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:

.

As I said, Larian is at fault for either making a faulty Oath system or narrative wise in portraying any conflict. Because they constantly portraying Goblin as an antagonist, and allowing Player to fight them without any context, Player will learn from it and react as such.

And I disagree with Paladin can just avoid the ambush, since these Goblin are killing the refugee - not just the tiefling - , so leaving them alone pretty sure against the Oath.

Uhm.... Superman is called Boy Scout for a reason, he is the epitome of Naive Knight in Shining Armor. However there is 2 things that we can't use Superman here: One - Superman is basically immortal, He can afford to be naive, saying we are a Superhero at this point of the game is meta gaming so... -, Two - Superman only put himself at risk, he will never risking his teammates.

I would prefer they put a moral system with wisdom checks. As example of Blighted Village, if players gathered enough clues about goblin involvement it should allow the Paladin to consider them evil.

[KingOfFriedChicken]

Just do what i did... have another character do the evil things... oath never broken! lol

[Aranador]

I have seen Goblin Slayer - at no point should there ever be any question about if you should kill goblins, the only question should be if you managed to kill them all. Blame that Slavatore hack for making the evilest race ever, the drow, suddenly missunderstood 'heroes'

[Underprivileged White Male]

Originally posted by Aranador:

I have seen Goblin Slayer - at no point should there ever be any question about if you should kill goblins, the only question should be if you managed to kill them all. Blame that Slavatore hack for making the evilest race ever, the drow, suddenly missunderstood 'heroes'

The issue plagues 5th edition in general. They tried to make it "inclusive" and all they did was make it obtuse. If you worship an evil God.. I'mma kill your ass righteously. After I'm done I'll clean my sword, loot both halves of your corpse, then offer a prayer for your souls redemption.

That's a Paladin. Not some "sorry mr goblin, I hear you had a bad day, could I recommend you to a therapist?" crap.

[seandeven]

Originally posted by Underprivileged White Male:

Originally posted by Aranador:

I have seen Goblin Slayer - at no point should there ever be any question about if you should kill goblins, the only question should be if you managed to kill them all. Blame that Slavatore hack for making the evilest race ever, the drow, suddenly missunderstood 'heroes'

The issue plagues 5th edition in general. They tried to make it "inclusive" and all they did was make it obtuse. If you worship an evil God.. I'mma kill your ass righteously. After I'm done I'll clean my sword, loot both halves of your corpse, then offer a prayer for your souls redemption.

That's a Paladin. Not some "sorry mr goblin, I hear you had a bad day, could I recommend you to a therapist?" crap.

Disingenuous argument just to make a funny b.s.
Lawful slaughter Paladins exist just not devotion type or ancient class but you would have to read rule books to know that so I cannot fault you....

Originally posted by vuthanhchung2:

Originally posted by ManBearCannon:

.

As I said, Larian is at fault for either making a faulty Oath system or narrative wise in portraying any conflict. Because they constantly portraying Goblin as an antagonist, and allowing Player to fight them without any context, Player will learn from it and react as such.

And I disagree with Paladin can just avoid the ambush, since these Goblin are killing the refugee - not just the tiefling - , so leaving them alone pretty sure against the Oath.

Uhm.... Superman is called Boy Scout for a reason, he is the epitome of Naive Knight in Shining Armor. However there is 2 things that we can't use Superman here: One - Superman is basically immortal, He can afford to be naive, saying we are a Superhero at this point of the game is meta gaming so... -, Two - Superman only put himself at risk, he will never risking his teammates.

I would prefer they put a moral system with wisdom checks. As example of Blighted Village, if players gathered enough clues about goblin involvement it should allow the Paladin to consider them evil.

+1 Wisdom checks for following a moral code.

[Underprivileged White Male]

Originally posted by seandeven:

Originally posted by Underprivileged White Male:

The issue plagues 5th edition in general. They tried to make it "inclusive" and all they did was make it obtuse. If you worship an evil God.. I'mma kill your ass righteously. After I'm done I'll clean my sword, loot both halves of your corpse, then offer a prayer for your souls redemption.

That's a Paladin. Not some "sorry mr goblin, I hear you had a bad day, could I recommend you to a therapist?" crap.

Disingenuous argument just to make a funny b.s.
Lawful slaughter Paladins exist just not devotion type or ancient class but you would have to read rule books to know that so I cannot fault you....

Originally posted by vuthanhchung2:

As I said, Larian is at fault for either making a faulty Oath system or narrative wise in portraying any conflict. Because they constantly portraying Goblin as an antagonist, and allowing Player to fight them without any context, Player will learn from it and react as such.

