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

[FrogReaver]

Just one more follow up. Sometimes PCs fail. Sometimes they don't catch the bad guy, sometimes the plan doesn't survive contact with the enemy. Sometimes the paladin has survivors guilt or had no chance to save the innocent and must spend the night in prayer in penance or seek absolution from a priest.

Failure makes victory something special. Finally defeating that villain that sacrificed that child in order to get away is something to celebrate.

My way is not the only way to play. If you and your players want lawful "death before dishonor imperfection" paladins to be a thing there's nothing wrong with it. Just don't be surprised when people say that paladins must be lawful stupid.

Paladins can fail all the time. It's the how. NPC snatched and carried off while under your protection, then you did your best. Dragon tells you to choose either yourself or the NPC for him to eat then that's a problem. It's how you've set up the scenario to be principles vs life. That's what creatures lawful stupid characters. Don't challenge the characters principles with their life. That's the simple solution.

If you insist on setting a non-pragmatic lawful good trap then don't expect people not to blame you the DM for creating the lawful stupid behavior.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

This goes directly against RAW which doesn't care about what the oath says or who the deity is. All that matters per RAW is whether the breach was willing, which means that a coerced breach cannot result in the loss of paladinhood.

RAW does support what i say. By raw there must be an oath. By raw there must be intent. There are scenarios in which all the options listed can be involved in the raw requirement being fulfilled. In other words. When RAW is observed to the fullest it can be very easy for a paladin to qualify for having broken said oath.

Ask me any single one of them and ill show an example of how BY RAW that qualification can be fulfilled.

 

[Maxperson]

As long as you've told them before hand that you shouldn't play non-pragmatic lawful good. If you didn't then it's on you - so change your world.

There's nothing wrong with non-pragmatic. It's the stupid portion that gets people into trouble.

 

[FrogReaver]

There's nothing wrong with non-pragmatic. It's the stupid portion that gets people into trouble.

Every non-pragmatic PC when put in a situation that pits their values over there life will pick their values. Any such PC is inherently stupid by your standards because they can at any time be put in a situation where they choose their values over their life.

 

[Maxperson]

RAW does support what i say. By raw there must be an oath. By raw there must be intent. There are scenarios in which all the options listed can be involved in the raw requirement being fulfilled. In other words. When RAW is observed to the fullest it can be very easy for a paladin to qualify for having broken said oath.

Sure, but the paladin MUST be willing by RAW, so he cannot have been coerced. If the paladin is coerced, then it doesn't matter what the oath is or which god he has, he's not going to lose his powers. He can still violate those things, but they will be minor violations which don't cause anything but RP opportunities.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

And stupid is only roleplayed wrong if your mental stats arent deplorable (ive seen stupid played appropriately)

90% of the time stupid=pain in the arse though the way most people play it.

Get really annoying is usually the issue.

 

[Maxperson]

Every non-pragmatic PC when put in a situation that pits their values over there life will pick their values. Any such PC is inherently stupid by your standards because they can at any time be put in a situation where they choose their values over their life.

That's not true. Just because there will rare times that you act in a pragmatic way, doesn't make you a pragmatic PC. Just as sometimes acting outside of your alignment is perfectly okay and normal to do.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's not true. Just because there will rare times that you act in a pragmatic way, doesn't make you a pragmatic PC. Just as sometimes acting outside of your alignment is perfectly okay and normal to do.

then you are clearly not talking about the same PC I am. So all your not true's don't apply. I am and have been specifically talking about a PC that would not bend or break his values. That kind of lawful good character. If you aren't talking about that kind of character then I ain't got nothing to say to you.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Sure, but the paladin MUST be willing by RAW, so he cannot have been coerced. If the paladin is coerced, then it doesn't matter what the oath is or which god he has, he's not going to lose his powers. He can still violate those things, but they will be minor violations which don't cause anything but RP opportunities.

1. Willing can be interpreted VERY widely.

2. I established in my second post that i had ALREADY taken everything into account for the first post that you have just said. You havent added anything.

3. Select one of the examples in the list and I'll show you how it can qualify. You should try me. You might understand better if you take me up on it.

 

[Maxperson]

then you are clearly not talking about the same PC I am. So all your not true's don't apply. I am and have been specifically talking about a PC that would not bend or break his values. That kind of lawful good character. If you aren't talking about that kind of character then I ain't got nothing to say to you.

I think you mean LG caricature. Nothing remotely resembling a real personality acts that way. Everyone has bent or broken at some point, and the more rigid you are, the worse it often is when you break.

If you choose to play a PC who will suicide in a situation where the bad guy threatens something bad if you don't capitulate, don't choose to play in a game with bad guys in it. It's not the DM's job to alter the world so that you can play that sort of concept. Have some respect for your DM and the game.