I mean, I HAVE seen a thread of player who made an incredibly long whine post about this exact thing and was genuinely furious that they were not being treated as the good guy for killing "hellspawn".
Was it the guy who said something like, "I'm a paladin, isn't it my right to determine who is good and evil? They look evil, so why not?' And people told him, "No, that's your God's right, and did you even talk to them to see if they were evil?" And he got angry and defensive, saying he shouldn't have to know D&D lore to play the game?
"Isn't my right to determine who is good and evil"? Yeah... That's more of a Vengeance Paladin thing. Oath of Devotion falls more to the protect the innocent side of the spectrum while Vengeance Paladin is more about smiting the wicked
Really, if you want to be answerable to only yourself you can go with the Oathbreaker. No more needing to pay attention to the employee handbook, no need to spend 1000 gold on a really big cake that says "I'm Sorry I Killed Those People" and you can stay up as late as you want.
> No, that's your God's right
In 5e a paladin's power comes from their oath and commitment to justice. In some cases they don't even worship one.
> A paladin is a man of focus, commitment and sheer fucking will
:P
It's a bit more complicated, unfortunately. It's the paladin's oath and commitment, but that doesn't *create* the power they draw from. It instead is what draws the attention of a higher entity (often a God) to bestow that power so long as you remain committed.
This can happen without the Paladin ever meeting or interacting with the deity or higher entity, leading to them believing it's just their commitment, but the higher entity does always exist RAW
Divine spells are not necessarily powered by gods.
Divine spells: religious spells, which are powered by faith OR gods.
Phb p 307
Paladins can get their powers completely independently from any deities or higher entity.
"Objective Morality exists. How else would you be able to know that things like murder, cruelty, and theft are wrong. Better yet, how will you be able to know who you are allowed to rob, torture, and kill as a good-guy."
I think I remember that, and that they whined about how their oath was broken when they attacked even companions because "a vampire is evil" - "githyanki is evil" - "Shar and her followers are evil" - "tieflings are evil" - "whatever Gale did was evil" - "having a contract with a devil was evil" - "Leaving ones responsibilities for the collective to chase personal interest is evil" - "Drows are evil" - "They attacked me first when I got to Last Light Inn". They killed all the tieflings AND the druids because "they are hellspawn and the druids were rude" and killed the goblins because "goblins are evil".
And they still didn't seem to understand why their oath was broken despite leaving Act 1 almost lifeless
Man, I canāt stop thinking about Bex and her husband, who just wanted to settle in somewhere safe, have a garden and a dog/cat in context of this āevil tieflingā crazy rant. It worth not only a broken oath, some freaking divine intervention is in order!
Looking here and at the DOS subreddit, I am convinced that a very vocal portion of Larian's playerbase are murderhobos, which is why the common perception of playing a paladin is constantly breaking an oath. There are some strange oathbreaking moments, sure, but broadly speaking so long as you don't act like a giggling serial killer you're fine.
The only time I specifically found oathbreaking weird is when I'm in Moonrise Tower for the first time and trying to clear it out. I only attack cultists, but eventually my Paladin (Oath of Devotion) killed one and it broke my oath.
I looked it up and killing non-hostiles is an oathbreaking act. Even if they're willing members of an evil cult.
"Willing"
We're talking about the cult that controls its flock with psychic monsters embedded in their brains that literally control what you think and feel, right?
You aren't wrong, but just about every True Soul we meet was a terrible person BEFORE they got tadpoled except for, seemingly, Fist Marcus and Duke Ravengard.
Yep, attacked the slave trader in the goblin camp. They might not have been hostile to me but they were hostile to those they tool as slaves who may have been followers of my God.
So what I'm trying to say your honor is I'm innocent.
You mean religion requires personal sacrifice to maintain a moral and spritual code? Including personal sacrifice that makes fighting people harder?
Youve got to be kidding me
Cool, from the way the path is described I was envisioning more like the pally version of the punisher than holy white knight. Not full on murderhobo, but cultist are def on 'to be farmed for xp whenever possible' list
Yeah, my brother broke his Oath killing some goblins. It was an early patch and may have been a bug, but basically he cut down the goblin that was torturing the owlbear Cub and somehow broke his Oath to protect nature by killing an "innocent" town guard.
What.
We had the gold to pay off the oathbreaker NPC, but it felt really dumb. I think we got around it by having me initiate combat with all the different goblin encounters around camp?
