My paladin broke her oath by killing goblins?

[wylkyn]

I was fighting the Hobgoblin leader in the goblin camp, and all his gobbo friends, and then when the combat ended, it said that my paladin broke her oath. How? I have no idea what she did other than fight evil goblins. It seems that without any feedback on what your paladin is doing wrong, everyone will eventually become an oathbreaker. How does the system work? I've tried to make her make the right choices in conversation and so forth, though I've avoided the Paladin conversation lines that would just outright start a battle. Is that what the problem is? I sincerely hope this isn't the only choice for paladin characters, because that would suck. It's like 2nd edition all over again.

[Unclechopchop]

Messaggio originale di Panic Fire:

Messaggio originale di andrewlambaaves:

I agree but in this game even with oath of ancients its way too rigid

To rigid? Just stop breaking your oaths lol. Of course there would be rigidness you are a paladin lol.

So oath of ancients promotes being good and compassionate over necessarily being lawful. Example in the druid grove: you save sazza from being shot by the teifling and the game loves that as its 'good', if you then choose to free her (which could also be seen as 'good and compassionate' as she is technically being deceived by the "Absolute") it leads to a broken oath, why? your oath isnt to be rigidly lawful, and you freed an individual who (according to the class) should receive a second chance since they have been deceived and on top of that offers to assist you.....

And honestly I am fine with the black and white don't do anything wrong or lie or use any type of stealth attack if that's what they want but they should just outright state it instead of leaving up to the player thinking there could be subtlety to role playing the class when the way they've made it there really isn't any regardless of what oath you take (and i assume they'll add all the oaths on full release).

[Dragon Master]

Messaggio originale di andrewlambaaves:

Messaggio originale di Panic Fire:

To rigid? Just stop breaking your oaths lol. Of course there would be rigidness you are a paladin lol.

So oath of ancients promotes being good and compassionate over necessarily being lawful. Example in the druid grove: you save sazza from being shot by the teifling and the game loves that as its 'good', if you then choose to free her (which could also be seen as 'good and compassionate' as she is technically being deceived by the "Absolute") it leads to a broken oath, why? your oath isnt to be rigidly lawful, and you freed an individual who (according to the class) should receive a second chance since they have been deceived and on top of that offers to assist you.....

And honestly I am fine with the black and white don't do anything wrong or lie or use any type of stealth attack if that's what they want but they should just outright state it instead of leaving up to the player thinking there could be subtlety to role playing the class when the way they've made it there really isn't any regardless of what oath you take (and i assume they'll add all the oaths on full release).

Releasing her is breaking your oath because you are still breaking the law, and it is very clear she will just go back to being a marauder.

The law has been satisfied with her captures and the local authorities can judge her accordingly. The tiefling was taking the law into her hands to try and kill Sazza out of revenge, when Sazza had nothing to do with the death of that other tiefling who was killed at the gate.

Being a paladin and following your oaths requires rigid thinking because your word is your bond, your oath is the code you choose to live your life by in ALL aspects of it.

I agree the game could do a better job explaining what each subclass's oath is and have something for the players to look at for the clarity of how they should act in to maintain their oaths.

[Cirrus]

Messaggio originale di andrewlambaaves:

Messaggio originale di Panic Fire:

To rigid? Just stop breaking your oaths lol. Of course there would be rigidness you are a paladin lol.

So oath of ancients promotes being good and compassionate over necessarily being lawful. Example in the druid grove: you save sazza from being shot by the teifling and the game loves that as its 'good', if you then choose to free her (which could also be seen as 'good and compassionate' as she is technically being deceived by the "Absolute") it leads to a broken oath, why? your oath isnt to be rigidly lawful, and you freed an individual who (according to the class) should receive a second chance since they have been deceived and on top of that offers to assist you.....

And honestly I am fine with the black and white don't do anything wrong or lie or use any type of stealth attack if that's what they want but they should just outright state it instead of leaving up to the player thinking there could be subtlety to role playing the class when the way they've made it there really isn't any regardless of what oath you take (and i assume they'll add all the oaths on full release).

Sazza in not speaking about second chance for goodness. She wants to use second chance to murder children etc. Helping her accomolish that is not good or compassionate.

