Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#769298 11/04/21 11:53 AM
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Dez Offline OP
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Greetings, traveler!

So, as of late I have been trying to dig into the very core of the different classes (and sub-classes) of the Forgotten Realms. Usually the descriptions are rather straight-forward through the 5e Player's Handbook alone, but regarding paladins in particular - not even the combined force of the FR Wiki and 5e PHB could answer my questions - so now I turn to the community for some answers.

1) Who does a paladin answer to? Is there any form of authority system amongst the paladins - like temples or other form of organized movements within the paladin section that uses physical locations? Or do they answer to the local authority at whatever location they happen to be at? As far as I've understood, paladins supposedly value their oath (regardless if aimed at a principle or deity) higher than the country laws. I would very much appreciate if someone could redirect me towards a source where I could gather some more information on the matter.

2) The wiki says that paladins more often than not choose the adventurous life-style. But *why* ? Do they just embark on a quest to make the world a better place after swearing their oaths? Are they all by themselves by then and hence choosing a more independent lifestyle, or do they actually somehow stay in touch with whatever place they trained at / served at / with their mentor?

3) According to 5e PHB, paladins can break their oath (intentionally or non-intentionally). As far as I've understood, the most paladins seek redemption by themselves if their oath is broken, using either a cleric or paladin of same beliefs to redeem themselves. However, those who break their oath without signs of regret might suffer "more serious consequences" according to the PHB. What exactly does this mean? The wiki seems to hint at the paladin risking to lose their divine powers by failing to uphold their oath, but is that the "more serious consequences" the PHB is refering to?

4) Oathbreakers - how would a paladin typically react upon meeting an oathbreaker? Would they know it right away throughout some communication channel amongst paladins? Or would they have to either figure it out or be told by an external source (such as the oathbreaker him-/herself)? Would the paladin become hostile and resort to violence (thinking of the following statement from the FR wiki: "All paladins, regardless of whom they served and how they acted, were expected to serve as sworn defenders of their beliefs, smiting those who would debase or devalue them.")? Or would they simply wrinkle their noses in disgust and walk away?

5) Regarding worship and oathes - is it possible for a paladin to swear an oath based on principle, but worship a god without the god being the very center of his oath (leaving room for potential overlaps)? As in, the paladin's religious faith is secondary to his belief in the principle of his oath, and hence they are not directly connected. The example I am curious of would be - could a paladin worship a peaceful/almost-pacifistic god/goddess while still being able to "defend" their beliefs by "smiting" enemies of their faith?

Thanks in advance!


Hoot hoot, stranger! Fairly new to CRPGs, but I tried my best to provide some feedback regardless! <3 Read it here: My Open Letter to Larian
Dez #769300 11/04/21 12:51 PM
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Whilst this is about D&D/FR and not technically about BG3, I'll leave it here on the assumption that Paladins will eventually make it into the game.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Dez Offline OP
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Whilst this is about D&D/FR and not technically about BG3, I'll leave it here on the assumption that Paladins will eventually make it into the game.

I mean, Paladins are mentioned on the BG3 Wiki (along with barbarians, bards, sorcerers and monks) and as such, they are a part of the BG3 universe that takes place in the Forgotten Realms. I would assume, since it is a roleplaying game, that roleplaying aspects of the game is fair and square to discuss.


Hoot hoot, stranger! Fairly new to CRPGs, but I tried my best to provide some feedback regardless! <3 Read it here: My Open Letter to Larian
Dez #769303 11/04/21 01:08 PM
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
I am not a paladin expert at all but will try to answer this.
1. From what I can determine, you do not have to answer to anyone if you don't want to. This is up to the player and their DM. Your oath is what drives you and you are not bound by anything else including society's laws. I am pretty sure you can be of any alignment in 5e as well.
2. This is also up to the player. Any of these would work.
3. This is a subclass in the DMG, usually players do not pick this one. It gets some pretty interesting stuff though if you were to find a DM who allowed it. With players who stray from their oath, the "serious consequences" I think are usually left up to the DM.
4. This would depend on a lot of things. I do not think an oathbreaker would stand out in any way unless you were specifically told about them. I would think you would only be hostile to them if they stood in the way of your oath.
5. I don't see an issue with this. You can be an atheist paladin in 5e even, although atheism is not recommended in the FR. With the worship of a peaceful deity, you could argue that smiting the enemies would allow for peace to reign or that you are defending those that can't defend themselves.

Dez #769304 11/04/21 01:09 PM
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
So, the most straight forward answer to most of your questions is that it varies - sorry, I know that's not helpful.

Most of these sorts of things are setting dependent, or are deliberately pitched in a way that is setting agnostic; Paladins may be part of an order that has a headquarters in a particular location ,if that's the way it works in particular world space or setting... or they may not, if it doesn't, and there isn't a hard and fast rule here.

In terms of strictly FR lore, and speaking primarily of the Sword Coast in particular, various religious and military orders exist, and could feasibly have paladins within their ranks, but you'd probably need to go to the actual novel series for anything that delves into the details of any particular order. Individual deities employ paladins directly as well on a one-to-one basis, but again, this isn't a rule, just another way that it *can* be.