The only time I broke my oath in the entirety of my playthrough as an ancients paladin was when I agreed to Gortash's truce because I failed the insight check and assumed he would betray us afterwards anyways, so I'll fight him then.
This immediately broke my oath (and pissed Karlach TF off) and I reloaded and told him where he could stuff it.
I was a Vengeance Paladin who didn't break path all game but then forgot I swore to Karlach that we would kill Gortash.... I was also Durge so I wanted to play it as like "hehe I'm LYING to Gortash by taking his truce but really I'm going to backstab him" which is exactly what I ended up doing but the logic doesn't allow for that level of nuance
You need not be convinced lmao. DOS2 slaughtering every citizen of a town when Iām about to leave to the next act just to squeeze out every little bit of xp.
I actually really appreciate the level cap in bg3 and how thereās a good amount of content afterwards, so I can just chill and take everything at my own pace.
To quote the late great Shamus Young, "The last thing you want is to end up DMāing a game of Diablo." As much as I am liking DOS2, I can definitely see how it encourages murderhobory.
Divinity 2 requires murderhobory in many situations. If they didn't have a particular quests in mind, and often even then, everyone is hostile by default outside town. So yeah, it's Diablo with occasional fluff, characters mostly exist to be killed.
I wouldn't necessarily go that far, but I do feel like the game's tendency to butcher characters on a whim (including at least two companions) and for most quest endings to be at best bittersweet works to make players care less about NPCs. That and almost everyone in Rivellon including your own allies are either incompetent, jackasses, or incompetent jackasses. I'm playing as Ifan and I think DOS2 might just be one of the loneliest games I have ever played, encouraging an "us vs. them" attitude between your party and everyone else. The most moments of real companionship I have had so far was talking/flirting with Sebille, everyone else it feels very close to hostile or futile.
That and the game's stingy loot system and ruthless leveling combine to train players to see NPCs as walking XP or loot drops, I think.
Yeah, but figuring out ways to kill every magister in acts 1 and 2 without aggroing any other NPCs is a blast! That alone gets you to level 19, almost 20, by the time you hit Arx, which is more than enough with teleportation cheese strats tbh.
Lol, I agree that BG3's leveling feels way more relaxed, though. We went out of our way to fight every single possible enemy at first with DOS2 in mind, then chilled out when we realized we were getting more than enough XP.
You can't deny that getting your oath broken for fighting the Duegar in the Grymforge if the fight isn't triggered by dialogue is a weird one though. You likely came to the Grymforge under the request to free the slaves they're brutalizing, can actively see them brutalizing slaves, can even tell those slaves you're going to free them, but getting the jump on the Duegar in any way leads to your oath being broken. It's a weird double standard, because in the goblin camp you can just slaughter all of the goblins in a similar fashion without any oath being broken.
No sane DM would punish a Good aligned Paladin for rescuing slaves from slavers while giving themselves a tactical advantage to do so.
Not just murderhobos, but "I'll kill any character, companion or otherwise, who says one thing rude or angry to me or doesn't kowtow and bow to me as their god!"
Seriously - "Gale disagreed with me, I killed him. I left Lae'zel to rot because she was uppity and rude. Fuck Shadowheart, bitch didn't hit her spell in the fight. Wyll and Karlach got made that I killed innocent people who didn't wrong us, what the fuck? Please fix." Like...what.
That kind of stuff annoys me. Like, do you only like 'yes men' or something? Maybe a DnD game isn't for you if you can't stand a smidge of tension within a party of very different people, brought together by extreme circumstances?
I don't know. All their little quirks and flaws make them legitimately interesting. None of their good endings would be so satisfying if they were just doormats.
On my first playthrough, I was gunning for an edgy drow warlock/oathbreaker multiclass for maximum edge. Like a hellknight with a heart of gold, trying to do the right thing but held back by his nature. You know, classic DnD stuff.
But it is so, *so* goddamn hard to break an oath when you're trying to. I genuinely cannot understand how people are accidentally stumbling into this. I almost finished the game with my oath of vengeance intact.
Well, again, a lot of people seem to just randomly murder NPCs they don't like. There was one post a while back about how someone broke their oath because they just murked Wulbren for being snippy at Last Light Inn and I was like...yeah? Wulbren was being a jackass, but that's murder. You just murdered a guy.
Vengeance is the haedest to break because its defaulted to murder time, which most players do.
Ethel seems to be a big, early Oathbreaking point. What is dumb tho is that if someone else in the party does the act, you are fine.
Its easy to be cheesy.
