D&D 5E How often do your Paladins actually violate their Oaths?

[Shiroiken]

Do note that the thread is tagged 5e.

I'm aware, that's why I started with "not in 5E." The oaths they have to follow are far easier to follow than in prior editions, and so I don't think they'll ever be common because of it. I've played since the playtest, and almost every campaign seems to have a paladin in it, and at no time did it ever seem the oath was even tested. This makes it more of an addition to the personality of the character, rather than a hindrance (as it was in 3E and earlier).

 

[R_J_K75]

My point is that the fluff for a druid could be considered just as restrictive, just more concise. "Druids revere nature above all, gaining their spells and other magical powers either from the force of nature itself or from a nature deity. "

Yet I don't see many druids that seem to particularly care all that much about nature one way or another. New land being cleared? You could hear the crickets that are losing their home chirp. Living in a dense metropolitan area? No big deal.

Clerics are supposed to be the conduits of a god's power that "strive to embody the handiwork of their deities". Presumably the gods want something to happen that they chose a champion ... yet what the god may want never seems to come into play. Most of the time I'd never know what god a cleric worships if I didn't see their character sheet.

I'm not trying to pick on you personally, this is pretty common. But saying that it would "take someone special" is indicative of an attitude. One that many DMs seem to share. Paladins must be held to a higher standard than any other PC.

In any case, I'm not telling you how to run your game. That's between you and your players. Just pointing out that if you've banned paladins in the past because "they were more trouble than they were worth" that it would be an issue with the player, not the class. IMHO of course.

I agree with what you said here. In cases where players just play the mechanical side of their character class and omit the finer points of roleplaying the character when it comes to paladins and druids, you are right it is an issue with the player.

 

[Blue]

Rarely do I have paladins violate their oaths. But both my criteria and my context may be a little different than others, so let me explain.

To me, the most important part of breaking your oath is intent. Trying but failing your oath is not breaking it to me. So the only person who can actually say that they broke their oath is the player, because that is the only authority on a character's intent. Let me repeat that: at my table, the DM (me) cannot declare an oath broken.

Now, the DM is responsible for helping the player understand what the oath means in the context of the world. They not only can but should point things out to the player.

On top of all that, as a DM I love offering Faustian bargains. When you give up more long term for a short term victory. So in terms of play, I will definitley set up situations where the party can profit if the paladin breaks their oath. That there is pressure to do it both internally and from other members of the party. So it becomes a real point of drama.

I try not to do this all this time, but there will be regular cases where it's the quickest / easiest path to victory (but not the only one), but at least once in the paladin's character arc will I make sure there is real temptation in front of them.

 

[Blue]

My point is that the fluff for a druid could be considered just as restrictive, just more concise. "Druids revere nature above all, gaining their spells and other magical powers either from the force of nature itself or from a nature deity. "

Paladins are the only class that has a mechanical reinforcement to their devotion, due to the sidebar on pg 18 about Breaking their Oath. Druids and other classes have nothing like it - there are no mechanical limitations on the RP of those classes.

 

[Charlaquin]

Paladins are the only class that has a mechanical reinforcement to their devotion, due to the sidebar on pg 18 about Breaking their Oath. Druids and other classes have nothing like it - there are no mechanical limitations on the RP of those classes.

Well, Druids “won’t” wear armor made of metal...

 

[Oofta]

Paladins are the only class that has a mechanical reinforcement to their devotion, due to the sidebar on pg 18 about Breaking their Oath. Druids and other classes have nothing like it - there are no mechanical limitations on the RP of those classes.

Just because they're the only ones with the consequences spelled out does not mean there shouldn't be consequences for other classes if you enforce the paladin's code.

Other classes are far more variable in their nature. That doesn't make them any less (or more) important.

 

[Blue]

Well, Druids “won’t” wear armor made of metal...

Good point. So that's mechanically more supported than loving nature.

 

[Blue]

Just because they're the only ones with the consequences spelled out does not mean there shouldn't be consequences for other classes if you enforce the paladin's code.

Other classes are far more variable in their nature. That doesn't make them any less (or more) important.

Your point is true but incomplete.

Any DM can enforce devotion. Many (most?) DMs do not. In general, there's a fine line between telling a player how to play their character vs. enforcing the vague direction in the description of the (sub)class. A line that, rightly, many DMs would rather shy far away from.

The oaths however are, well, less vague if still not legalistic in definition, and are spelled out having mechanical repercussions for breaking them, which is something that a player is implicitly agreeing to by chosing the class. A DM can enforce those without stepping near the line.

Multiply this that often the (sub)class fluff in it's description is at odds with the setting. The guidelines for a generic Tempest cleric differ from a cleric of Zeus, and differ again from a cleric of Thor. Now it's even more muddled.

A DM can do this, but just like the Oaths are distilled to a couple of bullet points and there is buy in at class choice, that is the best way for a DM to put that sort of devotional restrictions on the other classes without straying too close to the "don't tell me how to play my character" line.

So just because it is possible for the DM to do so for any class, the default Paladin state is in a much better for a wide variety of DM to realistically do so.

 

[DEFCON 1]

No one has broken their oath. Because the players who were playing paladins chose those classes specifically because they wished to play those oaths.

 

[Nagol]

Most players I've run or played with who chose paladin PCs have acted in good faith. One of the players I played with sticks out like a proud nail. He literally could not/would not acknowledge his actions as evil/wrong/against code.

He was not only willing to commit evil acts (torture, unprovoked killings, poison use, intimidation for gain, property theft and destruction for personal gain), but was the prime instigator. The behaviour started small and escalated as the PC gained power. He was adept at self-justification.