i just kill slavers duergars and somehow break my oath of ancients)_))

[Somulo]

ajahahahahhaahahah

NICE LOGIC

KILL DUERGAR - SLAVERS TO SAVE GNOMES

BROKEN THE OATH

NICE LOGIC))))

THE UNDERSTANDING OF GOOD AND EVIL ON EXTEREMELY PERFECT LEVEL STORY WRITER!

[SmashingQuasar]

Originally posted by Invalidiot:

I am playing a druid and yes I have played Paladin in many different groups off and on since 1980. Going by the rules as written philosophy is what has led to the Lawful Stupid meme even back then, and I never had a DM that hard lined playing it that way nor would I stay for one that did. DMs would look at the situation and circumstances of the encounter and work out a solution to moral/ethical questions. That is very hard to do in a Video Game. As I said I have not been there yet, but does Larian provide a way to interrupt the killing and allow some way to stop it from happening or initiate a dialogue? Shout at them to stop and wait or offer to buy the slave for their freedom? Is it a death that's unavoidable? I ask for just for people who feel they way OP does and want a solution. With my druid the duegar will be toasted asap. Hmmm.. I wonder as I don't play a pally if it happens when a party member initiates combat? Just some thoughts to help other people with the question/solution.

Those are excellent points and to answer you, yes, there are many ways to make the duergars not hostile or even make them attack you without being a murder hobo. I did this part as a paladin and killed them simply because I told them I'm not ok with their slavers. They tried to extort money out of me, I refused, they attacked, I killed them, all good with my oath.

[momonami5]

OP should have picked oath of vengeance instead :D

[Turkwise]

OP is Lawful Stupid

[Locklave]

Originally posted by Arlen639:

OP got banned, ironic if you see it as he broke the code like his Pally broke his oath. I am actually chuckling at the poetic justice of it all.

I feel like there is a lot of overlap on that venn diagram.

Originally posted by Turkwise:

OP is Lawful Stupid

I think Chaotic Stupid works better in this case based on the thought process, but on the key issue we are in agreement.

Originally posted by momonami5:

OP should have picked oath of vengeance instead :D

Ya, that is for sure the no ♥♥♥♥♥ given Oath. But at the same time I feel like the OP would still trip that one up based on his posts.

[partly sane]

well that was interesting...

[Rena Ichigawa]

Op complains... gets told why... decides to argue every person over a game... gets banned. Ahh karma for trying to insult everyone that explains literal video game mechanics of a table top.

[SeedReaper]

I have a quest to kill all the duergar by the lake. How am I supposed to do that if my oath won't let me? I did tell them i'd get the boots for them so maybe i should spend the 20 minutes looking for the right NPC, tell him I'm keeping the boots, and then let him attack first, then I'm the good guy. That's just dumb.

[RhodosGuard]

Originally posted by SeedReaper:

I have a quest to kill all the duergar by the lake. How am I supposed to do that if my oath won't let me? I did tell them i'd get the boots for them so maybe i should spend the 20 minutes looking for the right NPC, tell him I'm keeping the boots, and then let him attack first, then I'm the good guy. That's just dumb.

Take Glut with you.
If you have Glut with you the Duergar are immediatly hostile.
If you dont want to take Glut with you, then you just wont do the quest.
Dont play a Paladin that is all about pacifism and then expect to be able to kill everything.

That's simply how that subclass works.

[Crysanthium]

Originally posted by SmashingQuasar:

Originally posted by Quineloe:

Oh please, given how often lawful good enforcers will attack on sight and / or declare death is the only correct punishment this statement this must ring hollow even to you.

your interpretation of lawful evil is also very much off.

Lawful Good characters will never do that, if you played a game where they did, then you DM does not understand Lawful Good.

you haven't played pathfinder wrath of the righteous have you >.>

[SmashingQuasar]

Originally posted by acid:

Originally posted by SmashingQuasar:

Lawful Good characters will never do that, if you played a game where they did, then you DM does not understand Lawful Good.

you haven't played pathfinder wrath of the righteous have you >.>

Which is based on... Pathfinder, not DnD.

[Fenriswolf1991]

I play a Vengeance Paladin myself. And yes, I can remember the stereotypical "Lawful Stupid" Paladin from the older versions, who often had ridiculous tenets to follow. Alone the relationship and marriage laws for Paladins were crazy. In Baldurs Gate 2 you can get a quest to kill a Fallen Paladin (that´s what Oathbreakers or Blackguards were called in Edition 3.5) who just fell because he had sex with a woman without being married to her. Another Lawful Good Paladin in BG2, Keldorn, who neglected his wife and children for some crusade in the underdark, was authorized to send her to execution for cheating on him.

