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

[Maxperson]

You missing the important part. What makes the Lawful Good Paladin turn lawful stupid is the DM introducing scenarios intended to not have a lawful good option for a solution.

This is not correct. Such a scenario does not require lawful stupid. LG is also an available option. Engaging lawful stupid is the player's fault in that sort of scenario. It's 100% his choice to go with lawful stupid over LG.

 

[FrogReaver]

You guys are talking past each other.

@FrogReaver is taking a pragmatic, at the table approach. Doing this sort of thing wouldn't be fun for the table, so, don't do it.

I am taking a bit of a pragmatic table approach but that's not all. The lawful stupid character comes about because the DM decided to challenge the player's conception of lawful good and offer only non-lawful good solutions to the problem at hand. Essentially he has set up a death trap for lawful good characters - or at least for characters that follow the player's conception of lawful good. To me that means the DM created the lawful stupid character - because the character wasn't lawful stupid till the DM put an unavoidable death trap for anyone playing that specific conception of a lawful good character in the game.

@Oofta is taking an in game fiction approach. Doing this sort of thing makes a fair bit of sense and is quite believable. Not taking advantage of such an advantage is actually kinda unbelievable, so, it hurts the enjoyment at the table.

You guys will not come to any sort of compromise until you start from similar starting points. You are fundamentally talking about different issues.

I'm specifically arguing against that - saying a villain that would set a lawful good death trap is more realistic is absurd. You can play any intelligent evil villain in a very realistic fashion without once resorting to lawful good death traps.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is not correct. Such a scenario does not require lawful stupid. LG is also an available option. Engaging lawful stupid is the player's fault in that sort of scenario. It's 100% his choice to go with lawful stupid over LG.

I think the player get's to determine the specific lawful good disposition their character has. If he has choosen the very principled, always do the right thing even at great personal cost and you intentionally toss him in a situation where it's death or doing the right thing then the only thing that makes that concept lawful stupid is that the DM chose to set a death trap in the game for anyone that held to that principled view of the world.

 

[Hussar]

I am taking a bit of a pragmatic table approach but that's not all. The lawful stupid character comes about because the DM decided to challenge the player's conception of lawful good and offer only non-lawful good solutions to the problem at hand. Essentially he has set up a death trap for lawful good characters - or at least for characters that follow the player's conception of lawful good. To me that means the DM created the lawful stupid character - because the character wasn't lawful stupid till the DM put an unavoidable death trap for anyone playing that specific conception of a lawful good character in the game.



I'm specifically arguing against that - saying a villain that would set a lawful good death trap is more realistic is absurd. You can play any intelligent evil villain in a very realistic fashion without once resorting to lawful good death traps.

There's two problems with your argument.

1. You are insisting that any failure is automatically a "non lawful good" solution. Leaving the NPC to the dragon is not necessarily an evil or even willing violation of an Oath act. The problem comes in when you insist that your interpretation of Lawful Good (any result other than the paladin's death is an oath breaking) is so limited that it becomes Lawful Stupid. It's not that a Lawful Good death trap is more realistic. It isn't. But, it's also not unrealistic. It's actually quite plausible. Which means that in their style of games, where something being plausible means that it's quite possible to use, then obviously they cannot use such a tightly wound interpretation of the Oaths.

2. You are pointing to the player's conception of Lawful Good. But, throughout this discussion, it has always, ALWAYS been the DM's conception of Lawful Good and the Oaths that have been the sticking point. As soon as we put it on the player, the problem goes away. The character fails, but, that failure is not considered a break point for the character. It might need some atonement, but, such atonement is fairly minimal. IOW, from the player's POV, the character has not violated his oath at all. It's only because the DM is insisting on extremely limited interpretations of the Oaths (all paladins are Cavaliers or Captain America) that this is actually a problem.

IOW, the problem with Lawful Stupid is not that the DM has set a no-win situation. The problem is that the DM has set a no-win situation and then actively punishes the PC for making the best of a bad situation.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm specifically arguing against that - saying a villain that would set a lawful good death trap is more realistic is absurd. You can play any intelligent evil villain in a very realistic fashion without once resorting to lawful good death traps.

