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

[The Crimson Binome]

When it comes to breaking an oath under threat to an innocent, it really depends on whether or not your oath involves defending innocents to begin with. If your choice is between two different ways of breaking your oath, then that's not much of a choice.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

For me "willingly" simply means you have free will. You can choose. Ie, you are not under some form of mental domination whereby the DM takes control of the character.

Is the player choosing the PCs actions without mechanical (ie, spell or other actual game effect) compulsion? If yes, then they are choosing "willingly".

Choosing between options, one of which involves your death--or literally any consequence--is still a choice.

I don't believe that being reluctant or taking the least bad of a set of bad options counts as "unwilling".

"I had no choice" doesn't hold any more water for me in a game than it does in real life. It's just like Sirius Black said to Peter Pettigrew:

'"THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED!” roared Black. “DIED RATHER THAN BETRAY YOUR FRIENDS, AS WE WOULD HAVE DONE FOR YOU!”'

Any paladin oath that isn't worth dying for isn't worth being a paladin for.

Obviously, this is a pretty big point that players and DMs should hash out if it's going to apply in their campaign.

 

[DammitVictor]

To me, the difference between failure and oathbreaking is whether or not the Paladin's action could have reasonably altered the outcome-- a Paladin is obligated to lay down his life to advance his cause, and prohibited from throwing his life away for nothing.

Also... I don't believe that inaction from cowardice can make a Paladin Fall-- at least, not completely. If cowardice causes a Paladin to sell out the forces of Good, to betray the innocent and his comrades, that is cause to Fall.

 

[5ekyu]

the more common problem is paladin who put their party at risk because they don’t want to break their oath.

Yes and this is sometimes aided and abetted by a GM or social contract that says "you cannot just tell Bob's PC to go away." which puts the party de-facto hostage to that player's choice.

In a campaign where some of the recent "what it takes to be a paladin" were in- play, I cannot see hardly any group at all like a typical "adventuring troupe" agreeing to accept a paladin in the group.

But then I look at the more traditional devotion paladin listed above...

"Oath of Devotion / White Knight

• Honesty. Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
• Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
• Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.
• Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.
• Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you."

It seems to me that these all have a degree of choice and selectivity to them...
Dont give your word and you cannot break it... caution is ok... temper with wisdom... as much good "as possible"... cause the lesdt amount of harm... obey just authority... protect those entrusted to you...

These each allow more than a little bit of a need to opt-in for each circumstance or at least ways to opt out without breach.

So a lot of these extremes of " inaction" triggers failure seem even to the white knight seem at odds with this.

For me, willingly included knowingly. Before the situation and before the deed both player and GM will be up-front znd agreed thst this is a intentional breach of oath.

The character has lots of tons of more experience with the oaths and teachings than the three to four vagely worded bullet points. At least figure they got the whole power point presentation, not just the one summary slide, right?

So, as a GM, I make sure before and during, not just after the deed, that it's a willing breach.

As a player, if it seemed even close to a "moral question of oath or religion" I have no qualms about saying "what do my teachings tell me is the right thing to do here and specifically are there any wrong or breach causing ones on the table?"

If the GM cannot provide good or even neutral guidance from your teachings and only negative ones, your problem is not with the oath.

 

[ccs]

Yes---------They break the oath for the lulz
Yes---------They break the oath for monetary gain
Yes---------They break the oath under threat to their life
Maybe-----They break the oath under threat to an innocent
Yes---------They break their code by inaction when fully capable
Yes---------They break their code by inaction when hurt
Prob not---They break their code by inaction while under a status effect
No---------They break their code by inaction while unconscious/dying
No---------They die

 

[Hussar]

Wow. Call me old school, but for me willingly breaking an oath is to willingly do something you said you would or wouldn't do in your oath.

I know, mind blown.

Well, I think the question becomes, how do we define "willingly"?

The example that started this thread was an adult dragon vs a lone 7th level paladin. The dragon made demands of the paladin and the paladin accepted since he had (arguably) no choice - do it or die. Is that a willing violation of an oath or not?

For me, it very much depends on the flavor of the paladin, number one. But, also, since it's coerced with no chance of the paladin being able to resist the dragon, I also do not think it's willing.

Obviously opinions vary.

 

[ccs]

The oaths are designed to be impossible: You either fall or die trying to uphold them.

That is the narrative through line of the paladin character arch. What makes a paladin a paladin.

It is not impossible to uphold any of these oaths. Too many people simply won't.

Hell, I have a LG 1/2ling Barbarian who, over 9 lvs of play, routinely upheld every tenant of Devotion, Ancients, Vengeance, & Crown.
Except for "By any means necessary". Because she's a genuinely GOOD person & "By any means..." would certainly be at odds with that.
Doing this wasn't hard. Whenever presented a choice of approaches I simply chose whatever the "good" option was. Didn't matter if I was fighting monsters, dealing with NPCs, RPing amongst the party, or trekking through jungles/deserts.
And she remained LG, returning home both alive & wealthy.

Yet most players who write "Paladin" on their sheet can't manage even 1 oath.
Not even when they get to cop out & play non-LG (or worse, evil) & have most of the penalties for violating those oaths &/or their alignment scrubbed out of the system.

 

[Hussar]

So, this one reminded me of something, like you might see in a chambara flick - the samurai (paladin, whatever), ends up caught between contradictory oaths with no way to salvage his honor (except seppuku, of course, but Paladins don't generally have that option).
/snip

And yet, even in thread, we're seeing @Sword of Spirit saying that the paladin should commit suicide. Even when that suicide will gain nothing and is in direct contravention of some of the paladin's oaths, we're still expected to play paladins as Lawful Stupid.

Does make me want to play an evil character in other poeple's games. Take hostages and force paladins to commit suicide to save the hostage. After all, "YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED". You want to save that NPC? Then fall on your sword. Next paladin.

Wonder how much xp that would be worth? After all, I'm killing/defeating enemies. Wow, I could rack up thousands and thousands of xp with a single hostage. Go from 1st level to 20th in a day. Cool.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Sorry, misread.

 

[S'mon]

Wow. Call me old school, but for me willingly breaking an oath is to willingly do something you said you would or wouldn't do in your oath.

I know, mind blown.

Yes. So a status effect that mind-compels or physically prevents you fulfilling your oath means you're not willingly breaking it. Likewise if too hurt, dying or dead, to physically comply.