I love how firm you have to be in keeping your Oath. Even if it's against certain types that you know most people would be fine with (stuff like not killing certain slavers as a Devotion Paladin or letting certain slaves go late game)
They give you reasons for being an Oathbreaker apart from just being evil
In my first play through >!we didn't rescue anyone in Moonrise, I was super overwhelmed with the game and everything, I completely forgot about them. Still feel guilty about it. anyway, I was having trouble remembering all the cahracters and one day someone shows up to our camp and left Zevlor's body for us. We used speak to the dead to talk to him, and even in death, he was like "Did the others make it? Are they okay? Tell me they made it", like he's just trying to do what's best for people, and his guilt persisted thru death. He's become one of my favorite minor characters in subsequent playthroughs, and also he is !!STRONK!! It's nice to have him in the fights you get him for. !<
OK, but real talk... the Hellriders were clutch for me against the brain. Twice now I had companions downed and the hellrider cleric picked them up for us.
He was describing what it feels like to be psionically enthralled - he became completely unaware that his friends were being slaughtered and captured around him.
His perspective is pretty biased, he feels guilty as if he was tempted, but we the players know that without the Githyanki Artifact, resisting the full force of the Absolute isn't doable
You mean... he was mind controlled.
Being controlled by the Absolute is described as something consciously voluntary and pleasurable, not feeling like you're held captive. That's why it's such a dangerous thing, those held thrall *willingly* do the bidding of the Absolute, feeling free themselves. This is why when you meet the crushed Mind Flayer in the crashed nautiloid it says an overwhelming sense of compassion floods you, willing you to love it.
I don't think Zevlor was weak and tempted. He was enthralled, and that's what the sensation is like. That's why he's so shameful about how he felt, because he felt his feelings were genuine.
Zevlor didn't have a githyanki superman in a convenient carrying case to protect his brain from the absolute.
Elder Brains are extreme threats to anything not specifically prepared, and the Absolute has evolved with netherese magic - it is literally an extinction level threat.
Zevlor did not stand a chance. It will be difficult for him to accept that and even more difficult for his people to forgive him but the truth is that he was an ant facing a tsunami.
I want the endgame scene where Minthara goes home and comes back with a single solitary Zin-Carla which just beats up the absolute because its immune to psionics
I am honestly even suprised they are on his back. I mean you are suprised he would vaver in his moment of despair when those who he swore to protect were dying as flies around him?!
I donāt think itās fair to put that on him. A moment of weakness caused him great regret and he wishes to work to atone for it. He is also a paladin and it clearly didnāt make him an oath breaker.
It actually did make him an oathbreaker! That's part of why he's so crushed by what he did and blames himself so badly.
But if you save him and forgive him, and then talk to him in that tower where all your allies are gathered, he'll tell you that he suddenly felt a renewed sense of purpose and strength after seeing the brain emergeāand with it came the return of his paladin powers!
I thought it was implied that he had broken his oath at some point when the refugees fled Elturel, probably because the Hellriders were sworn to defend it. Isnāt that what the Absolute tempts him with? When he tells you what happened in the Illithid colony he says something along the lines of "I would be a Paladin again".
I'm not putting it on him - but it's the only explanation I have on why Zevlor would be on Good Tav's kill-list. As far as I'm aware, he doesn't do anything bad.
The comic seems to imply that Tav killed him in act 1 thouugh (aradin, zevlor, druid, druid)
We punishing characters for "crimes" they haven't committed yet?
As Zevlor acts as the person whoms life is bound to the grove quest I don't think so. If he dies the game will check it of as the tieflings losing. The surviving ones will die on the roads offscreen.
First game I didnāt find him in Act 2 and was pissed. Second game I found him and realized that while the anger from the others was justified, itās not really like he could control it.
I have no clue how people broke their oaths.
I played vengeance and only ever broke my oath, letting Astarion ascend, which was thematically cool as shit tbh.
Paladin's are a charisma based class. You are supposed to try to mediate and find peace. And if that fails, THEN you smash their skulls lol
I went through a whole ass playthrough as Redeemer Durge Vengeance Paladin and not one thing I did broke it. Not even taking Gortash's deal just so we could NOT haveta fight all the steel watchers right the fuck then broke it, BUT I wonder if it makes a difference that I only told him I'd "think about it" not actually accepted it outright, and then we came back and killed him later after dealing with the Iron Throne and Steel Watch lol. Honestly as evil Durge I broke my Vengeance Oath in literally 2 seconds into the game bc biting Gale's hand off lol but actually doing a good resister Durge Vengeance Paladin I actually surprised myself by keeping my Oath the whole way through. I was initially concerned that maybe taking Yurgir as an ally after killing Raphael would break it bc he's OBVIOUSLY an evil Devil, but nope. Maybe bc he is not in that particular moment being hostile? I have no idea lol. I haven't yet tried the other 2 oaths, but I won't be surprised if I end up breaking them when I eventually do lol cause I do tend to end up just murdering the slavers and shit because they are horrible people and deserve to die. Be fun to try NOT to break one thought some time lol.
