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

[FrogReaver]

Volition does not equal willing, though. Will(choice) does not mean that you are willing(okay with it).

Read a Dictionary. One of the definitions of willing is "of or relating to the will or power of choosing : volitional"

 

[Maxperson]

Read a Dictionary. One of the definitions of willing is "of or relating to the will or power of choosing : volitional"

volition
noun
vo·li·tion | \ vō-ˈli-shən , və-\
Definition of volition

1: the power of choosing or determining : WILL
2: an act of making a choice or decision
also : a choice or decision made

willing
adjective
will·ing | \ ˈwi-liŋ \
Definition of willing

1: inclined or favorably disposed in mind : READY
willing and eager to help
2: prompt to act or respond
lending a willing hand
3: done, borne, or accepted by choice or without reluctance
a willing sacrifice
4: of or relating to the will or power of choosing : VOLITIONAL

I guess if you ignore the first THREE definitions, you can squint sideways at the 4th, twist it a few times, and use it as a weak justification to remove the paladin's powers. You also have to ignore the definitions of volition, neither of which indicate willingness.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Ah. But you see. This gets into what i was talking about earlier involving it depending on the nature of the oath as to whether willfulness in action versus attempt is what is required for the breaking. Like i said. The nature of the oath changes what is required to fullfill the RAW exactly. If you reread my earlier posts you will see i accounted for this. I said that the nature of the oath affects what the willful breaking entails. Else one could say that a paladin whos been dead for 10 years is breaking their oath (not willfully of course) just by a little chold being murder within eyesight of the paladins head stone. All my statement you will find from the very beginning assume everyone understands that i already made clear the nature of the oath may matter for whether action or lack there of is relevant in a given scenario. @FrogReaver

 

[FrogReaver]

volition
noun
vo·li·tion | \ vō-ˈli-shən , və-\
Definition of volition

1: the power of choosing or determining : WILL
2: an act of making a choice or decision
also : a choice or decision made

willing
adjective
will·ing | \ ˈwi-liŋ \
Definition of willing

1: inclined or favorably disposed in mind : READY
willing and eager to help
2: prompt to act or respond
lending a willing hand
3: done, borne, or accepted by choice or without reluctance
a willing sacrifice
4: of or relating to the will or power of choosing : VOLITIONAL

I guess if you ignore the first THREE definitions, you can squint sideways at the 4th, twist it a few times, and use it as a weak justification to remove the paladin's powers. You also have to ignore the definitions of volition, neither of which indicate willingness.

If you recall I said there was more than 1 definition of willing. You dismissed that. Yet here we are with both of the definitions I came up with right there in the dictionary. Amazing how that works. There are 4 different meanings of the word. You can't just ignore 1 because it doesn't support your position.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Ill repost for clarity

 

[FrogReaver]

Ah. But you see. This gets into what i was talking about earlier involving it depending on the nature of the oath as to whether willfulness in action versus attempt is what is required for the breaking. Like i said. The nature of the oath changes what is required to fullfill the RAW exactly. If you reread my earlier posts you will see i accounted for this. I said that the nature of the oath affects what the willful breaking entails. Else one could say that a paladin whos been dead for 10 years is breaking their oath (not willfully of course) just by a little chold being murder within eyesight of the paladins head stone. All my statement you will find from the very beginning assume everyone understands that i already made clear the nature of the oath may matter for whether action or lack there of is relevant in a given scenario. @FrogReaver

umm, no. You don't break your oath because someone is murdered next to your corpse. I mean wth?

 

[Son of the Serpent]

umm, no. You don't break your oath because someone is murdered next to your corpse. I mean wth?

Like i said. Depends on the nature of the oath. Also i said thus was obviously not a willing example.

 

[Maxperson]

If you recall I said there was more than 1 definition of willing. You dismissed that. Yet here we are with both of the definitions I came up with right there in the dictionary. Amazing how that works. There are 4 different meanings of the word. You can't just ignore 1 because it doesn't support your position.

Because it's not the definition D&D uses. The "willing" clause is there to mitigate lawful stupid and keep no win scenarios from causing every paladin to fall.

 

[FrogReaver]

Like i said. Depends on the nature of the oath. Also i said thus was obviously not a willing example.

no it doesn't depend on anything. It's not even an example. a corpse is not a paladin. QED.

Though a dead Paladin is probably the only Paladin @lowkey13 likes

 

[FrogReaver]

Because it's not the definition D&D uses. The "willing" clause is there to mitigate lawful stupid and keep no win scenarios from causing every paladin to fall.

Interesting theory. Care to support it? Or is this the gospel according to Maxperson?