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

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson wrong. One can be coerced and still have a measure of willingness. Someone steals your twinky while a victim is driwning on the oposite side of the room. Shall you save the victim from watery death or the twinky from the salivating maw of certain death? C'mon son wukong, surely you can understand.

I'm not wrong. And your example is apples to oranges. There a huge difference between a voluntary choice and being forced.

You gave me an example and i delivered.

The above is a False Equivalence, so no you didn't "deliver." A proper example would be if you were on a diet and don't want to eat a Twinky. I put a gun to your head and tell you to eat the Twinky or I'm going to kill you. If you then eat the Twinky, you are not willing at all. You are coerced. Can you technically choose death? Sure. That doesn't make the act of eating the Twinky willing, though. Willing = you want to do it or are okay with doing it.

And they arent exclusive. Coerced just isnt that open and shut. You can have a measure of each. I didnt twist it at all. I showed how its possible with the smallest bit of coercion.

No you didn't. You gave that, " You twist it a few times, quint at it funny, come up with some sort of weak justification and viola! Willing" I was talking about.

 

[Maxperson]

What's your definition of coercion, because it wouldn't take much for coercion to apply to nearly anything we have ever done and thus render us as having never made a willing decision ever.

Sure, if you engage in sophistry.

 

[Maxperson]

I seem to recall you precviously stating that you didn't make such things happen in games but the may naturally occur. I'm starting to think you were feeding my feel of baloney.

Because I pointed out that there are millions of ways for that situation to come up? LOL

every fictional example I can think of where the victim threatens little Susie it ultimately comes out pretty well for little Susie and pretty bad the evil villain.

D&D is not a book or movie. Look at the real world and see how often little Susie comes home. In a roleplaying game, a villain is probably going to be able to kill little Susie pretty easily.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I'm not wrong. And your example is apples to oranges. There a huge difference between a voluntary choice and being forced.



The above is a False Equivalence, so no you didn't "deliver." A proper example would be if you were on a diet and don't want to eat a Twinky. I put a gun to your head and tell you to eat the Twinky or I'm going to kill you. If you then eat the Twinky, you are not willing at all. You are coerced. Can you technically choose death? Sure. That doesn't make the act of eating the Twinky willing, though. Willing = you want to do it or are okay with doing it.


No you didn't. You gave that, " You twist it a few times, quint at it funny, come up with some sort of weak justification and viola! Willing" I was talking about.

I could easily have used a serious example but found a humorous one sufficient to skewer your position. If you are willing to break your code to evade death that is still a measure of willingness. Just like betraying the twinky for still warm flesh snackies. Scale is off intentionally (quantity) but quality is not and quality is what matters for determining this. More like apple tree to tiny apple slice. Perfectly scaleable and valid. You could choose death. There is willingness there to be had for either choice. The situation sucking doesnt matter depending on the nature of the oath. Unless there is a clause that permits you to evade death you are technically breaking it in your example or mine willingly.

 

[FrogReaver]

D&D is not a book or movie. Look at the real world and see how often little Susie comes home. In a roleplaying game, a villain is probably going to be able to kill little Susie pretty easily.

You have a very strange view of the real world and what is realistic and what isn't - and even that D&D should be played more toward the real world than toward fiction. All that informs how you play the game which is fine but please realize it also informs your stance on what you call lawful stupid, which is essentially any behavior that doesn't conform to your pragmatic world view - and since your the man behind the curtain then your D&D world operates very similar to how you perceive the real world through the lens of your beliefs.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Tbh, as a dm im HEAVY on internally consistant realism. And depending on the religion (which may effect the nature of the oath taken) i totally would rule a paladin broke his oath willingly if it was to evade death. Even if there was no promise of an after life. Potentially. Things are very soecific in the real world. So too in my campaigns. Its even part of why i created a whole prestige class called "forsaken saint".

 

[Maxperson]

You have a very strange view of the real world and what is realistic and what isn't - and even that D&D should be played more toward the real world than toward fiction. All that informs how you play the game which is fine but please realize it also informs your stance on what you call lawful stupid, which is essentially any behavior that doesn't conform to your pragmatic world view - and since your the man behind the curtain then your D&D world operates very similar to how you perceive the real world through the lens of your beliefs.

My stance on lawful stupid(and I didn't coin the term. It has been considered stupid way to play LG from the outset) is based on acting that way being dumb. You can play non-pragmatic LG without being suicidal. I've seen it done. I've done it myself. You don't need to play lawful stupid to play a 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e or 5e paladin, and you never have.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Because things often get complicated when you are being realistic.

"Willing" can happen even at gun point. Or not.

 

[FrogReaver]

My stance on lawful stupid(and I didn't coin the term. It has been considered stupid way to play LG from the outset) is based on acting that way being dumb. You can play non-pragmatic LG without being suicidal. I've seen it done. I've done it myself. You don't need to play lawful stupid to play a 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e or 5e paladin, and you never have.

Would your non-pragmatic LG character die for his beliefs?

 

[FrogReaver]

Because things often get complicated when you are being realistic.

"Willing" can happen even at gun point. Or not.

Maybe it's best to call that philosophically willing - that is for the choice presented to me was I the one in charge of making that choice.

Then let's contrast that with what I'll call legally willing - that is for the choice presented to me was there some extraordinary outside influence upon my decision such that my decision would have been different without that outside influence.

Ya'll are just talking past each other by using the different definitions of willing - which is understandable given the source text that gets brought up that uses willing doesn't define which way it meant willing either.