Game like this can not have infite options. Game just does has to go what it has instead going what you can imagine could be possible (some later glorious redemption)

[Danielle]

Messaggio originale di Dragon Master:

Messaggio originale di andrewlambaaves:

So oath of ancients promotes being good and compassionate over necessarily being lawful. Example in the druid grove: you save sazza from being shot by the teifling and the game loves that as its 'good', if you then choose to free her (which could also be seen as 'good and compassionate' as she is technically being deceived by the "Absolute") it leads to a broken oath, why? your oath isnt to be rigidly lawful, and you freed an individual who (according to the class) should receive a second chance since they have been deceived and on top of that offers to assist you.....

And honestly I am fine with the black and white don't do anything wrong or lie or use any type of stealth attack if that's what they want but they should just outright state it instead of leaving up to the player thinking there could be subtlety to role playing the class when the way they've made it there really isn't any regardless of what oath you take (and i assume they'll add all the oaths on full release).

Releasing her is breaking your oath because you are still breaking the law, and it is very clear she will just go back to being a marauder.

The law has been satisfied with her captures and the local authorities can judge her accordingly. The tiefling was taking the law into her hands to try and kill Sazza out of revenge, when Sazza had nothing to do with the death of that other tiefling who was killed at the gate.

Being a paladin and following your oaths requires rigid thinking because your word is your bond, your oath is the code you choose to live your life by in ALL aspects of it.

I agree the game could do a better job explaining what each subclass's oath is and have something for the players to look at for the clarity of how they should act in to maintain their oaths.

Agree people overall seem confused about what the paladin is all about. Larian should have some text explaining the oaths and have some optional toggle in the dialogue along the lines of

1.(Oathbreaker)Attack the goblins.

I am guessing paladin straightforward morals isn't for everyone.

[Yog-Sothoth]

You know what may help? Knowing what deity your paladin believes in and exactly what oath they took. Yeah, that would help a lot. -_-

[Danielle]

Messaggio originale di Yog-Sothoth:

You know what may help? Knowing what deity your paladin believes in and exactly what oath they took. Yeah, that would help a lot. -_-

Yea there is no deity option at the moment and that is important to get absolution but you can pick your oath at the CC which is strange, it is supposed to be a 3th level thing.

[everybe2]

Messaggio originale di Yog-Sothoth:

You know what may help? Knowing what deity your paladin believes in and exactly what oath they took. Yeah, that would help a lot. -_-

We know what Oath we took.

[Unclechopchop]

Messaggio originale di Dragon Master:

Messaggio originale di andrewlambaaves:

So oath of ancients promotes being good and compassionate over necessarily being lawful. Example in the druid grove: you save sazza from being shot by the teifling and the game loves that as its 'good', if you then choose to free her (which could also be seen as 'good and compassionate' as she is technically being deceived by the "Absolute") it leads to a broken oath, why? your oath isnt to be rigidly lawful, and you freed an individual who (according to the class) should receive a second chance since they have been deceived and on top of that offers to assist you.....

And honestly I am fine with the black and white don't do anything wrong or lie or use any type of stealth attack if that's what they want but they should just outright state it instead of leaving up to the player thinking there could be subtlety to role playing the class when the way they've made it there really isn't any regardless of what oath you take (and i assume they'll add all the oaths on full release).

Releasing her is breaking your oath because you are still breaking the law, and it is very clear she will just go back to being a marauder.

The law has been satisfied with her captures and the local authorities can judge her accordingly. The tiefling was taking the law into her hands to try and kill Sazza out of revenge, when Sazza had nothing to do with the death of that other tiefling who was killed at the gate.

Being a paladin and following your oaths requires rigid thinking because your word is your bond, your oath is the code you choose to live your life by in ALL aspects of it.

I agree the game could do a better job explaining what each subclass's oath is and have something for the players to look at for the clarity of how they should act in to maintain their oaths.

