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

[Maxperson]

In that sort of situation, the assailant is the one choosing and perpetrating the crime. The victim has (inconsequential) choices, but none of those choices have any impact on that. Her available choices, such as they are, are more akin to a paladin inconsequential choice of whether to curse a dragon or sing to it while being consumed, than they are to a paladin choosing to step aside and let a dragon eat an innocent person. The latter scenario would be more like the potential victim telling the assailant he could murder her child if he promised not to victimize her.

This is identical to the situation with the dragon. The victim(paladin) has the same(inconsequential) choices that have no impact. Like the woman, he has the choice to resist and die, or capitulate under duress. If she is not willing, he is not willing. If he is willing, she is also willing.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

For example, Asmodeus has decided to pick on a poor level 1 paladin. This paladin's oath includes defending the innocent and preventing them from coming to harm. Asmodeus presents the paladin with a devil's choice. He has two children captive, both innocent. If the paladin chooses one child to eternally torment, Asmodeus will let the other child as well as the paladin go free. On the other hand, if the next act of the paladin is not to pick a child for Asmodeus to torment, he will torment both children and the paladin for eternity.

It is a no-win situation. Every possible choice the paladin can make involves failure to uphold his oaths. Even if he does nothing, he'll eventually pass out from fatigue and that will constitute an act of non-choice wherein he fails.

Firstly, for purposes of meaningful discussion the GIVEN parameters are that those ARE the only options. We're effectively excluding the possibility of some other choice being available and meaningful.

That said, this isn't being presented with a choice of upholding your oath or not - it is being quite effectively prevented from making an oath-relevant choice at all. The no-win scenario was not arrived at because of the paladin's failures - it was arrived at because of the machinations of Asmodeus. The fact that the paladin then BEGINS in a no-win position is not a failure to uphold their oath. There are not always going to be pathways of sequential choices that will lead to success. You can make every unshakably correct decision and still find that the end result is failure. It is likewise possible to make bad decisions at every turn for all the wrong reasons and yet still succeed.

When choices that will lead to any measure of "success" are deliberately and skillfully being excluded by a devil who only wants to engineer your failure anyway, a "choice" that ends in failure is not the result of failing to uphold your oath. It is a result of even the best choice (or the least UNdesirable choice) having been forced - outside your ability to influence the outcome - to nonetheless result in an unwanted outcome. That reduces the "choice" to only selecting an action that will lead to the least death/hardship/evil, not actual success. The fact that neither outcome is a desirable one or equates in any way to success doesn't mean it's YOUR failure to uphold your oath that reduced your choices to degrees of failure.

It's not failure to uphold the oath. The upholding of the oath was rendered moot. Did the paladin defend the innocent? He had no opportunity to do so. The children were BEYOND his ability to defend from the start. Asmodeus holds all the cards because that was the given parameters. Did the paladin prevent them from coming to harm? Unless he was in a position to know and then prevent their captivity in the first place he had no opportunity to affect that. Unless there are at that point other options open to the paladin in the wake of being given Sophie's Choice (and by definition for this scenario there aren't), picking one to live over letting both die/face eternal torment is a no-brainer. You pick one to live.

But what about the possibility of other choices than those Asmodeus gives? It's still not just a matter of having ANY other option to take. The paladin has to see that an option exists, recognize it, and be able to take it, beyond being merely willing to take it. Not seeing it, or not being able to take it for any number of reasons is not failing to uphold your oath. Failure in general is NOT the same as a failure of NOT upholding an oath. Upholding your oath doesn't mean you MUST succeed in your goals, ALWAYS. It only means you always try to succeed in the best way you are able. I've yet to see an oath that actually says a paladin must sacrifice themselves to their oaths without batting an eyelash, even if doing so won't result in success. Anyone that has inflicted such a dumb oath on a foolishly willing player gets no consideration from me.

It's arguable that not choosing would be a violation, since he did have the capacity to protect one innocent by choosing (albeit at the cost of damning another).

There was an episode of ST: Next Generation that I recall that I feel fits this. Data is being physically controlled by some entity who threatens to force him to kill someone with a phaser. That wouldn't be Data's choice of action - it's the evil entity's action. Data's choice in the matter was removed. Data would be in no way responsible for the death that would result and says so. Realizing that Data is not, and will not be racked with guilt and further manipulated by similar threats robs the entity of the satisfaction they were seeking in having Data struggle and plead in futility.

