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

Being or not being part of PHB is not really the important question ...

Important question here is if all characters should have deity-related option in dialogues ... or if that should remain for Clerics only!

I mean ...
Give it to everyone ... and Clerics loose lots of their identity.
But keep it for Clerics only ... and there is no reason to implement it at all, since you will never be able to express your faith anyway ... so all you need to do is simply name your character Tav, worshipper of *insert deity here*.

Why would a random person who worships a deity be on speaking terms with the god at the same level as a devotee like a cleric?

Worshipping a god isn't the same thing as serving it.

Tag the devout dialogue lines with [Cleric], [Deity] or [Religion (skill)]. That'll limit full dialogue access to trained clerics of the relevant god, but acolytes and paladins get some lines as they play.

But it's important for it to be a forgotten realms game and, I argue, for paladins to stay true the holy warrior archetype. In faerun the faithless really suffer in the afterlife.

That doesn't really answer the question of why a worshipper of a deity in the Forgotten Realms, who is not a cleric/devotee, would be on speaking terms with that god.

Gods and clerics don't start talking until the cleric reaches level 10, until then it's a one sided conversation - just as with everyone else.

Yeah, I know, and that's not what I was replying to.

My mistake then. Please explain what you mean? In the realms people invoke the names of gods fairly often and you would expect a paladin to so more than most.

Quick prayer to Umberlee is all that stands between me and the sea's bottom

just go back up the thread and read the posts, there's no point in recreating the entire exchange. they're on this page.

Then I withdraw what I said before, I am no longer granting that I may have misread you. Your statement is unclear and you don't care to clarify it.

Fine.

I will recreate the entire series of posts for you:

Ragnarok said : Important question here is if all characters should have deity-related option in dialogues ... or if that should remain for Clerics only!

I said : Why would a random person who worships a deity be on speaking terms with the god at the same level as a devotee like a cleric? Worshipping a god isn't the same thing as serving it.

FreetheSlavs said: Tag the devout dialogue lines with [Cleric], [Deity] or [Religion (skill)]. That'll limit full dialogue access to trained clerics of the relevant god, but acolytes and paladins get some lines as they play.

I said : That doesn't really answer the question of why a worshipper of a deity in the Forgotten Realms, who is not a cleric/devotee, would be on speaking terms with that god.

You said : Gods and clerics don't start talking until the cleric reaches level 10, until then it's a one sided conversation - just as with everyone else.

Which still does not answer the question I posed, which was in response to Ragnarok, AND doesn't actually add anything to the conversation that hasn't already been mentioned.

Then when I said that, you got defensive that I hadn't sufficiently explained myself to you even though you were the one interjecting in to a thread tangent that wasn't involving you, and you didn't bother to read the pertinent comments first. Comments which are ALL entirely visible ON THIS PAGE.

Have I explained myself enough for you?

Thanks for doing that

While I appreciate the effort you put into reposting all that it doesn't clarify things for me. We can just end discussion here or, you have a desire to be understood, you could try saying the same thing using different words. My best guess is you mean something like "highly focused on the gods"?

This suggestion seems like a good one


Because if we were to order the classes from most to least focused on the gods we would put clerics first and foremost, followed by druids, then paladins and warlocks would come last on the list.

Paladins are highly committed to justice and justice is part of a divine portfolio. Because deities oversee portfolios of nature, law and vengeance it follows that a paladin is going to be more inclined than most to invoke the names of deities who oversee their oaths. It would be easiest to put lines for Torm, Silvanus and Hoar but I would like to see as many options as possible.

Just as our axe wielding furry friend here ... i have no idea what are you talking about. :-/

What level of ... what? O_o

Have you even played the game as a Cleric?
Have you payed atention to their dialogue choices?

Its things like:
[Cleric] My servitude to *XY* demands me to do *YZ*.
or
[Cleric] As sevant of *XY*, i can offer you a prayer.
or
[Cleric] In the name oc *XY*, i strike you down you faul creature!

Stuff like that ...
(seeing it this together, *XY* seems like popular God, doesnt he? )

There is no talking with "deity" involved at all ... so ... dont really know what "level" you are talking about.
Its just stuff your cleric say/do/states they are about to do, that are tied to his/her faith ... deity ... patron ... oath ... or whatever else you wish to call it.