As to why Paladins choose adventurous lifestyles... it's mainly because if they didn't, they would probably not be Paladins (in the adventurer sense); they'd be priests or acolytes, or religious scholars, or law-keepers or guards etc., to be an adventuring paladin is by definition to be of that out-ward facing, active way of living and acting in the world. Some military or religious orders may have members who are of the military rank of Paladin, but are not actually Paladins in the sense that we know them as adventurers; to be this type of paladin as found in the handbook, for playing this game, you are almost by definition one who will be living actively in the world - either by choice, directive, or by being thrust into that situation.

The consequences of oathbreaking are as many and varied as the reasons and motives that may lead paladins to break or forsake their oaths; exactly what the consequences are will be unique and individual, and there simply cannot be a one-size-fits-all rule for what happens. There are too many gods, too many divine purposes ,too many principles and ideals, and too many individual motives within each of those for a single rule of 'consequence' to be made. In game terms, it's very much in the realm of Dm's discretion. Losing your divine connection is a possibility, definitely, but it will depend heavily on the situation. In game terms, a DM might ask a Paladin player to switch to the "Oathbreaker Paladin" subclass (in the DMG for exactly this reason), gaining its benefits and losing the benefits of their original oath... but again, that's just one possibility.

How an individual paladin might react to an oathbreaker will be as individual as the person; some may seek to redeem them, some may condemn them, some my sympathise with their struggle and choice, some may be inspired to cast off their own oath as well ,after hearing the other's story... people are people, and their reactions will be unique... but as for whether they'd know on sight, generally not unless it's advertised or they have inside information - such as a warning from their own deity.

For the last, others may disagree, but I would certainly think so. Many people in the realms; most in fact, follow and give thanks to a variety of deities... few of them are actual priests or sworn to service. They are no less followers of those deities, however. A paladin who swears to the principles of heroism doesn't give direct fealty to any one deity for their oath and powers... but it's very likely that they will still give regular thanks or tokens of worship to various other deities, or one in particular if they're so inclined, in a way that has little to do with their oath - although, in that case, it is just as likely that the deity they follow may attempt to sway the paladin to declare directly for them, if their principles align closely enough.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Dez Offline OP
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Originally Posted by Zarna
I am not a paladin expert at all but will try to answer this.
1. From what I can determine, you do not have to answer to anyone if you don't want to. This is up to the player and their DM. Your oath is what drives you and you are not bound by anything else including society's laws. I am pretty sure you can be of any alignment in 5e as well.
2. This is also up to the player. Any of these would work.
3. This is a subclass in the DMG, usually players do not pick this one. It gets some pretty interesting stuff though if you were to find a DM who allowed it. With players who stray from their oath, the "serious consequences" I think are usually left up to the DM.
4. This would depend on a lot of things. I do not think an oathbreaker would stand out in any way unless you were specifically told about them. I would think you would only be hostile to them if they stood in the way of your oath.
5. I don't see an issue with this. You can be an atheist paladin in 5e even, although atheism is not recommended in the FR. With the worship of a peaceful deity, you could argue that smiting the enemies would allow for peace to reign or that you are defending those that can't defend themselves.

Thank you very much! Seems like there is more room to wiggle in than I first anticipate - which is a good thing! \o/



Originally Posted by Niara
So, the most straight forward answer to most of your questions is that it varies - sorry, I know that's not helpful.

Most of these sorts of things are setting dependent, or are deliberately pitched in a way that is setting agnostic; Paladins may be part of an order that has a headquarters in a particular location ,if that's the way it works in particular world space or setting... or they may not, if it doesn't, and there isn't a hard and fast rule here.

In terms of strictly FR lore, and speaking primarily of the Sword Coast in particular, various religious and military orders exist, and could feasibly have paladins within their ranks, but you'd probably need to go to the actual novel series for anything that delves into the details of any particular order. Individual deities employ paladins directly as well on a one-to-one basis, but again, this isn't a rule, just another way that it *can* be.

As to why Paladins choose adventurous lifestyles... it's mainly because if they didn't, they would probably not be Paladins (in the adventurer sense); they'd be priests or acolytes, or religious scholars, or law-keepers or guards etc., to be an adventuring paladin is by definition to be of that out-ward facing, active way of living and acting in the world. Some military or religious orders may have members who are of the military rank of Paladin, but are not actually Paladins in the sense that we know them as adventurers; to be this type of paladin as found in the handbook, for playing this game, you are almost by definition one who will be living actively in the world - either by choice, directive, or by being thrust into that situation.

The consequences of oathbreaking are as many and varied as the reasons and motives that may lead paladins to break or forsake their oaths; exactly what the consequences are will be unique and individual, and there simply cannot be a one-size-fits-all rule for what happens. There are too many gods, too many divine purposes ,too many principles and ideals, and too many individual motives within each of those for a single rule of 'consequence' to be made. In game terms, it's very much in the realm of Dm's discretion. Losing your divine connection is a possibility, definitely, but it will depend heavily on the situation. In game terms, a DM might ask a Paladin player to switch to the "Oathbreaker Paladin" subclass (in the DMG for exactly this reason), gaining its benefits and losing the benefits of their original oath... but again, that's just one possibility.

