Minthara makes no sense as a Paladin *SPOILERS*

[Harassment by Moderation]

I am saying this purely from a story/lore standpoint. Now admittedly, I am as green as green can be to D&D. This is my first foray into D&D and CRPGs in general. But from what I am gathering on websites, my 1500+ total hours spent in BG3, and my own stint as a Vengeance-sworn Paladin in one play-through, I am having a hard time reconciling Minthara being anything except an Oathbreaker Paladin, and even that's pushing it.

Agree/Disagree: Vengeance Paladins are essentially the Batmans of D&D? I mean, compared to their Oathbreaker counterparts they are essentially still Good-aligned. They're just not afraid to get their hands dirty, so long as they don't kill innocents or perform great evil themselves. But Minthara is straight up Evil-aligned. She has performed super evil acts.

"B-but the Absolute"

Hogwash. There are so many instances in the game where I can break my oath as a Dyrge Vengeance Pally thanks to me being a Bhaalspawn, but the Oath doesn't seem to give a rat's arse about that excuse. Apart from which, Minthara still wants to take control of the Absolute by the very end. But nope, she still gets to be Vengeance-sworn!

tl;dr: Should have just kept Minthara as a Rogue. Clearly that's what she was supposed to be originally.

[Dragon Master]

She makes perfect sense as an Oath of Vengeance paladin, because when she joins the party she is swearing vengeance against the Cult of the Absolute.

[Tempest Fox3]

Vengeance Paladins aren't necessarily good. Their only real Demand of their oath is Punish those deemed as wrong doers.

It's rather hazy on the ultimate details of what counts as a wrong do-er and how you punish them.

[votadc]

Originally posted by Dragon Master:

She makes perfect sense as an Oath of Vengeance paladin, because when she joins the party she is swearing vengeance against the Cult of the Absolute.

She doesn't rebel if you help Ketheric and even give him Nightsong.

[jonnin]

paladin has changed so much. It used to be Knight do-gooders of human race only. Then it was any race. Then there were anti-paladins and oathbreakers. Now, in 5e, its just a job.

Personally I have always felt a warrior order pledged to a deity is sufficient, of any alignment. They have to have a code of some sort, and should probably be lawful (unwilling to break their code) at least in some respects, but all in all it should have been much more open. I don't like it in Bg3 because dm has scripted garbage tied to the class that I simply do not agree with, but moving it away from the holy knights of good is a step in the right direction for RP. Still not there yet, but slowly...

[Xan]

In BG3 you can't (for obvious reasons) really pick the nature of your oath, instead you have to choose 3 generic templates of oaths and abide by those.

In DND proper, you decide the type and nature of your oath. Minthara swore an oath of vengeance against the absolute; Not the villainous or unrighteous or so on, just the cultists who enslaved her.

[zero]

batman would be consistently breaking his oath if he was any type of paladin, but especially vengeance.

he, consistently, lets evil go free because his belief is people can improve, which is the antithesis of a vengeance paladin. so no, paladin is not batman.

shorthand though: paladins in 5e are not locked to lawful good, they just need to follow their oaths, and she specifically does canonically because she is on a vengeance binge against the absolute.

[Harassment by Moderation]

Okay, but then why is my oath constantly broken in my play-through?

[zero]

Originally posted by 影沼:

Okay, but then why is my oath constantly broken in my play-through?

cause you keep breaking it

[Zerostalgia]

Originally posted by zero:

Originally posted by 影沼:

Okay, but then why is my oath constantly broken in my play-through?

cause you keep breaking it

shocked pikachu.gif

[Izlude]

Originally posted by 影沼:

I am saying this purely from a story/lore standpoint. Now admittedly, I am as green as green can be to D&D. This is my first foray into D&D and CRPGs in general. But from what I am gathering on websites, my 1500+ total hours spent in BG3, and my own stint as a Vengeance-sworn Paladin in one play-through, I am having a hard time reconciling Minthara being anything except an Oathbreaker Paladin, and even that's pushing it.

Agree/Disagree: Vengeance Paladins are essentially the Batmans of D&D? I mean, compared to their Oathbreaker counterparts they are essentially still Good-aligned. They're just not afraid to get their hands dirty, so long as they don't kill innocents or perform great evil themselves. But Minthara is straight up Evil-aligned. She has performed super evil acts.

"B-but the Absolute"

Hogwash. There are so many instances in the game where I can break my oath as a Dyrge Vengeance Pally thanks to me being a Bhaalspawn, but the Oath doesn't seem to give a rat's arse about that excuse. Apart from which, Minthara still wants to take control of the Absolute by the very end. But nope, she still gets to be Vengeance-sworn!

tl;dr: Should have just kept Minthara as a Rogue. Clearly that's what she was supposed to be originally.

In All-Star Batman and Robin, the Boy Wonder which is a Frank Miller classic Batman burns some criminals alive. Minthara is very tame compared to Batman. She only was going to kill the grove while being mind controlled and when she is free of mind control she is less bloodthirsty than Astarion or Karlach. The worst thing she does after being free of mind control was make that awful "it was a beautiful webbing" joke.

[Harassment by Moderation]

Originally posted by zero:

Originally posted by 影沼:

Okay, but then why is my oath constantly broken in my play-through?

cause you keep breaking it

Circular logic that doesn't explain the double standard with Minthara being able to perform great evil as a Vengeance-sworn Paladin while I can't perform great evil as a Vengeance-sworn Paladin.

[zero]

Originally posted by 影沼:

Originally posted by zero:

cause you keep breaking it

Circular logic that doesn't explain the double standard with Minthara being able to perform great evil as a Vengeance-sworn Paladin while I can't perform great evil as a Vengeance-sworn Paladin.

thats not circular logic, it breaks because you went aganist your oath, she didn't.

if you used her to make the choice hers would break too, but you didn't, did you?

[Harassment by Moderation]

Originally posted by zero:

Originally posted by 影沼:

Circular logic that doesn't explain the double standard with Minthara being able to perform great evil as a Vengeance-sworn Paladin while I can't perform great evil as a Vengeance-sworn Paladin.

thats not circular logic, it breaks because you went aganist your oath, she didn't.

if you used her to make the choice hers would break too, but you didn't, did you?

You're being purposefully vague and obtuse. We are both Vengeance-oath Paladins. We both follow the same Vengeance-oath tenets. Her reasons for taking up the Oath may be different, but the tenets outlying said Oath are invariably the same.

[zero]

Originally posted by 影沼:

Originally posted by zero:

thats not circular logic, it breaks because you went aganist your oath, she didn't.

if you used her to make the choice hers would break too, but you didn't, did you?

You're being purposefully vague and obtuse. We are both Vengeance-oath Paladins. We both follow the same Vengeance-oath tenets. Her reasons for taking up the Oath may be different, but the tenets outlying said Oath are invariably the same.

did you, actively, in you game, use her as the primary character and make the choice that broke your oath?

yes or no?

if no: thats why.

that wasn't being vague, you just think that your actions speak for her, but you never once state you used her to make the same choices you make.

so again: you broke your oath because YOU broke it.

[Izlude]

Originally posted by 影沼:

Originally posted by zero:

thats not circular logic, it breaks because you went aganist your oath, she didn't.

if you used her to make the choice hers would break too, but you didn't, did you?

You're being purposefully vague and obtuse. We are both Vengeance-oath Paladins. We both follow the same Vengeance-oath tenets. Her reasons for taking up the Oath may be different, but the tenets outlying said Oath are invariably the same.

She didnt make the choice, you did. A soldier following orders isnt to blame for the choices the brass made.