For people struggling to maintain Paladin Oath

[Miqi]

Paladins are based around their alignment being lawful.
I know from reading these forums that many struggle to maintain their lawfulness when it comes to encountering goblins.

If you only run 1 paladin, it's fairly easy to circumvent this.
The oath only breaks if the paladin gets a killing blow.

If you run 4 paladins, you need to prove that your opponent is not following a just law.
This will often be done through dialogue, especially in the Goblin fortress

You can enter the area and free Halsin .
However if you allow the NPC to follow you thus turning all goblins hostile to your presence, you will still break your oath when slaying the goblins unless you let the NPC get the killing blow because the Goblins are just acting in their own good faith towards a escaped prisoner.

However, if you tell the NPC to wait where you found them, approach each of the Goblin Bosses, the priest, the drow and the Bugbear and engage in dialogue, talk about their plans untill you eventually reach a dialogue option that mentions your Oath.
If you pick the answer which includes your Oath, the NPCs will turn hostile and your paladin(s) can land the killing blow without losing their Oath as you've proven through dialogue that the NPCs are in fact Evil.


Keep this in mind as you play the full release of BG3 in August as this is how Paladins will work throughout the game.

[vuthanhchung2]

Originally posted by ManBearCannon:

Originally posted by vuthanhchung2:

I would say that logic is flaw and that is your opinion of the Code, Evil characters can also being duress when being pursued by Heroes, would the Paladin is allowed to help the Evil characters ? And using the same of your logic, in the Blighted Village where the Gnome are in immediate duress and about to be killed by Goblin, Paladin also is not allowed to kill them unless they walk up for a conversation. So either the Paladin has to know reason for any conflict before taking action or they are allowed to use their judgement, you can't just pick and choose when it is applied and when it is not.

You said Paladin was not assassin, yet BG3 Paladin can assassinate the 3 Bosses. You may say Paladin took an oath to kill them, but does not explain the assassin-tactic, if according to you the "correct" way to play Paladin is fighting straight up. The same with "Deception" option, or lock-picking, the game allows Paladin to do all these things that against the "suppose codes". You can't pick and choose when to apply it then say that other people don't know how to play Paladin.

This is clearly a faulty system and should be fixed or rework.

If the paladin was unaware of the context, and a group of humans was cornering and about to slaughter 3 goblins, I would expect the paladin to step in and defend the goblins. That is what an oath of devotion paladin does, defend weak humanoids who are too weak to fend for themselves. If the humans were justified in their chasing down of the goblins, they would have to explain themselves to the paladin before he stepped out of the way.

_________________________________________________
Just as the paladin is also unaware of the context of the goblins chasing the humans. The humans clearly broke into the goblin camp with the aid of the druids, in effort to steal something from the goblins camp. In the goblins eyes, they are either spies or assassins and chasing them down to defend their secrets. The goblins even say as much while you walk around their camp, and they become obsessed with finding the grove after the spies escaped.

But the paladin is obviously unaware of this context and defends the helpless anyways, who are also the instigators. Which is exactly how it should be... the paladin is not omnipotent, and should defend those in immediate danger when they cross his path.

Sorry, I find that logic is for player want to play impulsive Paladin, even in the codex of Paladin : Courage and Compassion are required to be tempered with Wisdom. You are not suppose to be a Lawful Good Barbarian, there is reason why Paladin has proficiency in Wisdom save, and not Intelligent save. The Paladin are not suppose to be a naive Knight in Shinning armor.

You also did not address the example of clearly Larian did not follow your "rule of Paladin":
1/ The Gnome was in the immediately duress and on the verge of being killed, why can't Paladin attack and kill those goblin ?
2/ Paladin can back stab and kill the 3 bosses in the Goblin camp, that is the behavior of an assassin.
3/ Paladin can use "deception" option in conversation and use lock picking, these are against the first code of Honesty.