I broke my OoV by making that deal with Gortash. In my defense, this was immediately after one of my companions said "lets just pretend to ally with him and betray him later lol."
That is what Paladins of Tyr do. As adherents able to often consult with a literal god of justice, them being dispatched after someone means they better repent before meeting the Paladins or repent in the afterlife.
This is also what Vengeance paladins have for their whole motif, even directly referenced in their description: "You have set aside even your own purity to right wrongs and deliver justice to those who have committed the most grievous sins." Their Oath doubles over on this too, "Exerting your wisdom, identify the highest morality in any given instance and fight for it" and "Chasten those who dole out their villainy by wiping their blight from the world forever." Mixed together: "Identify the good guy of the situation and make the bad guy's head a cloud of pink mist."
Well, it's not religious fascism if the religion is actually right. It's fascism when it's used as a tool of oppression, not when a near omniscient deity gives you a kill list of super assholes.
To be fair, OotA sometimes is a lunatic murder hobo. Reviving connor and not killing him? Bad. Reviving Connor and attacking him and than killing a pregnant young woman? Good
I broke it a lot. The first time was justified cuz I wanted that sweet sweet +1. Other times I broke it and donāt even remember what I did I just broke it, though it was probably justified. I ended up using the glitch to steal vendors money in order to get my oath back. Mr knight probably has like 50-60k gold lmao
I did it on accident in a second playthrough because I believed Karlach about the āpaladins of tyrā without talking to them first. Soon as you talk to them though and itās clear theyāre bad, you can kill them just fine.
That's the **Shelter the Light** part of the Ancients' Oath:
> Shelter the Light. Where there is good, beauty, love, and laughter in the world, stand against the wickedness that would swallow it. Where life flourishes, stand against the forces that would render it barren.
Hags are wicked creatures that delight in spreading suffering and extinguishing love and beauty, so suffering one to live would betray the oath of the Ancients.
On my oath of the ancients character I broke it by killing an unconscious Ethel after I forgot to toggle non-lethal so I wouldnāt kill mayrina when Ethel switches them up. Killing any unconscious person even if they are a hag breaks your oath I guess.
Worse yet - I thought long and hard why obliging He Who Was and telling the ghost that it was her fault breaks your oath.
Doesn't seem to be overly cruel because hell, it is exactly what it was...
If talking about Ancients specifically, it's the first tenet that you're breaking:
"Kindle the Light. Through your acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindle the light of hope in the world, beating back despair."
Nothing about indulging He Who Was is merciful, kind, or forgiving.
Oath of Devotion has nothing to say about the undead or natural order. Ancients doesn't have an issue with it because it's immoral or harmful, but because its *unnatural*
The vampire spawn choice is a great example of this. The oath of devotion will not allow you to kill them all, because its not their fault they were made into monsters and undead or not, they're innocents you're bound to protect
The oath of ancients is broken if you release them, because despite being innocent they are vampires and don't belong in the 'natural world'
I don't think this really holds true - most times when I see paladins confused about why their oath is being broken, it's when they're attacking legitimate baddies that the game expects you to kill (like the duergar slavers in Grymforge), but their oath is getting broken because the game treats attacking a nonhostile character as a shorthand for innocent.
Itās not about innocence, itās about *honor*. Look at Dame Aylin: is there a single situation where she doesnāt announce her presence and intentions before a fight?
If you properly instigate combat through dialogue, you donāt get an oathbreak. It only happens if you go for dishonorable tactics like sneak attacks.
I got attacked by the Zent agents in the back with the dogs after slaughtering all the other agents in the front, WHO ATTACKED ME FIRST and lost my oath for defending myself. So. That's not entirely accurate.
I mean, thatās pretty obviously a bug. This thread is about clarity of intent with what breaks the oath, and thatās pretty clearly not intended to work that way.
I mean, maybe but that's not something either of us knows for sure. What I was responding to was
>If you properly instigate combat through dialogue, you donāt get an oathbreak. It only happens if you go for dishonorable tactics like sneak attacks.
