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

[Sepulchrave II]

Discounting the idea of a Paladin who is dedicated to the notion of a “philosophical cause” rather than a specific deity or group of deities, as this seems rather modernistic…

Most religions have notions of ritual purity, which is to say that the difference between the sacred and the profane is not necessarily identical to the difference between human ideas of good and evil, or between right and wrong. I suspect that Paladins – as holy warriors – should be more concerned with “purity” which is construed in terms of their religiosity, rather than their morality; this will be particular to a given religion, and encompass various taboos as well as their code.

Atonement is for violations of ritual purity rather than morality per se (e.g. burning the wrong kind of incense) and although purity taboos might also overlap with more conventional morality (e.g. committing adultery), the underlying rationale for its “wrongness” is because it violates the sacred, not because it is “evil” by any human measure which makes sense to us.

As such, human volition has no place in whether the sacred has been profaned; it is outside of the scope of human agency. The Paladin either breaks their code or they do not; their state of intentionality – willingness – is irrelevant. Obviously, this seems rather unfair from our perspective; there again, our perspective is mortal, not divine.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

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.

I haven’t been really following this line very well but, to me, Asmodeus is more concerned with seeing a Paladin Fall than getting 3 souls. Souls are a dime a dozen. The layers of Hell are ripe with them but a fallen Paladin is sweet. Also, Asmodeus plays the long game, - he’s immortal after all - so getting the Paladin to turn away from his vows, even in a situation where his hand is forced, is just one small step towards Ruin.

Setting up a situation where a paladin has only losing choices is what a Devil does. Mythology is ripe with these tropes.

Chuhulain, the Irish hero, had two taboos:
1. He could not turn down hospitality
2. He could not eat dog meat

He was tricked when an old crone invites him in for dinner and offered him dog meat. He was forced to break his vow. This, eventually, caused his ruin.

So he willingly chose to break an Oath but he had no choice. Nonetheless, it destroyed him.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Discounting the idea of a Paladin who is dedicated to the notion of a “philosophical cause” rather than a specific deity or group of deities, as this seems rather modernistic…

Most religions have notions of ritual purity, which is to say that the difference between the sacred and the profane is not necessarily identical to the difference between human ideas of good and evil, or between right and wrong. I suspect that Paladins – as holy warriors – should be more concerned with “purity” which is construed in terms of their religiosity, rather than their morality; this will be particular to a given religion, and encompass various taboos as well as their code.

Atonement is for violations of ritual purity rather than morality per se (e.g. burning the wrong kind of incense) and although purity taboos might also overlap with more conventional morality (e.g. committing adultery), the underlying rationale for its “wrongness” is because it violates the sacred, not because it is “evil” by any human measure which makes sense to us.

As such, human volition has no place in whether the sacred has been profaned; it is outside of the scope of human agency. The Paladin either breaks their code or they do not; their state of intentionality – willingness – is irrelevant. Obviously, this seems rather unfair from our perspective; there again, our perspective is mortal, not divine.

Your argument is quite intelligent. That said, unless your table consists of theologians and moral philosophers who have agreed to this concept, it may be a touch excessive for a game.

I have little doubt that some of the guys I game with would have trouble wrapping their heads around this concept (or would simply flat-out refuse to agree with it). I'm not going to tell them that they cannot play a paladin because of that, nor am I inclined to punish them for playing their paladin "wrong" with respect to this.

The PHB outlines fairly clear guidelines for them to follow, and rules for what happens when they don't. It also explicitly calls out that willfulness is pertinent. What we've been discussing is what does and does not constitute such.

I think that it is important to keep in mind that this is a game people play (for fun, among other reasons). If the way a table handles a paladin's oaths run contrary to that end, then the table's approach may require reexamination.

Otherwise, all you're doing is imposing a soft ban on paladins and frustrating the players who do attempt to play them. To me, that's the opposite of fun and therefore contrary to the purpose of the game. Of course, not everything has to be fun all the time. There is space within the conception of fun for loss and death (no risk, no reward). However, as I see it, this differs from something like the risk of failure. It would be as if, because you want magic to be dangerous, every time a magic user casts a spell they need to make a saving throw versus death. Why offer an option just to render it effectively unplayable?

