I need ideas and tips for playing a paladin without devoting himself with a deity

I need ideas and tips for playing a paladin without devoting himself with a deity.

3.5 and pathfinder don't even mention that paladins are required to have a deity. Your power comes from your oath, not a god - you're not a cleric.

I'd say that paladin would be that guy who stands up to inquisition when they get too uppity, to protect the common people.

When Pelor decides to burn the world and free it of sin, an epic paladin would be at the front of the defense, standing up for the weak and downtrodden while the clerics submit to their god.

You're basically captain america.

...

first post best post.

I think there was one that swore an oath not to a god, but to the crown and kingdom?
Kinda like a quasi-divine knight.

I had a friend who played an inquisitor serving the platonic ideals of friendship and community once. Was p. good.

Soviet Commisar.

Like this

Ever seen Les Miserables? Try playing Javert. In the book, at least, he was an atheist who believed in moral absolutes and carried out this idea to the extreme.

I once played a character that was a chaotic paladin, he was more concerned with tearing down corrupt and bloated bureaucracies and monarchies than worshipping his minor fire-God, and after a certain point in the campaign was more well known than his God. It was a little edgy but everyone enjoyed it. you should figure out why your character chose your god and have him be idealistic rather than blindly religious.
Also, fuck alignments.

This.

Your OP Image has one idea.

What about a Paladin of a religion that goes beyond it's original xdeity-intended scope or doctrine but is still a force in the world?

A paladin of a minor force like a archdemon or otherwise?

Teiatat-in-Lavender is not going to have paladins as such, but maybe warrior-priests? A Crimson Knight might switch to the lavender cult to gain something, and would not be a paladin at that point but a warrior priest with exceptional skill.

Pick a spot. City, orphanage, whatever. Protect that spot like a motherfucker. Make sure that the people there are safe, well fed, free, and as happy you can make them.

Motivation to join a party is that there is a threat to your spot that you can't handle alone.

Lich gonna push the world's shit in? Fuck, gotta get help. Army going to burn its way through? Fuck, gotta get help.

Play a lawful good fighter.

Those red bits hanging down must really obscure his vision...

Old Captain America with his pic related jihadist mentality or the new Captain America who throws a tantrum about being held accountable for his actions?

Just make JUSTICE your answer to everything.

>jihadist mentality
What the ever limmity fuck are you thinking?

Captain America is saying you stand up for what is right no matter what anyone else says or does.

He's saying stand up for what you believe is right no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary or the consequences.

You could swap out the picture for Rorschach and not have to change any of the text.

>what you believe is right
Except for the fact that Captain America has one big advantage over actual people and other fictional characters, especially ones in the Watchmen.

What Captain America thinks is right is actually right in an objective sense.

Rorschach wasn't wrong either, in my opinion. But that is an entirely separate argument.

That's just the narrative equivalent of plot armour.

A mere mortal man opperating on that mentality is not a stable creature or capable of the compromises and exchanges that make civilization possible.

I'm ok with that. Captain America is an ideal. Those, by definition, cannot be real. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it.

I can understand that.

It just annoys me more than a little that Captain America gets a free pass where Rorschach doesn't despite being very much the same unchanging person in two different environments.

That and it's the sort of mentality that is keeping the Satanic Panic limping along.

>no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary or the consequences.

Cap doesn't mention evidence, he's not talking about self-delusion, that's all your addition.

Its the difference in settings.

Captain America is Marvel, noble bright for the most part. Occasionally slides to neutral bright or neutral noble.

Rorschach is in Watchmen, which is a far darker setting. At best its Noble Dark.

I have yet to use a warforged/golem paladin of the people. Soldier by design, protector by choice.
So like other said, a protector of the people, whose powers come from those he fights for. Prefer helping rural folks with their issues, even when trivial, than king's court where he feels out of place.

This works too. Loyalty to a country, to a city or even to a crown or a dynasty. Doesn't have to be a blind loyalty either, or it could be a character arc if you want.

The fundamentals of a lot of religions are actually not based on the god(s) they worship but rather the philosophy in which guide life, desires, and objectives. You could strip the Jesus from Puritanism and focus on a "city on a hill" objective, or a pax-humanity objective. You could be a confusionist or a taoist. You could worship a version of hero/ancestor worship, or preserve a certain culture, or use the spirits of the world to guide you. There's a lot more to religion than the gods themselves.

Rorscharch is more willing to kill, I think that's the main difference in acts (the motivations are also different I would say)

The difference is in their ideals.

Neither are willing to compromise when it comes to what they believe is right and wrong, that's true. But they believe very different things about morality, freedom, and the nature of man.

For example, Cap (at least in his post-War incarnations) believes in the fundamental decency of man, and he fights to protect that goodness.

Rorschach, on the other hand, believes that men are inherently wicked, and only (his) righteous force can keep their sins from swallowing up the whole world.

>Captain America gets a free pass where Rorschach doesn't
Because Rorschach was definitely a deconstruction of that kind of idea.

Also a lot of nerds liked Rorschach for being a hard man making hard decisions.

>Also a lot of nerds liked Rorschach for being a hard man making hard decisions.

He didn't, though. In the end Rorschach was powerless to affect the greater course of events. His big "decision" was ultimately a false one, because it lacked any significance.

It had a lot of significance.

The man stuck to his ideals, refused to compromise. We should all be so lucky to pass a test like that.

Beyond that, his journal got to the super right wing News Paper's Crank File.

>The man stuck to his ideals, refused to compromise. We should all be so lucky to pass a test like that.

The man died and accomplished nothing with his death. He didn't die to make his ideals real, he just died because his nature wouldn't allow him any other course, and it didn't make any difference to anyone.

Rorschach died as he lived: a victim, defined by all the terrible shit he had to carry. And that was the point of his character. A "hero" like Batman whose entire life is determined by a moment of tragedy would end up an ugly, broken man.

A paladin devoted to Liege and Chivalric ideals

>Roschach
You could change the image to Doctor Doom and not have to change the text.
You could change the image to Magneto and not have to change the text.
You could change the image to Red Skull and not have to change the text.
You could change the image to Hitler and not have to change the text.

That speech just says "When people say you're wrong, you say: no u"
It's the dumbest speech to ever waste ink on pages.

Underrated post.

Rorschach was based on the question not captain America. I don't necessarily belie he did. He was a man of absolutes who lost his faith in pity and decency but was, despite all he monologued, too good a person not to help people.

His journal made it to the paper. So he did get one last hoorah.

It's kind of a more boring option, but you could pick a real world philosophy, along the lines of something like Kantianism, and give it a more fantasy-y name.