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

[S'mon]

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.

One reason this is unlikely IMCs is that I typically use a Projection-based Theory of Mind for NPCs. The villainous NPC typically assumes that other people are 'really' the same as they are - equally vile, only weaker, more hypocritical etc. So it will rarely occur to them that the Paladin will jump in the lava at their behest unless the paladin has somehow already made that clear.

Edit: Like you, I also avoid designing encounters to screw with particular PCs. A random dragon is a random dragon, I don't send a dragon to torture the Paladin while letting the Rogue off free - or vice versa.

 

[jasper]

MoonSong, … Why is it ok for Asmodeus to mess with a lowly level 1 paladin and two innocents, but not for her patron deity to intercede in the paladin's behalf in that same case…. Late that night MoonSong gets a text mess….. Stand by for big boss.

Big Boss fades. “Sorry Sorry I was binge watching Season 2 of Firefly on Netflix and had my service holding all the calls. No harm no foul. And week free of double smites on devils. See you. Soon!”

MoonSong Paladin, “ What. Did you say soon?” Paladin wakes up in a cold sweat.

 

[Oofta]

One reason this is unlikely IMCs is that I typically use a Projection-based Theory of Mind for NPCs. The villainous NPC typically assumes that other people are 'really' the same as they are - equally vile, only weaker, more hypocritical etc. So it will rarely occur to them that the Paladin will jump in the lava at their behest unless the paladin has somehow already made that clear.

Edit: Like you, I also avoid designing encounters to screw with particular PCs. A random dragon is a random dragon, I don't send a dragon to torture the Paladin while letting the Rogue off free - or vice versa.

To me it depends on the NPC and how aware they are of cultural norms and organizations. An evil warlock in a major city is going to look at the church of holier than thou as foolish weaklings that ignore the truth that can easily be exploited. If they have an idea of who the PC is or who they are associated with they are more likely to try to exploit a weakness.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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

...

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?"

Assuming a traditional paladin oath that requires defending others courageously, including the possibility of sacrificing your life...

Scenario 2: Seems fine to me.

Scenario 3: Probably not. If he had a very good reason to believe Bloggins wouldn't be able to act in time, and he didn't have an alternative option (such as tackling Bloggins instead of the grenade), he might question himself afterwards, but assuming normal grenade timing, with a split second choice like that I don't think a typical paladin is guilty of a major transgression. Now, if he did have a very good reason to believe Bloggins wouldn't be able to act in time (like we have a paladin with a really high Intelligence who has been previously presented as quick thinking), and there was no other way he could think of to save Bloggins, then we're in territory where he's likely violated his oath.

Scenario 4: Sure.

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?

I'm fine with that approach. There's a difference between 1st degree murder and failure to be sufficiently courageous, even if both might violate a particular oath, and they won't necessarily lead to the same consequences. I went into a lengthy commentary on the nature of "willing" because it was the topic of the thread, not because I think nuances of the situation need be ignored.

 

[FrogReaver]

To me it depends on the NPC and how aware they are of cultural norms and organizations. An evil warlock in a major city is going to look at the church of holier than thou as foolish weaklings that ignore the truth that can easily be exploited. If they have an idea of who the PC is or who they are associated with they are more likely to try to exploit a weakness.

Which goes back to it being the DM that's creating the lawful stupid Paladin in the first place...

 

[Maxperson]

Which goes back to it being the DM that's creating the lawful stupid Paladin in the first place...

This is flat out wrong. The DM didn't create the lawful stupid paladin. An incorrect understanding of the class on the part of many who played D&D back in the day created the lawful stupid paladin. That misperception continues to this day, as we can see in this thread.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is flat out wrong. The DM didn't create the lawful stupid paladin. An incorrect understanding of the class on the part of many who played D&D back in the day created the lawful stupid paladin. That misperception continues to this day, as we can see in this thread.

If the DM insists on pitting the practical against lawful good behavior then the DM is the one to blame for this monster we call the lawful stupid paladin

 

[Oofta]

Which goes back to it being the DM that's creating the lawful stupid Paladin in the first place...

So ... what exactly? A DM should never run intelligent NPCs intelligently? Evil NPCs need to always be politically correct so as not to violate a paladin's safe zone?

Because personally if a DM presents an NPC as an evil SOB, that's how I want them to be run.

 

[Maxperson]

If the DM insists on pitting the practical against lawful good behavior then the DM is the one to blame for this monster we call the lawful stupid paladin

No. The blame lands entirely on whoever thinks lawful stupid is the way the class should be played, regardless of whether that's the player, the DM or both.

If the DM is the only one who thinks lawful stupid is proper and he punishes the player with it, he's in the wrong.

If the player is the only one who thinks lawful stupid is proper and he suicides during a situation the DM set up, the player is in the wrong.

If they both think it's proper, blame can fall in either direction or both, depending on the situation.

 

[Maxperson]

So ... what exactly? A DM should never run intelligent NPCs intelligently? Evil NPCs need to always be politically correct so as not to violate a paladin's safe zone?

Because personally if a DM presents an NPC as an evil SOB, that's how I want them to be run.

Paladinically correct I guess.