How an individual paladin might react to an oathbreaker will be as individual as the person; some may seek to redeem them, some may condemn them, some my sympathise with their struggle and choice, some may be inspired to cast off their own oath as well ,after hearing the other's story... people are people, and their reactions will be unique... but as for whether they'd know on sight, generally not unless it's advertised or they have inside information - such as a warning from their own deity.

For the last, others may disagree, but I would certainly think so. Many people in the realms; most in fact, follow and give thanks to a variety of deities... few of them are actual priests or sworn to service. They are no less followers of those deities, however. A paladin who swears to the principles of heroism doesn't give direct fealty to any one deity for their oath and powers... but it's very likely that they will still give regular thanks or tokens of worship to various other deities, or one in particular if they're so inclined, in a way that has little to do with their oath - although, in that case, it is just as likely that the deity they follow may attempt to sway the paladin to declare directly for them, if their principles align closely enough.

Thank you! I appreciate the time and effort you took into writing this. It certainly made a lot of things much clearer. laugh Now to await Paladins into EA (or full release, idm - but I'd imagine they'll be tested during EA laugh ).

Last edited by Dez; 11/04/21 02:05 PM.

Hoot hoot, stranger! Fairly new to CRPGs, but I tried my best to provide some feedback regardless! <3 Read it here: My Open Letter to Larian
Dez #769366 11/04/21 08:01 PM
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
From my understanding:

1. Paladins serve concepts in the form of tenets. These concepts are also a part of certain god portfolio's. Sometimes they directly serve the applicable god. Sometimes they serve churches, temples, or religious sects. Most of the time they adventure due to tenets. Many join the Order of the Gauntlet so they don't have to wait for orders from a temple or blocked by a government to strike down evil. Looking up "Order of the Gauntlet" faction if you are looking for something specific. They protect the weak and strike down evil preferably before things get out of hand.

2. Depending on the tenets, its usually "strike down evil, protect good". A lot of evil roams free. Clean up an area and move on would be my guess. Picking a subclass means you completed your training and took your vows.

3. If you unintentionally broke your vow. You have to spend a long time depending on the severity of the crime seeking absolution. This can be facilitated by another of your order. Both cleric and paladin are qualified to help you, but has to be from your specific order. If you are devout enough you could do it yourself (Dm's choice).

If you did so intentionally and the crime is severe enough, it use to be that the god would curse you several times over and turn you into a Death Knight(powerful undead) and be labelled an Oath Breaker. Doomed to seek redemption for as long as the god says so. When or if you redeem yourself the god would claim your soul and you'd be welcome to their realm.

Nowadays you just lose all power and either you suck at life or another god picks you up. Oath Breaker devolved to be an evil paladin that simply serves something evil.

4. Loss of love, warmth, and a piece of your very soul. They are divine casters. The very essence flowed through them. Nature, life, light, etc depending on who or what you served. Quite heartbreaking. They'd be very bitter and always looking over their back for the inevitable retribution. You devoted your life and were rewarded, but you turned your back. They would know immediately and it would be quite painful but definitely not all physically either.

5. Yes. Pantheons may favor you including who you follow to give you room to likely do what you want. Also creatures from the plane your god lives in technically could favor you as well. Unlikely but a DM may have a say in that. Oath of Vengeance comes to mind as an example of a paladin that does not necessarily have to serve a god at all.

Last edited by Aishaddai; 11/04/21 08:23 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
From my understanding:
If you did so intentionally and the crime is severe enough, it use to be that the god would curse you several times over and turn you into a Death Knight(powerful undead) and be labelled an Oath Breaker. Doomed to seek redemption for as long as the god says so. When or if you redeem yourself the god would claim your soul and you'd be welcome to their realm.

Nowadays you just lose all power and either you suck at life or another god picks you up. Oath Breaker devolved to be an evil paladin that simply serves something evil.

As far as I know Oathbreaker is still that, where the Paladin in question has broken their vows completely and broken off from their god without following a new one or has acted completely antithetical to the gods? Evil paladins still serve a god, albeit an evil one, so they still act as a paladin like Paladins of Lolth or Shar and are thus not an Oathbreaker, I think?

Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
From my understanding:
If you did so intentionally and the crime is severe enough, it use to be that the god would curse you several times over and turn you into a Death Knight(powerful undead) and be labelled an Oath Breaker. Doomed to seek redemption for as long as the god says so. When or if you redeem yourself the god would claim your soul and you'd be welcome to their realm.

Nowadays you just lose all power and either you suck at life or another god picks you up. Oath Breaker devolved to be an evil paladin that simply serves something evil.

As far as I know Oathbreaker is still that, where the Paladin in question has broken their vows completely and broken off from their god without following a new one or has acted completely antithetical to the gods? Evil paladins still serve a god, albeit an evil one, so they still act as a paladin like Paladins of Lolth or Shar and are thus not an Oathbreaker, I think?

Yeah that looks right to me. Serving an evil god does not mean you are an Oath Breaker. Usually Oath of Conquest are the default Evil paladins. Oath of Vengeance is usually true neutral or neutral good. The rest of the Oath's are various goods. Its only Oath breakers that are horrible and awkward imo. As a player I'd suggest just choosing Oath of Conquest if you want to be evil.

