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

[Son of the Serpent]

A paladin may not be in his grave. Its still his grave. Derp.

 

[FrogReaver]

Except im not. Ive been 100% consistant since the beginning. Just took a lot of angles that were not expected. If you look back and re read the post i never said the corpse was a paladin. You only ridiculously asserted that i did.

Since you agree that neither his corpse nor his headstone is the Paladin then how the heck do you get that a Paladin's oath can be broken by someone being murdered near either? No one was murdered near the Paladin. There was no murder in his presence he could have prevented. So how's that oath getting broken?

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I didnt say the oath WOULD be broken. I said COULD (or something of that nature. I can always repost another of my posts to successfully show again how perfectly consistant this is if you wish. Im pretty good at not contradicting myself.) After all, is this hypothetical paladin not in somd capacity present at his grave? Thats funny. I dont think that was ever established. Lots of ways he could be. In many capacities. Didnt i mention that it really depends on a few things? I made that list quite carefully in my very first post. It justifies everything ive said. And how it all can potentially (keyword there) intersect with law.

Read the list. Really actually read it. I know ive been acting kinda silly but that list has a strong influence on everything ive said and it does affect a great many things involving the RAW due to how it affects qualifying for anything involving the RAW requirements.

Could perhaps there be a deity that utilizes paladins after fleshly death? Oh yeah. a lot of deities do that. And many religions to these deities might have oaths that specify service for eternity.

Oh yes. I thought this all through at the beginning. Havent slipped around at all. This is exactly what my position has been from the befinning and there has been no foot shifting. No moving of the goal posts. In essense the first post covers it all. Just not in expanded form. Look good and hard at that first post. Ive followed it perfectly. Slippery. Wd40. Hah.

Darn it now i sound like a bond villain just because of how perfectly it all intersects from angles that to other people would probably seem pretty oblique. Ah. But the proof is in the pudding. The perfect consistancy. Mmmmm pudding consistancy.

 

[FrogReaver]

I didnt say the oath WOULD be broken. I said COULD (or something of that nature. I can always repost another of my posts to successfully show again how perfectly consistant this is if you wish. Im pretty good at not contradicting myself.) After all, is this hypothetical paladin not in somd capacity present at his grave?

Obviously if you brought up a the Paladin's grave then the implicit concept you were conveying is that the Paladin was dead. So no. This Paladin is not in some capacity present at his grave. All that's left of him is a corpse. He's no longer here.

Thats funny. I dont think that was ever established.

Of course it was established! Things don't have to be explicit to be established.

Lots of ways he could be. In many capacities. Didnt i mention that it really depends on a few things? I made that list quite carefully in my very first post. It justifies everything ive said. And how it all can potentially (keyword there) intersect with law.

[/QUOTE]

You specifically said it depended on his oath. It does not. There is no Paladin here, only a corpse and a headstone. There is no one present that can break an oath.

Read the list. Really actually read it. I know ive been acting kinda silly but that list has a strong influence on everything ive said and it does affect a great many things involving the RAW due to how it affects qualifying for anything involving the RAW requirements.

No reason to,. Your credibility is shot till ya move past this whole dead paladin breaking his oath stuff.

Could perhaps there be a deity that utilizes paladins after fleshly death? Oh yeah. a lot of deities do that. And many religions to these deities might have oaths that specify service for eternity.

In which case the Paladin isn't present at his grave but is instead being used by his deity doing something in the afterlife.

Oh yes. I thought this all through at the beginning. Havent slipped around at all. This is exactly what my position has been from the befinning and there has been no foot shifting. No moving of the goal posts. In essense the first post covers it all. Just not in expanded form. Look good and hard at that first post. Ive followed it perfectly. Slippery. Wd40. Hah.

Now you are turning into pretzel.

Darn it now i sound like a bond villain just because of how perfectly it all intersects from angles that to other people would probably seem pretty oblique. Ah. But the proof is in the pudding. The perfect consistancy. Mmmmm pudding consistancy.

