D&D 5E Paladin Code (3.X) vs Paladin Oaths (5e)

[Fauchard1520]

My group is pretty late to the party, but we just finished a long-running Pathfinder game and are (finally) taking a look at 5e.

As I contemplate a paladin PC, I'm curious about how to read the paladin oaths. Are they literally the 3.X code of conduct with a different name, or are they less strict? My group has always run the code as a major part of playing a paladin, and the risk of falling has been very real in previous campagins. It's kept me off playing one for the longest time, so I'm wondering if it's still as fraught in this edition.

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I don't see a reason they can't be as strict as you'd like. I feel they're designed to really tell you more what you will or won't do to the point that alignment is secondary to it. So, like a Devotion paladin who doesn't aid the weak or who actively lies should (IMO) lose their powers since they are breaking the oath they swore. Each oath has different 'asks' so it shouldn't be hard to find a paladin type you want to play and also have consequences for

 

[Oofta]

There are no alignment restrictions, although certain oaths do lend themselves to certain alignments.

I view the oaths as more of an RP tool than anything, but it's really up to the group how strict they want to be.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

It's roughly Devotion (LG), Ancients (CG), Vengeance (N), Redemption (NG), Conquest (LE), Glory (N), Watcher (N). But obviously many of the Oaths are flexible enough in what alignments they're associated with, especially the ones I've labelled as being Neutral. But even the Oath of Conquest while stating many are LE certainly has those that are LN or other alignments.

 

[Charlaquin]

My group is pretty late to the party, but we just finished a long-running Pathfinder game and are (finally) taking a look at 5e.

As I contemplate a paladin PC, I'm curious about how to read the paladin oaths. Are they literally the 3.X code of conduct with a different name, or are they less strict? My group has always run the code as a major part of playing a paladin, and the risk of falling has been very real in previous campagins. It's kept me off playing one for the longest time, so I'm wondering if it's still as fraught in this edition.

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

The tenets of the various Paladin Oaths in 5e are written pretty vaguely, so it would be pretty difficult to enforce them as strictly as the codes of conduct in previous editions. I mean, what does it even look like to break a stricture like “be the light?”

Ultimately, it’s up to the DM to interpret the Oaths, and to determine what consequences, if any, a Paladin who violates them faces. In general though, the intent is for these Oaths to be more lenient than in the past, providing more of a set of ideals to aspire to rather than rules to obey.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Some here interpret fluff as having the full authority of rules, and for them I guess the tenets of each oath amount to rules that must be followed. (Or....what, exactly?)

Others of us think fluff is fluff. Roleplay as much or as little as you (and your table) like.

 

[Charlaquin]

(Or....what, exactly?)

The implication is that their subclass changes to Oathbreaker. I have never seen that actually happen though.

 

[Stormonu]

Make of them as you will. I'm currently running a Lawful Evil Dragonborn Paladin of Tiamat. He's with the current group to protect them from harm, but he has no qualms about quashing ANYONE who gets in his way or harms his teammates. (He's a bit snippy at times too when the group dithers about, and his mount is an Allosaurus...)

 

[Al2O3]

My group has always run the code as a major part of playing a paladin, and the risk of falling has been very real in previous campagins. It's kept me off playing one for the longest time, so I'm wondering if it's still as fraught in this edition.

I have only played 4e (where I can't remember any limits on Paladins) and 5e, so I have no first-hand knowledge of the strict codes from earlier editions. However, I am utterly convinced that the Oaths are made the way they are specifically to allow players to play a Paladin without constantly worrying about falling. Unfortunately I don't have any quotes handy from the DMG, PHB, Sage Advice, Twitter or blog posts written during the D&D Next playtest phase.

In any case, there should probably be some Oath that you can comfortably follow unless your DM specifically tries to make it hard for you. But discuss it with the DM to make sure that you both know what level of "risk of falling" each of you is interested in. A roleplaying tool similar to ideals, bonds and flaws is probably a good level.

Edit: I found a useful sidebar on page 86 of the PHB. It explicitly says that Paladins are fallible and sometimes break their oath. The typical consequence seems inspired by Catholic confessions, with a vigil or fasting as the closest thing to a "punishment". Actually falling requires willfully violating the oath without showing any sign of repentance.

 

[Krachek]

Coercitive Dming is not related to edition.