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.

[zero]

Originally posted by thufirhawat333:

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.

Being a paladin is about more than swearing vengeance one time though, isn't it?

not so much in 5e, as long as you honor your oath you can be as specific as you want with your goal, there is no higher power giving them power anymore.

[Taifun_Vash]

You can literally do any decision that would break your oath, with one of the origins and you don't get an oathbreaker, because they were the ones who carried out the decision.

[Knightfell]

Paladins are not inherently good. a paladin can give an oath to ANY deity (paladin of tiamat are just nasty).. the goody two shoes thing is just a stereotype.

[Kriss Hietala]

and shalltear should be rogue instead of cleric.

[thufirhawat333]

Originally posted by zero:

Originally posted by thufirhawat333:

Being a paladin is about more than swearing vengeance one time though, isn't it?

not so much in 5e, as long as you honor your oath you can be as specific as you want with your goal, there is no higher power giving them power anymore.

I see. I'm still living in the 3.5 world, it would seem. Old habits die hard.

[Panda-Bishop]

Funny thing is Minthara literally refers to herself as an Oathbreaker because her forced conversion to serving the Absolute violated her oath to serve Lloth. I think she's supposed to start as an Oathbreaker Paladin, but either a bug or a limitation of the class system prevents her from actually being one.

[ppaladin123]

There are actually a few different paladin oaths in D&D 5e and only the base 3 (and oath breaker) made it into BG3. There is "conquest" that fits the lawful evil character type very well. And others like "watchers," "crown," and "glory" that are perfectly compatible with evil or good since they focus on something orthogonal to good/evil.

[Taifun_Vash]

Originally posted by Panda-Bishop:

Funny thing is Minthara literally refers to herself as an Oathbreaker because her forced conversion to serving the Absolute violated her oath to serve Lloth. I think she's supposed to start as an Oathbreaker Paladin, but either a bug or a limitation of the class system prevents her from actually being one.

In my current play she stated she lost her goddess, but kept her oath.

[zero]

Originally posted by Taifun_Vash:

Originally posted by Panda-Bishop:

Funny thing is Minthara literally refers to herself as an Oathbreaker because her forced conversion to serving the Absolute violated her oath to serve Lloth. I think she's supposed to start as an Oathbreaker Paladin, but either a bug or a limitation of the class system prevents her from actually being one.

In my current play she stated she lost her goddess, but kept her oath.

paladins aren't religious anymore in 5e.

[Taifun_Vash]

Originally posted by zero:

Originally posted by Taifun_Vash:

In my current play she stated she lost her goddess, but kept her oath.

paladins aren't religious anymore in 5e.

Doesn't change her story, through the absolute she lost her goddess Lloth, but kept her oath intact.

[zero]

Originally posted by Taifun_Vash:

Originally posted by zero:

paladins aren't religious anymore in 5e.

Doesn't change her story, through the absolute she lost her goddess Lloth, but kept her oath intact.

i mean i was mostly saying losing her god would mean nothing to her oath, its just a fun little character point rather then a reason she'd break it, i wasn't clear.

[lazyeyedboglin]

In my head canon she only becomes a Paladin when she takes a personal oath in the moment to destroy the Absolute. I know she uses smites beforehand when you fight her. But like, overlook that.

[Helios_One]

Originally posted by Panda-Bishop:

Funny thing is Minthara literally refers to herself as an Oathbreaker because her forced conversion to serving the Absolute violated her oath to serve Lloth. I think she's supposed to start as an Oathbreaker Paladin, but either a bug or a limitation of the class system prevents her from actually being one.

