Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback The Problem with Paladins in D&D

Okay, interesting. I guess I can see your point, too . I don’t think, though, that I can make myself believe that the game knows better than I do when something breaks my character’s oath, given I know full well it doesn’t have all the relevant facts about my character’s background, oaths and intentions, even if it knows more about the world than I do.

I guess I could see that way of thinking working in a different kind of game, or even for an origin character, where we’re exploring a character who to some extent is defined by the game, and so it does know stuff about them (such as what they’ve spent their time meditating on) that the player doesn’t. But that’s not what I want from a BG3 custom character, who can be pretty much whoever I want them to be and I don’t want the game to tell me how to roleplay them. And saying that, I wonder if our different perspectives on this point might have their roots in a similar place as the different opinions on custom characters that I seem to recall us having discussed in another thread?

I don't recall our discussion of custom characters or your particular opinion of them, sadly, so I can't say on that point. I think part of our diverging opinion is that I already don't really think the BG3 custom character is actually all that free or flexible as it stands. They're blank, but not really flexible, and really only allow us to play moderate variations on a couple kinds of character. So might as well be more honst about the limitations in this area, given that paladins are already explicitly more hemmed in in their choices anyway, because of the oaths. I absolutely WANT the character to be more flexible, but I think actually achieving that would require more work across the board than Larian is interested in doing.

I think the kinds of character I've been able to play in BG3 have been less varied than who I've been able to make in say, the Pillars of Eternity games. There I played a firebrand monk who went into self-imposed exile out of guilt for the atrocities she had to commit during the rebellion to free her city state, and who had an arc centered around regaining her will to fight for a worthy cause and set aside her guilt in order to find passion and be of service. And then I played a haughty, entitled noblewoman who started out trying to pick her life back up after her family fortunes were squandered, and who started off entirely self-interested, but who eventually grew to still be haughty, but to take on a sense of nobless oblige responsibility that led to her essentially supplanting the main villain at the very end and agreeing with his ultimate goal, which only continued into the second game. The characters I've made in BG3 have yet to feel like they can really support that range of diversity at all.

Yep, that was kind of what I’d remembered . I’ll not send us further off topic, though, by repeating my opinion of BG3 custom characters and how I’d like to see them improved. Sorry, that tangent was my fault!

I will just say, though, that I played PoE 1.5 times and can’t even remember what my characters’ backgrounds were, whereas I could probably list every custom character I’ve played BG3 with since the start of early access. That might just be because it’s been a while since I played PoE and my brain is getting old, but may also be because different things grab my imagination than yours!

Tangents happen, no worries. And I'd say you're right that our imagination is grabbed by different things. To this day PoE I consider 1 and 2 are some of the best games I've ever played and BG3 pretty average, so it's a matter of taste.

Regarding paladins specifically, something it needs is an occurrence early on to get the players on the same page regarding oaths and what's expected. The game can't offer broad freedom of interpretation so in lieu of that, it should do better about setting expectations for what will and won't break our oaths. As well as fine tuning the system.

As for oathbreaker as a concept, it may be mechanically good, but mechanics don't matter if the player doesn't think the breaking should have counted as breaking.

Well, Pointy Hat is flat-out wrong.

The problem is not that the Paladin is limited. The problem is that you want to play a limited class in an unlimited way. So the problem is the player wanting the Paladin to be something that the Paladin isn't. The whole point of playing a paladin is to adhere to moral/spiritual principles no matter the cost. Yes that makes the Paladin predictable. It absolutely does NOT make it tedious, because adhering to your principles is pretty damn hard (both IRL and sometimes even in video games).
If you want to play a morally flexible character, literally play anything else, it's fine.
Some people think that a Paladin is a Paladin because he has a weapon but also has divine powers, but that is also a perfect description of the Cleric, the Ranger and the Druid as well.

So what I came to think about is this: What sets the Paladin apart from all other classes? And you must NOT think in terms of game mechanics, you have to go deeper, you must understand what a Paladin is as a concept. And a Paladin is a knight or warrior who serves a deity or a cause, and is proactively looking to enforce the principles of his deity or cause upon reality.
Now this presents game developers with a challange: There are hundreds of gods in D&D, and they all have different principles and outlooks. So the "solution" to that is the Oath system that allows broader categories of Paladins to exist without having to take all those deities into account. The problem with that is that in BG3 it totally kills the class for some people (me included).

I simply am not going to play an atheist Paladin or a Paladin that can't even select a deity at character creation. Nor am I going to be satisfied with a Paladin that has no dialogue options reflecting his choice of deity.
I think the solution would be to limit paladins to a select few deities and give them a lot of detail in terms of roleplay.
Of course this will NOT happen, because the Oath System is an integral part of 5E, but it totally kills the roleplay aspect of the class, UNLESS you are into atheistic paladins.