And I disagree with Paladin can just avoid the ambush, since these Goblin are killing the refugee - not just the tiefling - , so leaving them alone pretty sure against the Oath.

Uhm.... Superman is called Boy Scout for a reason, he is the epitome of Naive Knight in Shining Armor. However there is 2 things that we can't use Superman here: One - Superman is basically immortal, He can afford to be naive, saying we are a Superhero at this point of the game is meta gaming so... -, Two - Superman only put himself at risk, he will never risking his teammates.

I would prefer they put a moral system with wisdom checks. As example of Blighted Village, if players gathered enough clues about goblin involvement it should allow the Paladin to consider them evil.

+1 Wisdom checks for following a moral code.

Tenets of Devotion

Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of
Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.
Honesty. Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be
your promise.

Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.

Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and
punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your
foes, but temper it with wisdom .

Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your
honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as
much good as possible while causing the least
amount of harm.

Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their
consequences, protect those entrusted to your care,
and obey those who have just authority over you




I mean that's straight from the PHB.
"Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them."
"Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom."
"Protect those entrusted to your care."

Nothing in there about not killing a goblin that attacked your friends.

Hell "Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom." quite clearly says to not show mercy if common sense tells you otherwise.


I'm not a huge fan of 5th edition in general, and MUCH prefer 3.5, but I've certainly read the rules, am an avid classic fantasy reader, and have a few campaigns under my belt.

[seandeven]

Originally posted by Underprivileged White Male:

Originally posted by seandeven:

Disingenuous argument just to make a funny b.s.
Lawful slaughter Paladins exist just not devotion type or ancient class but you would have to read rule books to know that so I cannot fault you....






+1 Wisdom checks for following a moral code.

Tenets of Devotion

Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of
Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.
Honesty. Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be
your promise.

Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.

Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and
punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your
foes, but temper it with wisdom .

Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your
honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as
much good as possible while causing the least
amount of harm.

Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their
consequences, protect those entrusted to your care,
and obey those who have just authority over you




I mean that's straight from the PHB.
"Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them."
"Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom."
"Protect those entrusted to your care."

Nothing in there about not killing a goblin that attacked your friends.

Hell "Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom." quite clearly says to not show mercy if common sense tells you otherwise.


I'm not a huge fan of 5th edition in general, and MUCH prefer 3.5, but I've certainly read the rules, am an avid classic fantasy reader, and have a few campaigns under my belt.

I meant read the discussion.


Yes the honor system needs an adjustment.
Throwing out the whole thing may as well just get rid of the paladins, because clerics do everything better, divine smiting is a ribbon ability I guess meant purely for divine rpg purposes that clerics can pick up....

Paladins aren't kill'em all let god sort them out.
That would be a fighter or barbarian.
Knowing that the bloat of 3.5, power fantasy players love the faux "customization"
I much prefer to run a table of tenets and streamlined guidelines of 5e
(Maybe 5e is "dumbed" down but honestly it smooths the time at the table instead of looking up which skills a hundred points will get you in proficiencies and skills because they might not even be relevant to the campaign.)

Then as the DM looking up 3.5 skills everytime because there are 100s, I don't like 3.5 but it's better than anything in 4e.

.... that bad must bash, it me alignment, god told me....
Thereby adjusting the alignment pie chart.
I don't care for any of that particular paizo system in my dnd game.
Here, adjustments are warranted.

Your appeal to authority is hilarious

[ExcaliburV]

Originally posted by ManBearCannon:

This is the second time I've heard the cleric comparison, which is utterly ridiculous. A cleric has more in common with a wizard than it does a paladin. A paladin is a martial fighting type -- and a damn good one. A cleric is a caster. This is nonsense.

I'd agree with this if they didn't give the cleric so many proficiencies. Wizards don't start with medium armor (possibly heavy), shields, simple (and possibly martial) weapons- like jeebus cripes calm down just make them priests.

Granted that's true of most editions. I think Pathfinder 2e is the only one I know of that gives Clerics a more preist-ly option.

[KingOfFriedChicken]

Originally posted by ExcaliburV:

Originally posted by ManBearCannon:

This is the second time I've heard the cleric comparison, which is utterly ridiculous. A cleric has more in common with a wizard than it does a paladin. A paladin is a martial fighting type -- and a damn good one. A cleric is a caster. This is nonsense.

I'd agree with this if they didn't give the cleric so many proficiencies. Wizards don't start with medium armor (possibly heavy), shields, simple (and possibly martial) weapons- like jeebus cripes calm down just make them priests.