Evil gods muddled things for awhile but Oath of Conquest fixed that in my opinion.

Last edited by Aishaddai; 11/04/21 09:12 PM.
Dez #769385 11/04/21 10:44 PM
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Adding to what has been said here (and it's all been good!)

DnD has a history and thus there are layers to the paladin. To understand it you need to understand what it was and not just what it is now.

In 1st edition the paladin was arguably the strongest class (assuming the paladin had a holy avenger). It was balanced by way of some pretty strong restrictions on role play and some hefty requirements re: ability score. And given that the default world was Greyhawk and not Faerun playing lawful good was a challenge since evil is more powerful than good in Greyhawk.

Paladins had a 10 foot circle of dispel magic surrounding them and protection from evil field that went from 10 to 30 feet. In 1st protection from evil prevented demons, devils, elementals and summoned creatures from directly striking someone within the area and ranged attacks had -2 penalty. When a spell made it through the dispel zone the paladin still got a +2 to savings throws. And the paladin's sword was +5 weapon meaning it could be used against major deities. A paladin had a reasonable chance to solo one of the demon princes. And the list of abilities goes on: https://tablo.com/david-thomson/1st-ed-ad-and-d-the-paladin

But the Paladin had to keep a charisma of 17 -- which was the default dump stat of 1st -- and they took a vow of poverty that required that they give away all gold at the end of adventure. This also meant couldn't own more than 5 items. If the paladin committed an evil act they would fall and become an inferior form of fighter -- which was a form of insta death for the character because the toon was no longer worth playing. So upholding one's lawful good oath was a constant worry on the part of the human playing a paladin. The discussion of whether a paladin was culpable for acts taken while being charmed or possessed was a frequent point of discussion.

And that's still the paladin people think of when they use the word -- the archetype of the lawful good crusader. The avatar from the ultima series, Joan of Arc, El cid, Lancelot, etc.

2nd edition moved away from insta death like mechanics and (eventually) gave mechanisms for the paladin to atone for evil actions and loosened the poverty requirements. Now, 2nd ed was hot mess and you will some sources that say that fallen paladins are always fallen and others say the atonement spell and a quest will restore a paladin. BG2 had a redemption option for fallen paladins -- TSR / WotC was okay with it redemption became official.

https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/Paladin

As other have said the character of Lord Soth captured the imagination of many and that gave rise to the blackguard class. Instead of being a weaker form of fighter a fallen paladin could become a champion of evil. In 3rd edition allowed paladins and blackguards with paladins still being lawful good but able to atone. Paladins who didn't atone had to choose a second class to progress. Which makes becoming a blackguard an obvious temptation -- imagine regaining all the power you lost . . .

In 5th you can be any alignment so it's sometimes difficult to disentangle the archetype from it's current manifestation.


Question 1.

In 1 - 3 eds the answer would have been yes. Paladins would have been part of some rule-bound, hierarchical order. Now, as Niara says, it's up the DM.

Question 3. I think this is where the history comes in. 5e allows DMs to use concepts from earlier editions (and the first modules actually had suggestions on how to run them using earlier rulesets). So the short answer is "up to the DM" the long answer is depends on how much the player and DM are drawing on the archetype that 1st edition created. If the player doesn't care for the oath but just wants to goodies that come with the class the DM can decide that the player isn't really taking the role playing requirements for the class seriously and punish the player.

Question 4. Of course up to players and DM but I'd say "smite the oathbreaker"!

Question 5. I could imagine a worshiper of Eldath serving as a "peacekeeper", smiting all those who break the peace. Were I DM I would expect the player to always try to avoid violence and to minimize the impact. Could be done in all seriousness or with the same humor as the old restrictions on clerics using bladed weapons -- "we're sworn not to draw blood, so we bludgeon people instead"!

Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
Yeah that looks right to me. Serving an evil god does not mean you are an Oath Breaker. Usually Oath of Conquest are the default Evil paladins. Oath of Vengeance is usually true neutral or neutral good. The rest of the Oath's are various goods. Its only Oath breakers that are horrible and awkward imo. As a player I'd suggest just choosing Oath of Conquest if you want to be evil.

Evil gods muddled things for awhile but Oath of Conquest fixed that in my opinion.

I can see that, though an Archetype I like is actually a good Oathbreaker (which would have to be in something that is not the Faerun setting) where for whatever reason said character has become disillusioned with their god or the gods in general and have abandoned their title as a Paladin of said god. They could be trying to figure out if they want to serve a different god or be simply a godhater who still wants to do good despite hating the good gods and still hates the evil gods. Alternatively they could be serving a new god as a cleric but the Oathbreaker parts could signify that they still spurned their old god or are being spurned by that old god and thus have some lasting effects.

Err the point of my rambling is that while Evil Deities muddle up how many perceive Oathbreakers, I have always seen them as an archetype that can be flexible even if the MM says, "An oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks their sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin's heart been extinguished. Only darkness remains," because I often times see morality as a little subjective and skewed by perspective at points, and gods can sometimes have some very extreme perspectives that abandon any sense of people being complex with many not evil reasons to do evil acts.

tldr; Even though many see Oathbreakers different from how they were before, I have always seen them a bit more different.

Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
Yeah that looks right to me. Serving an evil god does not mean you are an Oath Breaker. Usually Oath of Conquest are the default Evil paladins. Oath of Vengeance is usually true neutral or neutral good. The rest of the Oath's are various goods. Its only Oath breakers that are horrible and awkward imo. As a player I'd suggest just choosing Oath of Conquest if you want to be evil.

Evil gods muddled things for awhile but Oath of Conquest fixed that in my opinion.

I can see that, though an Archetype I like is actually a good Oathbreaker (which would have to be in something that is not the Faerun setting) where for whatever reason said character has become disillusioned with their god or the gods in general and have abandoned their title as a Paladin of said god. They could be trying to figure out if they want to serve a different god or be simply a godhater who still wants to do good despite hating the good gods and still hates the evil gods. Alternatively they could be serving a new god as a cleric but the Oathbreaker parts could signify that they still spurned their old god or are being spurned by that old god and thus have some lasting effects.

Err the point of my rambling is that while Evil Deities muddle up how many perceive Oathbreakers, I have always seen them as an archetype that can be flexible even if the MM says, "An oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks their sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin's heart been extinguished. Only darkness remains," because I often times see morality as a little subjective and skewed by perspective at points, and gods can sometimes have some very extreme perspectives that abandon any sense of people being complex with many not evil reasons to do evil acts.

tldr; Even though many see Oathbreakers different from how they were before, I have always seen them a bit more different.

Yeah I get you.

However, personally I'd be wary of seeking uniqueness through complexity. Good and evil are not actually subjective. The perception of them are easily manipulated though. It mostly derives from the false narrative that "being good is stupid or somehow less than desirable". The popular derogatory term is usually goody two shoes or mary sue. When in reality the opposite is true. Strength of ones convictions to stick to ones morals. Wisdom to see through the lies. Aragon from Lord of the Rings sometimes comes to my mind when I want to make certain characters.

The thing is to turn your back on good means you really aren't good. In Dnd the God's portfolio means everything unless you are Ao the Over God. They stick to their stuff. If you went through the trouble of devoting yourself to them without fully understanding then thats on you. To be grey morally means you want to justify evil actions. It's why in a lot of older mature literature humans are deemed evil. So are lawyers for example lol.

Good and evil aren't extremes but titles like goody two shoes and cartoon villan are. Its why alignment is good. People don't have alignments for personality, rather they have personality that can be described as alignment. Their is a difference. The ones who hate it usually just want to justify evil and even in some cases inconsistent behavior. Which is realistic for some who are actually inconsistent lol. Paladin's require consistency and its part of what made them strong. Its why God's lent their power with trust. Imagine trying to explain to a good god why you turned your back on another good god. I would assume they would look at you sideways for a while lol.

I didn't think you were rambling. I enjoy stories. That's how I see things.

Last edited by Aishaddai; 12/04/21 12:25 AM.
Dez #769439 12/04/21 10:23 AM
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Paladin is a divine class, they gain there spells/abilities related to there deity. You can be a good or evil pally, fall from faith and transfer or redeem yourself. They can be guards, deputies, judges, lawmen, or whatever. Originally they were Lawful Good or Lawful Evil, now though, I don't really know. Depending on the deity you follow you could take elements of what they are or just follow them period. In 4e Forgotten Realms players handbook Doomguide (level 11 paragon class / prestige class), are worshipers of Kelemvor. They have a obsession to destroy undead and manipulators of souls/death (necromancers). But any divine class can gain this, so the line between paladin, cleric, or whatever blurs a bit.

In forgotten realms all adventures require a license if you live or visiting X city. X being a city that requires a license, 4e campaign guide gives Amn and Cormyr as examples. In Neverwinter Nights Online you work for the city, while Neverwinter Nights one, your a adventurer that answered a call to help with a plague.

The last question sounds more like a cleric but you do you, d&d is a pnp game to begin with, using imagination and creativity to give the game life. FR was created by Ed Greenwood but the novels and such isn't written by one person.

Last edited by fallenj; 12/04/21 10:25 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Dez Offline OP
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Adding to what has been said here (and it's all been good!)

DnD has a history and thus there are layers to the paladin. To understand it you need to understand what it was and not just what it is now.

In 1st edition the paladin was arguably the strongest class (assuming the paladin had a holy avenger). It was balanced by way of some pretty strong restrictions on role play and some hefty requirements re: ability score. And given that the default world was Greyhawk and not Faerun playing lawful good was a challenge since evil is more powerful than good in Greyhawk.

Paladins had a 10 foot circle of dispel magic surrounding them and protection from evil field that went from 10 to 30 feet. In 1st protection from evil prevented demons, devils, elementals and summoned creatures from directly striking someone within the area and ranged attacks had -2 penalty. When a spell made it through the dispel zone the paladin still got a +2 to savings throws. And the paladin's sword was +5 weapon meaning it could be used against major deities. A paladin had a reasonable chance to solo one of the demon princes. And the list of abilities goes on: https://tablo.com/david-thomson/1st-ed-ad-and-d-the-paladin

But the Paladin had to keep a charisma of 17 -- which was the default dump stat of 1st -- and they took a vow of poverty that required that they give away all gold at the end of adventure. This also meant couldn't own more than 5 items. If the paladin committed an evil act they would fall and become an inferior form of fighter -- which was a form of insta death for the character because the toon was no longer worth playing. So upholding one's lawful good oath was a constant worry on the part of the human playing a paladin. The discussion of whether a paladin was culpable for acts taken while being charmed or possessed was a frequent point of discussion.

