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

[Celebrim]

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

You know, EnWorld has a prohibition against arguing with people over religion, so I'm just going to drop back out of this.

 

[FrogReaver]

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'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 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.

But if the goal was an intelligent villain that’s guaranteed to defeat said paladin in combat then why not just attack the paladin directly. Wouldn’t that be the intelligent thing to do?

 

[Maxperson]

You know, EnWorld has a prohibition against arguing with people over religion, so I'm just going to drop back out of this.

Er. What religion? There's no religion in this.

 

[Maxperson]

But if the goal was an intelligent villain that’s guaranteed to defeat said paladin in combat then why not just attack the paladin directly. Wouldn’t that be the intelligent thing to do?

Why would that be the intelligent thing to do? Why engage in any risk when there is a certain no risk situation where the villain lives and the paladin dies? The goal of a dumb villain, like on ogre chief might be to beat the paladin in combat. A smart villain isn't going to do that, though.

 

[MoonSong]

Why would that be the intelligent thing to do? Why engage in any risk when there is a certain no risk situation where the villain lives and the paladin dies? The goal of a dumb villain, like on ogre chief might be to beat the paladin in combat. A smart villain isn't going to do that, though.

Well, if you have to have a villain with smarts, resources, armies and also way more levels than the party.... more power to you. However I personally can't see how an enemy so powerful and devious makes for a fun campaign. This is still meant to be a fun game you know...

 

[Fanaelialae]

Well, if you have to have a villain with smarts, resources, armies and also way more levels than the party.... more power to you. However I personally can't see how an enemy so powerful and devious makes for a fun campaign. This is still meant to be a fun game you know...

Wait, what?

The example provided was a villain with a knife to an innocent child's throat. The villain needs:
1) a knife or similar implement
2) an innocent child
3) sufficient intelligence to discern that the paladin is likely to fall for such an approach

Everything else you mentioned is superfluous to this scenario.

 

[5ekyu]

Wait, what?

The example provided was a villain with a knife to an innocent child's throat. The villain needs:
1) a knife or similar implement
2) an innocent child
3) sufficient intelligence to discern that the paladin is likely to fall for such an approach

Everything else you mentioned is superfluous to this scenario.

Well, there is something else implied here that is needed - that in this world it is true and known that whatever forces guide the Paladino's oath require such a sacrifice. That going after the villain risking the girl's life or just not suididing is in fact a fall from grace choice. Or that this "fall" will be automatic enough to matter as opposed to it coming after the mission is over.

Etc etc etc.

I think however it's a self-correcting issue because if the GM does not blindside the player, tells them all this and how easy it is for anybody to pull it off... wont be no paladin PCs.

 

[Oofta]

Well, there is something else implied here that is needed - that in this world it is true and known that whatever forces guide the Paladino's oath require such a sacrifice. That going after the villain risking the girl's life or just not suididing is in fact a fall from grace choice. Or that this "fall" will be automatic enough to matter as opposed to it coming after the mission is over.

Etc etc etc.

I think however it's a self-correcting issue because if the GM does not blindside the player, tells them all this and how easy it is for anybody to pull it off... wont be no paladin PCs.

The one thing does not follow the other. I don't see anybody telling a player their paladin has to be perfect and that there will be situations where there is no perfect solution.

DMs are either requiring paladins to be perfect but then will always have a "good" option or DMs will not always supply a "good" option for every situation but will also not expect perfection.

On a related note, I wouldn't go out of my way to set up a no win situation. Unlike LFR, I wouldn't plan for an encounter where you have to pick between equally evil fiends. But that doesn't mean that the paladin can save everyone. If the situation arises that it makes sense for the bad guy to threaten an innocent in order to escape they will.

 

[5ekyu]

The one thing does not follow the other. I don't see anybody telling a player their paladin has to be perfect and that there will be situations where there is no perfect solution.

DMs are either requiring paladins to be perfect but then will always have a "good" option or DMs will not always supply a "good" option for every situation but will also not expect perfection.

On a related note, I wouldn't go out of my way to set up a no win situation. Unlike LFR, I wouldn't plan for an encounter where you have to pick between equally evil fiends. But that doesn't mean that the paladin can save everyone. If the situation arises that it makes sense for the bad guy to threaten an innocent in order to escape they will.

So then the dagger-girl-suicide to get the paadin to off themselves is not applicable at all?

 

[Oofta]

So then the dagger-girl-suicide to get the paadin to off themselves is not applicable at all?

If the bad guy kills an innocent child and the only way the paladin could stop it would be to commit suicide, that is not on the paladin. Only the bad guy is responsible for the child's death. No one can save everyone.

If you think that would be violating the paladin's oath then don't run that scenario. I just think that's running kiddie cartoon bad guys or giving your player's PCs invulnerable plot armor.