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

[Fanaelialae]

That's a situation where I think most people would sympathize with the shooter--perhaps to the extent of not feeling that any further punishment (because that was punishment enough itself) need be imposed--but I'm not sure a consensus would consider them entirely blameless. I think the judgment people would instinctively make it that situation would depend on both the shooter and the target. Two random people? Tragic. An escaped murderer (held at gunpoint) shooting a child? Add it to his charges at half price.

I see where you're going with this, but you seem to be drawing the line of choice at death, where I draw it at the shooter's finger. I really don't see why, in general, many people think that if the alternative to a choice is death, the choice isn't a choice. People make choices that they believe will incur high risk of death (even 100% in their minds) all the time.

Here's a thought. A soldier jumps on a bomb to save his friends. On the other side of the field, a soldier in the same situation doesn't. Did the one who jumped have a choice? Did the one who didn't jump have a choice? Consequences certainly seem irrelevant to whether they had a choice.

I guess I've shifted slightly from "willingly" to "had a choice". But that's because they are identical in my opinion.



I'm just going to disagree that the paladin's choices were equally inconsequential. I don't think anyone wants to get into the nitty gritty, so I'll just leave it with the idea that I would agree with you if the dragon had the paladin grasped in one claw, the NPC grasped in another, and said, "move and I eat you both, stay still and I may let you live". That isn't how I envision the mechanics of the actual situation described. But then again, I've won games that I had "already lost" because they weren't technically over and I kept trying and managed to turn it around, so perhaps we're just looking at it from different perspectives of where the line between "completely outside my power" and "real longshot" lies.



Not another heated philosophical discussion resurrected! Based on your preferred implementation, I don' t think we disagreed on that one though.

I believe that there is a difference between having a choice and having a reasonable choice. While there are some noble individuals in the real world who make the ultimate sacrifice for the good of others, suggesting that anything falling short of that is not moral is setting the bar extremely high. Most people will thankfully go their entire lives without being tested in this manner; do you believe that their moral fiber cannot be determined or that they are outright lacking in morality as a result?

Moreover, there's a difference between jumping on a grenade in an attempt to save others, and jumping on a grenade when you don't believe it will be to anyone's benefit (ie, you believe no other living people to be in the vicinity). The former is a noble sacrifice, but the latter is simply suicidal, ill-considered, and fruitless. To put it another way - is the paladin obligated to throw himself on the grenade simply because it is there?


That all said, I appreciate the conversation and debate from all involved in this and the other thread. It has been not only quite interesting, but has helped me to crystalize a realization.

I've spent a great deal of my life in consideration of what is moral. It is something that is of very personal importance to me.

However, within the context of D&D, I care less about real world notions of morality than I do for my players having fun. What creates the most enjoyable experience at the table? I'm not going to throw morality out the window of course. Moral quandaries are interesting and certainly have a place in the game. I'm simply not interested in imposing my view of morality on the table, particularly not in a way that would be unfun for my players. For me, that's what it really comes down to.

 

[S'mon]

To put it another way - is the paladin obligated to throw himself on the grenade simply because it is there?

Paladin should listen to his drill instructor's training that jumping on a grenade is a stupid* idea. If everyone just drops to the ground, likely no one gets hurt.

But of course Paladins should be willing to lay down their lives if necessary. It's not a question of enlightened self interest being immoral. It's not immoral, it's un-Paladiny. A fictional Paladin who can't even match the 'noble individuals in the real world who make the ultimate sacrifice for the good of others' is a pretty pathetic Paladin.

*IRL the US Army had the real problem of men being much too willing to 'die a hero' by jumping on the grenade. So they had to start training soldiers NOT to do this. People tend to respond to training - likewise when Western police forces were until recently being trained not to take on armed shooters, they got good at standing outside while the spree killers continued their massacre undisturbed. So you can train in both 'heroism' and 'cowardice'.

 

[S'mon]

However, within the context of D&D, I care less about real world notions of morality than I do for my players having fun. What creates the most enjoyable experience at the table? I'm not going to throw morality out the window of course. Moral quandaries are interesting and certainly have a place in the game. I'm simply not interested in imposing my view of morality on the table, particularly not in a way that would be unfun for my players. For me, that's what it really comes down to.

I guess if all your players and yourself enjoy cowardly Paladins, that's the Utilitarian approach!
But, playing a Paladin is not really about the GM or player's view of real world morality. It's about their view of Paladins, Paladin archetypes, and adherence to the Paladin's Oath.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I guess if all your players and yourself enjoy cowardly Paladins, that's the Utilitarian approach!
But, playing a Paladin is not really about the GM or player's view of real world morality. It's about their view of Paladins, Paladin archetypes, and adherence to the Paladin's Oath.

I never said I wouldn't expect them to follow their oaths. But I also think the oaths can be tempered with reason and consideration of what is fun for the player.