And even let's say that I will ignore all these inconsistent in the Paladin system and your way of playing Paladin is the "correct" way, it still is Larian fault for portraying the Goblin as Evil and antagonist, First encounter: they did not allow Paladin to have an option of choose side, but forcing Player to fight against the Goblin, Second Encounter: the Goblin attacked the refugees at Blight Village and ambushed the party for no reason - that I call the action of robber -, Third Encounter: the Goblin is torturing a Gnome, Fourth encounter: the same Goblin group attacked and killed everyone in the inn, Finally Goblin camp: where they celebrate the Raids and cooking dwarf. By that time anyone with the Wisdom higher than 6 would use their common sense and think the goblin as the main antagonist of the game in the first act.

So no matter who you see it, it is Larian faults. Either they have to rework the whole story lines or fix the Oath Breaker system

[dolby]

Originally posted by vuthanhchung2:

Originally posted by ManBearCannon:

Those people at the gate are under immediate duress. The paladin is always allowed to act to protect humanoids under duress. But the paladin is not an assassin, and can't just walk up behind idle people/goblins and stab them in the back. He can probably walk up behind them and knock them unconscious if the situation calls for it.

The system works great if you actually role play AS a paladin. If you want to do those things, JUST BREAK YOUR OATH! Stop advocating for the removal of a system many love to play. You are supposed to lose your oath powers if you violate it in game, this is how the system is supposed to work.

__________________________________________________

Lord Adorable is making points directly related to this topic, just doing so through humor, which is great.

I would say that logic is flaw and that is your opinion of the Code, Evil characters can also being duress when being pursued by Heroes, would the Paladin is allowed to help the Evil characters ? And using the same of your logic, in the Blighted Village where the Gnome are in immediate duress and about to be killed by Goblin, Paladin also is not allowed to kill them unless they walk up for a conversation. So either the Paladin has to know reason for any conflict before taking action or they are allowed to use their judgement, you can't just pick and choose when it is applied and when it is not.

You said Paladin was not assassin, yet BG3 Paladin can assassinate the 3 Bosses. You may say Paladin took an oath to kill them, but does not explain the assassin-tactic, if according to you the "correct" way to play Paladin is fighting straight up. The same with "Deception" option, or lock-picking, the game allows Paladin to do all these things that against the "suppose codes". You can't pick and choose when to apply it then say that other people don't know how to play Paladin.

This is clearly a faulty system and should be fixed or rework.

Exactly it just doenst work simple as that...All you can do is play a stupid paladin. Best to just remove it, make it optinal cos at this point no one can save it... if they couldn't come up with a half decent system in 3+ years. It's unlikly they will come up with one in 6 months.. anyway if they will try to rework it so be it. We posted suggestion on how to fix it as well so... but that would need work and apparently they are finishing the game.

[dolby]

Originally posted by ManBearCannon:

Originally posted by vuthanhchung2:

Sorry, I find that logic is for player want to play impulsive Paladin, even in the codex of Paladin : Courage and Compassion are required to be tempered with Wisdom. You are not suppose to be a Lawful Good Barbarian, there is reason why Paladin has proficiency in Wisdom save, and not Intelligent save. The Paladin are not suppose to be a naive Knight in Shinning armor.

You also did not address the example of clearly Larian did not follow your "rule of Paladin":
1/ The Gnome was in the immediately duress and on the verge of being killed, why can't Paladin attack and kill those goblin ?
2/ Paladin can back stab and kill the 3 bosses in the Goblin camp, that is the behavior of an assassin.
3/ Paladin can use "deception" option in conversation and use lock picking, these are against the first code of Honesty.

And even let's say that I will ignore all these inconsistent in the Paladin system and your way of playing Paladin is the "correct" way, it still is Larian fault for portraying the Goblin as Evil and antagonist, First encounter: they did not allow Paladin to have an option of choose side, but forcing Player to fight against the Goblin, Second Encounter: the Goblin attacked the refugees at Blight Village and ambushed the party for no reason - that I call the action of robber -, Third Encounter: the Goblin is torturing a Gnome, Fourth encounter: the same Goblin group attacked and killed everyone in the inn, Finally Goblin camp: where they celebrate the Raids and cooking dwarf. By that time anyone with the Wisdom higher than 6 would use their common sense and think the goblin as the main antagonist of the game in the first act.

