Installer Steam
log på
|
sprog
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (traditionelt kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tjekkisk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (græsk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (hollandsk)
Norsk
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasilien)
Română (rumænsk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et oversættelsesproblem
Diskussionsregler og retningslinjer
Rapporter dette indlæg
The tenets work on perspective as well; what is evil to one person is not necessarily evil to another, whats evil to a Drow society would be what normal people would call good, same applies to Minthara and the Absolute. For Oath of the Vengeance, whatever you give an Oath to avenge, you must always follow through on that (for the MC, it's always done as avenging innocent bystanders). For Minthara, its laying down the beatdown on any who wrongs her Goddess.
The tenets can and typically are quite homebrewed in DnD proper if you work with your DM. The class tenets are generally a guideline for setting up how you do your Oath along with the perspective of said character.
You did not do THE EXACT SAME THING, as you put it. You betrayed the Grove (even if it was part of a plan to set her up later). She did not.
Bottom line is that Paladins aren't supposed to be sneaky double-crossers. Play as a Fighter if you want to do that. Or a Rogue. Or as an Oathbreaker, I guess.
An interesting thought, but that's not what the Tenets of Vengeance says. She's got the exact same tenets as the MC because she's the exact same kind of Paladin. Allowing the tenets to vary based on person or race undoes the power of the oath. If they really wanted it to be a thing like what you're suggesting... they'd have set up a different oath entirely for her. But that would mean she'd automatically become Oathbreaker as soon as she joined your party and couldn't go back. It's an impossible situation.
But this is what happens when the guys at WotC decide that Paladins don't need to be good... or even to follow a god. It's a disaster waiting to happen.
And what's Minthara's excuse? She has been sending goblins to attack these people throughout the wilderness, regardless of innocent bystanders. She should be Oathbroken before you even meet her.
So let me see if I understand you.
She sends goblins to attack and harass these people all across the wilderness... and torture prisoners... and more... and it's ok for her Paladin of Vengeance because.... she isn't betraying the people she's doing this to?
Doesn't fit the Tenets of Vengeance. And that's my entire point.
And double-crossing evil fits perfectly with the Oath of Vengeance. Wipe out the wicked, by any means. Bringing the entire enemy force to where you have a tactical advantage (the Grove) and you can lead the forces to eliminate them all... Is perfectly in line.
Meanwhile, nothing she does fits the Tenets.
Literal mind control.
Almost as if performing acts not of one's own choosing isn't grounds for a broken oath.
And wiping out the wicked by any means doesn't mean intentionally placing those the wicked threaten at risk.
Not a bad thought, and I could even go with it. Though since the MC wasn't given the opportunity to lie to Minthara and deceive her into the trap for the double-cross... The MC *also* didn't perform the act completely of their own choosing, did they? That's the danger of scripted events, I suppose.
Paladin of Vengeance can attack enemies (and is expected to do so). They are her enemies.
For you, however, they are not enemies, so you revealing them to her is a betrayal.
So much this.
Breaking your Oath and becoming a Oath Breaker is no big deal for my enjoyment. Did it several times. Your paladin will still kick ass. Depends on how you want to play your paladin. I have always played mine as a freedom seeker. From any Oath but my own.
Read the strictures again. It's not attacking enemies... it's attacking the wicked.
You are angry and whining because you did a sneaky, underhanded, dishonorable thing and it broke your paladin oath.
Problem Number 2:
The D&D rules are written with the *explicit* assumption that players are good-aligned, even though 50 years of real world experience shows that some people like to try playing as evil-aligned. Paladins used to be absolutely locked to "lawful good", but people complained about that being too restrictive, so they came up with these oath rules.
Minthara was a paladin for LOLTH! Whatever oath she swore would have been aligned with Lolth. And then her loyalty was forced to transfer to the Absolute, who is also evil-aligned. For her, attacking the Grove is not an oathbreaking act. They are her enemies. They are enemies of her god, The Absolute. For her, they are "wicked".
But still, you didn't break your oath for attacking them. In fact, you never attacked them, right? You broke your oath for your dishonorable tactics. You betrayed people. You lied. You told Minthara where the camp was (betraying the trust of the people in the camp), and then you betrayed Minthara too. This is simply not paladin behavior.
Paladins are supposed to do the right thing, but also to do it the right way. If you don't want to have that kind of restriction, then either don't play a paladin or play as an oathbreaker.