And that's still the paladin people think of when they use the word -- the archetype of the lawful good crusader. The avatar from the ultima series, Joan of Arc, El cid, Lancelot, etc.

2nd edition moved away from insta death like mechanics and (eventually) gave mechanisms for the paladin to atone for evil actions and loosened the poverty requirements. Now, 2nd ed was hot mess and you will some sources that say that fallen paladins are always fallen and others say the atonement spell and a quest will restore a paladin. BG2 had a redemption option for fallen paladins -- TSR / WotC was okay with it redemption became official.

https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/Paladin

As other have said the character of Lord Soth captured the imagination of many and that gave rise to the blackguard class. Instead of being a weaker form of fighter a fallen paladin could become a champion of evil. In 3rd edition allowed paladins and blackguards with paladins still being lawful good but able to atone. Paladins who didn't atone had to choose a second class to progress. Which makes becoming a blackguard an obvious temptation -- imagine regaining all the power you lost . . .

In 5th you can be any alignment so it's sometimes difficult to disentangle the archetype from it's current manifestation.


Question 1.

In 1 - 3 eds the answer would have been yes. Paladins would have been part of some rule-bound, hierarchical order. Now, as Niara says, it's up the DM.

Question 3. I think this is where the history comes in. 5e allows DMs to use concepts from earlier editions (and the first modules actually had suggestions on how to run them using earlier rulesets). So the short answer is "up to the DM" the long answer is depends on how much the player and DM are drawing on the archetype that 1st edition created. If the player doesn't care for the oath but just wants to goodies that come with the class the DM can decide that the player isn't really taking the role playing requirements for the class seriously and punish the player.

Question 4. Of course up to players and DM but I'd say "smite the oathbreaker"!

Question 5. I could imagine a worshiper of Eldath serving as a "peacekeeper", smiting all those who break the peace. Were I DM I would expect the player to always try to avoid violence and to minimize the impact. Could be done in all seriousness or with the same humor as the old restrictions on clerics using bladed weapons -- "we're sworn not to draw blood, so we bludgeon people instead"!

Holy macaroni - thank you *very much* for your elaborate response. This clears up so many questions - and will make it much easier for me to make a believable paladin whenever the class is available.

Just... One question to clear things up beyond a doubt: does "smite" translate in attack, or does "smite" in DnD not necessarily mean violence? I am wondering because of the last lines of your response.

Also, I have always assumed but by now I feel like maybe I should ask - paladins would remain lawful or neutral at worst (like LG, NG, LN, N etc), right? I'd have a hard time imagining a paladin as chaotic... But perhaps one could build a character - like a paladin steward / apprentice that is more chaotic leaning but being led into the more lawful side by their mentor (which is a "true" paladin)?



Originally Posted by CJMPinger
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
Yeah that looks right to me. Serving an evil god does not mean you are an Oath Breaker. Usually Oath of Conquest are the default Evil paladins. Oath of Vengeance is usually true neutral or neutral good. The rest of the Oath's are various goods. Its only Oath breakers that are horrible and awkward imo. As a player I'd suggest just choosing Oath of Conquest if you want to be evil.

Evil gods muddled things for awhile but Oath of Conquest fixed that in my opinion.

I can see that, though an Archetype I like is actually a good Oathbreaker (which would have to be in something that is not the Faerun setting) where for whatever reason said character has become disillusioned with their god or the gods in general and have abandoned their title as a Paladin of said god. They could be trying to figure out if they want to serve a different god or be simply a godhater who still wants to do good despite hating the good gods and still hates the evil gods. Alternatively they could be serving a new god as a cleric but the Oathbreaker parts could signify that they still spurned their old god or are being spurned by that old god and thus have some lasting effects.

Err the point of my rambling is that while Evil Deities muddle up how many perceive Oathbreakers, I have always seen them as an archetype that can be flexible even if the MM says, "An oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks their sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin's heart been extinguished. Only darkness remains," because I often times see morality as a little subjective and skewed by perspective at points, and gods can sometimes have some very extreme perspectives that abandon any sense of people being complex with many not evil reasons to do evil acts.

tldr; Even though many see Oathbreakers different from how they were before, I have always seen them a bit more different.

You propose an interesting story. But since paladins seems a bit more... Complicated, lorewise, than most other classes I'll remain default cookie-cutter mr. Nice-lawful-knight-guy until I better grasp the concept as a whole. :] I will however definitely remember your suggestion in the future.

Originally Posted by Aishaddai
From my understanding:

1. Paladins serve concepts in the form of tenets. These concepts are also a part of certain god portfolio's. Sometimes they directly serve the applicable god. Sometimes they serve churches, temples, or religious sects. Most of the time they adventure due to tenets. Many join the Order of the Gauntlet so they don't have to wait for orders from a temple or blocked by a government to strike down evil. Looking up "Order of the Gauntlet" faction if you are looking for something specific. They protect the weak and strike down evil preferably before things get out of hand.

