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

[Maxperson]

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

No dude. An oath is specifically about a future action or behavior, which corpses don't have. Oaths end with death.

 

[FrogReaver]

No dude. An oath is specifically about a future action or behavior, which corpses don't have. Oaths end with death.

Not to detract but just to cover all the bases

In the event there is an afterlife - then the paladin may still be bound to his oath (depends on exact nature of oath). However, the paladin in the afterlife is not where his corpse is at so it still doesn't matter.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

le repost

Ummm...this seems pretty obvious. All count as potentially willfully breaking the oath depending on the oath the dogma the deity and the specific situation. The players opinion also generally is irrelevant.

Please note that the first item i list is oath. The nature of your oath does indeed affect how your oath intersects with RAW. Action may be the meaningful benchmark. So too may be attempt (which is also an action btw). Failure may or may not matter. Or may matter conditionally. What is in your oath affects how this mechanic's meaningful benchmarks operate pretty easily if you just use your imagination a little. What is the specific wording? Does it make any mention of success? Does it mention physical action? Does it mention intent, attempt, specific scenarios? Historucally ALL of these and more have been in ACTUAL paladin oaths. Do paladins have to take thr same exact oath regardless of whether following helm or someone else? If so you're paladins are kinda weird.

 

[FrogReaver]

le repost

Ummm...this seems pretty obvious. All count as potentially willfully breaking the oath depending on the oath the dogma the deity and the specific situation. The players opinion also generally is irrelevant.

Please note that the first item i list is oath. The nature of your oath does indeed affect how your oath intersects with RAW. Action may be the meaningful benchmark. So too may be attempt (which is also an action btw). Failure may or may not matter. Or may matter conditionally. What is in your oath affects how this mechanic's meaningful benchmarks operate pretty easily if you just use your imagination a little. What is the specific wording? Does it make any mention of success? Does it mention physical action? Does it mention intent, attempt, specific scenarios? Historucally ALL of these and more have been in ACTUAL paladin oaths. Do paladins have to take thr same exact oath regardless of whether following helm or someone else? If so you're paladins are kinda weird.

K... so can you at least agree that a corpse is not a Paladin? Because that's really the sticking point at the moment. Giving a dumb example and then doubling down on it kinda starts to ruin ones credibility.

 

[Maxperson]

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

From 1e:
"Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins. If they ever knowingly perform an act which is chaotic in nature, they must seek a high level (7th or above) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess their sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform on evil act, he or she loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably."

If you look, all it takes is to knowingly perform a chaotic act. If you knowingly do something, you are making a willful(not necessarily willing) choice to do it. If all it took was willful, then Gary would not have adding willing in addition to knowing with regard to evil acts, since knowing already encompasses willful(choice).

2e says the same thing, but adds that an enchanted or mind controlled paladin that does evil loses paladinhood until he can atone.

3e changed willing to willful, which is a different meaning. However, it also stated that the loss of paladinhood was only until the paladin atoned, so there was no permanent loss of class abilities unless the player wanted it.

4e I have no idea.

5e we are discussing. It went back to having to be willing, not willful(choice).

 

[Son of the Serpent]

K... so can you at least agree that a corpse is not a Paladin? Because that's really the sticking point at the moment. Giving a dumb example and then doubling down on it kinda starts to ruin ones credibility.

Never said the corpse was one. What i said is perfectly correct. Potentially a paladins oath can be broken or defied in some fashion by way of something happening near his grave. Also i called it the paladins grave with words such as "his". Was talking about the paladin. Not his corpse. Depends on a great many things. The point is a paladin's obligation to his oath is not entirely always a simple thing.

 

[FrogReaver]

Never said the corpse was one. What i said is perfectly correct. Potentially a paladins oath can be broken or defied in some fashion by way of something happening near his grave. Also i called it the paladins grave with words such as "his". Was talking about the paladin. Not his corpse. Depends on a great many things. The point is a paladin's obligation to his oath is not entirely always a simple thing.

Okay since you are starting to slip around like someone just sprayed wd-40 all over you then let's cut to the chase. Neither a corpse, nor a grave, nor anything else you might try to shift the argument to is a Paladin. The only thing that is a Paladin is a Paladin. So it's an absolute and empathetic no - the paladin can't break his oath by someone being murdered at his grave, over his corpse or near whatever non-Paladin thing you think of next.

 

[FrogReaver]

From 1e:
"Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins. If they ever knowingly perform an act which is chaotic in nature, they must seek a high level (7th or above) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess their sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform on evil act, he or she loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably."

If you look, all it takes is to knowingly perform a chaotic act. If you knowingly do something, you are making a willful(not necessarily willing) choice to do it. If all it took was willful, then Gary would not have adding willing in addition to knowing with regard to evil acts, since knowing already encompasses willful(choice).

2e says the same thing, but adds that an enchanted or mind controlled paladin that does evil loses paladinhood until he can atone.

3e changed willing to willful, which is a different meaning. However, it also stated that the loss of paladinhood was only until the paladin atoned, so there was no permanent loss of class abilities unless the player wanted it.

4e I have no idea.

5e we are discussing. It went back to having to be willing, not willful(choice).

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment but I will mull it over.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment but I will mull it over.

Fair enough. Night man.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Okay since you are starting to slip around like someone just sprayed wd-40 all over you then let's cut to the chase. Neither a corpse, nor a grave, nor anything else you might try to shift the argument to is a Paladin. The only thing that is a Paladin is a Paladin. So it's an absolute and empathetic no - the paladin can't break his oath by someone being murdered at his grave, over his corpse or near whatever non-Paladin thing you think of next.

Except im not. Ive been 100% consistant since the beginning. Just took a lot of angles that were not expected. If you look back and re read the post i never said the corpse was a paladin. You only ridiculously asserted that i did.