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.

[Toaster Maximus]

Originally posted by 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.

Or in this case every villain is the hero of their own story

[Helios_One]

Originally posted by 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.

You mean
"You have set aside even your own purity to right wrongs and deliver justice to those who have committed the most grievous sins."

It's quite interesting as it's "deliver justice to those who have committed the most grievous sins" and "right wrongs" as it is paraphrasing the player's handbook. Nothing in Minthara's dialogue suggests either. In fact, in some of her dialogues, she's insistent on doing some other wrongs.

But good for you. Starting strong with no arguments at all.

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?

In the forgotten realms setting, evil is quite well defined and defined universally. Lolth worshipers and the Drow of Menzoberranzan are quite evil. Relativism does not apply here.

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.

BTW, she also suggests using the Main Quest McGuffin to do more evil as well. BTW, she approves of


Telling Shadowheart to kill Aylin (an objectively evil act)


Agreeing to help Marcus kidnap Isobel (an objectively evil act). But then again she likes whatever decision you make here.


Helping Astarion complete the ritual (objectively evil even if the victims are vampire spawn)


Agreeing with her that you want to take over the cult and use the McGuffin to rule the world while especially liking it when you use it.

as a few examples. She quite likes being evil and doing evil things for entirely selfish purposes. Not anywhere close to the tenets of the oath. Whereas she would be much more suited to an Oath of Conquest instead.

[Nilfsen]

Oath is some promise/goal/strife paladin can draw power from.
Something so strong that "keeps that person going".
If you need example for vengance as oath, think John Wick.

In table top it could be quite specific goal and for Minthara, for scope of BG3 it is -> defeat Absolute, make them suffer for what she suffered.
But that doesn't mean it is not Minthara's mindset in general.
Vengance = not letting slide any harms done to you (but also helping others claim their Vengance). In that context it is following "eye for en eye" as best rule for life.
Doesn't mean she would help any stranger with his vengance, but if so she would not suggest "letting go".

She is also evil, but that is a bit separate to vengance. She would not hasitate to kill, lie, steal if that serves her goals but is not doing cuel/evil things just for sake of doing them, just more as "pragmatic choices". That doesn't mean she have something against voilence or killing just as mindless acts are more problematic than helpfull.
Being evil is more important to how her vengance would look like than if she would take it or not.

Vengance paladin can be good (or at least do things seen as good), but would allways be on side of having no mercy and bringing punishemnt over anything else.

Good version of vengance paladin I would see as someone that brings someone to justice even if his acts could be seen as justified. He might spare you if you surrender but will make sure you will pay price for your deeds.
This way paladin could also go from being good to evil, getting consumed by his vengance.

Serving absolute and being Dark Urge as vengance paladin are "a bit different things" in that context.
Minthara was not able to resist, was a puppet of Absolute.
While Dark Urge seems simmilar, ultimately can resist impulses of Bhaal Spawn so going against oath is also choice.

[John]

This thread was quite old before the recent post, so we're locking it to prevent confusion.