...Consistently using terrible examples that make no sense and doubling down on them

 

[Son of the Serpent]

"Obviously if you brought up a the Paladin's grave then the implicit concept you were conveying is that the Paladin was dead. So no. This Paladin is not in some capacity present at his grave. All that's left of him is a corpse. He's no longer here."

Yup. Dead paladins may exist though. As opposed to hoing poof.

"Of course it was established! Things don't have to be explicit to be established."

It wasnt established that he wasnt there though. At all.

"You specifically said it depended on his oath. It does not. There is no Paladin here, only a corpse and a headstone. There is no one present that can break an oath."

The oath is but only one of the things it depends on. All cases depend on the potentially the whole list i mentioned. I disnt say it only depended on the oath. See the list for further clarification.

"No reason to,. Your credibility is shot till ya move past this whole dead paladin breaking his oath stuff."

Uh no. Seems to bother you though. But nope. Dead in d&d can be very like dead irl and also can be very different. The example was given because it was obviously extreme. Its still correct. Sorry.

"In which case the Paladin isn't present at his grave but is instead being used by his deity doing something in the afterlife."

Thats an assumption. Really up in the air. Who knows where their deity wants the paladin to be posted?

"Now you are turning into pretzel."

If you say so.

"...Consistently using terrible examples that make no sense and doubling down on them"

Eh. Dont know about that. I dont see it that way.

 

[Fanaelialae]

There's still a million ways for your Machivellian villain to challenge a non-pragmatic lawful good paladin. Why do you insist on leaving open for your villain the one option that makes non-pragmatic lawful good paladin's unplayable?



Then set up the scenario in such a way as there was a smarter weakness for the Machivellian villain to exploit than the non-pragmatic lawful good nature of the paladin. You are in full control of both the Villain and the setting. You have all the power you need to make that happen.



Such a Villain works anywhere. You have 1 million+ options to challenge players with and the means to make any of those options actually be the most intelligent and best option the villain could have chosen. It's not that the Villain can't choose to do that, it's that you as the DM will never have him make that choice and will dictate the scenario in such a way that there is a more sensible option.

I never said you couldn't cater to the characters at the table with your villains. I was specifically addressing your claim that it was not realistic to use Machiavellian (and similar) villains (it's literally the opening statement of my post that you quoted).

That said, while you can conform your villains to the PCs, that doesn't necessarily jive with all DMing styles (ie, the world independent of the PCs). Heck, I can imagine a campaign with a pre-established Machiavellian villain, in which a new PC is brought into the group who is lawful stupid. Should the DM alter or remove the villain to cater to the new character? The obvious solution is to talk to the player, but you may not even realize that there is an issue at first. It's not likely that the player is going to introduce his character as, "Hi, I'm Steve. I'm going to be playing a lawful stupid paladin. So let's have fun, and remember rogue-player; I've got my eye on you!"

 

[Oofta]

There's still a million ways for your Machivellian villain to challenge a non-pragmatic lawful good paladin. Why do you insist on leaving open for your villain the one option that makes non-pragmatic lawful good paladin's unplayable?



Then set up the scenario in such a way as there was a smarter weakness for the Machivellian villain to exploit than the non-pragmatic lawful good nature of the paladin. You are in full control of both the Villain and the setting. You have all the power you need to make that happen.



Such a Villain works anywhere. You have 1 million+ options to challenge players with and the means to make any of those options actually be the most intelligent and best option the villain could have chosen. It's not that the Villain can't choose to do that, it's that you as the DM will never have him make that choice and will dictate the scenario in such a way that there is a more sensible option.

I don't run my villains that way. Much like my player with the kleptomaniac/stupid rogue if you play a never-ever-compromise-death-before-dishonor-sacrifice-yourself-even-if-there-is-virtually-no-chance-to-succeed paladin (abbreviated as lawful stupid paladin), the world and NPCs respond in what I think is the most logical manner.

