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

I dunno, seems weird ...
What would make them different from cleric then?

Even if you strike deity out of that equation?

It makes sense to me ...
Paladin believed that he is worthy of power ... therefore he had power ... then he did something that made him feel like being unworthy of that power ... so he lost the power ... except he didnt in fact the power was still there, just malformed, twisted.

Or siplified version:
As long as Paladin believes to be pure (oath here works as set of rules that define purity) ... his power is pure ... once he lost that believe (aka break his oath) ... his power bevome twisted, bcs he is no longer pure.

If Deity would be source of his power ... besides being Cleric in fact ... he would lost his power by breaking his Oath, wich isnt happening.

Well back in 3.5 Paladin had High BAB, while a cleric had medium BAB. The difference between the classes was that a Paladin was more focused on physical combat, while a cleric was more focused on magical combat. Now this is no longer a valid differentiation, because BAB is gone (afaik), which is why I basically just play a cleric now, the Paladin lost it's salt in 4th and 5th Edition. In essence, the differences between cleric and Paladin were watered down enough to the point where one of them had to change in order to differentiate them. The problem witht his is that the Paladin was changed in a way that intrudes on the ranger's domain and thus the ranger lost it's identity and is still one the classes that is not exactly well handled by 5th Edition.

As for the Oathbreaker, I think it's not really a paladin. A paladin is a divine knight, an Oathbreaker however is more like a witch-knight. More like a sith lord in a medieval setting really.
I think the difference between a paldin and an oathbreaker is the source of their power. That is enough of a reason to handle them as separate classes, if it was not we could just call all caster-fighters paladin (including spellblades, rangers, bards, eldritch knights, etc). Basically, if you break your oath you do lose your power, it's just that game-mechanically you are de-facto relegated into the Oathbreaker class, so you don't experience a loss of power, like you would back in BG2, where losing your powers meant that you were basically a sub-par fighter.

The root of identity is not in game mechanics, but in the lore of the class. A Paladin is and always has been a servant of divine forces. You can try to twist the class into something else and still call it a paladin, but people will naturally notice this and move on to other classes that fir the archetype (namely, the cleric).

You should have that choice for sure, however your choice should not be grounds for rewriting entire classes and their lore and the way they work.
I don't mind if some people want to play an atheist cleric or paladin, that's actually fine, but that shouldn't fundamentally affect the way the class as a concept.
A paladin that is an atheist could for example, still be devoted to Justice, and he would still be granted divine powers through the divine portfolio of Justice with the approval of the God of Justice, Tyr. The difference between an atheist and a believer Paladin in this case would just come down to having to deal with Kelemvor in the afterlife.
However, the powers of an atheist Paladin would still be granted by divine forces and it wouldn't be an internal power within the atheist Paladin. If you want internal power that comes through the force of personality, the self, that's pretty much what a sorcerer is, which is a perfectly fine class btw, but it's not what a paladin is.

I do think the difference between an Oathbreaker paladin as a sort of anti-paladin class with powers of its own and just any old lapsed paladin who has broken their oath is a potentially interesting one. This is partially engaged with through game mechanics in BG3, insofar as merely breaking their oath just leads to an inability to channel divinity (though admittedly they can still cast other divine spells), whereas getting Oathbreaker powers requires explicit commitment to a new course to the Oathbreaker knight. The details of this are left hazy, which is probably necessary given the variety of motivations an Oathbreaker might have, but for me it should at least mean explicitly rejecting the previous oath and now seeing elements of it as something that it is righteous to actively fight against, with a degree of zeal that could attract divine favour.

I do get some of this feeling from the spiel of the Oathbreaker knight as well as the game mechanics, though admittedly I think it could come across more strongly.

Agreed ...
Im just with WotC in that Paladin dont really need to get his power from deity in order to be this way.

Well I disagree with WoTC on that, but we both know how much that matters lol

I'm gonna point out that there are certain paladin lines that do seem to imply worship of a god, it's even almost stated to be Tyr during the whole Anders quest. So that just makes me think there's more there that we haven't seen, one way or another.

Another thing that's just occurred to me. People are throwing out the term atheist paladin and I don't think that automatically reflects the state of our character. I think something that gets lost in these games is that the assumption is every character believes in the gods, and has one god they revere in particular above the others. So it only goes that any paladins we make would be the same. It's not that they don't believe in any gods, it's just that the gods aren't the chief guiding compass they serve, that would be their oath. And I think if we keep that in mind then it makes the idea of paladins who don't take their oath directly to a god make a bit more sense. Since any paladin will probably still have a patron god who is in line with their oath. So I can see it as a situation where the paladin makes the oath in a way that's not tied to a specific deity, but they still have their deity they pray to and revere, and that deity notices them because of this oath they took, an oath which exemplifies their divine virtues even if they don't directly act in service to the god. So the god grants them power in acknowledgement of their devotion.