Yeah, athiest paladin for me is just a no-go. Addressing the elephant in the room firstly- atheist paladin is such an antithetical bizarre concept to wrap your head around- all their abilities revolve around divine power, but simultaneously somehow are not connected to the divine. What. Does the idea of playing a character concept so fundamentally antithetical to itself carry so much novelty that it justifies its existence and the gutting of a classic D&D class over just playing IDK, an Eldritch Knight or some other variation of 'magical fighting man'? Paladins to me, much like clerics are a roleplay-heavy class because of their religious faith. Perhaps even moreso because they are expected to be a living paragon of their religion. Stripping that away basically removes the biggest draw of the class. All that you are left with is a magical fighter that has to abide some arbitrary 'good guy' code to keep their fightin magic...or not, since you can just become an oathreaker for no consequences and just keep your powers with no drawbacks, except they are edgy now for some reason.

Athiest Paladins make as much sense as a Zealous Nihilist.

Atheist paladin sounds like it could work if morality in itself had some kind of magic properties. By sticking closely to a vow, you would slowly be able to tap into that energy, kinda like weave. However in D&D, gods are the interface between morality and you so you have to be a paladin for one of those. Kinda like a democratic election when you think about it, your can elect a candidate that share your ideas and he will then grant you powers through the legislation.

It works better in a setting like Ebberon, that was designed with it in mind. The Realms are a place where fickle (sometimes literal) Olympian gods walk the earth and meddle in mortal affairs. Divine magic is a sign of their not-unconditional favor that they may bestow upon their magically-receptive followers. They giveth, taketh away etc.

Which is exactly why it makes sense that the more lawful-aligned gods would have paladins, given that they are less fickle and thus provide divine powers based on adherence to principles. The idea of a chaotic deity having paladins makes perfectly zero sense.

You are describing Cleric ...

I allways thought that Paladins draw their power from themselves ... like a Sorcerer ... but there isnt nearly as much of it, and they only can reach it as long as they believe they can reach it ... therefore there is Oath.
After all, if they break it, they can still reach Magical Powers ... just different one.

Shouldnt they loose all magical power completely, if it would be provided by some deity?

Well no, a Paladin does not draw power at all. A paladin merely adheres to the will of his deity and is granted aid and powers. Seeking power and control over divine magic is probably fundamentally antithetical to being a paladin.
Honestly, the very concept of the Oathbreaker makes no sense to me Honestly the old and much maligned Blackguard makes a lot more sense.

In the traditional sense, a Paladin in Dungeons & Dragons is usually a devout believer in a specific deity or philosophy. However, ultimately it is up to the DM (Dungeon Master) and the player to decide if a Paladin can be an atheist in their specific game setting.

From a rules perspective, the Player's Handbook states that "a paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness, to stand with the good things of the world against the encroaching darkness, and to hunt the forces of evil wherever they lurk" (page 82). It also mentions that "a paladin's power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god" (page 82).

With this in mind, it's possible to imagine a Paladin who is committed to upholding justice and fighting evil, but who does not believe in a specific deity. This Paladin could see their powers as stemming from their dedication to a cause rather than a divine being.

However, it's worth noting that many of the Paladin's abilities, such as their divine magic, are tied to their faith in a higher power. In order to use these abilities, a Paladin must be able to tap into their connection with their deity or philosophy, which would be difficult for an atheist Paladin to do. The DM and player may need to work together to come up with alternate explanations for these abilities if they want to allow an atheist Paladin in their game.

Here are some possible logical explanations for a Paladin's abilities that could work for an atheist character:

• Divine magic: Rather than drawing power from a deity, an atheist Paladin could draw power from their own strong sense of conviction and belief in their cause. They might see their spells as manifesting their willpower, or as tapping into the fundamental forces of the universe to achieve their goals.
• Divine smite: Similar to the above, an atheist Paladin could channel their own inner strength to deal extra radiant damage. They might see this ability as focusing their own energy to strike a powerful blow, or as manifesting their own righteous fury in battle.
• Oath: Instead of swearing allegiance to a specific deity, an atheist Paladin could swear an oath to a particular cause or philosophy that they believe in strongly. This oath might reflect their commitment to justice, righteousness, or protecting the innocent. The Paladin's abilities could be seen as a manifestation of their dedication to this cause, rather than as a gift from a higher power.
• Aura: The Paladin's aura ability could be seen as a natural extension of their own strong presence and leadership ability. They might inspire their allies through their words and deeds, rather than through any sort of divine magic.

Ultimately, the exact explanations for an atheist Paladin's abilities will depend on the specific character and game setting. However, by thinking creatively and reimagining the Paladin's powers in a way that aligns with an atheist worldview, it's possible to create a compelling and unique character that still fits within the rules of Dungeons & Dragons.

There was a fair bit of discussion on the connection between paladins and deities in https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=844271&page=1, which thread also demonstrated that this can be a topic folk get worked up about. Hopefully that can be avoided here, and we can keep things light and friendly!

