Last patch - still no Paladin rework?!

[woops]

Paladin classes are arguably unplayable because it is guaranteed that you will break your oath which breaks any immersion I had left. Why is it guaranteed? You can't kill or attack anyone that hasn't attacked first. You can't even punish a tiefling child for theft. Theft is illegal and immoral, in case you didn't know.
I've google searched more oathbreak scenarios and apparently even attacking the goblin war camp (!!!) "unprovoked" is going to trigger an oathbreak. These goblins are literally in a murder spree across the countryside for their evil god. It should be lawfully good to execute every single last goblin that you can find. Even killing some of the "neutral" baahlists in the bhaal temple will apparently break your oath. Murder is not lawfully good, okay? I get it, you didn't see them commit a crime but this is the BG3 fantasy universe, not real life. They are standing around in an underground temple where they are doing evil sacrifices. Does Larian seriously think that I should call the police and let them have their day in court?

Here is the bottom line: We need a complete redo of all dialogues to allow a genuine evil smashing paladin that kills any and all evil on sight. It should break my oath to know that the goblins massacred the village and not to stop them before moving to the next act.

[Backstabber 2008 Homosapien Karl]

Just use a mod.

Larian did a lot of things right. They did not do things like Paladin Oaths well. The game has loads of interactivity, but shockingly little actual roleplay.

Try playing a Cleric of Ilmater, face to face with a Cleric of Loviatar. Your unique dialogue is indulging the priest's torture. Ilmater's supposed to be about easing the suffering of others, taking burdens unto oneself to alleviate the burdens of others. This interaction is senseless pain and suffering for literally no reason, you aren't helping anyone by doing it. It is quite literally antithetical to Ilmater's entire belief structure. You quite literally strengthen your patron deity's major enemy for no reason.

Play a Cleric of Lathander. See how little interactions there are at the Githyanki Creche that they built... inside the ruins of a Temple of Lathander that the githyanki murdered.

♥♥♥♥ like this is way more jarring to me than the admittedly awful implementation of Oaths.

[alanc9]

It's not like we can expect a game to reliably judge intent. Sometimes stupidity will be mistaken for malice

[alanc9]

Publicado originalmente por Backstabber 2008 ♥♥♥♥ Karl:

Try playing a Cleric of Ilmater, face to face with a Cleric of Loviatar. Yourunique dialogue is indulging the priest's torture. Ilmater's supposed to be about easing the suffering of others, taking burdens unto oneself to alleviate the burdens of others. This interaction is senseless pain and suffering for literally no reason, you aren't helping anyone by doing it. It is quite literally antithetical to Ilmater's entire belief structure. You quite literally strengthen your patron deity's major enemy for no reason.

Not for no reason; that buff is useful. Whether a cleric of Ilmater would accept it or even want it is another matter.

Play a Cleric of Lathander. See how little interactions there are at the Githyanki Creche that they built... inside the ruins of a Temple of Lathander that the githyanki murdered.

Honestly, I thought it was more interesting to not have any guidance for that situation.

[FunkyMonkey]

Honestly, if I was in a situation where someone yelled at a distressed dog, regardless ifthe dog attacked or not, I would react. Like honestly, what is your problem if you think that is a reasonable way to act in that situation? o.O

[Fluffykeith]

Publicado originalmente por ♂GACHIGUS♂:

Publicado originalmente por Fluffykeith:

Literally explain why the situations are distinct and different....

Comes back with "they're the same!"

Ooookay then.

You "explained" it by using mental gymnastics. The situations are exactly the same, the only difference is the danger each animal represents. I would at least understand if you argument was "well a dog isn't as dangerous and you could just run away without killing it". It's still wrong, because a dog can kill a person or cause grievous harm, not to mention - disease, but at least it's an argument and not completely devoid of logic. But instead - mental gymnastics, like I said.

You like dogs and so does Larian and you are biased towards them. You just can't admit it, because it would prove your hypocrisy.

They're NOT the same...the difference is the attitude of the animal and the reasons behind it...and your options in responding.

The Owlbear is literally going "You are food, you are in my lair, I am going to kill and eat you." Your options are to get it to chill out.

Scratch is saying "leave me and my master alone, or I will defend myself" and your options are to let him know you aren't a threat, or to be a threat.

YOU decided to be a threat.

[♂Warrior of Gachi♂]

Publicado originalmente por FunkyMonkey:

Honestly, if I was in a situation where someone yelled at a distressed dog, regardless ifthe dog attacked or not, I would react. Like honestly, what is your problem if you think that is a reasonable way to act in that situation? o.O

Yelled at the corpse, not at the dog.

And you are basically saying you value the life of an animal over the life of a human. A human that didn't attack the dog, didn't hit the dog, didn't yell AT the dog.

Wow.