This is a horrible choice to face, but it isn't a choice of upholding the paladins oath versus NOT upholding the oath. Death/torment is guaranteed as a given. The choice is will it be one or three victims? Hardly a matter of failing to uphold the oath if opportunities DO NOT EXIST for the paladins actions relevant to their oath to even have a chance to be tried and fail.

That said, regardless of which choice he makes, he knows full well that he is failing to protect an innocent. Despite this, I don't believe that it can be considered a willing act, due to the fact that he is under duress.

No. He'll surely feel bad that he was unable to do anything at all, but it wasn't their choice to NOT protect the innocent. That option was denied up front. It is because of Asmodeus actions and choices that even one much less all three will be in eternal torment - NOT THE PALADIN'S CHOICE. Their oath and any ability to uphold it doesn't DEMAND that they then always succeed in defending the innocent and prevent them from being harmed, ever, regardless of circumstances. You can try to defend the innocent and fail. You may try to prevent them from being harmed and they could still die. That isn't failure to uphold your oath. You might not know an innocent is in need of defense and in danger of harm - that, too, is not a failure of you upholding your oath. Knowing an innocent is in need of defense and in danger of harm and choosing to do nothing, or choosing NOT to do the thing that will help them (and which is not simply suicidal) when you not only can but should do something about it - THAT is failure to uphold an oath.

Obviously, I do not advocate this sort of DMing. Nonetheless, I've heard enough horror stories over the years to know that this type of scenario does happen at some tables.

Far, far too many it seems. Some DM's even take pride in making it as difficult as possible if not impossible for paladins to remain paladins.

I'll repeat my mantra - paladins know what the right thing to do is. Always. It's what they f'n LIVE for. Doing the "right thing," whatever that may be and accepting that this will likely be dangerous and inconvenient and HARD TO DO, is what makes a paladin a paladin in the first place. They are never, EVER, ignorant of the correct choice, or what their oaths and codes rightfully expect them to do - for the same reasons that a Druid PC never, ever, doesn't know that they are supposed to protect nature (and trees in particular). In the EXCEPTIONAL circumstance that their morals and oaths and codes DON'T provide the correct answer up front - ANY AND EVERY good-faith effort to do the right thing is a meritorious attempt to uphold those obligations, whether it succeeds or not. The fact that they are expected/obligated to do what their morals, oaths, and codes call for IS the sacrifice they make. Paladins don't GUESS at what's the right thing to do. They know it already or understand it instinctively even when corner cases arise because that is what their class is about.

To be certain, if the player IS guessing, then it is the DM who has failed to communicate the expectations to the player.

I have never once in 40+ years of gaming even heard of a paladin PC falling from grace without one of two scenarios being in effect:

A) whether the player knows the right and correct thing for their PC to do or not they choose to do the wrong thing anyway because this is a deliberate roleplaying exploration of falling and possible redemption, or

B) the DM has INFLICTED upon the PC/player a scenario in which the correct answer is deliberately withheld when needed in order to justify further infliction of punishment for not knowing the correct answer.

Classical Paladin issues, IME (and that is obviously not the same for everyone), are caused by the DM, and never by players desiring and attempting in good faith to simply have their PC do the right thing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

@Hussar Spider-Man absolutely has a code. It’s a rather solid through line.

With great power must come great responsibility. This is the primary tenet of his code. What it means is that because he has the power to help, he must do so. It also informs the rest of his code.

Don’t hurt people if it can be helped could be said to be the second tenet. Spidey is incredibly dangerous. He could kill much of his rogues gallery with fairly little effort. He doesn’t because being more dangerous means he has to use his power to subdue, not maim. Sounds a lot like “do as little harm as possible while doing as much good as possible”.

His third tenet, and the one I’ll close on, could be worded as, “See the good in people, even when it’s hard, and try to inspire them to walk toward their better self.”

He also perfectly fits the whole “don’t let your own light dim” or whatever tenet of the Ancients Paladin.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Firstly, for purposes of meaningful discussion the GIVEN parameters are that those ARE the only options. We're effectively excluding the possibility of some other choice being available and meaningful.

