D&D 5E Paladin oath. What constitutes willingly breaking your oath/code?

[FrogReaver]

So ... what exactly? A DM should never run intelligent NPCs intelligently? Evil NPCs need to always be politically correct so as not to violate a paladin's safe zone?

Because personally if a DM presents an NPC as an evil SOB, that's how I want them to be run.

A villain can be super intelligently evil and still not challenge the lawful good paladin with a practical solution that isn't lawful good.

Alternatively a very dumb villain could challenge the paladin with a practical solution that isn't lawful good.

Intelligence of the villain isn't what's driving the kind of villain and situation that's occurring - it's the DM. Thus the blame rests at the DM's feet.

 

[Oofta]

A villain can be super intelligently evil and still not challenge the lawful good paladin with a practical solution that isn't lawful good.

Alternatively a very dumb villain could challenge the paladin with a practical solution that isn't lawful good.

Why wouldn't they take advantage of anything they can?

Not saying that they always will, but there is no honor among thieves. Or BBEGs.

 

[FrogReaver]

No. The blame lands entirely on whoever thinks lawful stupid is the way the class should be played, regardless of whether that's the player, the DM or both.

If the DM is the only one who thinks lawful stupid is proper and he punishes the player with it, he's in the wrong.

If the player is the only one who thinks lawful stupid is proper and he suicides during a situation the DM set up, the player is in the wrong.

If they both think it's proper, blame can fall in either direction or both, depending on the situation.

It takes 2 to tango. It requires a player playing a lawful good paladin and a DM that would pit a practical solution that isn't lawful good in front of that Paladin.

The paladin can play any version of lawful good that he wants just fine as long as the DM doesn't do that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why wouldn't they take advantage of anything they can?

Not saying that they always will, but there is no honor among thieves. Or BBEGs.

Because it doesn't come up as something for them to take advantage of. You are the DM. You determine the setting and the NPC's actions and everything except the players actions. There's no need for you to set up a world where the BBEG will have a need to resort to that kind of challenge against a paladin.

 

[Oofta]

It takes 2 to tango. It requires a player playing a lawful good paladin and a DM that would pit a practical solution that isn't lawful good in front of that Paladin.

The paladin can play any version of lawful good that he wants just fine as long as the DM doesn't do that.

I wouldn't want to play a game where the DM pulled the kid gloves out so they wouldn't hurt my delicate sensibilities.

Play the villain as realistically as you can. I simply accept that just because the paladin can't win every battle doesn't mean he has to fall on his sword or break his oath.

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean imagine how hard it would be to play a rogue in a world where the slightest bit of dishonesty, thievery or underhanded tactics would result in the good gods cursing you to be less strong/cunning/dexterous etc than a commoner.

Can such a world exist? Sure. So why not use it? Because it's not right to use a setting that doesn't work with specific character concepts that are being played at the table (or at least to make that apparent at session 0).

 

[FrogReaver]

I wouldn't want to play a game where the DM pulled the kid gloves out so they wouldn't hurt my delicate sensibilities.

Play the villain as realistically as you can. I simply accept that just because the paladin can't win every battle doesn't mean he has to fall on his sword or break his oath.

It's not kid gloves. You control all aspects of the setting. You can be as hard on the players as you want without ever having to pit a lawful good paladin against a practical but non-lawful good solution.

I mean, I can make a setting that penalizes pretty much any kind of character you can imagine. Should I do so in the name of "setting realism"? No!

 

[Maxperson]

It takes 2 to tango. It requires a player playing a lawful good paladin and a DM that would pit a practical solution that isn't lawful good in front of that Paladin.

So what. Am I supposed to avoid doing that with the LG wizard? No. It makes no difference if it's a paladin unless the player is incorrectly playing the paladin as lawful stupid, and that's his fault.

The paladin can play any version of lawful good that he wants just fine as long as the DM doesn't do that.

Lawful stupid isn't a version of LG. It's a gross misapplication of the alignment and is quite frankly, a caricature. People playing a paladin as lawful stupid aren't playing a rational being, and insane isn't LG.

 

[Hussar]

A villain can be super intelligently evil and still not challenge the lawful good paladin with a practical solution that isn't lawful good.

Alternatively a very dumb villain could challenge the paladin with a practical solution that isn't lawful good.

Intelligence of the villain isn't what's driving the kind of villain and situation that's occurring - it's the DM. Thus the blame rests at the DM's feet.

You guys are talking past each other.

@FrogReaver is taking a pragmatic, at the table approach. Doing this sort of thing wouldn't be fun for the table, so, don't do it.

@Oofta is taking an in game fiction approach. Doing this sort of thing makes a fair bit of sense and is quite believable. Not taking advantage of such an advantage is actually kinda unbelievable, so, it hurts the enjoyment at the table.

You guys will not come to any sort of compromise until you start from similar starting points. You are fundamentally talking about different issues.

 

[FrogReaver]

So what. Am I supposed to avoid doing that with the LG wizard? No. It makes no difference if it's a paladin unless the player is incorrectly playing the paladin as lawful stupid, and that's his fault.


Lawful stupid isn't a version of LG. It's a gross misapplication of the alignment and is quite frankly, a caricature. People playing a paladin as lawful stupid aren't playing a rational being, and insane isn't LG.

You missing the important part. What makes the Lawful Good Paladin turn lawful stupid is the DM introducing scenarios intended to not have a lawful good option for a solution.