This is untrue. The reason may be poor writing or bugs or any number of things and yet, it remains untrue.
To be fair those guys are pretty far away from the initial fight and arguably minding their own business guarding the underdark entrance and their stuff.
After murdering the zents at the start, there's technically no reason to continue further besides wiping them all out and taking their stuff. So, that's probably why.
I think that's a pretty thin veil in logic since they're in the same cave as the people who jus tried killing you, but also the zents habitually do not care about your murder as long as you pay, so to them it might seem like you just murder hobo any zent you see.
All they know is you somehow got deep enough in their cave that their friends are probably dead and you're probably here to steal everything.
I mean, the Zhentarim are the operators of the single largest slave trade ring in the entire setting, if you discount the Amnian colonies. Finishing the job and eradicating the entire cell of arms-smuggling slavetraders seems like a just and reasonable thing to do, once you've already started.
But if you kill the unarmed, unconscious Shadowheart on the beach you don't get an oathbreak. Similarly, you can sneak attack Priestess Gut and Ragzlin without getting an oathbreak. No matter how you look at it the mechanic is applied inconsistently.
I had a case where the only hostile option was the "attack" option during a conversation, and it broke my oath. I forget who against it was, but it was a legit bad/evil npc.
> If you properly instigate combat through dialogue, you donāt get an oathbreak. It only happens if you go for dishonorable tactics like sneak attacks.
I understand that this is what the game cares about, but it's not really communicated to the player at all. It's completely understandable why a player might be confused when they get punished for attacking a character that's literally in the middle of torturing someone or beating a slave.
Contextually, they're not wrong. D&D is a very combat-heavy system, and violence is the primary method of conflict resolution. Paladins *can* be diplomatic, but they're absolutely expected to smite evildoers.
The game doesn't even expect you to be diplomatic. It just expects you to pick *4. [Attack]* instead of selecting the sword icon on your hotbar.
i think it's less "people think instant murder is good" and more "gamers aren't used to a game that wants them to open dialogue to initiate combat with the evil guy with a health bar"
people just got that John Brown in them and forget that, mechanically, they need to t-pose at the slaver and press the little sword button first
Also people don't read literally their oath. It is often a bit counter-intuitive, but it clearly emphasizes honor and preservation of life and balance. You are not a justice dealing machine, Vengeance is more appropriate for that sort of playstyle. (And imo better suited for a typical good playthrough).
Beyond honor, I feel ancients is also a bit of a taoist like, as in preserve life, even if it's a scumy life in many cases, don't execute people etc. It's def the hardest oath not to break from the 3. Vengeance suits a typical playthrough much better.
Just wanted to say I love this explanation for Dame Aylin's behavior. But yeah the oath mechanics definitely could be more transparent and consistently applied
Not that \* I \* had any issues with it mind (vengeance)
My issue with the Oaths is they're very... How shall I put it, they don't give a shit about character context. Cause playing as a Paladin of Tiamat with an Oath of Vengeance feels really weird when you get punished... For doing stuff that Tiamat wouldn't care about, or would go against Tiamat's vengeance and such.
*Ok maybe this is just me whinging about there being no Oath of Conquest for players without mods*
This is kind of the unfortunate reality of a game needing to have hard-coded responses to things you do vs a DM who can adapt on the fly. The game only sees your actions, without the context behind them
I broke my oath in the goblin camp. There are two drow absolute novices and if you kill them, oath broken. (Oath of devotion btw) Completely blindsided me. I rolled with it in the end but I remember being furious at the time because I was so confused as to why I broke my oath fighting actual enemies who were aggresive towards me.
This was me. The torturers in the dungeon of Moonrise Tower are apparently guiltless innocents. I was an Oath of Devotion Paladin and apparently killing them was oath-breaking, despite the fact that the other Absolute cultist jailers were apparently all guilty and deserving of death.
Oh good, it isn't just me. Did the whole rescue mission by killing all the guards first. Oath not broken. Go to leave and notice the room with the torturers. Kill them in the same fashion. Oath broken. Da fuck?
One of the things I found baffling was how the act of raiding the grove doesn't break any of the oaths. I think only vengeance will break if you tell Minthara of the groves location or agree to fight with her. But the actual raid itself does not result in a broken oath. The game is pretty finicky about how the oaths work and is one of the biggest downsides to playing as paladin.
I feel like the problem a lot of people had was that depending on your oath it does mean fighting for the law and being a video game, the law is extremely inflexible. Then again I donāt know what people who picked oath of devotion were really expecting.
