Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
In the -paraphrased- words of Kyle Katarn "It dosn't matter if your Force powers are of the Dark or Light Side, it's how you use them."
What I meant is, Vengeance is "special" since it's not really a "good" oath, and in some cases may require deeds that might be considered evil for a regular paladin (such as killing a foe who surrendered, or killing from behind/by treachery, or ignoring protection of innocents to pursue your own vengeance). At best it's a "neutral" oath, at worst it can lean into lawful evil territory.
This means that breaking Oath of Vengeance might in itself be a good act in some cases. However, whether Larian actually implemented these nuances in BG3 remains to be seen.
Well, for one thing, from what I have heard and seen, this game isn't using Alignments. That means the only thing dictating whether or not an Oathbreaker is good or evil is *you.*
Bad powers do not make bad people. You can use bad powers for the sake of good ends.
I myself am going to be playing a Vengeance Paladin/Sorcerer multiclass, and if I become an Oathbreaker, it's not going to actually make my character's morality any different, it's just going to be an indicator they can't quite uphold the oath they swore for whatever reason.
In Vengeance's case, maybe it's because I spared a sworn enemy because I felt they could be say, redeemed. An act some would say is good, especially if it pays off. Also an act that could very conceivably break the oath, as a Vengeance Paladin does NOT show mercy to the Sworn Enemy, it's one of their tenents.
That act would make them an Oathbreaker Paladin... but will not cosmically change their behavior. They will still be the person they were before, but with a new set of paladin abilities to reflect how they failed to uphold their sworn oath.
Good anwser, I have other question.
For example, if you pick a Drow, some characters react to you in a hostile way.
I was wondering if that's the case to with the oathbreaker, maybe some characters will react to you like that.
No idea! They might, because the world of D&D has certain preconceptions. Drow are "Always evil", for example, even if individual members are not. Oathbreakers may similarly be seen negatively, but that doesn't mean you have to play that stereotype the setting has crafted.
Just like half-orcs are often considered barbaric (at least they were last I checked), there's nothing stopping you from saying "I am going to play a well educated, well spoken, very polite half orc", because there are SO many ways to rationalize acting outside a stereotype that most people do not even think to question it in reality.
Similarly, you can play a paladin who through the best of intentions, still fails the oath due to human failings. They thus in turn become an Oathbreaker, with all the stigma that entails... and yet still strives to be the best person they can be even if people will judge them as evil instinctively just because of having broken an Oath.
After all, NORMAL people in the setting likely don't know all the ins and outs of an oath, and how they can limit you from doing what you feel is the right thing. Many people likely just imagine paladins as we do in reality, "Generic good guy with holy magic and SMITE!", and thus assume the oaths are quite basic and are purely motivated by good things.
Yet 5e has, and I must praise it for this, done a lot to encourage letting people play how they want too from what i've seen, such as removing alignment restrictions from Paladins. The Oath may still dictate their behavior, but if you can rationalize it, you could use all those oaths for evil. It's easiest as something like a Vengeance Paladin or a "My Master right or wrong" Crown Paladin (a tabletop Oath that I might not be remembering quite right), but we could undoubtedly brainstorm ways for even the other oaths to be stretched towards less good pursuits.
I feel I must specify that "using the oath for evil ends" is more a tabletop idea than a video game one. It's not like we have a DM to argue with here regarding whether or not an act breaks the oath. Just trying to demonstrate how what the world *expects* is not how *you* have to *act*.