So no matter who you see it, it is Larian faults. Either they have to rework the whole story lines or fix the Oath Breaker system

It's difficult to respond to them all at once, because I already wrote 2 paragraphs to respond to just one of your points. I don't think anyone wants me to write a whole book on here. Plus you are accusing me of being a naive knight in shining armor and also too ruthless in the same post. It's difficult to respond to both at once, because they are on opposite ends of the polarity spectrum. Unless I am misunderstanding you. I can definitely respond to all of those points if you want but will you clarify for me first:

Are you saying that defending the humans fleeing to the grove is wrong, and not allowed by the oath of devotion/ancients?

Are you also saying that the paladin should act like an assassin to stab the goblin leaders in the back?

Can you also clarify the context of the deception? And why would lockpicking violate an oath of honesty? Did the paladin lockpick and steal, or just lockpick a locked door or something. Was it to investigate or to steal, or to loot unowned items (which is a bit of a grey area in game mechanics)? I don't see what lockpicking has to do with honesty, or why it would violate an oath.

I mean, I am playing the game and I haven't broken any oaths, so I think my interpretation is synonymous with Larian so far.

____________________________________________________
Point 1) The paladin should absolutely go up there and demand that they release the gnome from the windmill at once, and if they refuse, to kill them or force them into submission. For me, that goes without saying. What paladin wouldn't go help the gnome? I don't see how this could be a point of contention for anyone. Saving the gnome did not break my oath, did it break yours?

like i said you are playing a stupid paladin.


Right now i have to go in pick the worst stat check and debuff myself so i can play the same way and force the goblins to fight with a forced failed roll... What kinda of system is that lol where it lets me exploit it like that and many many other ways..... Like i said a stupid system as ♥♥♥♥...needs fix end of story...

[Mermidion]

Originally posted by ManBearCannon:

Originally posted by dolby:

Exactly it just doenst work simple as that...All you can do is play a stupid paladin. Best to just remove it, make it optinal cos at this point no one can save it... if they couldn't come up with a half decent system in 3+ years. It's unlikly they will come up with one in 6 months.. anyway if they will try to rework it so be it. We posted suggestion on how to fix it as well so... but that would need work and apparently they are finishing the game.

like i said you are playing a stupid paladin.


Right now i have to go in pick the worst stat check and debuff myself so i can play the same way and force the goblins to fight with a forced failed roll... What kinda of system is that lol where it lets me exploit it like that and many many other ways..... Like i said a stupid system as ♥♥♥♥...needs fix end of story...

It is optional in the way that it is currently implemented. You have the option to adhere your to your oath and maintain your class, or to violate your oath and become an oathbreaker. If you don't want to give up on your oath, you can attempt to redeem yourself by making a self-sacrifice... in terms of wealth.

So your point is that you don't really care about saving the gnome, and want to just kill the goblins. Which is why you are debuffing your charisma stat to make sure that you can slaughter them. So you are clearly not playing as an oath abiding paladin. THEN JUST PLAY AS AN OATHBREAKER! Or any of the other 20+ classes. The system is working exactly how it should. People desiring to kill everything that crosses their paths are not role playing as oath of devotion/ancient paladins.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to slaughter everything in the video game, which is why every single class allows you to do that without consequence... except for the devotion/ancients paladin. What you are advocating for is universalism, the only class which offers a differing morality system from the others must conform to allow the exact same playing style/tactics that all of the others allow. But its' the paladin's uniqueness which makes the class fun in the first place.

Exactly this.