Granted that's true of most editions. I think Pathfinder 2e is the only one I know of that gives Clerics a more preist-ly option.

I mean isn't 1 of the dwarfs proficient in medium armor? So that dwarf a wizard would be startable in medium armor? I haven't tried this yet but I think it would work.

[ExcaliburV]

Originally posted by KingOfFriedChicken:

I mean isn't 1 of the dwarfs proficient in medium armor? So that dwarf a wizard would be startable in medium armor? I haven't tried this yet but I think it would work.

I think all dwarves are. Same for Gith. And yeah, it does work like that, one of my characters in this game is a Gith battle wizard. It's pretty fun.

Still, racial bonuses aren't the same thing as inherent class features.

[ExcaliburV]

Originally posted by ManBearCannon:

How close the correlation is between cleric and wizard is off-point. The point is that comparing a cleric to a paladin is ridiculous. Their playstyles are nothing like each other, and they do not fill even close to the same role. But you are right, the wizard and cleric do not fill the same roles either.

It's not that ridiculous though. With the proficiencies clerics get, they can have pretty much the same AC as a Paladin. So they can tank as well as paladins can. Inflict wounds does more single-target damage at level 1 than a paladin's smite, and they both consume spell slots, of which the cleric has far more of. Combine that with the greater spell repetoire that lets them run the gamut of utility, healing, damage, and crowd control, and certain domains even giving them free skill proficiencies, making them better skill monkies too. The only thing the paladin really has on the cleric is extra attack. Which granted, combining that with smite can do a lot of damage, but only if you're open to burning two spell slots a round.

Conceptually, yes, clerics are supposed to be more pure casters than paladins are. In practice... eh.

Now, I haven't played high-level in 5e before, so I couldn't tell you if there's some point where it starts to split more dramatically. But for low to early-mid, it feels like Clerics have an easy win.

[Strm. Müller]

Originally posted by Underprivileged White Male:

Originally posted by Aranador:

I have seen Goblin Slayer - at no point should there ever be any question about if you should kill goblins, the only question should be if you managed to kill them all. Blame that Slavatore hack for making the evilest race ever, the drow, suddenly missunderstood 'heroes'

The issue plagues 5th edition in general. They tried to make it "inclusive" and all they did was make it obtuse. If you worship an evil God.. I'mma kill your ass righteously. After I'm done I'll clean my sword, loot both halves of your corpse, then offer a prayer for your souls redemption.

That's a Paladin. Not some "sorry mr goblin, I hear you had a bad day, could I recommend you to a therapist?" crap.

Here here! '80's slow clap from a guy who started playing 1st edition, with the original books, playing as a Paladin only.

[Panic Fire]

So many people having issues trying to rationalize a bug.


The goblins in the camp are tagged rightfully so as friendly non combatants because there are many avenues to explore where the goblin camp is allied or tolerant of your character. The issue or bug is that the Goblins don't drop the non combatant/allied flags that fail your paladin oath. That's it. There are some occasions where it shouldn't drop the flag but in most cases it should and it currently doesn't which is a bug.

This causes the goblin panic that has plagued these forums since paladins have dropped.

You don't need to rationalize your paladin oaths so hard.

And no paladins are not lawful good or even just lawful. They can be of any alignment now in 5e.

[Popsicles]

I just entered the doors that head inside the Goblin Camp. The ogre didn't have any special convo about getting in. So I entered. They attacked me on sight. All my pally did was defend herself, and boom - broke my oath!

I've taken every Paladin dialog option and played her as goodie two-shoes as possible. I even gained inspiration with my holy heroics at Waukeen's Rest. Yet, for defending my self and killing a Gobbo guard, I've lost my sacred oath!

This sucks and it shouldn't be that way. I didn't do anything to piss off the gobbos. As a matter of fact I just finished selling a bunch of stuff to the merchant. They were all neutral until I entered the building.

[Ronin Gamer]

I find this rather funny.
I never played a full play through of paladin when patch 9 first came out, so maybe a patch came through, but I did do a mostly full play through of a paladin recently of ancient subclass and the ONLY time I broke Oath was when I purposefully knew it would break, otherwise I had NO problem with maintaining my Oath.
Maybe that has something to do with that subclass, but I had a hard time understanding why everyone was having a hard time maintaining the Oath.
Maintain yourself in a Good manner, lean lawful at times where needed. Don't go around outright attacking people unless they attack you or threaten innocents. Don't commit to actions that would be considered evil acts by the logic of the universe, like the one I did on purpose to test breaking the Oath by using the wand to raise an undead, which did in fact break it, and that was the only time it ever broke for me.