I don't want to fix the lawful stupid paladin by having stupid evil villains.

There's a common "don't tell me the odds" trope that works on TV because the characters have invulnerable plot armor. PCs have soft plot armor in my campaigns (I try to give them an out) but if they push it they will find it's not invulnerable plot armor. Doesn't matter if they're a paladin or a kleptomaniac rogue who refuses to let go of the chest.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't run my villains that way. Much like my player with the kleptomaniac/stupid rogue if you play a never-ever-compromise-death-before-dishonor-sacrifice-yourself-even-if-there-is-virtually-no-chance-to-succeed paladin (abbreviated as lawful stupid paladin), the world and NPCs respond in what I think is the most logical manner.

I don't want to fix the lawful stupid paladin by having stupid evil villains.

There's a common "don't tell me the odds" trope that works on TV because the characters have invulnerable plot armor. PCs have soft plot armor in my campaigns (I try to give them an out) but if they push it they will find it's not invulnerable plot armor. Doesn't matter if they're a paladin or a kleptomaniac rogue who refuses to let go of the chest.

This. And the player doesn't have a right to expect that the DM to change things so that he can play a lawful stupid paladin.

 

[Celebrim]

Perhaps they can't, or perhaps it's too risky. Why would the villain risk his life when all he has to do is threating little Susie.

If the villain thinks that risking his life over little Susie is too risky, can we make a reasonable claim that the Paladin shouldn't?

You've just exactly outlined why this isn't suicidal to resist for the Paladin in exactly the logical terms you've outlined. The villain values his life over little Susie, so logically he's not going to risk it. The Paladin doesn't value his life over that of little Susie. So logically, he will. And if both individuals act according to the dictates of their alignment, the Paladin has at least a shot at rescuing little Susie and perhaps not dying himself.

 

[Maxperson]

If the villain thinks that risking his life over little Susie is too risky, can we make a reasonable claim that the Paladin shouldn't?

No. This isn't about risk for a paladin. It's about certain death. Certain for either him or Susie. Lawful stupid says the paladin should kill himself if the bad guy threatens to cut Susie's throat if he doesn't. Lawful stupid says that the paladin should attack a dragon that will kill him, just so that he can die uselessly along side an NPC, risking the entire world in the process.

You've just exactly outlined why this isn't suicidal to resist for the Paladin in exactly the logical terms you've outlined.

You're confused about the two scenarios floating around the thread.

#1: An unbeatable dragon is going to kill an NPC and eat him. The dragon says the paladin can live to save the world if he gives up the NPC he is carrying. The only choice the paladin has is to die uselessly and the NPC gets eaten anyway, or live and try to save the world. It's suicide to resist.

#2: Because villains know that paladins will suicide easily due to lawful stupid, they would simply threaten to kill an innocent if the paladin doesn't off himself. The paladin has no chance to stop little Susie from dying. The villain has the knife(or whatever) to her little 1 hit point throat and she is dead if he so much as twitches. While the paladin might be able to beat the villain, Susie will die before he can and that would cause a fall from grace. The only way to save her is to kill himself.

The villain values his life over little Susie, so logically he's not going to risk it. The Paladin doesn't value his life over that of little Susie. So logically, he will. And if both individuals act according to the dictates of their alignment, the Paladin has at least a shot at rescuing little Susie and perhaps not dying himself.

The paladin has no shot. He knows it. And more importantly, the lawful stupid you guys say is inherent in paladins means that the villain knows it. The villain knows the paladin will not act against him, because little Susie's corpse will be the result. The villain also knows that if he gives an ultimatum that he's going to kill little Susie in 30 seconds if the paladin is still alive, means that the paladin has to lawful stupid himself to death to keep her alive. Lawful stupid = no risk to the villain, and certain death for the paladin.

It's lawful..........stupid.