[Tresh]

Publicado originalmente por ♂GACHIGUS♂:

Publicado originalmente por FunkyMonkey:

Honestly, if I was in a situation where someone yelled at a distressed dog, regardless ifthe dog attacked or not, I would react. Like honestly, what is your problem if you think that is a reasonable way to act in that situation? o.O

Yelled at the corpse, not at the dog.

And you are basically saying you value the life of an animal over the life of a human. A human that didn't attack the dog, didn't hit the dog, didn't yell AT the dog.

Wow.

It's not about valuing the life of an animal over the life of a person, it's about you provoking a hostile reaction by disrespecting the dead. A dead person, mind you. And then slaughtering his loyal companion.

[FunkyMonkey]

Publicado originalmente por ♂GACHIGUS♂:

Publicado originalmente por FunkyMonkey:

Honestly, if I was in a situation where someone yelled at a distressed dog, regardless ifthe dog attacked or not, I would react. Like honestly, what is your problem if you think that is a reasonable way to act in that situation? o.O

Yelled at the corpse, not at the dog.

And you are basically saying you value the life of an animal over the life of a human. A human that didn't attack the dog, didn't hit the dog, didn't yell AT the dog.

Wow.

I didn't say I would kill the person, that would be overreacting. Like you are right now. I would react, for example, by telling the person that they are an ass.

And you didn't tell why you thought yelling was right in that situation. Yelling is threatening to animals, regardless who you yell at.

[Lord Adorable]

Publicado originalmente por ♂GACHIGUS♂:

Publicado originalmente por FunkyMonkey:

Honestly, if I was in a situation where someone yelled at a distressed dog, regardless ifthe dog attacked or not, I would react. Like honestly, what is your problem if you think that is a reasonable way to act in that situation? o.O

Yelled at the corpse, not at the dog.

How is an animal on the defensive supposed to know that?

[♂Warrior of Gachi♂]

Publicado originalmente por FunkyMonkey:

Publicado originalmente por ♂GACHIGUS♂:

Yelled at the corpse, not at the dog.

And you are basically saying you value the life of an animal over the life of a human. A human that didn't attack the dog, didn't hit the dog, didn't yell AT the dog.

Wow.

I didn't say I would kill the person, that would be overreacting. Like you are right now. I would react, for example, by telling the person that they are an ass.

And you didn't tell why you thought yelling was right in that situation. Yelling is threatening to animals, regardless who you yell at.

1. So you would let the dog cause the person injury and possibly infection and then call them an ass? If that is your reaction - wow.
And if the person explains that they didn't yell AT THE DOG, they just didn't know better and made a mistake - you'd still call them an ass? wow x2.

2. Because my character wanted to prove to the dog that its master is dead and isn't coming back. That is how it's framed in-game. It's rude, but it's not a taunt. It's stupid IF your character knows how an animal will react. I was playing a paladin, not a ranger or druid. She made a wrong call and it caused the dog to attack her. Defending herself is the only option other than letting the dog kill or injure her or her companions. And for that the gods strip her of her Oath? Oath of Vengeance? The one that values dealing with the greater evil no matter what? Seriously? Over a misunderstanding with an ANIMAL?

[Boss]

I'm sure one day DnD players will learn what a paladin is in the game, and maybe even read the oath tenets.

But it is not this day. This day we just say "paladin laful gud" and apply our own assumptions for what that means.

And I'm sure a lot of DnD players would be upset with me if they could read this

[alanc9]

Like I said upthread, the problem is that the game can't judge your intent. It thought you were just being an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

[woops]

don't worry ♂GACHIGUS♂, all the reasonable people are on your side here

[FunkyMonkey]

Publicado originalmente por ♂GACHIGUS♂:

Publicado originalmente por FunkyMonkey:

I didn't say I would kill the person, that would be overreacting. Like you are right now. I would react, for example, by telling the person that they are an ass.

And you didn't tell why you thought yelling was right in that situation. Yelling is threatening to animals, regardless who you yell at.

1. So you would let the dog cause the person injury and possibly infection and then call them an ass? If that is your reaction - wow.
And if the person explains that they didn't yell AT THE DOG, they just didn't know better and made a mistake - you'd still call them an ass? wow x2.

2. Because my character wanted to prove to the dog that its master is dead and isn't coming back. That is how it's framed in-game. It's rude, but it's not a taunt. It's stupid IF your character knows how an animal will react. I was playing a paladin, not a ranger or druid. She made a wrong call and it caused the dog to attack her. Defending herself is the only option other than letting the dog kill or injure her or her companions. And for that the gods strip her of her Oath? Oath of Vengeance? The one that values dealing with the greater evil no matter what? Seriously? Over a misunderstanding with an ANIMAL?

Again you are painting my reaction in the worst light just to make yourself look better. You are arguing dishonestly and defending killing harmless animals. I'm done talking to you because I find your way of thinking repulsive.

[Lord Adorable]

Publicado originalmente por ftw01:

don't worry ♂GACHIGUS♂, all the reasonable people are on your side here

How is yelling at corpses and murdering dogs "reasonable"?