Just a come-up-for-air reminder:
We're all functionally in the same position, more or less, when it comes to the video game itself; we all would like the option to pick a deity for our Paladins to follow. Some wish for the option of not picking one to be a part of this, while others seemingly want to deny that option to everyone, but overall, we all seem to agree that deity selection should be present in creation for Paladins.
...though, Leucrotta... I'm wondering if you've got something against me, if you conceded to the point I've been wanting to make so easily, and seemingly out of hand, because a different person suggested a situation where the flexibility, and the value of it, becomes visible... Perhaps I should have started with such an example?
What you suggested there - that an individual can, in the right circumstances, draw on these powers from a divine source, without knowledge or worship of a deity, and that this may continue as long as the mortal continues to act in a way that aligns with the sponsor's interests, even without direct worship... That's really a large part of what myself and others have been trying to illustrate. Before the second sundering, that could not happen, by the hard rules; the deity would need to make themselves known and extract/accept a personal oath of worship/following before granting powers (and if you allowed players to circumvent that, then you were homebrewing away from those hard rules... into what 5e allows now... which a lot of folks did... so the change may not be surprising). Now they don't have to. You're supposing that the deity would probably make themselves known eventually, and they might - but the point is they don't have to, and if that person dedicates themselves to a life and a crusade that upholds their sponsor's interests, they may never feel the need to. They may even determine that doing so, in this case, could be detrimental to the champion, and actively decide not to... and that's valid.
A player in a campaign I'm in would not call themselves a paladin, because that's not something that exists in their culture, but they are one, mechanically; they're dedicated to a set of principles that define their choices and life, and through their devotion to those principles, and the divine connection they've forged within themselves, they draw on divine powers to supplement their capabilities. None of us have any idea who,
if anyone, actively sponsors the flow of power for them - they don't actively pray or worship any deity, at least not that any of us can see... and it allows them to play a character that a strict dm following rule in the older editions would not have been able to allow.
your biggest piece of evidence is that the writing on the mechanics is written in an unclear manner And that somehow, it must mean that in absence of a firm, definitive statement, it must work the way you want it to, instead of the way it has historically been depicted as working, a way which is still not contradicted by the murky wording of 5e's sourcebooks.
Not unclear; fuzzy. There's a difference. My contention is that the non-absolute language is a deliberate choice that was made - not something done out of laziness or a lack of clarity. It's a language choice that they made for 5e, post second sundering, and it's a language choice that they use consistently, not by accident, not here and there, but consistently. The fuzzy language IS a definitive statement. "Most people have ears"
IS a definitive statement, and it is a definitive statement that means something entirely different from "People must have ears". The former allows that some people do not have ears, but that this lack does not stop them from being people. The second claims that if someone does not have ears, then they are not and cannot be a person. They are very different statements, and wizards chose to say one of them, consistently, and to not say the other.
In the past Wizards have said the other; they have no qualms being absolute when they mean to be absolute. With the rules for the realms post second sundering and with the start of 5e, they deliberately chose not to be. That is definitive; that is deliberate; it's not unclear at all - it's deliberately non-absolute. It's right there in plain text. Worshipping a deity does not contradict this source... however, telling other people that their paladins MUST worship a deity, in fact,
DOES directly contradict the 5e source books. It literally does - because they use non-absolute language when dealing with this topic, and making an absolute insistence about that same topic is a contradiction of that source.
You can play your paladin the way you want, and I can play my paladin the way I want, and both are acceptable and valid within the present rules - designed deliberately to allow this. You are the one standing forward to say "No, your way of playing is wrong!" - despite the fact that saying so is in direct contradiction of the source book. Please don't be that person - I'm sure you're better than that.
==
Edit: Oh! To Red Queen! About your Bard question... the answer is, basically... "Maybe" ^.^ It will depend on how your DM wants to rule things, based on the character and the situation, and their own opinions at the table about how the mortal-divine interaction works. They might be silently sponsored by a deity that appreciates the oath, and who is strengthened by the actions and fervour of such an oath... or the drive, suffering, and the resonance of their mortal soul may be sufficient enough to forge a connection to a divine folio that their oath aligns with. It may, as is often the case, require that the oath be witnessed - or indeed an envoy representing a deity, folio or domain may alight in order to witness and receive the oath... or that may not be necessary; it's fluid and individual.
The shaping of the weave is fuzzier still - if you're sponsored, then it would probably work much like a cleric. If you're not, you may be pushing the weave into the shape it needs to be in by the force of your will and the strength of your soul alone, bolstered by the raw divine power you can access. You're also a bard, and not unfamiliar with shaping the weave through other means, so it could very well be that, lacking a direct sponsor, you use this new connection and different source of power, but shape the weave with it in much the same way you have previously done using your own innate magical ability to touch the weave. Lots of possibilities, and all of them valid, depending on what you and your DM feels best makes sense for your character and the situation they're in ^.^
It's personal, it's unique, and the deliberately non-absolute language allows it to be so.