2. Depending on the tenets, its usually "strike down evil, protect good". A lot of evil roams free. Clean up an area and move on would be my guess. Picking a subclass means you completed your training and took your vows.

3. If you unintentionally broke your vow. You have to spend a long time depending on the severity of the crime seeking absolution. This can be facilitated by another of your order. Both cleric and paladin are qualified to help you, but has to be from your specific order. If you are devout enough you could do it yourself (Dm's choice).

If you did so intentionally and the crime is severe enough, it use to be that the god would curse you several times over and turn you into a Death Knight(powerful undead) and be labelled an Oath Breaker. Doomed to seek redemption for as long as the god says so. When or if you redeem yourself the god would claim your soul and you'd be welcome to their realm.

Nowadays you just lose all power and either you suck at life or another god picks you up. Oath Breaker devolved to be an evil paladin that simply serves something evil.

4. Loss of love, warmth, and a piece of your very soul. They are divine casters. The very essence flowed through them. Nature, life, light, etc depending on who or what you served. Quite heartbreaking. They'd be very bitter and always looking over their back for the inevitable retribution. You devoted your life and were rewarded, but you turned your back. They would know immediately and it would be quite painful but definitely not all physically either.

5. Yes. Pantheons may favor you including who you follow to give you room to likely do what you want. Also creatures from the plane your god lives in technically could favor you as well. Unlikely but a DM may have a say in that. Oath of Vengeance comes to mind as an example of a paladin that does not necessarily have to serve a god at all.

Alright, that makes perfect sense, thank you very much. laugh


Originally Posted by fallenj
Paladin is a divine class, they gain there spells/abilities related to there deity. You can be a good or evil pally, fall from faith and transfer or redeem yourself. They can be guards, deputies, judges, lawmen, or whatever. Originally they were Lawful Good or Lawful Evil, now though, I don't really know. Depending on the deity you follow you could take elements of what they are or just follow them period. In 4e Forgotten Realms players handbook Doomguide (level 11 paragon class / prestige class), are worshipers of Kelemvor. They have a obsession to destroy undead and manipulators of souls/death (necromancers). But any divine class can gain this, so the line between paladin, cleric, or whatever blurs a bit.

In forgotten realms all adventures require a license if you live or visiting X city. X being a city that requires a license, 4e campaign guide gives Amn and Cormyr as examples. In Neverwinter Nights Online you work for the city, while Neverwinter Nights one, your a adventurer that answered a call to help with a plague.

The last question sounds more like a cleric but you do you, d&d is a pnp game to begin with, using imagination and creativity to give the game life. FR was created by Ed Greenwood but the novels and such isn't written by one person.

Hmm, I was not aware of that license, so that is gonna require some digging. Thank you for your post.

Last edited by Dez; 12/04/21 03:00 PM.

Hoot hoot, stranger! Fairly new to CRPGs, but I tried my best to provide some feedback regardless! <3 Read it here: My Open Letter to Larian
Dez #769484 12/04/21 05:11 PM
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Dez
Holy macaroni -

May his noodly appendages touch us all. Ramen.

Originally Posted by Dez
does "smite" translate in attack, or does "smite" in DnD not necessarily mean violence? I am wondering because of the last lines of your response.

It does translate as violence. In this game it would be very difficult to play a pacifist who would qualify for national service instead of the draft, i.e., someone who wouldn't defend themselves if attacked. You would need to instead only play someone who tries their utmost to avoid violence and then only uses the amount necessary to fend of attack.

If the game would support this they could fix the issue with non lethal attacks (right now subdued enemies attack once they wake up), bring in nets as weapons, allow enemies to be tied up, and institute a surrender mechanic. (because right now I really need to beat those tieflings near the goblin cage -- come on guys you are defeated)

This is if you go the serious route. You could also go comic-cynical. Think how much violence in our world is justified in terms of peace. Peace keepers, officers sworn to uphold the peace . . . peacekeeper missiles for macaroni's sake. You could make a paladin with a very legalistic view of violence.

Originally Posted by Dez
Also, I have always assumed but by now I feel like maybe I should ask - paladins would remain lawful or neutral at worst (like LG, NG, LN, N etc), right? I'd have a hard time imagining a paladin as chaotic... But perhaps one could build a character - like a paladin steward / apprentice that is more chaotic leaning but being led into the more lawful side by their mentor (which is a "true" paladin)?

I think that's most consistent with the original archetype, yes. And if that feel authentic you should go with it. I kinda wish that WotC called non lawful paladins "champions" or some such.

But I could see a champion of chaos -- Haer'Dalis in BG2 was a bit of one. Someone who was committed to tearing down old structures, someone who rejoiced in the ending of things and supports any and all rebels.

I had character concept that I never ran in 3.5 -- wanted to run a chaotic neutral characters who was neither crazy or carefree. Young girl born as a slave in Thay, one day her master travels to a Thayan enclave in another city and she uses the opportunity to escape and seek sanctuary in a temple of Helm. After much discussion among the priests about the nature of law the Helmites return her to her old master. Later, as an adult, she escapes again and emerges from Thay with a burning hatred for the law, dedicating her life to tearing down the law in all its forms.

