Paladin / Warlock Faith conflict query

[Horwath]

I can see neutral paladin that tends towards good, with fiend patron and oath of vengeance to avenge destruction of his homeland/family.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

OK, how do you resolve the potential faith conflict for multiclassing warlock & paladin?

It can be whatever you make of it. My plans for a Paladin/Warlock is that his Warlock Patron is a Saint of his religion.

 

[pemerton]

Did you read my first sentence, because that clearly answers your question. I have a question, does anyone here read the D&D books? Because a lot of insight on how the gods act and feel are in those books. I think 5th edition purposely left out the consequences of being a servant of a divine for the purpose of people not being scared of losing their powers if the sneezed the wrong way like in previous editions, but of you read the books, nothing's changed. Nothing says that once you begin channeling power from a Power, that is is powerless to stop you. It gives DMs flexibility on how they want to handle situations, and if you as a DM want to allow a paladin to serve 2 masters you can.

I read you first sentence, and quoted it: "While in game terms, there is nothing stopping this from happening, in story terms, it probably shouldn't be allowed." But then you went on to say "The reason for this is because divine magic is only granted to the most devoted and the most faithful. When your faith waivers, so does the magic." I was asking whether this was a rule. I take it that your answer is no, it's not, and that this is just your view of things.

In which case, I reiterate what I said before: I don't think there's anything odd about playing a cleric whose faith wavers. Perhaps the gods provide such a person with power precisely to try and shore up or restore his/her faith.

(And there could be other considerations too, like [MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION] has posted about.)

 

[Mallus]

The difference is that to be a cleric or paladin, they give their faith and devotion to one god only, and in return, that god grants its blessings. Gods gain their power through worship. They want all the worshipers they can get to increase their status in the pantheon and increase their influence on the world. When they have less worshipers, they weaken, and when they have none, they can't influence the world at all. Because this the way their power and influence work, they will not be willing to share it. (Story theory)

Sure. Like I said, this depends on the theological assumptions you make. If a deities 'power' depends on their number of active worshipers, then it follows that deities would compete for worshipers in the free market of belief and be jealous of devotees who tried to devote themselves to more than one entity.

But if that assumption *isn't* true, then it *doesn't* follow. For example, none of my homebrew settings stipulate any relationship between a god's power and number of believers. The gods are gods for reasons, which do not include the number of people worshipping them, or even acknowledging their existence.

edit: not sure of this, but I think Forgotten Realms is the one setting that really pushes the idea that a deities metaphysical power is tied to the number of the faithful.

 

[neogod22]

I read you first sentence, and quoted it: "While in game terms, there is nothing stopping this from happening, in story terms, it probably shouldn't be allowed." But then you went on to say "The reason for this is because divine magic is only granted to the most devoted and the most faithful. When your faith waivers, so does the magic." I was asking whether this was a rule. I take it that your answer is no, it's not, and that this is just your view of things.

In which case, I reiterate what I said before: I don't think there's anything odd about playing a cleric whose faith wavers. Perhaps the gods provide such a person with power precisely to try and shore up or restore his/her faith.

(And there could be other considerations too, like [MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION] has posted about.)

There's a difference between wavering and betraying. A good diety mat have compassion and allow you transition if your faith waivers, and evil one may have you killed, claim your soul and torture you for all eternity. Betraying your power, the punishment would be worse.

I've always looked at clerics as the word of god, while the paladin as the sword. The gods need mortal armies for their holy wars, and the paladins are the leaders of them. Other duties of paladins would be the personal body guards of important priests. They are the champions of the faith, warriors whose destiny was chosen by the gods themselves.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

The argument against this is, humans are free to worship one or all the gods, and most of the peoples do pay reverence to all of the ones important to them, but they aren't priests and paladins. The difference is that to be a cleric or paladin, they give their faith and devotion to one god only, and in return, that god grants its blessings. Gods gain their power through worship. They want all the worshipers they can get to increase their status in the pantheon and increase their influence on the world. When they have less worshipers, they weaken, and when they have none, they can't influence the world at all. Because this the way their power and influence work, they will not be willing to share it. (Story theory)

As a Paladin all you provide is an Oath. If it's an Oath to a god there's nothing restricting you to hold only that god as worthy of worship. Many D&D worlds represent polytheistic cultures but most players can only view that through a monotheistic lens. They see people only choosing one god to worship among a menu of options. Truth is, in polytheism, you recognize, if not worship, many gods.

 

[neogod22]

Sure. Like I said, this depends on the theological assumptions you make. If a deities 'power' depends on their number of active worshipers, then it follows that deities would compete for worshipers in the free market of belief and be jealous of devotees who tried to devote themselves to more than one entity.

But if that assumption *isn't* true, then it *doesn't* follow. For example, none of my homebrew settings stipulate any relationship between a god's power and number of believers. The gods are gods for reasons, which do not include the number of people worshipping them, or even acknowledging their existence.

edit: not sure of this, but I think Forgotten Realms is the one setting that really pushes the idea that a deities metaphysical power is tied to the number of the faithful.

It is. This is how the gods work in D&D in general, with the exception of Dark Sun and Ravenloft campaign settings where the gods don't exist.

 

[Warpiglet]

Talk with your DM. Apparently, it really matters!

I am not fan of cheese (I HATE IT), but if someone thinks it would be interesting to adventure with such a split class why not have a conversation about it?

Do they want the combo to dominate and wreck the game or just because it sounds fun? There are NO RULES against it. At all.

It comes down to the campaign parameters set forth by the DM. And of course, how you make the story work.

Good priest makes ill advised deal to get power to save someone? Maybe. You tinkered in forbidden magic and later repent and follow a good god to the disdain of your irritated patrion. Perhaps.

You have a cartoon angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other? Worked on Tom and Jerry.

(and in some cases there is no stretch...evil cleric makes bargain with a devil? Oath of ancient and fey pact? Good cleric works with a solar? The possibilities are endless. It could be a conflict that plays out or a synergy of no great leap).

 

[neogod22]

As a Paladin all you provide is an Oath. If it's an Oath to a god there's nothing restricting you to hold only that god as worthy of worship. Many D&D worlds represent polytheistic cultures but most players can only view that through a monotheistic lens. They see people only choosing one god to worship among a menu of options. Truth is, in polytheism, you recognize, if not worship, many gods.

And I've addressed that. But clerics and Paladins are different since they get their powers from 1 god only. While clerics and Paladins acknowledge other deities, they only worship the one they serve. A normal person pays homage to whichever god is pertinent to their situation. For example, a fisherman may say a prayer to the goddess of the sea before going out to catch his fish. When he comes back to shore with his bounty, and sells it. He may thank the god of wealth. He may then go to the tavern and pray to the god of luck right before he gambles his profit away. This would be common practice to most people, and while all 3 of those gods share from his prayers, none of them are giving him any of their magic.
A cleric or paladin of Bane, only worships Bane. They don't say prayers to any other gods for any reason. As far as they are concern, the other gods might as well not exist, and if they have anything to do about it, they will kill their worships and destroy the temples of other gods and make sure that Bane,is the only god worshipped.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It is. This is how the gods work in D&D in general, with the exception of Dark Sun and Ravenloft campaign settings where the gods don't exist.

Could you link the source for that claim please? Because I'm not entirely sure about Greyhawk, but I'm certain that Eberron's gods don't work like that.
The Sovereign Host: the 'gods' of the setting (as opposed to other divine powers capable of being a cleric's deity) are unreachable and uncontactable, and definitely don't pass judgement on mortals like the FR gods do.