This is an old thread resurrected by a not as old post. Larian could have simply made Minthara an Oathbreaker by default as was done with Kekthric by default and perhaps just written a script that allows for her respec if she is an oathbreaker much like companion backgrounds are fixed. It seems more like this was just what was slapped on her and justified by some dialogue about "her oath" without thinking about what her background as a Lolth-Sworn Drow would actually be and that such a character could never have had such an Oath in the first place. This is quite odd as they correctly have a Dork Urge Paladin violate their oath right in the beginning of the game if they decide to shake Gale's hand in the wrong way. Perhaps Minthara could be a Paladin under the Oath of Treachery or Oath of conquest. But certainly not any other oath, especially not Vengeance. Given that there are no other oaths, it would have made more sense to make her either an Oathbreaker at the start or just made her a Fighter of some sort.

http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/paladin:treachery-ua
http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/paladin:conquest

On this issue of whether or not she can really be a Paladin or have the Oath of Vengeance. Vengeance in this case is the definition: "Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution." In other words, the old/middle english use of "Vengeance" as a synonym for justice as you might find in some texts from the era; the King James Bible as an example. This is exhibited by the handbook's description

The tenets of the Oath of Vengeance vary by paladin, but all the tenets revolve around punishing wrongdoers by any means necessary. Paladins who uphold these tenets are willing to sacrifice even their own righteousness to mete out justice upon those who do evil, so the paladins are often neutral or lawful neutral in alignment. The core principles of the tenets are brutally simple.

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

No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.

By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can't get in the way of exterminating my foes.

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.

http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/paladin:vengeance

Contrary to what some have stated in this thread, it has nothing to do with swearing an "oath to get revenge" on a specific enemy you feel slighted against. Keyword: "punishing wrongdoers." In other words, being an Oath of Vengeance Paladin is practically like swearing an oath to be Batman and getting powers for doing it.

A servant of Lolth, an evil deity, cannot be a paladin as the drow culture centered around her religion is evil. Being a Paladin of Vengeance having its tenets centered around punishing evil even if it takes what could be argued as evil to carry it out. A Lolth worshipper being evil therefore would have to violate the Oath of Vengeance by either continuing to live in service to Lolth or by not becoming an apostate from Lolth's religion the moment they took their oath as Lolth worshipers are all evil characters who therefore are the targets of the oath,

Second, even if we are to twist what a Paladin is and try to somehow justify that somehow one could be a Paladin of Vengeance and still serve the absolute or knowingly serving worshipers of the dead three. The worshipers of the dead three of course another group of people who are targets of the oath.

And certainly as previously, nothing she does or says after joining your character on his or her adventure indicates anything of the sort required to be a Paladin of Vengeance.

[Toaster Maximus]

For some reason she always struck me more has a conquest paladin she can be forceful at interesting times

Edit: but get the feeling she will be moved to crown next big update given the crown she serves

[Raz]

Originally posted by Helios_One:

Snip

So, you typed all of that but never read the Oath Tenents in the game you're discussing because Larian home brewed Paladins and their Oaths as well. It isn't a 1:1 to 5e. Makes a helluva lotta sense not to be in a video game setting as people would be breaking their Oaths even easier than they do now.

As for Minthara calling herself an Oathbreaker; no she doesn't. She says she should be if not for her taking up a new Oath of Vengeance against any who've wronged her, forced her to take action against her will, that the spark of Vengeance still burns within her.

The in-game Tenents that conveniently every Paladin carries with them after character creator.

Fight the Greater Evil. Exerting your wisdom, identify the higher morality in any given instance, and fight for it.

No Mercy for the Wicked. Chasten those who dole out their villainy by wiping their blight from the world forever.

The Greater Evil is very vague. Greater Evil to whom? To what? There is zero mention of good or innocent, just identify the higher morality in the moment and fight for it. Minthara is quite a moral person, despite who she is. She is among the most moral and principled people in the entire group of recruits we get. So greater Evil to herself?

No mercy for the wicked; this she is doing in spades after turning from the Absolute with her being against many evil routes other than taking the throne of Bhaal or the Absolute in the end. Up until those points, she is against any agreements with evil NPCs and disapproves every time.

If you're arguing when she was an Absolutist or a worshipper of Lloth; again, with how these Oaths are written now, who is the Greater Evil in these scenarios because in either case, Minthara would not see her God she serves as the evil one. Not with the Absolute, not with Lloth. Her enemies would be the evil one.

What's that old saying; a hero is another man's villain.