I can agree with most but only certain oaths say to not break the law in any way shape or form and they removed paladins needing to have certain alignments in 5e, I mean if and when they bring in oath of vengeance your basically a 'good' murder hobo who can circumvent the law to enact self righteous justice so how would that work in their strict paladin rule set?
As for my example with sazza it just seems in most peoples views that goblins have to be 'bad' even though the reason given that they are attacking the druid grove is due to being manipulated to do so by the 'absolute' and the three leaders at the goblin camp, so wouldn't it be more lawful and 'good' to stop just the three leaders and possibly save the other goblins as oppose to slaughtering 100+ of them?
I know its a game and they have to limit free thinking im just coming at it from a DnD perspective and being a contrarian. otherwise they might as well just come out and say certain races are all 'bad' enemies and you need to kill them or you are 'bad' too.

[Oubley]

Messaggio originale di Panic Fire:

Tenets of Devotion

Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.

Honesty. Don't lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.

Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.

Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.

Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.

Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.

This would be a nightmare to code, you can't do half of them without hindsight.

Courage: never fear to act....
Not acting is an action, and it takes just as much, if not more courage to do nothing sometimes then to do something. There are situations were nothing/restraint is the correct approach. But you don't know until life plays out.

Compassion: aid others, protect the weak.....show mercy
if aid others comes first, then you can be duty bound not to protect the weak because someone in strength asked for aid first.
showing mercy is a conflict with honor and fairness.

Honor: treat others with fairness.... Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.
in conflict with compassion. Also do you kill everyone in a village or do you spare some. you don't know the answer to such questions without hindsight, you don't know the chain of events that it will ripple.

Duty. ...and obey those who have just authority over you.
what happens when those orders are in conflict with all of the other parts of the tenet???

[Panic Fire]

Messaggio originale di Danielle:

Messaggio originale di Dragon Master:

Releasing her is breaking your oath because you are still breaking the law, and it is very clear she will just go back to being a marauder.

The law has been satisfied with her captures and the local authorities can judge her accordingly. The tiefling was taking the law into her hands to try and kill Sazza out of revenge, when Sazza had nothing to do with the death of that other tiefling who was killed at the gate.

Being a paladin and following your oaths requires rigid thinking because your word is your bond, your oath is the code you choose to live your life by in ALL aspects of it.

I agree the game could do a better job explaining what each subclass's oath is and have something for the players to look at for the clarity of how they should act in to maintain their oaths.

Agree people overall seem confused about what the paladin is all about. Larian should have some text explaining the oaths and have some optional toggle in the dialogue along the lines of

1.(Oathbreaker)Attack the goblins.

I am guessing paladin straightforward morals isn't for everyone.

So ironically Larrian put the oaths on your starting armor for your paladin.

[Panic Fire]

Messaggio originale di Oubley:

Messaggio originale di Panic Fire:

Tenets of Devotion

Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.

Honesty. Don't lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.

Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.

Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.

Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.

Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.

This would be a nightmare to code, you can't do half of them without hindsight.

Courage: never fear to act....
Not acting is an action, and it takes just as much, if not more courage to do nothing sometimes then to do something. There are situations were nothing/restraint is the correct approach. But you don't know until life plays out.

Compassion: aid others, protect the weak.....show mercy
if aid others comes first, then you can be duty bound not to protect the weak because someone in strength asked for aid first.
showing mercy is a conflict with honor and fairness.

Honor: treat others with fairness.... Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.
in conflict with compassion. Also do you kill everyone in a village or do you spare some. you don't know the answer to such questions without hindsight, you don't know the chain of events that it will ripple.

Duty. ...and obey those who have just authority over you.
what happens when those orders are in conflict with all of the other parts of the tenet???

Courage: "though caution is wise" its never fear to act, always be ready to act not always act.

Compassion, they aren't in an order. If you are aiding another you are duty bound to aid them. However if they are attacking the weak, you are also duty bound to protect the weak, thus you would be duty bound to stop both parties in this juncture and bring them to discourse or seperate them in the case.

Honor Its not in conflict with compassion. If you are questioning what the chain of actions will ripple into then you lacking in the courage to act and make a choice.

Duty if those orders conflict with your tenets then why do they have authority over you?

Paladins aren't perfect and will break there oaths occasionally. That is part of being a Paladin.

[Danielle]

Messaggio originale di andrewlambaaves:

Messaggio originale di Dragon Master:

Releasing her is breaking your oath because you are still breaking the law, and it is very clear she will just go back to being a marauder.