That said, this isn't being presented with a choice of upholding your oath or not - it is being quite effectively prevented from making an oath-relevant choice at all. The no-win scenario was not arrived at because of the paladin's failures - it was arrived at because of the machinations of Asmodeus. The fact that the paladin then BEGINS in a no-win position is not a failure to uphold their oath. There are not always going to be pathways of sequential choices that will lead to success. You can make every unshakably correct decision and still find that the end result is failure. It is likewise possible to make bad decisions at every turn for all the wrong reasons and yet still succeed.

When choices that will lead to any measure of "success" are deliberately and skillfully being excluded by a devil who only wants to engineer your failure anyway, a "choice" that ends in failure is not the result of failing to uphold your oath. It is a result of even the best choice (or the least UNdesirable choice) having been forced - outside your ability to influence the outcome - to nonetheless result in an unwanted outcome. That reduces the "choice" to only selecting an action that will lead to the least death/hardship/evil, not actual success. The fact that neither outcome is a desirable one or equates in any way to success doesn't mean it's YOUR failure to uphold your oath that reduced your choices to degrees of failure.

It's not failure to uphold the oath. The upholding of the oath was rendered moot. Did the paladin defend the innocent? He had no opportunity to do so. The children were BEYOND his ability to defend from the start. Asmodeus holds all the cards because that was the given parameters. Did the paladin prevent them from coming to harm? Unless he was in a position to know and then prevent their captivity in the first place he had no opportunity to affect that. Unless there are at that point other options open to the paladin in the wake of being given Sophie's Choice (and by definition for this scenario there aren't), picking one to live over letting both die/face eternal torment is a no-brainer. You pick one to live.

But what about the possibility of other choices than those Asmodeus gives? It's still not just a matter of having ANY other option to take. The paladin has to see that an option exists, recognize it, and be able to take it, beyond being merely willing to take it. Not seeing it, or not being able to take it for any number of reasons is not failing to uphold your oath. Failure in general is NOT the same as a failure of NOT upholding an oath. Upholding your oath doesn't mean you MUST succeed in your goals, ALWAYS. It only means you always try to succeed in the best way you are able. I've yet to see an oath that actually says a paladin must sacrifice themselves to their oaths without batting an eyelash, even if doing so won't result in success. Anyone that has inflicted such a dumb oath on a foolishly willing player gets no consideration from me.

There was an episode of ST: Next Generation that I recall that I feel fits this. Data is being physically controlled by some entity who threatens to force him to kill someone with a phaser. That wouldn't be Data's choice of action - it's the evil entity's action. Data's choice in the matter was removed. Data would be in no way responsible for the death that would result and says so. Realizing that Data is not, and will not be racked with guilt and further manipulated by similar threats robs the entity of the satisfaction they were seeking in having Data struggle and plead in futility.

This is a horrible choice to face, but it isn't a choice of upholding the paladins oath versus NOT upholding the oath. Death/torment is guaranteed as a given. The choice is will it be one or three victims? Hardly a matter of failing to uphold the oath if opportunities DO NOT EXIST for the paladins actions relevant to their oath to even have a chance to be tried and fail.

No. He'll surely feel bad that he was unable to do anything at all, but it wasn't their choice to NOT protect the innocent. That option was denied up front. It is because of Asmodeus actions and choices that even one much less all three will be in eternal torment - NOT THE PALADIN'S CHOICE. Their oath and any ability to uphold it doesn't DEMAND that they then always succeed in defending the innocent and prevent them from being harmed, ever, regardless of circumstances. You can try to defend the innocent and fail. You may try to prevent them from being harmed and they could still die. That isn't failure to uphold your oath. You might not know an innocent is in need of defense and in danger of harm - that, too, is not a failure of you upholding your oath. Knowing an innocent is in need of defense and in danger of harm and choosing to do nothing, or choosing NOT to do the thing that will help them (and which is not simply suicidal) when you not only can but should do something about it - THAT is failure to uphold an oath.

Far, far too many it seems. Some DM's even take pride in making it as difficult as possible if not impossible for paladins to remain paladins.

I'll repeat my mantra - paladins know what the right thing to do is. Always. It's what they f'n LIVE for. Doing the "right thing," whatever that may be and accepting that this will likely be dangerous and inconvenient and HARD TO DO, is what makes a paladin a paladin in the first place. They are never, EVER, ignorant of the correct choice, or what their oaths and codes rightfully expect them to do - for the same reasons that a Druid PC never, ever, doesn't know that they are supposed to protect nature (and trees in particular). In the EXCEPTIONAL circumstance that their morals and oaths and codes DON'T provide the correct answer up front - ANY AND EVERY good-faith effort to do the right thing is a meritorious attempt to uphold those obligations, whether it succeeds or not. The fact that they are expected/obligated to do what their morals, oaths, and codes call for IS the sacrifice they make. Paladins don't GUESS at what's the right thing to do. They know it already or understand it instinctively even when corner cases arise because that is what their class is about.