All that stuff that people state here:
"They should make it optional" .....it is optional. you have the option to play something else or to become and oathbreaker and continue.
"Why should we be forced to be good" ....you are not ,If you wanna play a murder hobo, play a barbarian or a fighter or simply break your oath.
"Why should i be forced to uphold an oath and cant do what i want?" -...because that the point of a fricking Oath. if a monk took an oath of silents, he wouldnt immediatly walk into town square and started singing.
" Being forced to play as an oathbound Paladin who actually has to keep his oath is immersion breaking" -no..no i will let this one speak for itself.

I dont even like Paladins...at all .(i prefer playing villains) but even i can see how an Oath bound Paladin just makes sense.

[dolby]

Originally posted by ManBearCannon:

Originally posted by dolby:

Exactly it just doenst work simple as that...All you can do is play a stupid paladin. Best to just remove it, make it optinal cos at this point no one can save it... if they couldn't come up with a half decent system in 3+ years. It's unlikly they will come up with one in 6 months.. anyway if they will try to rework it so be it. We posted suggestion on how to fix it as well so... but that would need work and apparently they are finishing the game.

like i said you are playing a stupid paladin.


Right now i have to go in pick the worst stat check and debuff myself so i can play the same way and force the goblins to fight with a forced failed roll... What kinda of system is that lol where it lets me exploit it like that and many many other ways..... Like i said a stupid system as ♥♥♥♥...needs fix end of story...

It is optional in the way that it is currently implemented. You have the option to adhere your to your oath and maintain your class, or to violate your oath and become an oathbreaker. If you don't want to give up on your oath, you can attempt to redeem yourself by making a self-sacrifice... in terms of wealth. And no one cares if you want to use exploits in a game like this. The presence of exploits is not a valid reason to throw away the oath system.

So your point is that you don't really care about saving the gnome, and just want to kill the goblins. Which is why you are debuffing your charisma stat to make sure that you can slaughter them. So you are clearly not playing as an oath abiding paladin. THEN JUST PLAY AS AN OATHBREAKER! Or any of the other 20+ classes. The system is working exactly how it should. People desiring to kill everything that crosses their paths are not role playing as oath of devotion/ancient paladins.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to slaughter everything in the video game, which is why every single class allows you to do that without consequence... except for the devotion/ancients paladin. What you are advocating for is universalism, the only class which offers a differing morality system from the others must conform to allow the exact same playing style/tactics that all of the others allow. But it is the paladin's uniqueness which makes the class fun in the first place.

again no one wasnts to slaughter everything....

[Core]

Thanks for the workaround.
However, this truly makes zero sense. Making everything controversial is the way of the stupid aspirant. They are insisting doing everything this way and then changing it with extra effort; like shadowheart.
I hope the rest of the game does not come out like this just because they are not getting backlashes.
Paladin was the one class I had been looking forward to. If killing goblins to reclaim the master druid is felling for a paladin, I might not wait for august and simply refund this game. I do not care what WotC thinks about alignments, this is neither d&d nor a mechanic that is digestible above an IQ of 80.

[ExcaliburV]

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. If you're a bleeding heart that believes people that commit heinous atrocities and cause the death of dozens and refuse to repent and surrender deserve mercy, the Oath of Redemption is that way. It has no bearing on the Oath of Devotion. The Oath of Devotion encourages mercy, but *demands* justice for the wicked. Letting these goblins live to kill again is failing in your oath more than killing them ever could be.

Now, something I will admit, after reading over the oath more thoroughly, is that I do believe killing the goblins is a breach of the Oath of Ancients. So anyone arguing that... yeah, I think you're right. Although it's hard to tell because the Oath of Ancients is so horrendously vaguely worded that my conclusion mostly comes from intuition.

[Wolff]

I started with Oath of Ancients, actually, every time I play this subclass I always break my Oath. Very boring gameplay if you ask me, sit back wait for buffs, and heal with high Charisma. This time around playing as Oathbreaker, is very fun and probably the best tank I've played so far.