[gankutsuou04]

Having encountered this myself, I think a fairer point against the Oath of the Ancients is that it is painfully unclear what the actual tenants are.

Kindle the Light. Through acts of kindness, enkindle the light of hope in the bleakest hollows of despair.
Shelter the Light. Where love blooms, stand against the devilry that would snip its stem.
Preserve Your Own Light. Delight in culture and small joys to preserve the light in your own heart.

If the game wants to say that Oath of the Ancients is an oath to never kill unless someone attacks first, regardless of their evil, then that'd be fine if it said that ever. But it doesn't. It doesn't help either that every [Paladin] prompt in the Duergar area explicitly says, "End your slavery now or I will kill you.", implying that killing a slaver for being a slaver is Paladin behavior regardless of oath.

Likewise, if the game wants to just say, "Killing anyone who's only Temporary Hostile" will break your oath, then fine. It's a silly arbitrary rule, but it does seem to be the rule playing Oath of the Ancients. If that means that Acts later when I'm in the death blood murder hall of the brain eating mind control slavers and they've let me in because I lied about being evil, at least I'll know I can still be a Paladin as long as I warn them I'm about to cave their skulls in right before I do so.

[Shadowfox]

Originally posted by gankutsuou04:

Having encountered this myself, I think a fairer point against the Oath of the Ancients is that it is painfully unclear what the actual tenants are.

Kindle the Light. Through acts of kindness, enkindle the light of hope in the bleakest hollows of despair.
Shelter the Light. Where love blooms, stand against the devilry that would snip its stem.
Preserve Your Own Light. Delight in culture and small joys to preserve the light in your own heart.

If the game wants to say that Oath of the Ancients is an oath to never kill unless someone attacks first, regardless of their evil, then that'd be fine if it said that ever. But it doesn't. It doesn't help either that every [Paladin] prompt in the Duergar area explicitly says, "End your slavery now or I will kill you.", implying that killing a slaver for being a slaver is Paladin behavior regardless of oath.

Likewise, if the game wants to just say, "Killing anyone who's only Temporary Hostile" will break your oath, then fine. It's a silly arbitrary rule, but it does seem to be the rule playing Oath of the Ancients. If that means that Acts later when I'm in the death blood murder hall of the brain eating mind control slavers and they've let me in because I lied about being evil, at least I'll know I can still be a Paladin as long as I warn them I'm about to cave their skulls in right before I do so.

yeah i agree but at the same time its kinda funny and makes sense religions always relied on being both literal and up for interpretation depending on what suites there needs but in fantasy worlds it might seem vague but if you ♥♥♥♥ up your god will be sure to let you know cause your playing by there rules not yours and yeah its vague as ♥♥♥♥ you got a problem with that well it would be a shame if all the power you have worked for suddenly went poof wouldn't it.

which is why warlocks are better (unless you didnt read the fine print)

[Crysanthium]

Originally posted by SmashingQuasar:

Originally posted by acid:

you haven't played pathfinder wrath of the righteous have you >.>

Which is based on... Pathfinder, not DnD.

pathfinder...which is based on....dnd.

[Lytho]

im only 4 pages in to this but im gonna drop this real quick here, SOO if you free the cave in, yes Nere comes out and kills a little gnome buuuut if you notice in the bottom left corner the cross swords icon... you can attack nere before he yeets her into the lava... cos HE is a Lolth Drow, which are EVIL so you do not break your oath of ancients tenants.. but you've clearly missed how paladin oaths work, they are tied in to the LG NG CG - NG NN NE - CE NE LE alignment charts, if you do an action no matter what the LOGIC you use to justify it if it would change your alignment it breaks your oath. Oath of Anc is LG it must be a LAWFUL action of a good choice, that means within fair laws. Thats why you must state intent you cant kill a nonhostile.

Originally posted by Somulo:

Originally posted by GodMan:

you just can't be reasoned with and every suggetion that the aligment might not be for you, you just rebuke as an insult

stop acting like a child

like i said before i done arguing because its just writer dead logic and script

drow need to go and like a chad throw a gnome to lava

and you cant do anything thats it

what insults - who's child

man you basically start to troll first, then i kill you and 50% of strange people above with arguments and now you just cant step back

sad for you what can i say

The tenets of the Oath of the Ancients focus on good acts, preserving beauty and life, delighting in laughter, and being a glorious and hopeful beacon. Acts of pure evil and malice are a quick way to break this oath, if they cannot be realistically proven as good or having been done under the effects of evil magic.