Personally, my opinion is still that we should be able to specify a deity as well as an oath for a paladin, and have the game display some reactivity to the former. And that most if not all paladins I’d play in a Faerun-set game would likely be connected to a deity (at least for any of the three PHB oaths plus Oathbreaker that we’re likely to get), but that I’m all in favour of respecting 5e rules and keeping a link to a deity optional, to retain flexibility for players who do have a character concept for a paladin who does not swear to a god. I agree with Omkara that’s within the D&D rules, and I’d see it as unwarranted of Larian to refuse to support it.

Though of course this topic talks about a problem with paladins in D&D not just BG3. Personally, I don’t have a strong opinion on what the underlying rules should be, though as long as it remains possible to play the paladin as a traditional holy knight I don’t have any problems with other kinds of paladin being available. Particularly in a ruleset that is not specific to any one setting.

Any character should have the choice to have a god or not. WoTC has been moving away from alignments.
Good old LG paladin is long gone.

Player choice and agency is the way.

But making it clear when a pally will break their path would be great. I did a test, if I killed some enemies oath broken. Knock them out then my party kills them- oath not broken.

I have nothing against being friendly, however what we call paladins today is not really a paladin anymore. I just roll a battle cleric and have a good time, it's more authentically a paladin then 5th edition paladins could ever hope to be.
Now, I don't mind if somebody enjoys the new paladin system, let them have at it, its just that to me its more like a sorcerer knight then anyting.

I agree on the last sentence, definitely. And I certainly have no objection to any character being able to select a deity, but for me it’s not a necessity for characters whose class doesn’t have a (potentially) divine link and I don’t mind the game not reflecting the deity for most of my characters, whereas I want to be able to specify a deity and have the game respond to it for clerics, paladins, monks, druids and rangers, probably in that priority order.

I also don’t feel that the LG paladin is long gone, even if other paladin types are now available. And while, excepting certain races with necessary alignments, characters have free will and aren’t constrained by their alignment, I’m not aware that the alignment matrix is on its way out. Or at least I know is still very much part of 5e, with paladins still cited as a typical example of LG, though I confess I haven’t paid attention to plans for it in One D&D. But, eg, the paladin overview on DNDBeyond still feels very recognisable to me from earlier editions, and in fact I think leans more towards justice and fighting evil as the paradigm than I think is strictly required by the 5e rules.

That all said, I’m not a TT player and am new to 5e with BG3 so it’s possible I’m just seeing what I expect to see. But so far I’ve appreciated what I’ve read it as saying that I can still play a paladin as a lawful good devout champion if and when I wish, but I now have other choices too. I hope BG3 will capture this same flexibility, at least insofar as that’s possible in a computer game.

What I think would really help is if the Acolyte background allowed you to pick a deity and that would sometimes be reflected in conversation.

Interesting idea! Yes, though for me ideally that would be in addition to the classes I mentioned being able to pick deities. It would certainly help for playing a religious character of a non-divine class. And it could go some way to plugging the gap for non-cleric divine classes, too, as it is a background I tend to pick for druids and rangers when I’ve wanted to play them as devoted to a divinity rather than nature generally, and also picked it for one of my paladins. It would certainly be better than nothing, but I’d still prefer the ability to pick other backgrounds and a deity for all divine classes.

I live in hope that this is intended for paladin, at least, as I think some deity content has been data-mined or even appears in the game. I wonder if there just wasn’t time to get it working properly, or think through how it should work alongside the oathbreaker subclass, before the pre-Xmas deadline Larian were working towards for patch 9. That’s my wishful thinking, anyway.

As I mentioned in the past (like here, but that's only one among others —this is a very recurrent topic), I hope that we can select a deity regardless of our Class or Background.

For instance, I might want to be :

• a Druid, with the Sage Background, who is an adept of Eldath.
  
  
• a Drow Ranger, with the Noble Background, who follows Mielikki.
  
  
• an Uthgard Barbarian, with the Outlander Background naturally, who is very big about following the ways of Tempus (much like Lae'zel is big about Vlaakith).
  
  
• a Monk, with the Urchin Background, who is a follower of Shar and a member of the Order Of The Dark Moon.

What is needed is the option to select a Deity for everyone, in the same way that Clerics choose their deity. (Ideally, this would go in the "Origin" tab.)


———

EDIT.

I've just realised this Deity discussion is somewhat off-topic.

Going back to the initial post, I share the same sentiment.

Wizards Of The Coast decided to make Paladin Class less binding, less restrictive, roleplay-wise. Much in the way that they've been working on making the whole game more and more inclusive, and about playing who you want to play, rather than playing who the designers have in mind with each class.

For instance, a Druid's arc is no longer required to involve challenging the Archdruid at level 14.

Likewise, Paladins players are no longer encouraged to play Lawful Stupid and argue with their DM about whether or not their choices for their character are in agreement with what the book/the DM says.

So it's disappointing to see Larian do a full 180° on WOTC's direction, and reinstate the bad old GM who says "your Paladin didn't act how I think they should act, I'm taking away your (Sub-)Class powers. You're now Oathbreaker".


———

Also, +1 for Pointy Hat. I like his videos. Cleric Corner is also good, for the folks who are not allergic to reflavoring.