Originally Posted by Leucrotta
Originally Posted by Alodar
I have the opposite experience. I've been playing 5e since it was D&D Next and in that entire time neither I, nor anyone I've played with, has wanted to choose a deity for their Paladin. It has always been about embodying the Oath.

I found it to be a nice differentiation from Clerics. Instead of being beholden to a certain god, who are flawed, you were beholden to an ideal.
I never got this. Divine literally means 'of god' And in the Forgotten Realms the connection between divine casters and deities is *very* clear and constantly reinforced. They can and will take powers away from their followers if they choose, and the deaths of divine beings has huge repercussions for those who receive their power-it's literally the backstory for the original BG Saga!

And the idea that Paladins have turned into something where anyone can just 'promise real hard' and become a superhero as long as they stay true to their superhero code is just....weird to me. Oh, but if you fail your personal code, you lose your powers, but can get them back in an edgier version if you want, without even the strings attached that the oath represented....doubly so.
The spells are still named like that because at the end of the day it's just a half-assed deconstruction of a genre trope that only exists to cater to a very specific type of player who wants to have their cake and eat it too. That being said, if you read the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide it will outright tell you that Paladins are warriors that are basically ennobled by the grace of a deity in most cases. So in the lore it's still the norm for Paladins to be connected to the divine and Larian chose to design them around the exception for some reason. Very weird for a game that places such a large emphasis on roleplaying. It's not like they didn't diverge from the "pure" rules in other places.