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

[Maxperson]

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.

In most circumstances, you'd be right. However, when trying to apply that to paladins, where the rules explicitly say willingness matters, it would be a house rule to break that and say that willingness doesn't matter. Applying that philosophy necessarily changes the rule.

 

[S'mon]

IMO, it's excessively punitive.

No more than putting poison needle traps on locks and expecting the Rogue to pick them. Different classes have different hazards.

(I would dispute the idea that this 'weakness' to needing atonement makes the 5e Paladin weak, they're a very strong class).

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

The druid prohibition is admittedly unclear. There is no guidance in the PHB on how to handle breaking it.

On the other hand, the PHB does cover the paladin's oath. You can house rule it of course, but there is technically a "right answer" in this case.

 

[Maxperson]

The druid prohibition is admittedly unclear. There is no guidance in the PHB on how to handle breaking it.

The PHB wording indicates that it's not actually a prohibition. It's a choice druids make, so breaking it has no mechanical consequences.

In my game, though, I run it like it was in 1e where the druid loses access to casting spells and supernatural powers while wearing the metal armor.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

It's a Paladin's choice to take an Oath....

 

[ccs]

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.

Yes, of course that's what the forces of evil will tell you.

And the proper response to them is "NO."


That is the answer I expect to hear from the heroes, especially the Paladins, in these games. Even when {they believe} they're hopelessly outclassed by that CR17 dragon, demon/devil lord, etc.
You yield, you take the deal? You've 100% failed the encounter. And there will be consequences.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

Why is it ok for Asmodeus to mess with a lowly level 1 paladin and two innocents, but not for her patron deity to intercede in the paladin's behalf in that same case? IMO if the DM has already opened the door to deus ex machina to bring a greater evil god into this low deck scenario, it is hypocritical to not leave it open to solve things once the paladin proves unwavering and devoted to the oath. I'm of the preference not to open that door at all, if I want to play a champio of good, the DM should work with me to play one, not against me. At very least the DM should be open enough to state they don't want me to play a paladin period.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

If I literally put a gun to your head and force you to shoot someone, you are not morally culpable of anything.

That's a situation where I think most people would sympathize with the shooter--perhaps to the extent of not feeling that any further punishment (because that was punishment enough itself) need be imposed--but I'm not sure a consensus would consider them entirely blameless. I think the judgment people would instinctively make it that situation would depend on both the shooter and the target. Two random people? Tragic. An escaped murderer (held at gunpoint) shooting a child? Add it to his charges at half price.

I see where you're going with this, but you seem to be drawing the line of choice at death, where I draw it at the shooter's finger. I really don't see why, in general, many people think that if the alternative to a choice is death, the choice isn't a choice. People make choices that they believe will incur high risk of death (even 100% in their minds) all the time.

Here's a thought. A soldier jumps on a bomb to save his friends. On the other side of the field, a soldier in the same situation doesn't. Did the one who jumped have a choice? Did the one who didn't jump have a choice? Consequences certainly seem irrelevant to whether they had a choice.

I guess I've shifted slightly from "willingly" to "had a choice". But that's because they are identical in my opinion.

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.

I'm just going to disagree that the paladin's choices were equally inconsequential. I don't think anyone wants to get into the nitty gritty, so I'll just leave it with the idea that I would agree with you if the dragon had the paladin grasped in one claw, the NPC grasped in another, and said, "move and I eat you both, stay still and I may let you live". That isn't how I envision the mechanics of the actual situation described. But then again, I've won games that I had "already lost" because they weren't technically over and I kept trying and managed to turn it around, so perhaps we're just looking at it from different perspectives of where the line between "completely outside my power" and "real longshot" lies.

The PHB wording indicates that it's not actually a prohibition. It's a choice druids make, so breaking it has no mechanical consequences.

Not another heated philosophical discussion resurrected! Based on your preferred implementation, I don' t think we disagreed on that one though.

 

[S'mon]

Yes, of course that's what the forces of evil will tell you.

And the proper response to them is "NO."

Certainly the proper response from a Paladin. My consequentialist gut tells me it's probably the proper response IRL as well, and that the wisdom of the ages is probably a better guide to action than an individual's self-preservation instinct in the heat of the moment. That Steve Rogers is a better guide to action than Denethor Steward of Gondor.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Why is it ok for Asmodeus to mess with a lowly level 1 paladin and two innocents, but not for her patron deity to intercede in the paladin's behalf in that same case? IMO if the DM has already opened the door to deus ex machina to bring a greater evil god into this low deck scenario, it is hypocritical to not leave it open to solve things once the paladin proves unwavering and devoted to the oath. I'm of the preference not to open that door at all, if I want to play a champio of good, the DM should work with me to play one, not against me. At very least the DM should be open enough to state they don't want me to play a paladin period.

As I originally stated, I do not in any way advocate the style of DMing that would lead to a scene like the one I proposed with Asmodeus. It was proposed for illustration and consideration purposes only.

In my opinion, if the DM were to put a paladin in this type of unwinnable scenario, a deus ex machina would be entirely fair. As I stated in the other thread, the only time I use deus ex machina myself is to fix a serious mistake that I made as a DM. I consider putting a character in this particular situation to be such a mistake.

That said, from the horror stories I've heard over the years, that sort of intervention would be unlikely in this situation, generally speaking. From what I've gathered, the situation is oftentimes seemingly put there not to be a test of the paladin's virtue, but rather to force them to make an impossible decision (or even to outright force them to fall). Getting rescued by divine intervention runs counter to that goal. It is not the sort of DMing that I endorse whatsoever, but it does happen.