The law has been satisfied with her captures and the local authorities can judge her accordingly. The tiefling was taking the law into her hands to try and kill Sazza out of revenge, when Sazza had nothing to do with the death of that other tiefling who was killed at the gate.

Being a paladin and following your oaths requires rigid thinking because your word is your bond, your oath is the code you choose to live your life by in ALL aspects of it.

I agree the game could do a better job explaining what each subclass's oath is and have something for the players to look at for the clarity of how they should act in to maintain their oaths.

I can agree with most but only certain oaths say to not break the law in any way shape or form and they removed paladins needing to have certain alignments in 5e, I mean if and when they bring in oath of vengeance your basically a 'good' murder hobo who can circumvent the law to enact self righteous justice so how would that work in their strict paladin rule set?
As for my example with sazza it just seems in most peoples views that goblins have to be 'bad' even though the reason given that they are attacking the druid grove is due to being manipulated to do so by the 'absolute' and the three leaders at the goblin camp, so wouldn't it be more lawful and 'good' to stop just the three leaders and possibly save the other goblins as oppose to slaughtering 100+ of them?
I know its a game and they have to limit free thinking im just coming at it from a DnD perspective and being a contrarian. otherwise they might as well just come out and say certain races are all 'bad' enemies and you need to kill them or you are 'bad' too.

Oath of vengeance is all about punishing the wicked, you being a dark knight, a little like DC Punisher or Space Marines 40K. The strict rule there is to achieve your goal of venagece, so you can kill all the goblin camp because “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.”

Think of the Oath of devotion as a passive goodness that bites only when there is no other choice or there is an active physical threat. For example, if you kill bad people irl out of nowhere you will go to prison, the same applies to goblins. Just because there are evil you cannot just walk there and start killing.

[Unclechopchop]

Messaggio originale di Danielle:

Messaggio originale di andrewlambaaves:

I can agree with most but only certain oaths say to not break the law in any way shape or form and they removed paladins needing to have certain alignments in 5e, I mean if and when they bring in oath of vengeance your basically a 'good' murder hobo who can circumvent the law to enact self righteous justice so how would that work in their strict paladin rule set?
As for my example with sazza it just seems in most peoples views that goblins have to be 'bad' even though the reason given that they are attacking the druid grove is due to being manipulated to do so by the 'absolute' and the three leaders at the goblin camp, so wouldn't it be more lawful and 'good' to stop just the three leaders and possibly save the other goblins as oppose to slaughtering 100+ of them?
I know its a game and they have to limit free thinking im just coming at it from a DnD perspective and being a contrarian. otherwise they might as well just come out and say certain races are all 'bad' enemies and you need to kill them or you are 'bad' too.

Oath of vengeance is all about punishing the wicked, you being a dark knight, a little like DC Punisher or Space Marines 40K. The strict rule there is to achieve your goal of venagece, so you can kill all the goblin camp because “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.”

Think of the Oath of devotion as a passive goodness that bites only when there is no other choice or there is an active physical threat. For example, if you kill bad people irl out of nowhere you will go to prison, the same applies to goblins. Just because there are evil you cannot just walk there and start killing.

Agree fully, the problem is they seem to have set all 'paladins' regardless of what the oath is to be the epitome of the most pure form of lawful good, never break any rules or do anything even the most mildly questionable no matter what, and that's not how they are especially if/when they introduce oath of vengeance.

[Geekoid]

I know what a Paladin is all about, and I understand their theme. So you know it alls saying its people not understanding can just not bother.
I still don't know why I lost oath breaker. It happened after I rescued Hassin and goblin attacked me. I wish there was a bar or metric so I know that Larian's view of the Paladin is.
Because goblins attacking me shouldn't break my oath.

[Cirrus]

Messaggio originale di Danielle:

Messaggio originale di Yog-Sothoth:

You know what may help? Knowing what deity your paladin believes in and exactly what oath they took. Yeah, that would help a lot. -_-

Yea there is no deity option at the moment and that is important to get absolution but you can pick your oath at the CC which is strange, it is supposed to be a 3th level thing.

Deities have nothing to do with anything. Paladins do not need them or use them.

Lvl 1 oath is not strange for me. I see it as mandatory that Larian can code this system to game.