My Oathbreaker (old anti-Paladin) isn’t an atheist per say. He knows the gods exist, it’s just they are just exceptionally powerful long lived beings that can die. The only “god” he knows of is AO and even then sees him as disconnected and unconcerned with the suffering of normal mortals. Cobalt (my Oathbreaker) broke his oath(“fell”) when he realized this. He isn’t “evil” per say, but will not blink an eye when a cleric, paladin, zealot, etc stands in his way. He feels the less the realms depend on “gods” the less suffering and pain the “mortals” will experience…

It’s funny the way the Oathbreaker Knight in the game is it sets up my Oathbreaker perfectly. It obviously needs work, but I like it the way it works now. The power comes from his conviction “oath”; however, he is aware of how the weave works and assumes a darker force maybe allowing him access to magic to fight the gods. He expects this power to be taken away one day but for him it’s currently a tool. He will fight against the absolute and bring the grove to ruin.

Apparently this is leftover dialogue from the datamined stuff when Paladins had Tags for all of the same gods clerics did. Supposedly you can get references to paladin's serving a 'goddess' under certain circumstances-Lolth IIRC-I think it's if you choose Lolthsworn since they have a default religious option? IDK. It's pretty clear from its current implementation that at the very least *player* paladins are divorced from the concept of religion, and that this is an about face from the initial plans.

Anyways, all of this stuff about 'making an oath without being religious but a god notices anyways and chooses to be your patron without revealing themselves in any way' seems incredibly niche and unlikely. Certainly more appropriately an outlier rather than the norm?

First of all, what even is a non-religious 'oath of devotion' or 'oath of ancients' paladin if there is no religious doctrine guiding them, yet they very clearly have a specific code of ethics governing their actions-who is defining all this? It certainly isn't the paladin's themselves, because one 'oath of the ancients' paladin has the same creed as every other. 'Paladin' isn't some a'-la-carte 'pick your grabbag of oath stuff' it's a package deal. Several different-themed packages, but distinct packages nonetheless. This indicates organization, a creed passed down and taught from one paladin to another. And at that point, I ask myself why religiously neutral paladins instead of utilizing the existing religious structure of paladins in Faerun. Why cowboys and superheroes but not the Order of the Radiant Heart?

And what even is an 'oathbreaker' if breaking an oath doesn't indicate a betrayal of an organization or even identify you in any way and the only distinguishing feature is that you get your divine powers no-strings attached? Makes sense if you are a member of a paladin order. Who is holding you accountable for 'falling' and shanked a goblin that one time if anyone can become a paladin and falling is a moral failure and a personally-defined one at that which doesn't indicate a betrayal of an organization, heresy, or crime, etc. Falling/turning oathbreaker just doesn't mean a whole lot there.

IMO there should have been religious paladins, and the oathbreaker should have been a quest to either regain your paladinhood after falling or proving yourself worthy to join as a paladin of a different relgion. There should have been evil paladins as an option to start as. Falling should not have been a matter of choosing to pay a small fine or keep all of your powers anyways.

Yes, an outlier, kinda like being a paladin and an atheist at the same time

It seems as likely to me that the evidence of religion tags for paladins means that this is a planned feature that wasn’t ready for release with patch 9, as that it was initially planned then abandoned. I’m going to continue to believe my preferred interpretation until definitively proved wrong .

I’m also not aware of anyone arguing that a paladin without a relationship to a specific deity is the norm rather than an outlier, particularly in the FR settings. Is that an extrapolation from the fact that we can’t (yet?) specify in-game the particular deity to whom our paladins are sworn to the conclusion that most of them aren’t actually sworn to deities at all? That’s not a leap I’d make, and given that it wouldn’t fit well with the setting - as you’ve argued - I don’t think we have reason to believe that’s what Larian intended anyone to infer from that lack of functionality either.

I do very much agree that it would be great to meet paladin orders in the game, and have the opportunity to roleplay our paladins as a member of, eg, the Order of the Radiant Heart. Hopefully that’s something we’ll see once we, presumably, encounter more paladins as the adventure proceeds.

And I certainly wouldn’t see it as a bad thing if the game included more context on paladins in Faerun to help newcomers generate a lore-friendly background for their paladins that will be fulfilling to play in BG3, though this doesn’t seem to be a gap specific to this class. For any custom Tav, it feels as though Larian expect us to do our offline homework on the setting rather than holding our hands through the process of developing our character. Perhaps they figure that people not already familiar with the setting will choose origin characters, but still …

With my background I'd be satisfied with a Paladin (or Cleric) worshiping a "Higher Power However We Understand It".
:P
IMO such an expression of spiritual belief could be latched upon by a minor deity desperate for Followers.

Back to thread with a question.
All other Classes seem to follow the PHB in the level where their flavor (subclass) is selected. Paladins have it moved forward from 3rd to 1st.
Is it because they were added last?
Is it because - as mentioned - the Vows should be said at a Holy Place which is not available in-game?
BTW - to me the Paladin Vows pretty much make them LG, the LN Oath of Vengence being left out - here the theory that this flavour was left out to make the Scottish accent guy's spiel a better fit with what the PC did sounds legit.

