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

[Maxperson]

1. Willing can be interpreted VERY widely.

Fairly widely. Coerced not being a part of that. It's not possible for you to be both coerced into something and willing to do it. If you are willing, there can be no coercion.

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.

I don't need to. I've been here before with other people who make claims like this. I provide an example. You twist it a few times, quint at it funny, come up with some sort of weak justification and viola! Willing. It doesn't work like that, though. Willing and coerced are mutually exclusive positions. You cannot be both at once.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

I can't help but think that these statements, if we put them in the context of the game, would be alignment statements. In other words, you are expressing philosophical opinions about how the world works - real people aren't like this, everyone has bent or broken at some point, rigidity leads to failure, etc.

Is it any wonder that you are hostile to 'lawful' positions?

How is it that the bad guys are in a position to threaten something bad if they PC doesn't capitulate, and if they are in fact such clever bad guys, why don't they just kill the PC and be done with it? What are they, James Bond villains?

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Sounds like you still aren't talking about the same kind of PC I am. I'm talking about a lawful good person that doesn't bend or break their values for anything.

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.

Of course it is! Unless he has specifically told me this concept isn't allowed then I am free to play it and he should change his world so the game will be fun. Dying to non-pragmatic lawful good traps isn't fun.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

"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."

This statement is a bit asinine. Sweeping unprovable umbrella statement. Rare? Sure. NEVER happens? Thats downright absurd. Especially seeing as the values chosen can make the immutability of ones commitment easier or harder to maintain.

"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."

I can agree though that death by stupid pills is not something for which the dm is obligated to narcan you back from. Solid observation.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I can't help but think that these statements, if we put them in the context of the game, would be alignment statements. In other words, you are expressing philosophical opinions about how the world works - real people aren't like this, everyone has bent or broken at some point, rigidity leads to failure, etc.

Is it any wonder that you are hostile to 'lawful' positions?

How is it that the bad guys are in a position to threaten something bad if they PC doesn't capitulate, and if they are in fact such clever bad guys, why don't they just kill the PC and be done with it? What are they, James Bond villains?

Lol. Que rare lawful evil ancient gold dragon whos been living with his alignment a secret for thousands of years. Has a network of spies a continent wide. Courts lawfully good aligned epic heros for hundreds of years toward his conspiratorial ends. His secret underground name? Hoard blinger.

 

[FrogReaver]

I can't help but think that these statements, if we put them in the context of the game, would be alignment statements. In other words, you are expressing philosophical opinions about how the world works - real people aren't like this, everyone has bent or broken at some point, rigidity leads to failure, etc.

Is it any wonder that you are hostile to 'lawful' positions?

You said it much better than I. Thanks.

How is it that the bad guys are in a position to threaten something bad if they PC doesn't capitulate, and if they are in fact such clever bad guys, why don't they just kill the PC and be done with it? What are they, James Bond villains?

You know, this is an excellent point! The whole idea that the super clever villain is clever enough to mess with the lawful character and try to make him commit lawful stupid suicide instead of just outright taking them out is what is cartoonish. It's like the riddler on batman always trying to put batman in a dilemma instead of devising a way to actually take him out.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

@Maxperson wrong. One can be coerced and still have a measure of willingness. Someone steals your twinky while a victim is drowning on the oposite side of the room. Shall you save the victim from watery death or the twinky from the salivating maw of certain death? C'mon son wukong, surely you can understand.

You gave me an example and i delivered.

And they arent exclusive. Coerced just isnt that open and shut. You can have a measure of each. I didnt twist it at all. I showed how its possible with the smallest bit of coercion.

Ye of little faith. I have delivered you unto the promised land. Obviously you must keep your oath. And save the twinky. Sweets before meats.

 

[FrogReaver]

Fairly widely. Coerced not being a part of that. It's not possible for you to be both coerced into something and willing to do it. If you are willing, there can be no coercion.


I don't need to. I've been here before with other people who make claims like this. I provide an example. You twist it a few times, quint at it funny, come up with some sort of weak justification and viola! Willing. It doesn't work like that, though. Willing and coerced are mutually exclusive positions. You cannot be both at once.

What's your definition of coercion, because it wouldn't take much for coercion to apply to nearly anything we have ever done and thus render us as having never made a willing decision ever.

 

[Maxperson]

I can't help but think that these statements, if we put them in the context of the game, would be alignment statements. In other words, you are expressing philosophical opinions about how the world works - real people aren't like this, everyone has bent or broken at some point, rigidity leads to failure, etc.

Is it any wonder that you are hostile to 'lawful' positions?

The only problem with this, is that I'm not hostile towards lawful positions.

How is it that the bad guys are in a position to threaten something bad if they PC doesn't capitulate,

You've never had this happen in a game? There are literally millions of ways to end up in that position. I'm not going to spell them out for you. I think you're smart enough to think of some.

and if they are in fact such clever bad guys, why don't they just kill the PC and be done with it?

Perhaps they can't, or perhaps it's too risky. Why would the villain risk his life when all he has to do is threating little Susie.

 

[FrogReaver]

The only problem with this, is that I'm not hostile towards lawful positions.



You've never had this happen in a game? There are literally millions of ways to end up in that position. I'm not going to spell them out for you. I think you're smart enough to think of some.

I seem to recall you precviously stating that you didn't make such things happen in games but the may naturally occur. I'm starting to think you were feeding my feel of baloney.

Perhaps they can't, or perhaps it's too risky. Why would the villain risk his life when all he has to do is threating little Susie.

every fictional example I can think of where the victim threatens little Susie it ultimately comes out pretty well for little Susie and pretty bad the evil villain.