Another option, of course, is to never place the paladin in a situation where there is real risk of failure to live up to their oaths. If it seems like the paladin is in a no-win situation, all they need do is stick to their principles and their deity will reward them with a pillar of flame from the sky, or whatever. To me, this is not a good option because I dislike deus ex machina solutions, and because as soon as the players pick up on this, the paladin can never fail. It results in a paladin who upholds his oaths because doing so assures success, which is not the way it should be in my opinion.

Of course, play as you will. This is merely my own perspective on the matter.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Discounting the idea of a Paladin who is dedicated to the notion of a “philosophical cause” rather than a specific deity or group of deities, as this seems rather modernistic…

Most religions have notions of ritual purity, which is to say that the difference between the sacred and the profane is not necessarily identical to the difference between human ideas of good and evil, or between right and wrong. I suspect that Paladins – as holy warriors – should be more concerned with “purity” which is construed in terms of their religiosity, rather than their morality; this will be particular to a given religion, and encompass various taboos as well as their code.

Atonement is for violations of ritual purity rather than morality per se (e.g. burning the wrong kind of incense) and although purity taboos might also overlap with more conventional morality (e.g. committing adultery), the underlying rationale for its “wrongness” is because it violates the sacred, not because it is “evil” by any human measure which makes sense to us.

As such, human volition has no place in whether the sacred has been profaned; it is outside of the scope of human agency. The Paladin either breaks their code or they do not; their state of intentionality – willingness – is irrelevant. Obviously, this seems rather unfair from our perspective; there again, our perspective is mortal, not divine.

This pretty much explains my view on Paladin Oaths. Although, it might vary slightly depending on the Oath.

Also: Hey, Supulchrave! To this day, I draw inspiration for my games from your story hour. Thanks!

 

[Maxperson]

As such, human volition has no place in whether the sacred has been profaned; it is outside of the scope of human agency. The Paladin either breaks their code or they do not; their state of intentionality – willingness – is irrelevant. Obviously, this seems rather unfair from our perspective; there again, our perspective is mortal, not divine.

While this is an interesting idea for a house rule, willingness is not irrelevant. It has been built into the rules of the class since 1e.

 

[S'mon]

Your argument is quite intelligent. That said, unless your table consists of theologians and moral philosophers who have agreed to this concept, it may be a touch excessive for a game.

I have little doubt that some of the guys I game with would have trouble wrapping their heads around this concept (or would simply flat-out refuse to agree with it). I'm not going to tell them that they cannot play a paladin because of that, nor am I inclined to punish them for playing their paladin "wrong" with respect to this.

The PHB outlines fairly clear guidelines for them to follow, and rules for what happens when they don't. It also explicitly calls out that willfulness is pertinent. What we've been discussing is what does and does not constitute such.

I think that it is important to keep in mind that this is a game people play (for fun, among other reasons). If the way a table handles a paladin's oaths run contrary to that end, then the table's approach may require reexamination.

I don't see what the problem is for needing an Atonement spell for involuntary oathbreaking. It's mechanically much the same as needing a Restoration or a Raise Dead - you suffer from a condition (spiritual impurity), you spend resources & get it fixed.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't see what the problem is for needing an Atonement spell for involuntary oathbreaking. It's mechanically much the same as needing a Restoration or a Raise Dead - you suffer from a condition (spiritual impurity), you spend resources & get it fixed.

I don't have an issue with a paladin needing to atone for forced or accidental oathbreaking, either.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't see what the problem is for needing an Atonement spell for involuntary oathbreaking. It's mechanically much the same as needing a Restoration or a Raise Dead - you suffer from a condition (spiritual impurity), you spend resources & get it fixed.

IMO, it's excessively punitive.

That sort of thing made sense back in the days of 1e and 2e, when paladins were a mechanically superior class. Nowadays, it's more of an RP limitation. You could reskin the class, remove the oaths, and it would still be balanced.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

While this is an interesting idea for a house rule, willingness is not irrelevant. It has been built into the rules of the class since 1e.

I’m not sure philosophical parameters in a game can be considered ‘house-rules’. These things are completely flexible based on campaign. That’s like calling a low magic campaign a house rule.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

IMO, it's excessively punitive.

That sort of thing made sense back in the days of 1e and 2e, when paladins were a mechanically superior class. Nowadays, it's more of an RP limitation. You could reskin the class, remove the oaths, and it would still be balanced.

Just like a Druid and metal armour. But if the Druid happens to break that taboo, how do you deal with it in game? There’s no right answer. It depends on the game and the table. Getting an atonement from you Druid circle seems a reasonable solution for certain games.