Yesterday got new armor for my Oath of Ancients / Oathbreaker.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2936156368

[ExcaliburV]

Originally posted by ManBearCannon:

Originally posted by ExcaliburV:

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. If you're a bleeding heart that believes people that commit heinous atrocities and cause the death of dozens and refuse to repent and surrender deserve mercy, the Oath of Redemption is that way. It has no bearing on the Oath of Devotion. The Oath of Devotion encourages mercy, but *demands* justice for the wicked. Letting these goblins live to kill again is failing in your oath more than killing them ever could be.

Now, something I will admit, after reading over the oath more thoroughly, is that I do believe killing the goblins is a breach of the Oath of Ancients. So anyone arguing that... yeah, I think you're right. Although it's hard to tell because the Oath of Ancients is so horrendously vaguely worded that my conclusion mostly comes from intuition.

It is a regional war. Do you think that dozens of the goblins aren't being murdered as well?

The paladin's job is not to end all war, but to help troubled souls along his/her path, which is all the game asks of you. If your interpretation is that the paladin should walk into every war camp waging war, and slaughter every soldier, i think you are misinterpreting the oath, or extending it beyond it's intended scope.

I do believe goblins are being murdered. In fact, I believe that the goblins in the camp have murdered other goblins. The fact that the goblin loyal to muglubiyet is locked in a cage shows they have a history of silencing or removing dissenters. They also have a conspicuous spider pit in the middle of their base. Considering the sudden shift to the Absolute among the goblins could only best be described as a coup, it's very likely many of the tribe died before the faith overtook what was left.

And no, the Paladin's job isn't to end all war. It's to protect innocents. And innocent refugees are being murdered. It's not a case where two evenly-matched armies are facing off. This is civilians being massacred en mass by what amounts to bandits. That IS within a paladin's jurisdiction.

[ExcaliburV]

Originally posted by ManBearCannon:

I've heard several people claim this in the previous thread, but what innocent refugees were being hunted down and killed? I do not remember any. The goblins are seeking to destroy the grove because several spies/assassins were caught sneaking in the heart of their military camp and escaped to this grove while killing several goblin soldiers on the way out.

Then the tieflings are afraid to leave because they share a camp with the spies, and the goblins might assume they also hold the spies information regarding the absolute's plans. But I don't understand how any of this can be construed as goblins hunting down innocent civilians... unless you are referring to something else that I am forgetting.

The paladin has more information than the goblin and should defend the tielfings so that they have a clear path to baldur's gate, but should do so without killing every single goblin, or at least TRY to defend them without killing every single goblin.

The tieflings are being killed. And the tieflings were first attacked well before Aradin's expedition happened. They were attacked on the road by the gnolls, which is what forced them into the grove in the first place. And while I don't believe you see them side-by-side, for some reason, it is mentioned by one or two goblins that the goblins, gnolls and drow are operating as one cohesive group.

If this was a splinter act of the gnolls going rogue, you would think that there would be SOME discussion about that, but there's nothing. As far as the information the game provides, we can only assume that the gnolls acted with the full sanction of the group as a whole.

And even if you believe that they're only attacking the grove because they consider the adventurers to be spies, it STILL doesn't explain the unprovoked attack on Waukeen's Rest. These goblins are not acting like people that deserve my respect and understanding. They are acting like bandits.

[ExcaliburV]

Originally posted by ManBearCannon:

That is a fair point. I consider the gnolls and goblins separate discussions, but if you are making the case that they are part of one cohesive unit, that could change the discussion considerably.

You are also grouping in so many incidents at once to say that they are evil. They have to be looked at with a case-by-case basis. We have already had the discussion of Waukeen's Rest in the previous thread and I think we pretty much agree on that. The goblins sacked Waukeen's Rest to kidnap a political prisoner, which is both a standard practice of war, and also evil. So again, I feel like this falls under the "it's not the paladin's job to end all war but rather to protect those in need along his/her path argument." If the paladin runs into the political prisoner, I think the paladin should help him/her if it is possible.