Agreed ...

I just cant help the feeling that there is nothing holding you back right now.
I mean, i totally get that some people "want" (bcs, im sorry if that ofends you, but i see this only as want, certainly not need) to have deity choice written on their character ... the problem is, that if the game will NEVER EVER EVER mention it, there is no need for it to be stated openly.

I mean ...
There is nothing soping us to play just as holy warrior as we want, uphold our deity rules, aply them to others, following our doctrine ... its just not stated by game. Mechanicaly, we are following our oath instead ... but they can easily be just the same.

Is there any difference between:
[Oath of Devotion] You have my word that i shall track and strike down that one-horned fiend! (or something like that)
[Paladin of Tyr] In the name of Tyr, i shall purge this fiend out of this world surface! (or something like that)
I dont see it, honestly. :-/
In both cases, you decided to protect inocents (as your oath, and picked deity demands), purge unholy forces (as your oath, and picked deity demands), and help those in need (as your oath, and picked deity demands).
Its two sides of single coin.

There are religion skills dialogue choices in the game ... Cleric only bypass them, bcs it makes no sense for them to fail in this.
Question is how and most importantly why should dialogue choices for Clerics differ from anyone else.

I mean, if Lolth worshiping demands to kill Minthara ... how would each of them react?
(And again, dont read this litteraly, its not like Lolth come to this game to comand us kill her, its more like common sense that such blasphemy wouldnt be tolerated in Drow society.)
There is Cleric of Lolth ...
Paladin of Lolth (kinda funny idea with sub-classes we have aviable now, isnt it? ) ...
Lolthsworn Drow that is i dunno, Warlock for example, doesnt really matter ...
And presuming all and everyone would get option to worship deities, wich would fit the setting perfectly, some Lolth worshiping Tiefling for example, doent really matter ...
So ... how should their answers differ? Why should they differ? And most importantly, should they even differ?

I think Larian did good job ...
They taged [Lolthsworn Drow] ... bcs their society provides stereotype you can follow ...
They taged [Cleric of Lolth] ... bcs their religion provides stereotype you can follow ...
But there is no [Worshipper of Lolth], for either Paladin or anyone else ... bcs there is no stereotype to follow, you still can cut Minthara open and decorate the room with her innards ... and you can even say to yourself that your character did that in the name of Lolth ... nothing is stoping you there ...
The only difference is that the game dont see any difference in if you killed her "in the name of Lolth" or "bcs you needed her death in order to help refugees" ... but it dont matter anyway, she is just as dead in both cases.

Often in TT games, experts don't even need to roll to know - DM just says you pass. This would be modelled in BG3 by a character with [Cleric] and [Deity] tags getting a free pass, paid for by level 1 hard choices.

Back to skills, I have to mention again that polytheism is the norm in D&D. The religion skill is for the character that knows a lot about one religion and/or much about many religions, that's why it's optional not mandatory for clerics. You can play the dogmatic cleric that doesn't even have deep understanding of their own god. Function over form.

Paladins are martial warriors with oaths to a god (or cause, but let's set that aside). They wouldn't even get [Cleric] tags because being a pro warrior requires total time commitment and their oath more aligns with a valued aspect of a deity (justice, honor, valor etc) than the deity itself.

pachanj, I don't quite understand speaking terms, I think you mean have a personal relationship with a god? Well a non-divine class character wouldn't. I'd expect [Religion] skill characters to recognise and understand religious matters, but it'd take divine characters to perform actual rites or be an authority. Those are actual druids performing the Rite of Thorns, not [Nature] skilled acolytes.

Larian's done a pretty good job implementing paladins as trusted arbiters, e.g. Kagha or Rolan. That's a natural story decision for an oath-bound warrior well known for not lying.

Ofcourse you can ...
Im not really sure, but like for 99% you can even play a Cleric that follow certain deity (i believe its Loviatar in this game) but dont recognize fellow worshipper.

By simply not picking [Cleric] choice.
There allways are alternatives.

