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

[FrogReaver]

Not 100% convinced it was evil but it certainly isn’t good. But it sure as heck isn’t willing.

There’s a reason we distinguish between volunteers and conscripts.

If it’s not knowing and not evil then it doesn’t fit the sidebar max and I were having - which was the point of my question to him

 

[Maxperson]

So you believe that's an evil act that was knowing but not willing?

Absolutely. He was forced to capitulate.

 

[Maxperson]

If it’s not knowing and not evil then it doesn’t fit the sidebar max and I were having - which was the point of my question to him

For the record, I don't see how handing an NPC you are helping over to a dragon is anything but evil. The paladin had no real choice, but that coercion doesn't make the act non-evil.

 

[FrogReaver]

Absolutely. He was forced to capitulate.

I'm a bit at a loss - I thought that your belief was that the Paladin in such a situation didn't commit an evil act - but now it seems you are saying he did?

 

[Maxperson]

I'm a bit at a loss - I thought that your belief was that the Paladin in such a situation didn't commit an evil act - but now it seems you are saying he did?

No. My position from the very beginning has been that he was unwilling, so the loss of paladinhood is off the table. It was an oath violation, but it was an unwilling oath violation.

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit, @FrogReaver, that's always been my position as well. It's pretty hard to argue that handing over a helpless victim to a dragon is anything other than an evil act. But, since the paladin had no choice in the matter, it wasn't a willing evil act - thus the paladin will likely have to atone in some fashion, but, he wouldn't lose oath status the way he would with a willing evil act.

 

[5ekyu]

I have to admit, @FrogReaver, that's always been my position as well. It's pretty hard to argue that handing over a helpless victim to a dragon is anything other than an evil act. But, since the paladin had no choice in the matter, it wasn't a willing evil act - thus the paladin will likely have to atone in some fashion, but, he wouldn't lose oath status the way he would with a willing evil act.

If you qualify this paladin vs dragon as an evil act, what would have been a good one, given the paladin had no choice? What were the neutral choices and the good choices?

To me, going and getting an innocent to hand over to a dragon - sure evil.

Trying and failing to save an innocent and being given only chouces presented- hand over or risk die etc... not evil.

 

[Maxperson]

If you qualify this paladin vs dragon as an evil act, what would have been a good one, given the paladin had no choice? What were the neutral choices and the good choices?

To me, going and getting an innocent to hand over to a dragon - sure evil.

Trying and failing to save an innocent and being given only chouces presented- hand over or risk die etc... not evil.

I don't think there were any. Suicide, especially when the world is on the line is also an evil act. Also, if the paladin fought the dragon he would be lying to himself if he thought he was trying to save the innocent. If failure is 100% guaranteed, and it was, then the paladin resisting is not trying to save anyone. He's just decided to kill himself along with the NPC. You can only try and save the NPC if there is a chance of success. As an example, if you take a running leap into the ocean surf, there's no stretch of the imagination that can happen that would turn that into a real attempt of you trying to jump over the ocean.

Edit: for the 100% failure and tries to succeed. If you truly believe that you can succeed, then I think it would count as a try. With the dragon if the paladin thought he had a chance, then resistance would be a good attempt to save the NPC. However, he know there was 0 chance, so he could not make that attempt.

 

[Hussar]

If you qualify this paladin vs dragon as an evil act, what would have been a good one, given the paladin had no choice? What were the neutral choices and the good choices?

To me, going and getting an innocent to hand over to a dragon - sure evil.

Trying and failing to save an innocent and being given only chouces presented- hand over or risk die etc... not evil.

Yeah, I would go with @Maxperson with this. There were no "good" choices. I'd have to argue for a Oath of Ancients paladin at the very least, suicidal last stands that accomplish nothing are very much not in keeping with his oath of "preserve your light". There were nothing but evil choices, but, because of duress from the dragon, it doesn't count as a "willing" evil act.

Now, if paladin hands the dragon the NPC for a future favor? Oh, yeah, fighter time.

 

[5ekyu]

Yeah, I would go with @Maxperson with this. There were no "good" choices. I'd have to argue for a Oath of Ancients paladin at the very least, suicidal last stands that accomplish nothing are very much not in keeping with his oath of "preserve your light". There were nothing but evil choices, but, because of duress from the dragon, it doesn't count as a "willing" evil act.

Now, if paladin hands the dragon the NPC for a future favor? Oh, yeah, fighter time.

This is where we differ then.

Trying to do good and failing is not evil to me.

Trying to save the one guy while still being able to try and save the world and failing is not evil, it's just failing. "Got caught by dragon, guy died in spite of my efforts, could only save me..." not evil.

Many failures come down to a decision to stop, that it's no longer worth continuing. To judge, realizing you have failed, that there is no good way out and doing what you need to minimize the consequences as evil - when what you do does no additional harm - is not evil.

The action the paladin took, even in failure, turned "two dead" into "one dead" and there wasnt a better option within reason. Last I checked, saving some but not all was not listed as evil.

We differ perhaps on this.