Of course I'm grouping many things together to say that they're evil. If a group does a single dodgy thing, then maybe there could be room for understanding and forgiveness. But if a group does many questionable (at best) things back to back, doesn't that compounding evidence paint a bigger picture?

I do remember our other discussion, and I do agree that the paladin should help if they encounter the prisoner. But I don't agree the paladin shouldn't hold those responsible accountable just because it's a practice in war. You're saying that when a paladin encounters the people responsible for a crime, you expect them to just keep walking until they find the actual victim of the crime and THEN do something, which to me doesn't make any sense. If we both agree Waukeen's Rest was evil, then why should we let the perpetrators get away with it?

[ExcaliburV]

Originally posted by ManBearCannon:

Originally posted by ExcaliburV:

Of course I'm grouping many things together to say that they're evil. If a group does a single dodgy thing, then maybe there could be room for understanding and forgiveness. But if a group does many questionable (at best) things back to back, doesn't that compounding evidence paint a bigger picture?

I do remember our other discussion, and I do agree that the paladin should help if they encounter the prisoner. But I don't agree the paladin shouldn't hold those responsible accountable just because it's a practice in war. You're saying that when a paladin encounters the people responsible for a crime, you expect them to just keep walking until they find the actual victim of the crime and THEN do something, which to me doesn't make any sense. If we both agree Waukeen's Rest was evil, then why should we let the perpetrators get away with it?

It's not that grouping together the evil deeds doesn't have some validity, but we can't really evaluate all of deeds simultaneously, and I certainly can't respond to them all at once. We have to converse them one at a time to actually get a reasonable account of whether each deed is evil or not. After they are evaluated, they can be grouped together to judge the goblins by.

But this isn't a vengeance paladin. And paladin's do not judge or hold large groups of people to account, which is what it becomes once it is a war camp. If the paladin did, the evaluation would be simple, every war camp is evil and therefor kill every soldier in the world. The paladin judges small groups of people responsible for evil, like an individual or 3-6 bandits.

Can you imagine a paladin in some other setting doing this? How about witcher 3: the paladin needs to sneak in and kill every nilfgardian soldier because they are waging war and some of the soldiers are torturing prisoners.

I think that you are just expanding the paladin's scope far beyond what is intended.

Couldn't tell you much about the Witcher, so I can't respond to that. Also I do understand your point about keeping the conversation focused, so fair enough.

Although I disagree with the fundamental premise that Paladin's don't hold groups to account. They do is all the time. Especially to cults, which is more accurately what the goblin camp is. Specifically because of how zealous and unrepentant their followers tend to be.

This is what I meant when I (very poorly, I think) tried to explain my guilty be association premise in the other thread. Even if we say this is a very special case, I personally believe there are no innocents in the goblin camp. Not because they're all goblins, but because they are all zealous cultists to an evil deity that commit evil acts. There is already evidence that the goblins do away with dissenters, which like I mentioned before leads me to believe that anyone that could have been considered innocent in the whole mess is likely either dead or driven off.

That's why I consider them one singular whole to be judged, rather than a group of individuals. They are all uniform in purpose and intent, and even those that didn't actively take part in the more objectively evil things like Waukeen's Rest likely would have done the exact same thing if they were there.

I personally believe the fair justice for their crimes is death, and since I am judging them as one body, I will mete out the sentence on... MOST of them. I do think it's fair to clarify my exceptions, since I've generally only hinted at them. The priest to maglubiyet in the cage is innocent. I also believe killing the goblin children should, correctly, strip a paladin of their Oath. Even if I don't believe they're innocent, I do believe they're largely defenseless, so killing them is dishonorable.

A bit rambly, but I suppose this can serve as an overview of the entirety of my belief on this matter.

[ExcaliburV]

Originally posted by ManBearCannon:

Oh, you should play the witcher. Great game.