To be certain, if the player IS guessing, then it is the DM who has failed to communicate the expectations to the player.

I have never once in 40+ years of gaming even heard of a paladin PC falling from grace without one of two scenarios being in effect:

A) whether the player knows the right and correct thing for their PC to do or not they choose to do the wrong thing anyway because this is a deliberate roleplaying exploration of falling and possible redemption, or

B) the DM has INFLICTED upon the PC/player a scenario in which the correct answer is deliberately withheld when needed in order to justify further infliction of punishment for not knowing the correct answer.

Classical Paladin issues, IME (and that is obviously not the same for everyone), are caused by the DM, and never by players desiring and attempting in good faith to simply have their PC do the right thing.

Quite so. I agree completely.

There are a few folks with whom I have discussed such topics recently who would seemingly interpret your statement about the paladin knowingly violating their oath to mean that the paladin is oath-bound to futilely throw their life away attacking Asmodeus, thereby consigning all three souls to torment, or fall from paladinhood. I don't agree with that stance, as I believe that paladins are charged with serving the greatest good they can, even if it falls short of the ideal good. Admittedly, the meaning of good as it is used here may vary significantly based on oath.

 

[S'mon]

There was an episode of ST: Next Generation that I recall that I feel fits this. Data is being physically controlled by some entity who threatens to force him to kill someone with a phaser. That wouldn't be Data's choice of action - it's the evil entity's action. Data's choice in the matter was removed. Data would be in no way responsible for the death that would result and says so. Realizing that Data is not, and will not be racked with guilt and further manipulated by similar threats robs the entity of the satisfaction they were seeking in having Data struggle and plead in futility.

I think there's an important Paladin-relevant point there about not giving in to evil, not giving it the satisfaction of having you comply with what it wants you to do. There's even a consequentialist point there that defying evil makes evil less likely to do the same thing in future. It's not fair to expect Sophie to punch the Nazi on the nose when he tells her to choose between her children, but Sophie's not a Paladin.

I was listening to a Youtube video on Thursday about Uday Hussain's body double. Uday ordered him to kill a man (the father of a newlywed woman Uday had raped, who then killed herself) - rather than comply, the body double attempted to kill himself, denying Uday the satisfaction of compliance. I think most people see these acts of defiance as morally praiseworthy in themselves, I know I do. Even though it wasn't going to save the father and might well have resulted in the body double dying too. And again, that was just an Iraqi army officer, not a Paladin.

Some people are saying we should always comply with Evil - surrender to Evil - if that seems likely to have better consequences, eg keep us alive, keep a loved one alive. Even if you think that's the morally-correct answer, I don't think that's how a Code-adherent Paladin is supposed to act. IRL I say I'm a Utilitarian, but I play a Paladin to be a Paladin.

If the old German guy in The Avengers can refuse to kneel to Loki, surely a Paladin can.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think there's an important Paladin-relevant point there about not giving in to evil, not giving it the satisfaction of having you comply with what it wants you to do. There's even a consequentialist point there that defying evil makes evil less likely to do the same thing in future. It's not fair to expect Sophie to punch the Nazi on the nose when he tells her to choose between her children, but Sophie's not a Paladin.

I was listening to a Youtube video on Thursday about Uday Hussain's body double. Uday ordered him to kill a man (the father of a newlywed woman Uday had raped, who then killed herself) - rather than comply, the body double attempted to kill himself, denying Uday the satisfaction of compliance. I think most people see these acts of defiance as morally praiseworthy in themselves, I know I do. Even though it wasn't going to save the father and might well have resulted in the body double dying too. And again, that was just an Iraqi army officer, not a Paladin.

By punching Asmodeus, the paladin IS giving him what he wants. The paladin is not going to meaningfully harm him, but this action of self-righteousness consigns three souls to Asmodeus' care, rather than one. It proves to Asmodeus that a paladin's inflexibility can be used to bring about great evil.