Am having fun playing my Lollthsworn Oathbreaker - I'm keeping the Mother of Spiders, the Unbent, the Unbowed, the Unbroken, She of Well Shaped Ankles, the Breaker of Chains of Slavery to Correlon Larethian, the Stickler to Diet Plans, the All-Mother happy with my Strife-In-Surface fomenting ways

I've given my theory why I think Oath of Vengeance was left out, though I'd say that Oath of the ancients fits for a chaotic good character more than lawful good. As for why we pick oaths at first level now, I think it's becase there's nowhere to say the oaths now. Plus the specific oaths are tied to dialogue options so I think Larian wanted to provide more of those as soon as possible. Which I don'tthink is a bad choice necessarily. Also, if we don't have oaths from lvl one, then that's a decent stretch of time when we're not technically bound by anything and can act as we wish.

I don't mind the change, I don't think it alters the roleplaying or flavour of the class significantly.

My son, up to EA BG3 completely ignorant of DnD, was absolutely baffled, bewildered and bemused by the character creation process.
In spite of all the tips and tutorials The Oaths - and other sub-class choices at Tavgenesis - were yet another complicated and confusing matter.

Hence IMO moving the choice of Oath to later would "lessen the pain" for newbies.
But I understand the point of "no oath" = "Fighters with fancy spells" before taking the Oath.

There are two things here : 5E's fundamental complexity and BG3's onboarding process.

Regarding D&D 5E's fundamental complexity, and by complexity here I mostly mean number of options, one thing that 5E was doing fairly well, was to postpone some choices to level 2 or 3 (this was, essentially, 5E's way of making onboarding easier for players who prefer a lighter introduction). In particular some Subclass choices. For some Classes (namely, Cleric, Sorcerer, Warlock), given the canonical lore/flavour, it made more sense to choose the Subclass at level 1, but otherwise, Subclasses were chosen at level 3, except for two that happened at level 2.

Now, given 5E overall simplicity, for gamers used to learning rules or players who've learned D&D 5E and have become familiar with it, the early-game ultra simplicity may have been a bit too much. To the point that many games/campaigns would start at level 3, because that's where your character really started to become what you wanted. My vague understanding of D&D 5.5 (or rather One D&D, as its currently named), is that there might be a bit more complexity at character creation (I think that more Subclasses will be chosen at level 3 but you'll get feats from level 1, and thus access to a menu of options).


Regarding BG3's onboarding process, BG3 is rather bad at teaching players the rules. Tooltips have become a bit better in general. But the character creation screen is still horrible.

Notably, it fails to show how your character will evolve, and what the future implications of your current choices are.

It also don't present the choices to make in a simple order. You often have to go back and forth between tabs (skills is a particular bad example, since you choose 2 in the Origin tab, and some more in the Skills tab, and the presentation in that latter tab really isn't great).

+1
Oh yes, it took us quite a lot of head scratching and swearing to figure out which skills/profficiencies came from race, class, background, or state of the tide at Ghent ... :P

In character creation my knowledge of 2nd and 3/3,5 editions sometimes helped, sometimes led us down false paths ...

But we are drifting outside the topic.
So, it was a choice between newbie players either facing bewildering choices at Tavgenesis, or to play their Paladins in non-Paladin, not Oathbound manner, and then face a bewildering choice at lvl 3?

I don't think the choice would be nearly so bewildering if they actually told us what the oaths were for each paladin. Ironically, even though you choose your oath at level 1, Pathfinder 2e has a perfect solution to this with their champion class. Good or evil aligned champions have tenets specific to them, and then based on whether you're lawful, neutral or chaotic you choose your subclass and a longer, more defining set of tenets and abilities.

And regarding onboarding, I'm willing to give BG3 q lite grace here because typically in games the tutorial is the last thing to get worked on and finished so it doesn't surprise me that it's rough in early access. Doesn't excuse the interface issues in the character creation screen though.

So now it's confirmed that we're getting oath of vengeance paladins, I think it's worth discussing in more specificity what that means for paladins. The oath of vengeance is really intended for Lawful Neutral characters, or more harsh iterations of lawful good. Their tenets are as follows:
Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting
my sworn foes or combating a Iesser evil, I choose the
greater evil.
No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win
my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.
By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can't get in the
way of exterminating my foes.
Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is
becacuse I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed
by their misdeeds.

Those are very firm tenets with a clear idea. They are meant to be rutheless, but only to a point. They aren't forbidden from give mercy at all, only to their "sworn foes" whatever that means. Clearly there's an idea that they swear their vengeance against a particular sort of enemy and outside that, there's wiggle room. And importantly, their final tenet makes it explicit that these paladins have a duty to help those harmed by their foes in particular. They take on a real sense of responsibility.

How do we think Larian will handle this oath? Assuming they're able to iron out the kinks in the oath system, how well can they pull off this oath in the best of circumstances? I think it's worryingly possible, even likely that Larian will lean too far into the edginess of the class (which in their defence, that edginess is absolutely present in the subclass by design) and miss out on the nuance of it. I think that if we're just blanket not allowed to show mercy, that would do a disservice to the class and force it into a villanous role it's not meant for. It's a class that accepts some enemies as deserving mercy. Not even just some people, but some enemies against you. How Larian interprets that will really make or break the class.

Good points, Gray Ghost.

IMO it is easier to play a Paladin in tabletop than CRPG, as you can hash things out with the DM.