I really like your cultist argument. I still feel that they are a war camp, and evaluate the situation in that manner... but the dangerous cultist argument feels quite strong. I like how Larian is currently implementing the oathbreaks, outside of a few bugs, and hope that their interpretation of the oath of devotion stays pretty similar to this for launch, but I see your interpretation too. It seems also valid.

And if you consider them a war camp, yeah, I see where you're coming from too. War camps tend to be a lot more nuanced and need to be handled with a lot more care. So at least we have an understanding of each other. I really like how the system's being handled too, I do like actually having to uphold my oath if I want to keep it. There just might be some differences of opinion on what upholding your oath means.

Also, I have no doubt that the Witcher games are great, but I generally prefer to play RPGs where I can make my own character. It's a rare RPG that gets me to play it even when I can't customize, and I don't think Witcher is that for me, from what I've seen.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Not a fan of the Witcha. Never finished one.

[vuthanhchung2]

Originally posted by ManBearCannon:

Originally posted by vuthanhchung2:

It's difficult to respond to them all at once, because I already wrote 2 paragraphs to respond to just one of your points. I don't think anyone wants me to write a whole book on here. Plus you are accusing me of being a naive knight in shining armor and also too ruthless in the same post. It's challenging to respond to both at once, because they are on opposite ends of the polarity spectrum. Unless I am misunderstanding you. I can definitely respond to all of those points if you want but will you clarify for me first:

Are you saying that defending the humans fleeing to the grove is wrong, and not allowed by the oath of devotion/ancients?

Are you also saying that the paladin should act like an assassin to stab the goblin leaders in the back?

Can you also clarify the context of the deception? And why would lockpicking violate an oath of honesty? Did the paladin lockpick and steal, or just lockpick a locked door or something. Was it to investigate or to steal, or to loot unowned items (which is a bit of a grey area in game mechanics)? I don't see what lockpicking has to do with honesty, or why it would violate an oath.

I mean, I am playing the game and I haven't broken any oaths, so I think my interpretation is synonymous with Larian so far.

____________________________________________________
Point 1) The paladin should absolutely go up there and demand that they release the gnome from the windmill at once, and if they refuse, to kill them or force them into submission. For me, that goes without saying. What paladin wouldn't go help the gnome? I don't see how this could be a point of contention for anyone. Saving the gnome did not break my oath, did it break yours?

Sorry for the late reply:

My points are I applied your logic of " Paladin" into each and every specific cases in those 3 circumstances and It failed.

Since you specific said for the first Encounter with the Goblin, The Paladin can fight and kill Goblin without question because the other sides are in immediate duress, I countered with Evil can also be duress when about to be killed by Hero, You countered back that Paladin are compelled by the Oath to help the weak as long as they don't know the context. Which is why I said it is a naive Knight in Shinning armor, A Lawful Good Barbarian, and not a Paladin, Paladin are required by their Oath to use wisdom for any of their action not jumping in head first in any situation demanding justice.

The 2nd points are how Paladin are allowed to stabbed the 3 leaders in the back and kill them without become Oath Breaker, which is again contrary to your logic.

During the game there are multiple dialog option that has "deception" option, Lock picking treasure chest, other people chests,... All of these are against the Honest Oath, even such option "persuade" such as : "I am a mercenary come to meet the boss" at gate of Goblin camp, that have element of untruth in them also against the Honest Oath. And I am afraid "bring game mechanic" is not an excuse, it is how the Oath and rule of Paladin are applied in "game mechanic" that we are discussing here.

The 1st point: It is that reason that is why I said your way of playing is of "Naive Knight in Shinning Armor", you saw a large group of Goblin are torturing a Gnome, they are out number you more than 2-1, they have High ground advantage point, they have beasts. And you decided: the "correct" way to be a Paladin is not to your wisdom to make judgment, but waltzing in there and demand them to release their captive.

This is a bad system and faulty one that design for passive players, I meant : at Blighted Village, every single perception checks and dialog are telling you :" Hey there are Evil Goblin ambush and kill everyone around here, you better be careful ", yet Paladin had to waltz in there like a nitwit.