Of course, choosing is also what Asmodeus wants, since in that case he's forced the paladin to make an impossible choice that will undoubtedly continue to haunt the paladin for a long time to come. A far more delicious form of torture than even Asmodeus could have cooked up in the deepest pits of hell, since it will be self-inflicted.

That's the whole point. Heads, Asmodeus wins. Tails, the paladin loses.

Of course, if the paladin chooses a child and thereby survives, there's nothing saying that he can't come back in 19 levels with a few of his best buds and put an end to Asmodeus' schemes permanently. That's only an option, however, if he is able to show restraint in the here-and-now.

 

[S'mon]

By punching Asmodeus, the paladin IS giving him what he wants. The paladin is not going to meaningfully harm him, but this action of self-righteousness consigns three souls to Asmodeus' care, rather than one. It proves to Asmodeus that a paladin's inflexibility can be used to bring about great evil.

Good work, Devil's Advocate!

Edit: I especially like the '19 levels' argument since it gives PCs, and specifically PCs, total carte blanche to put their own self preservation first in every circumstance. Truly a Diabolical argument.

Asmodeus:
"Think of all the Good you could do in future, if you will only do what I want now. Not doing Good is Evil. You don't want to do Evil, right?"

Edit 2: Pity I'm apparently not allowed to refer to a famous religious text for a very obvious example of this.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Good work, Devil's Advocate!

I wasn't advocating for him insomuch as pointing out that in the scenario as presented he wins either way. Admittedly, I designed the scenario, but it was simply to illustrate a point.

Edit: I especially like the '19 levels' argument since it gives PCs, and specifically PCs, total carte blanche to put their own self preservation first in every circumstance. Truly a Diabolical argument.

Well, just because the player is aware of a character's potential, doesn't mean that the character is. I wasn't giving PCs carte blanche, but rather pointing out that a bit of restraint in the present can result in a greater good in the long term.

Just as the ends don't necessarily justify the means, I would also say that the means don't necessarily justify the ends.

In other words, if you do a good thing that knowingly results in greater evil, you haven't actually done a good thing. Punching Asmodeus in the nose may make the paladin feel good for a brief moment, and arguably Asmodeus deserves that punch and a whole lot worse, but it ultimately results in three souls being tormented for eternity, rather than one. Hence, even though the act itself could be argued as a good one (defying evil), the greater evil that results indicates to me that it was not a good act. Perhaps it could be justified if Asmodeus had not spelled out the consequences, but as he did, the paladin knowingly commits an evil act by punching Asmodeus, IMO.

Asmodeus:
"Think of all the Good you could do in future, if you will only do what I want now. Not doing Good is Evil. You don't want to do Evil, right?"

Edit 2: Pity I'm apparently not allowed to refer to a famous religious text for a very obvious example of this.

I believe I know the text you're referring to, and I'm quite familiar with it, so if you give me a hint I can probably figure it out. If it's easier to give chapter and verse, I have the NAB Revised Edition.

That said, I want to respect the rules of the forum, so I don't think we could directly discuss the implications of such a passage.

 

[S'mon]

Perhaps it could be justified if Asmodeus had not spelled out the consequences, but as he did, the paladin knowingly commits an evil act by punching Asmodeus, IMO.

No, it's entirely Asmodeus who chooses to do the Evil here. Saying "I'll do X if you do Y!" does not make you not responsible for doing X.

People who don't grasp this concept end up with the world's Paladins all falling on their swords when a bad guy threatens a child (per Hussar) or the world's Paladins all declaring their own lives all take priority over the lives of others because of the future good they'll do.

 

[Fanaelialae]

No, it's entirely Asmodeus who chooses to do the Evil here. Saying "I'll do X if you do Y!" does not make you not responsible for doing X.

People who don't grasp this concept end up with the world's Paladins all falling on their swords when a bad guy threatens a child (per Hussar) or the world's Paladins all declaring their own lives all take priority over the lives of others because of the future good they'll do.

I actually do agree with you here in the greater sense. Asmodeus is the one at fault for this situation, not anyone else.

Yet, I still nonetheless feel that the paladin is choosing to place his own pride ahead of saving the child that could be saved by punching Asmodeus. That, to me, is at the very least not a good act. Given this paladin's oath, to protect the innocent, I believe it is his duty to save the one innocent that he can. Choosing to defy evil means that he is choosing not to do his duty.