So suppose for the sake of argument I am a bard who perhaps acknowledges Oghma and Milil but isn’t a devotee, and whose beloved teacher is cruelly slaughtered by gnolls, leading me to swear a terrible oath of vengeance against all evil that, by violence, extinguishes art and beauty from the world. Yes, cheers Niara and everyone else for insight into the murky lore behind divine magic and paladins’ sources of power in “present day†Forgotten Realms. I don't really think we're going to be able to get to a place we agree upon - I can't convey to you why having those other possibilities, and allowing others to have those possibilities, matters, if they don't matter to you, but if that's where we are, that's okay. but now they are not that way any more, and there are other possibilities.Īs I said, this is not intended to be argumentative or taken in conflict, just as conversation.
Direct god worship used to be the only way individuals could access divine power now it is not. They literally upended the realms, created the second sundering, rewrote many of the rules for how the realms operated.
Until WotC pitched the next realms-shaking event, shifted the way the realms worked and altered the rules. "Deities and divine casters worked one way for literal decades until WoTC." Exactly. If you don't want to play it that way, that's cool - but as written this is how the realms work now they are not dealing in absolutes any more when it comes to sources of divine power. However, it's not the absolute case any more - and it has not been for the past decade or so. No-one, at any point, ever, has suggested that being sworn to a particular deity is anything other than the majority case in the realms. This it does nothing whatsoever to impact the games of other folk at their own tables who wish to play deity-sworn paladins only - no-one, at any point, has ever suggested even remotely that it's normal or common for a paladin to not follow a deity. It's because that is the way it is post second sundering. Instead, since 5e and since the second sundering, they use non-absolute language, and they do so consistently that isn't by chance or laziness. If they wanted to stifle creativity and force players to follow absolutes in particular areas, then they would do so they used to do so very firmly in earlier editions. The change to non-absolute terminology that came with 5e was deliberate and unrelated to any of the specific individual special outliers described in other media. They did not feel the need to write in non-absolute terms to account for those special story and novel exceptions at that time, because they were exceptions to a rule that was still absolute for everyone else. Recall that the examples you gave of those 'other' possibilities all existed in the era before the second sundering when paladins were still described in hard absolutes. If the answer is because the realms feel better to you if you think of them that way, or because you prefer it to work that way, that's fine - great even - but your feelings on how you'd prefer it to work doesn't have any impact on how it formally does, before home-table changes come into play. So please, take a step back and ask yourself why you are doing it. They just put that word in there for no real reason, it doesn't change anything" - That, to me, is wriggling, and hanging, and twisting. Insisting - and please forgive my uncharitable paraphrasing - that "It really still just means what it used to before, that's what it actually still means. If we can write "Paladins get their powers from deities", and we instead choose to write "Most Paladins get their powers from deities", that changes the meaning of what we are saying, and pointing that out is not 'hanging on a word' or 'twisting a square peg' - It's pointing out a deliberate choice that was made with intent.
0 kommentar(er)