The last paladin I played sacrificed himself holding off a pack of gnolls so that the party could escape. He might have survived himself, except that he stayed behind for one more round to make sure that the ranger's pet bear (we were all quite attached to him, particularly the ranger) made it out alive. It was kind of a stupid way to go, but it was noble, and I was ultimately satisfied with the ending of his story.

That said, if I were the DM and the player chose to let the bear die so that the paladin could live, I'm not going to fault him for that or get into an argument about whether he needs to atone. If he thinks he did something that he needs to atone for, then he can atone.

I suppose I'm fortunate in the fact that the guys I play with aren't the muderhobo type. They're not going to play a paladin of devotion and then burn down an orphanage. So it isn't something I really have to worry about. Grey areas of the code I might need to worry about, but my choice is to choose fun in those instances. I'm not willing to ruin someone's night just because I would have gone back for the bear.

 

[5ekyu]

I guess if all your players and yourself enjoy cowardly Paladins, that's the Utilitarian approach!
But, playing a Paladin is not really about the GM or player's view of real world morality. It's about their view of Paladins, Paladin archetypes, and adherence to the Paladin's Oath.

See, to me this is the thing I get rankled over with what I see as a rather antiquated or overly limited GMing approach.

To me, as GM, I see characters with faith and devotions and willingness to be part of something bigger as opportunities to spotlight those - as good things.

I do not have to run traps to expose them to onerous multi-stage tripwire moral checks in order to make those choices of faith a strong and meaningful in the game. Far from it.

Matter of fact, I can run a great campaign where that faith, that devotion, those ties to things outside that character never turn into abpaladin trap (or cleric trap or patron trap) and still have it be a major aspect of the character and the campaign.

These devotions, Faith's and ties can serve their roles in the campaign, directing and challenging events and the group and the paladins or clerics without being traps.

I dont need to, just because the character is a paladin, concoct situations where it's a no-win or complex moral quandary puzzle box for thrm.

Consider, how many threads do we see where situations like solo rogue trying to help someone escape, carrying to safety gets cornered by dragon and given the "give me the weak one and you can escape" offer?

In my opinion, it's the viewpoint of way to many GMs to treat paladins, clerics, warlocks and pretty much any character with ties as opportunities to make them regret that choice, over the unaligned warrior from the woods, that is the bigger issue.

Some of the bigger hurdles sometimes seen by GMs are overcoming the practical fear-of-GM from some of these practices players bring with them.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Paladin should listen to his drill instructor's training that jumping on a grenade is a stupid* idea. If everyone just drops to the ground, likely no one gets hurt.

The occasional deus ex machina notwithstanding.

 

[SanjMerchant]

A few of these seem to demand more information:

Definitely a broken oath:

• They break the oath for the lulz
• They break the oath for monetary gain
• They break the oath under threat to their life
• They break their code by inaction when fully capable

Almost certainly NOT a broken oath:

• They break the oath under threat to an innocent (I'm assuming you mean a lethal threat)
• They break their code by inaction while unconscious/dying
• They die.

Not sure, depends on unstated details:

• They break their code by inaction when hurt
• They break their code by inaction while under a status effect

It really, REALLY depends on the exact nature of the hurt or status effect and to what degree it prevents them from choosing and acting freely.

If, by hurt, you mean "low on hit points," then you probably have an obligation to at least try to fulfill your oath anyway, but you don't specify HP loss, so it's vague.

For status effects, it depends on what effect, if any, the status has on your ability to fulfill that particular clause of your oath, both in intent and execution. If you're oath includes "do not lie" being Charmed might be a valid excuse, but being Blinded would not. If your oath is "take a bullet for an innocent," being restrained would probably be an excuse (you literally couldn't), but Poisoned makes little difference (might cause you to botch the saving throw or skill check involved).

 

[Baron Opal II]

When someone says to me "I want to play a paladin", I hear "I want to be a legitimate hero." As the DM, I roll with that and make appropriate scenarios. All heroes are tested, but as "don't be a jerk" is a rule of the table, that includes me as well.

 

[S'mon]

See, to me this is the thing I get rankled over with what I see as a rather antiquated or overly limited GMing approach.

To me, as GM, I see characters with faith and devotions and willingness to be part of something bigger as opportunities to spotlight those - as good things.

I do not have to run traps to expose them to onerous multi-stage tripwire moral checks in order to make those choices of faith a strong and meaningful in the game.

Me too!

 

[Hussar]

Here's a thought. A soldier jumps on a bomb to save his friends. On the other side of the field, a soldier in the same situation doesn't. Did the one who jumped have a choice? Did the one who didn't jump have a choice? Consequences certainly seem irrelevant to whether they had a choice.

The first soldier, we would hold as more heroic, sure. But, is the second soldier guilty of the deaths of his fellow soldiers?