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

[5ekyu]

If the bad guy kills an innocent child and the only way the paladin could stop it would be to commit suicide, that is not on the paladin. Only the bad guy is responsible for the child's death. No one can save everyone.

If you think that would be violating the paladin's oath then don't run that scenario. I just think that's running kiddie cartoon bad guys or giving your player's PCs invulnerable plot armor.

I agree that yo ne tgars not gonna be an oath break. It was just an example being tossed around to somehow describe a smart villain due to its impact on the paladin oath.

 

[FrogReaver]

From 1e:
"Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins. If they ever knowingly perform an act which is chaotic in nature, they must seek a high level (7th or above) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess their sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform on evil act, he or she loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably."

If you look, all it takes is to knowingly perform a chaotic act. If you knowingly do something, you are making a willful(not necessarily willing) choice to do it. If all it took was willful, then Gary would not have adding willing in addition to knowing with regard to evil acts, since knowing already encompasses willful(choice).

2e says the same thing, but adds that an enchanted or mind controlled paladin that does evil loses paladinhood until he can atone.

3e changed willing to willful, which is a different meaning. However, it also stated that the loss of paladinhood was only until the paladin atoned, so there was no permanent loss of class abilities unless the player wanted it.

4e I have no idea.

5e we are discussing. It went back to having to be willing, not willful(choice).

I said I would mull this over.

It seems to me that certain forms of mind control would leave the victim knowingly committing actions but not willingly doing so. So it's definitely not conclusive.

That said the most common place someone would hear the phrase knowingly and willingly today is in reference to criminal law. What it means in criminal law is that a criminal carried out a crime intentionally and with full awareness.

So a Paladin must simply perform a chaotic act with full awareness and can be unintentional. But he must carry out an evil act both intentionally and with full awareness - in order to face class repercussions.

I'm really not sure what a non-intentional act get's performed with full awareness looks like. So I can't for the life of me put a finger on the distinction he was trying to make.

To sum it up I don't find the quote from 1e helpful in navigating this situation.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why would that be the intelligent thing to do? Why engage in any risk when there is a certain no risk situation where the villain lives and the paladin dies? The goal of a dumb villain, like on ogre chief might be to beat the paladin in combat. A smart villain isn't going to do that, though.

Because in the situation I cited there was no risk in engaging the paladin in combat. #Stop Twisting my Examples#

 

[Maxperson]

Well, if you have to have a villain with smarts, resources, armies and also way more levels than the party.... more power to you. However I personally can't see how an enemy so powerful and devious makes for a fun campaign. This is still meant to be a fun game you know...

Wow. Talk about unsubstantiated assumptions.

 

[Maxperson]

I said I would mull this over.

It seems to me that certain forms of mind control would leave the victim knowingly committing actions but not willingly doing so. So it's definitely not conclusive.

That said the most common place someone would hear the phrase knowingly and willingly today is in reference to criminal law. What it means in criminal law is that a criminal carried out a crime intentionally and with full awareness.

So a Paladin must simply perform a chaotic act with full awareness and can be unintentional. But he must carry out an evil act both intentionally and with full awareness - in order to face class repercussions.

I'm really not sure what a non-intentional act get's performed with full awareness looks like. So I can't for the life of me put a finger on the distinction he was trying to make.

To sum it up I don't find the quote from 1e helpful in navigating this situation.

The bolded doesn't add up. If you do something knowingly, it's not unintentional. Something done unintentional is done unknowingly, at least until after it happens.

The paragraph after the bolded is why knowingly and willingly has to add up to "be okay with" or "want to do." Otherwise, as you point out, it doesn't make sense. Since Gygax was a smart man and made a lot of sense, it pretty much has to mean what I argued above.

 

[FrogReaver]

The bolded doesn't add up. If you do something knowingly, it's not unintentional. Something done unintentional is done unknowingly, at least until after it happens.

The paragraph after the bolded is why knowingly and willingly has to add up to "be okay with" or "want to do." Otherwise, as you point out, it doesn't make sense. Since Gygax was a smart man and made a lot of sense, it pretty much has to mean what I argued above.

Not really. The 1e D&D Paladin quote on those terms just isn't helpful in sussing out their meaning IMO.

Now if you can find an example of a knowing violation that isn't willing - that also fits with what that text is saying then I'm open to reconsider. But I don't think any such example exists.

 

[Maxperson]

Not really. The 1e D&D Paladin quote on those terms just isn't helpful in sussing out their meaning IMO.

Now if you can find an example of a knowing violation that isn't willing - that also fits with what that text is saying then I'm open to reconsider. But I don't think any such example exists.

We've been talking about that this whole thread. The paladin was not willing(okay with or desired) to give up the NPC. He was forced.

 

[FrogReaver]

We've been talking about that this whole thread. The paladin was not willing(okay with or desired) to give up the NPC. He was forced.

So you believe that's an evil act that was knowing but not willing?

 

[FrogReaver]

If the bad guy kills an innocent child and the only way the paladin could stop it would be to commit suicide, that is not on the paladin. Only the bad guy is responsible for the child's death. No one can save everyone.

I don't think "responsibility" is the right focus here. If you have the ability to stop a child from dying and don't then on some level that death is on you - and that's the kind of situation and outcome that can mentally break an individual.

Of course the fog of life kind of makes that discussion moot - because we all know that once you gave your life there's nothing preventing the killer from also killing the child and that is ultimately the crux. There is no surety of what will happen next.

So you try to save the childs life while living yourself - because there is no greater good than that. And if you cannot then you are insulated from whatever decision you made due to the uncertainty of what might have transpired if you had made the other choice. And that's ultimately reason to believe the death wasn't on you - because there's never any certainty your sacrifice would have had the desired result. So ultimately the death isn't on you in the slightest even, but the moment you remove that veil of uncertainty and know for certain you could have prevented that from happening that's when it is partially on you as well.

f you think that would be violating the paladin's oath then don't run that scenario. I just think that's running kiddie cartoon bad guys or giving your player's PCs invulnerable plot armor.

I think running villains like you describe are more cartoony than anything I'm recommending.

 

[Hussar]

So you believe that's an evil act that was knowing but not willing?

Not 100% convinced it was evil but it certainly isn’t good. But it sure as heck isn’t willing.

There’s a reason we distinguish between volunteers and conscripts.