Playing an evil character as being someone who is willing to exploit the perceived weaknesses of others is not realistic? It might be unrealistic if EVERY villain is this way. But never using any Machiavellian villains is quite unrealistic to me. That's part of what makes a villain a villain, even if they see their ends as justified. They're willing to cross a line to achieve those ends that a good character would not.

What the good character considers strength (doing the right thing because it is the right this to do) the evil character will typically consider a weakness. That isn't to say that you can't have honorable villains who refuse to stoop so low. However, too honorable to exploit a perceived weakness and too stupid to perceive a potential weakness are but two options in a nearly infinite assortment of potential villains.

If your game is based in part on Arthurian legend, and extreme nobility is expected of paladin's, then it's perfectly fair to avoid using such villains because they run counter to the themes of the campaign (or at least the survival of any paladins therein). Much as if I was running a light-hearted campaign based on Saturday morning cartoons, I would avoid scenes of graphic ultra violence. Avoiding either is not "being realistic", because such things can and do happen in the real world. That said, it is in keeping with the established thematic elements of that campaign.

 

[Oofta]

I mean imagine how hard it would be to play a rogue in a world where the slightest bit of dishonesty, thievery or underhanded tactics would result in the good gods cursing you to be less strong/cunning/dexterous etc than a commoner.

Can such a world exist? Sure. So why not use it? Because it's not right to use a setting that doesn't work with specific character concepts that are being played at the table (or at least to make that apparent at session 0).

The gods don't control the world. A paladin needs to accept that they can't win every battle, but hopefully they can win the war.

I can imagine a world where the rogue was a kleptomaniac that refused to drop the treasure chest. Even after they set off an alarm and knew that the only chance of escape was to drop the chest and run. It did not end well for the rogue.

If you want to have kiddie cartoon villains where everyone always has a perfect option, go for it.

I don't set up no-win or choose between two evils scenarios. That doesn't mean they can't happen under the right circumstances because I run a very dynamic campaign.

It seems like you want paladins to be perfect and then blame the DM if they hold them to an impossible standard without providing the "perfect" option every time.

I would no more do that than purposely set up a scenario where you have to commit evil acts to succeed.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the player get's to determine the specific lawful good disposition their character has. If he has choosen the very principled, always do the right thing even at great personal cost and you intentionally toss him in a situation where it's death or doing the right thing then the only thing that makes that concept lawful stupid is that the DM chose to set a death trap in the game for anyone that held to that principled view of the world.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY is ever actually like that. He's chosen to play a cartoon and he is responsible for his own choices. If you choose someone who is likely to die due to being played like a caricature of a person, then you are responsible when your choice gets you killed.

Telling the DM it's his fault that the player has chosen badly for his PC when coming up to an in game situation dealing with "LG" is wrong. And saying that the DM can't put in situations that the PC that the player has created can't handle is like saying that A DM can't put in a high cliff if PCs can't climb or fly. I mean, God forbid that the PCs are being chased and come to that cliff and the PCs who can't climb die, because they made a choice not to be able to climb well. The DM must be a jerk for putting cliffs in the world. The world must be flat!!!

It's a silly accusation to make. The only one at fault for a PC suicide is the player. He made the choice to play an insane PC who has to kill himself. He's the one making the choice to stick to it, despite it not being a part of either the alignment or the paladin class. The DM is not responsible for bad player choices.

 

[Oofta]

Just one more follow up. Sometimes PCs fail. Sometimes they don't catch the bad guy, sometimes the plan doesn't survive contact with the enemy. Sometimes the paladin has survivors guilt or had no chance to save the innocent and must spend the night in prayer in penance or seek absolution from a priest.

Failure makes victory something special. Finally defeating that villain that sacrificed that child in order to get away is something to celebrate.

My way is not the only way to play. If you and your players want lawful "death before dishonor imperfection" paladins to be a thing there's nothing wrong with it. Just don't be surprised when people say that paladins must be lawful stupid.

 

[jgsugden]

It depends upon the code and the Deity. I'd consider both when the PC is being judged.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Ummm...this seems pretty obvious. All count as potentially willfully breaking the oath depending on the oath the dogma the deity and the specific situation. The players opinion also generally is irrelevant.