Oathbreaking as a vengeance paladin?

[RW]

I haven't actually played the game yet, as I've been waiting for the actual release, so feel free to correct me if I misunderstood something about how BG3 actually works.

Anyways, I was wondering, as for vengeance paladins, what if there were some situation where their oath to basically destroy evil at all costs is sort of at odds with what feels right. For example, say there's a definitely evil person they need to kill, but doing so will mean an innocent person will also definitely die. So they choose to let the badguy go in order to save the innocent person. Would that not be breaking their oath? If so, it feels a bit odd to me that oathbreaker paladins are sort of the "evil" paladin, because they could have come to that point via not so evil reasons. Though personally, I think it could be a really interesting character choice, if we are given the opportunity to play this way.

[DreadMuse]

One of it's oaths:
"By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can't get in the way of exterminating my foes."


EDIT: Actually never mind, another one is "Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds."

So, seems situational, maybe it will matter if it's a "sworn enemy" or not?

[Pedro Picapiedra]

Despite oathbreakers being strictly evil in 5e the oathbreaker knight in BG3 is not really evil and you can regain your oath/do good as an oathbreaker if you choose to.

[BigAlzBub]

Vengeance paladins are the epitome of "The ends justify the means".
There was a group called the Cathars who were a heretical sect of Christianity, a crusade was called against them (The Albigensian Crusade in 1209-1229), during it, there was a moment when army was unleashed to hunt down the heretics, during it one commander asked who he should kill (as there was no way to know who was a Cathar and who was an ordinary peasant) and was told "Kill them all, god will know his own." as anyone innocent would earn a ticket to heaven and anyone guilty would be condemned to hell. This is the sort of thinking that Vengeance Paladins engage in.

If you find that your heart cannot cope with harming innocents while pursuing the guilty then it is likely that would abandon your oath and lose your powers rather than embracing the darkness and becoming an Oathbreaker. In Tabletop, you might have to retire your character or have the martial portions but none of the magical powers, but a more charitable DM would probably let you switch into a different class, not dissimilar to the way you can respec in BG3, although they might require a period to retrain.

[Harukage]

Originally posted by DreadMuse:

One of it's oaths:
"By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can't get in the way of exterminating my foes."


EDIT: Actually never mind, another one is "Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds."

So, seems situational, maybe it will matter if it's a "sworn enemy" or not?

You are forgeting the main one.

Fight the Greater Evil: Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the greater evil.

Letting some innocent die is a lesser evil. Allowing a big bad guy keep running amok and killing even more is a greater evil. Always choose to combat the Greater Evil.

[GrandMajora]

Imagine breaking your oath and becoming something described as a 'mortal fiend' because you chose to the path of forgiveness.

[BigAlzBub]

Originally posted by GrandMajora:

Imagine breaking your oath and becoming something described as a 'mortal fiend' because you chose to the path of forgiveness.

Yeah, Oathbreaking in BG3 is a little like taking a page from the Anakin Skywalker playbook..."No! it's the Jedi that are evil, so now I must murder some kids..."

In Tabletop, you would lose access your powers until you atoned, depending on the nature of your church/religion, you might be able to take up a different oath, or you might have to abandon the path of a Paladin entirely. You would only become an Oathbreaker if you abandoned your oath for dark purposes.

[DreadMuse]

Originally posted by Harukage:

Originally posted by DreadMuse:

One of it's oaths:
"By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can't get in the way of exterminating my foes."


EDIT: Actually never mind, another one is "Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds."

So, seems situational, maybe it will matter if it's a "sworn enemy" or not?

You are forgeting the main one.

Fight the Greater Evil: Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the greater evil.

Letting some innocent die is a lesser evil. Allowing a big bad guy keep running amok and killing even more is a greater evil. Always choose to combat the Greater Evil.

Yeh i get it and it makes sense. I was thinking the same, but then Restitution one threw me off.

[GrandMajora]

Originally posted by BigAlzBub:

Yeah, Oathbreaking in BG3 is a little like taking a page from the Anakin Skywalker playbook..."No! it's the Jedi that are evil, so now I must murder some kids..."

In Tabletop, you would lose access your powers until you atoned, depending on the nature of your church/religion, you might be able to take up a different oath, or you might have to abandon the path of a Paladin entirely. You would only become an Oathbreaker if you abandoned your oath for dark purposes.

I don't know entirely for sure, but I believe in the books, Anakin rationalized it as the kids being too far gone to actually save.

Jedi make a habit of recruiting people as young in life as possible. Often taking them from their parents when they're still infants and then conditioning them to sever all ties with the outside world. The Jedi Order is effectively a cult that seeks to brainwash you into blindly following its doctrine, and only in incredibly rare and exceptional cases do they agree to train older students.

At the time of the purge, those younglings were pretty much indoctrinated and had no other life experience outside of the order. Anakin saw it as a mercy killing, and was actually crying after the deed was carried out.

[Chadimir Lootin]

Originally posted by GrandMajora:

I don't know entirely for sure, but I believe in the books, Anakin rationalized it as the kids being too far gone to actually save.

Jedi make a habit of recruiting people as young in life as possible. Often taking them from their parents when they're still infants and then conditioning them to sever all ties with the outside world. The Jedi Order is effectively a cult that seeks to brainwash you into blindly following its doctrine, and only in incredibly rare and exceptional cases do they agree to train older students.

At the time of the purge, those younglings were pretty much indoctrinated and had no other life experience outside of the order. Anakin saw it as a mercy killing, and was actually crying after the deed was carried out.

It's kind of a shock when you finally realize the Empire were technically the good guys the whole time.