I have better idea ... lets not!
Can you provide us some source?

There was lot of quoted about Paladins in 5e dont swear their oaths to Gods themselves, but nothing even suggesting otherwise.

Now i feel confused.

This sounds to me like you were advocating against Paladins having deity tags. O_o

Just read your post RagnaokCzD and I agree whole-heartedly about TAGs needing strong stereotypes to justify the dialogue line.

These tagged lines should make a strong setting statement which reinforces immersion. Lolth-sworn drow and clerics of Lolth should have the option to have strong opinion about Minthara being a divine follower of the Absolute.

Non-divine/drow characters that have picked Lolth as their deity? Sorry, the dialogue doesn't hold a lot of weight. Minthara would say something like 'Who are you to have such an opinion?'

And at this point, should their even be deity choice for non-clerics? Even paladins shouldn't be able to step on toes of cleric class; maybe paladin dialogue lines should take precedence deity lines and not allow both? Are there even deity lines?

RagnaokCzD, these are the sentences that pop out at me in relevant books that ask questions about the paladin-god relationship.

****

5E PHB pg82 base paladin write up:
'Although many paladins are devoted to gods of good, a paladin's power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god.'
And on the following page it asks a series of question for the player to think about when creating their paladin, such as:
'Are you a devoted servant of good. loyal to the gods of justice and honor, a holy knight in shining armor venturing forth to smite evil?'

5E Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide (SCAG) pg132 FR paladin write up:
'Most paladins in the Forgotten Realms, like clerics, are devoted to a particular deity.'

****

It paints a picture that:
- paladin + god = good
- paladin + commitment to justice = good
- paladin + several good gods = good
- most paladin in FR + one god = good
- few paladin in FR + several goods = good
- and/or few paladin in FR + commitment to justice = good

****

For me, this thread is a discussion and my opinion hasn't fully formed. But I do find it persuasive that dialogue lines need gravitas to justify including them.

Here's a question, should a cleric of Tyr and paladin of Tyr share dialogue lines?

That is my question aswell ...

I mean...
If deity choice will be implemented the way we can use it in the game ... it takes away what Cleric is, bcs even tho in roleplay Cleric can on certain level talk to his deity directly ... right now (and most of the game itself) s/he talk for himself, and [Cleric] dialogue choices are just made the way deity worshipper/servant should talk/do ...
So in the end, (purely in dialogues ofc) everyone would be Cleric.
Wich doesnt sound ideal.

And if it would be implemented the way we have it on our character, but we can never ever use it actually ... then, quite honestly, there is no reason to implement it imho. :-/
All we would need is some notepad where we can write that this character is following *XY* ... or just name him "Tav, follower of *XY*" ... and be done with it.

And i fear there isnt even much space for middle ground ...
You still either help people or not, either harm people or not ... one dialogue choice will give you option to help/harm, bcs *you* want to ... another dialogue choice give you option to help/harm bcs *your deity* demands you to act that way ... what else is there?
I mean sure, the dialogue choices themelves can differ ... in the way that it would be exactly the same message, said trough different words like:
"My Deity demands it" VS. "My Oath demands it" ... wich would both lead to same response ...

And i kinda like it, bcs it would help player to express his character as pious(?) ... or not.

I agree paladin lines should be _additional_ to cleric lines, not reuse them; the classes are very different in outlook and role within the game-world.

Looking at a save game, I see Larian uses tags [Oath of devotion] and [Cleric of Shar]. Looks like there'll be dialogue lines for paladin and oath of X. Deities are already hard-coded with cleric.

Maybe paladins will get to choose gods, but kind of looks like that won't matter except in special circumstances (paladins of Tyr plot).

Something to bear in mind, with multi-classing there will be the cleric-paladin who gets access to both, but that's a unique appeal of such a multi-class. Actually makes multi-classing _very_ appealing, imo.

I am not a specialist of D&D 5e edition but it makes more sense for me that paladins should gain their powers from a deity. According to the deity, the powers should be logical ( I am thinking about a shar priestess well known here able to use fire and light spells...).

However, I thnk also that some deities should not have any interest to grant powers to any type of paladin.