comes from the divine portfolios or domains in some cases rather than directly from specific gods. I don’t remember seeing anyone on these forums claiming that, and I had thought paladins powers were always still divine, but as I’ve said before on these forums, I’m a 5e newbie and am learning as I go with BG3 and certainly have neither read every post here nor remembered every one I have!

That would be a great solution yes. I Would love it if they implemented something like that. However Even a simpler system like for The Cleric would be «ok». Just add «none» option for those who need that (I dont obviously 😋).

At any rate they need to add at least one more oath option (preferably more). And they need to sort out oathbreaking, cos right now its a bit ridiculous (attacking goblin torturer breaks oath etc).

I definitely agree that for most classes, a mod would be sufficient. Though it’s probably not even one I’d bother downloading if paladins and monks have deities in the base game. For these classes, and as I said above, possibly even druids and rangers though they’re lower priority for me, I’d hope that deities will be implemented in the base game and that there is dialogue and responsiveness to this in-game. Sure, if Larian don’t do this then I’m sure a modder will kindly take whatever is implemented for clerics and hack it about to work for other (potentially) religious classes, but I don’t think they should have to.

Indeed, The people I referred to who argue that The powers come from sourceless oaths (Ancients, Devotion, Crown, Vengeance etc), havent really done their homework imo. They see Paladins choosing oath in PHB without mandatory choice of deity, and come to that conclusion.

But I think most DMs who take an interest in The player characters backgrounds and so on would certainly Ask their players, ok But where do your powers come from, what deity/deities does your paladin worship/which one are they devoted to?

Then if The player were to say oh I havent thought about that. Or my character is unaware, and this is my explanation why/this is how he/she discovered their powers/ aquired them. Then The DM would work/collaberate with that player to answer The question. If The player wants it to be mysterious/ an unknown entity, then most DMs would choose a source for them imo (But not necesarilly ever tell The player/character). It might never come up in Play/game, But the DM would know .

Don't listen to him! He BRUTALLY pointed out a misspelling in one of my posts in front of EVERYONE - I was mortified! Cried for days!

I did nothing to deserve it, totally innocent. Ask anyone. /s

The lore text before the crunchy stats of Paladin mention swearing your oath before nature spirits and Fey, but to find more info on that you'll actually have to go back to older editions. 5e is continually thin on world lore, which is one of my ongoing complaints with it. 5e also has a bad habit of lumping non-deity powers in with the deities. In fact the entire term "Powers", which was an umbrella terms for beings that were operating at a deity-like level, seems to have vanished.

Faiths and Pantheons from 3rd edition talks about demons and devils finding ways to get and give power from mortals in the same manner as deities, and details some domains, favoured weapons, and portfolios for them. As of 5e we actually have multiple deities now that were once fiends, because of this, but you wouldn't know it from only reading 5e books.

Same with primordials, we have at least 5 that are lumped in with the deities in 5e, and can fulfill all your Clerical or Paladin needs, but again, you wouldn't know they are primordials, just from reading 5e books.

So I can make an Ancient's paladin who swore their oath before a unicorn, who technically gets their powers from Lurue, who is an Archfey (and technically a lesser deity as of 5e).

So what you're saying is... the lore is a bunch of inconsistent garbage. None of this explains how the divine realms work, how portfolios operate within those realms, how Divine Casters like Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and Rangers utilize this force. Arcane is a bit of nonsense, but at least there is SOME explanation. Now divinity is just the nonsense of belief, will, and randomly assorted divine portfolios? Regardless of the actual status of the entities? Or awareness of the caster, for that matter.

Thank you @Piff. Very informative and interesting!

Especially this :
I love that concept 😄

In reaction to the OP : I would like it if players had the option to select a deity...or to select none ^^ (an option mentioned by several people already).

@Zerubbabel : basically, my understanding is : terms like "deity" and "archfey" are more of a title that can be given to certain individuals under certain conditions (for example : gaining a lot of power). Tasha wasn't always an archfey for instance. Like the notion of "Apotheosis" in Ancient Greece (but can be found elsewhere as well), where certain mortals could become gods, Pantheons, within the Forgotten realms, aren't "fixed" but ever evolving.

Edit : so it's not so much inconsistencies, but a lack of lore/information communicated in the 5e (the way I understand it).

Okay, but then how does Divine Magic work? How do those who achieve apotheosis and are allotted portfolios employ that divine magic? Where is it located? What is the nature of divinity in the realms?

Yes, thank you @Piff, though I can tell I’m not going to get my head fully around this any time soon .

Is it (still?) the case that the ultimate source of divine magic/powers is the Weave and the difference between it and arcane magic is how it is accessed, ie not directly but via the intercession of a deity (or similar) … or, from what Niara was saying in this thread earlier, potentially by linking via a divine domain(?) or portfolio by some other means?

I know it doesn’t actually need to make sense either to me or indeed to anyone as the lore is there to service the game mechanics, but I’d like to feel I have have some grasp of the in-universe rationale!

@Zerubbabel hahahahaha 😂 I'm dead that was too funny 🤣

On a more serious note, I think I will let someone else (one that is more knowledgeable on that matter than I am) explain that one...and/or I will do the research myself at another time ^^

Edit : I think @The_Red_Queen is on to something. I do now remember Niara's post about the Weave.

Could've been worse. He could've called you an Aggie.