FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Or those that you attribute wanting lawful stupid paladins simply believe that the responsibility lies on the DM to create a campaign where a Paladin's Oath won't be a constant undue burden.
D&D 5E Paladin oath. What constitutes willingly breaking your oath/code?
- Thread starter MoonSong
- Start date
Or those that you attribute wanting lawful stupid paladins simply believe that the responsibility lies on the DM to create a campaign where a Paladin's Oath won't be a constant undue burden.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
So avoid the paladin's primary RP device. Nice. Better to just understand that it doesn't require stupidity.
ccs
41st lv DM
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
In such campaigns where the DM challenges good with practical solutions sure. But the point I'm getting at is that long as the DM is on board with not challenging your lawful goodness with non-good practical solutions then you can't be what get's referred to as lawful stupid.
As such my contention is that the lawful stupid criticism is just as much a criticism on the DM's of those paladins as it is on those paladins itself.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
The major problem with this is that we either cannot properly play intelligent villains, or we cannot use them at all. An intelligent villain that knows about lawful stupid paladins will use that against them. They would quickly cause a paladin extinction as they force all paladins to suicide.
Of course, in no edition has lawful stupid been mandated as part of the class. The lawful stupid "requirement" is a misperception on the part of some who played the class.
A DM who plays intelligent villains properly is not deserving of your criticism. If you build lawful stupid into your paladins, villains are going to kill them all with it.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
A DM that doesn't put the table's happiness over how smart his villians appear doesn't deserve to play. He should be thrown in the deepest darkest dungeon to be tortured daily until a Paladin can save him.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I think the players would be quite happy not to be forced to be lawful stupid when the paladin class doesn't require it.
FireLance
Legend
Sigh. For years I've successfully avoided responding to anything I read on ENWorld. It is perhaps appropriate that it was a thread (or two) on paladin oaths that made me decide to break my silence.
First of all, to address the question, I reject simplistic, binary definitions of willingness. Between breaking an oath on a whim, for no discernable reason whatsoever, and being physically incapable of doing what an oath demands due to being physically restrained or unconscious, I see a whole gamut of possibilities, including deception, coercion and duress, judgement calls on which action would result in the greatest good or the least harm, etc. In the same vein, I see an entire range of outcomes and conssquences beyond loss of class abilities or becoming an oathsworn paladin and nothing at all, business as usual, move along, nothing to see here.
That said, I would rely on three principles to navigate this mess of options.
My first principle is that of Justice. Essentially, this means that actions and choices have consequences, and the consequences should be appropriate to the choice or action. I would apply different consequences to the same choice made between the same two options depending on how much freedom the paladin had - whether he was offered any inducement, whether any threats were made, and so on.
My second principle is that of Mercy. This principle recognizes that paladins are fallible and are not expected to constantly live up to an impossible standard. They will make mistakes, and when these happen, they should be setbacks, not game-enders. To me, this means that unless the player deliberately and consciously sets out to do so, there should be no permanent loss or change of class abilities.
My third principle is that of Collaboration. Philosophical arguments are well and good, but at the end of the day, we are playing a game. Whether there are only roleplaying consequences for a paladin character's actions, e.g. dreams, atonement (a period of fasting, extra time spent in prayer, etc. and not just the spell), or even playing the character as if he had a new Bond or Flaw, or there are mechanical implications for the character, this should be acceptable for both the DM and the player. This means that different solutions will exist for different people and different pairs of people.
So, to me, the question is irrelevant. What we should ask is not whether the paladin broke his oath willingly, but how willingly did he break his oath. And then we should follow up with the more important question of what happens next?
First of all, to address the question, I reject simplistic, binary definitions of willingness. Between breaking an oath on a whim, for no discernable reason whatsoever, and being physically incapable of doing what an oath demands due to being physically restrained or unconscious, I see a whole gamut of possibilities, including deception, coercion and duress, judgement calls on which action would result in the greatest good or the least harm, etc. In the same vein, I see an entire range of outcomes and conssquences beyond loss of class abilities or becoming an oathsworn paladin and nothing at all, business as usual, move along, nothing to see here.
That said, I would rely on three principles to navigate this mess of options.
My first principle is that of Justice. Essentially, this means that actions and choices have consequences, and the consequences should be appropriate to the choice or action. I would apply different consequences to the same choice made between the same two options depending on how much freedom the paladin had - whether he was offered any inducement, whether any threats were made, and so on.
My second principle is that of Mercy. This principle recognizes that paladins are fallible and are not expected to constantly live up to an impossible standard. They will make mistakes, and when these happen, they should be setbacks, not game-enders. To me, this means that unless the player deliberately and consciously sets out to do so, there should be no permanent loss or change of class abilities.
My third principle is that of Collaboration. Philosophical arguments are well and good, but at the end of the day, we are playing a game. Whether there are only roleplaying consequences for a paladin character's actions, e.g. dreams, atonement (a period of fasting, extra time spent in prayer, etc. and not just the spell), or even playing the character as if he had a new Bond or Flaw, or there are mechanical implications for the character, this should be acceptable for both the DM and the player. This means that different solutions will exist for different people and different pairs of people.
So, to me, the question is irrelevant. What we should ask is not whether the paladin broke his oath willingly, but how willingly did he break his oath. And then we should follow up with the more important question of what happens next?
Hussar
Legend
Y'know, I think this grenade example has legs, so, I'm going to run with it for a bit.
So, here's the situation - 1 paladin and 7 soldiers are standing in a circle.
Scenario 1 - Paladin yells, "Grenade" and jumps on the grenade. The other 7 are saved. Paladin dies heroically.
Scenario 2 - Paladin yells, "Get down!" and everyone drops flat. Grenade explodes and no one is harmed. Did the paladin violate his oath?
Scenario 3 - Paladin yells, "Get down!" and everyone except for Bloggins, who's always a bit slow, gets down while Bloggins dies. Did the paladin violate his oath?
Scenario 4 - Paladin yells, "Grenade" and jumps on the grenade. The other 7 drop to the ground as they have been trained to do and the paladin knows that they should, and would not have died regardless of what the paladin did. Is the paladin still a hero?
It's all very well and good to talk about this or that philosophical point, but, at some point, we can't really know. Like @FireLance so rightly points out, a far better question is "how willingly did he break the oath and what happens next?"
When I DM I do my best to create a living, breathing world. I think out logical organizations, allies, possible allies and protagonists. I try to run NPCs as individuals and motivations as appropriate.
I don't design encounters with specific PCs in mind, I design encounters and base NPC reactions on their personality, goals and current situation. So while I try to avoid no-win choose-between-two-evils scenarios, if the BBEG is cornered by a paladin next to a pit of lava and they can grab an innocent child as a hostage they will. They may well give the paladin the choice of jumping in the lava themselves or throwing the child in. Because the BBEG is evil and will exploit any weakness they can.
This kind of situation almost never comes up, but it wouldn't matter if the PC was a paladin or the barbarian. If the BBEG thought they could get away using this tactic, they would. I would not expect any PC to throw themselves in the lava. I would not punish any PC for not committing suicide. I would not expect the paladin to play lawful stupid.
Similar Threads
