Paladin / Warlock Faith conflict query

[TwoSix]

Arioch, my Infernal lord, with your help I swear Vengeance on my enemies!

Blood and souls for my Lord Arioch!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Satyrn]

I can assure you that my 1e campaign did not feature any moral complexity or deities fussing about what their clerics did.

I'm picturing a murderhobo cleric of the god of looting and pillaging

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Like I said, I think it's unfortunate, but - after a DM allows multi-classing as an optional rule - any limitation on multi-classing beyond the ability score minimums in the PHB is house-ruling.

This is incorrect. The explicit rule is that the DM must choose whether to allow the multi-classing option, and even if they do so, they still have free reign to allow or dis-allow any specific combination as they see fit. You could have a world where multi-classing was limited to the combinations available in AD&D, and that is entirely within the explicit permissions granted to the DM in this edition.

If your DM says that only humans can be paladins, and paladins are the one class that's never allowed to multi-class, then that it entirely within the codified rules-as-written-and-intended. It's not a house rule.

 

[cbwjm]

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.

And dragonlance. Gods dropped a mountain on their followers who strayed from the light and were basically forgotten before coming back a few hundred years later.

 

[cbwjm]

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.

In no edition has a paladin had to follow a single god unless it was a setting specific requirement.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[cbwjm]

Woah, now.

1e- In order to get higher than second level spells, Paladins had to only have one god. See DMG, D&D; the DMG specifically states that the rules that apply to clerics apply to Paladins (see p. 39) and has onerous rules for changing deities or not following what your deity (singular) wants, etc.

Fair enough. 1e is not my forte. So, from 2e they never needed to follow a god.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Satyrn]

Well....

2e DMG ...

. . . so, from 3e they never needed to follow a god