it makes a hell of a lot more sense to have deity-aligned paladins than it does to have nonreligious ones as-as the only option no less!
I don’t get the sense that the BG3 paladins are meant to be non-religious, just that we can’t currently specify in-game exactly what deity they follow. As pretty much everyone has agreed this is an odd and wrong choice. Perhaps it’s because Larian haven’t worked out how they want to handle deities when it comes to oathbreaking, or were concerned about people picking deities inconsistent with their oaths. Whatever the issue, hopefully it will be satisfactorily resolved so we can pick our paladins’ gods and have this reflected in-game come full release.
IDK why it is so darn important that people need to play their nonreligious paladins, the integrity of the setting be damned. Is it the novelty of combining to concepts at odds with one another? I can't imagine it being religious grounds. So weird that this is the place where the stand has to be made.
I didn’t realise I had to pick just one place
? But yes, one hill I’m prepared to die on is that BG3 should, as far as possible given the constraints of a video game, give players the option to roleplay any character allowed by the 5e rules (well, PHB rules I suppose). And, given that non-deity aligned paladins are permitted by the rules, I firmly believe that folk should be able to play them in their single-player games or multi-player games with likeminded folk without feeling the need to justify their life choices to anyone else. Larian being more restrictive on that front than WotC would, to my mind, just be them being unjustified killjoys.
As to what the rules around paladins
should be in future, come the next version of D&D, I’ll leave to others as I’m not even slightly qualified and don’t have strong opinions. But whatever they end up being, I will still think that it is not the place of any video game based on them and with BG3-like ambitions to restrict player choices more than the rules do, without extremely good reason.