I wanted to run her as a wizard but would do even better as a champion of chaos -- someone or something heard her cursing the law under her breath and responded by giving her power.

But, yes, if you are thinking Joan of Arc or Lancelot you want to play a lawful alignment. smile

Dez #769487 12/04/21 05:34 PM
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
If any of you are interested smite is in the game right now. Tiefling zariel variation has searing smite. Its a separate button with the damage together. Seems like their may be no crit fishing or AoO smiting.

Also if you care about visuals, its white instead of gold. I'm overwhelmingly disappointed.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Dez Offline OP
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Dez
Holy macaroni -

May his noodly appendages touch us all. Ramen.

Originally Posted by Dez
does "smite" translate in attack, or does "smite" in DnD not necessarily mean violence? I am wondering because of the last lines of your response.

It does translate as violence. In this game it would be very difficult to play a pacifist who would qualify for national service instead of the draft, i.e., someone who wouldn't defend themselves if attacked. You would need to instead only play someone who tries their utmost to avoid violence and then only uses the amount necessary to fend of attack.

If the game would support this they could fix the issue with non lethal attacks (right now subdued enemies attack once they wake up), bring in nets as weapons, allow enemies to be tied up, and institute a surrender mechanic. (because right now I really need to beat those tieflings near the goblin cage -- come on guys you are defeated)

This is if you go the serious route. You could also go comic-cynical. Think how much violence in our world is justified in terms of peace. Peace keepers, officers sworn to uphold the peace . . . peacekeeper missiles for macaroni's sake. You could make a paladin with a very legalistic view of violence.

Originally Posted by Dez
Also, I have always assumed but by now I feel like maybe I should ask - paladins would remain lawful or neutral at worst (like LG, NG, LN, N etc), right? I'd have a hard time imagining a paladin as chaotic... But perhaps one could build a character - like a paladin steward / apprentice that is more chaotic leaning but being led into the more lawful side by their mentor (which is a "true" paladin)?

I think that's most consistent with the original archetype, yes. And if that feel authentic you should go with it. I kinda wish that WotC called non lawful paladins "champions" or some such.

But I could see a champion of chaos -- Haer'Dalis in BG2 was a bit of one. Someone who was committed to tearing down old structures, someone who rejoiced in the ending of things and supports any and all rebels.

I had character concept that I never ran in 3.5 -- wanted to run a chaotic neutral characters who was neither crazy or carefree. Young girl born as a slave in Thay, one day her master travels to a Thayan enclave in another city and she uses the opportunity to escape and seek sanctuary in a temple of Helm. After much discussion among the priests about the nature of law the Helmites return her to her old master. Later, as an adult, she escapes again and emerges from Thay with a burning hatred for the law, dedicating her life to tearing down the law in all its forms.

I wanted to run her as a wizard but would do even better as a champion of chaos -- someone or something heard her cursing the law under her breath and responded by giving her power.

But, yes, if you are thinking Joan of Arc or Lancelot you want to play a lawful alignment. smile

Hah, may his noodleness bless you. Thank you yet again, Rabbit <3 You've been of extraordinary help!


Hoot hoot, stranger! Fairly new to CRPGs, but I tried my best to provide some feedback regardless! <3 Read it here: My Open Letter to Larian
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
If any of you are interested smite is in the game right now. Tiefling zariel variation has searing smite. Its a separate button with the damage together. Seems like their may be no crit fishing or AoO smiting.

Also if you care about visuals, its white instead of gold. I'm overwhelmingly disappointed.

Ya I mentioned this earlier as a possibility, it's how smite used to work in 3.5

Dez #769738 15/04/21 12:17 PM
Joined: Sep 2015
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2015
First of all, I really like that paladins in 5E do not need to be lawful good anymore.
I am sure there are gods ( or other powerful creatures) who are not LG but they still want somebody to fight for them. Not a typical cleric but a warrior with divine powers.

I really liked the paladin concept of PoE and I am happy I can do something similar in DnD now.

I would like to play a paladin of vengeance.
Some cultists burned your house, all your family died, only you survived with massive scars. You swear to avenge them. Some things he would say:
* All criminals must be purged by steel and fire.
* I am here to deliver punishment. If you seek mercy you should ask your god. No worry, you will meet him soon.
* You have burned my family so you must burn as well. But I am not a monster such as you. If you ask nicely, I will beheading you before burning you.

Edit: I just realized that I become an oathbreaker if I manage to forgive them.
So an oathbreaker is not automatically evil.

Last edited by Madscientist; 15/04/21 12:21 PM.

groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Dez #769771 15/04/21 05:51 PM
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
Homebrew RP aside, you guys realize that Oath breakers are evil right? Like the abilities? Necro themed, undead control, buffs to fiends and undead monsters. Generally evil abilities.

Not sure how your roleplaying that class as good. You literally can't keep your original subclass class if you turn traitor.

I think some people confuse themselves because they go deep into breaking the rules with homebrew. Its not really a problem per say I guess. I'm use to learning the rules first and save homebrew for when I get in an experimental mood.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5