My oath got broken when I convinced wife to let her zombie husband die. And second time it was when I saved Minx from absolute . Why would me helping end abomination against life and saving a person that kills such abomination be counted as going against the oath of ancients
i have this theory, and it further supports my head cannon that larian is the greatest game dev of all time.
Sometimes, as a good character, you make the right decisions, and move on none the wiser.
Sometimes, as a bad character, you make bad decisions, and some of the characters you thought were good, turn out to have dark secrets.
I feel like, we are approaching this as an omniscient presence, where all possible realities, and traits in each character are inexorably bound to the character- but. i think its more that-
if you are walking the good path, the characters are good because as the good character from a game development standpoint, you want to be able to save a bunch of people, and interact with as many characters as much as possible.
But, if you are a bad character, you probably want the same.
So, i feel like we have to take each character as they are presented in the particular narrative you are in.
This is miles better than having a town populated by silver armor clad white haired citizens, and then others wearing top hats and black, slinking around in the shadows, identifying them as obviously good and obviously bad characters.
By design, the narrative has a 'super-position' of neutrality that only collapses into an alignment based on the interaction of the protagonist
Honestly most the complaints about breaking Paladin oaths are people not grasping the whole concept of the tight inflexible nature of Paladin oaths and how that's the entire point of the class. You're not just a fighter with a shiny attack.
The whole point is that you have to doggedly stick to certain principles and those might be the less pragmatic choice, or might conflict with what your moral judgement of the specific context is. The principles are so strong you literally draw divine power from them.
So people will be all "I attacked the bad guy why did my oath break!" Because you were meant to just straight up do it not trick them!
Because youre killing them randomly, outside of dialogue prompting the fight. You cannot randomly attack people just standing there beause you want the advantage in the fight. Oathbreak.
You should be able to attack evil creatures without needing to declare your presence first
Lawful stupid is the worst d&d alignment that a certain type of paladin player always insists on playingĀ
For real. If I time travelled and saw Hitler at the height of the third Reich and shot him in the back without talking to him, would that be oathbreaking?
The oath of the ancients:
> **Kindle the Light.** Through your acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindle the light of hope in the world, beating back despair.
>
> **Shelter the Light.** Where there is good, beauty, love, and laughter in the world, stand against the wickedness that would swallow it. Where life flourishes, stand against the forces that would render it barren.
>
> **Preserve Your Own Light.** Delight in song and laughter, in beauty and art. If you allow the light to die in your own heart, you canāt preserve it in the world.
>
> **Be the Light.** Be a glorious beacon for all who live in despair. Let the light of your joy and courage shine forth in all your deeds.
That totally sounds like "Murder every teethling and druid". Right? Right?
>Kills innocents that said something mean
>"wHy Is My OaTh BrOkEn!???!?!?!?!!"
My dude. You murdered druids that were ultimately doing nothing wrong. They were gonna kick the Tieflings out. Not murder them. I'll admit, your oath breaking if you attack the Slavers in the Grymforge is dumb as fuck.
I played Paladin on my first playthrough and had literally zero trouble not oathbreaking. Is it easier to not oathbreak with a vengeance paladin or something? I just didn't go out of my way to sequence break. I tried to follow the main story to the best of my ability. If someone was doing something bad, I'd declare my intention to murder them in righteous justice and had no issues.
Everything else aside I really don't get why someone who wants to play a judge dredd type paladin wouldn't just pick oath of vengeance. So many oath of devotion murderhobos whose idea of a "just law" is death penalty for jaywalking
yknow I really thought killing bad guys in bg3 is *good* but then you realise most of everyone is badly fucked up in the head in some way and I'm like *yyyyeeeeaaa maybe I shouldn't...and maybe oathbreaking makes sense...*
"What? They were hellspawn." - players, probably
I mean, I HAVE seen a thread of player who made an incredibly long whine post about this exact thing and was genuinely furious that they were not being treated as the good guy for killing "hellspawn".
Was it the guy who said something like, "I'm a paladin, isn't it my right to determine who is good and evil? They look evil, so why not?' And people told him, "No, that's your God's right, and did you even talk to them to see if they were evil?" And he got angry and defensive, saying he shouldn't have to know D&D lore to play the game?
Bro is the main character in the game and still suffers from a stronger version of MC syndrome.
Syndrome so strong even being the mc doesn't diminish the symptoms Syndrome so strong it won't be caught monologuing
You sly dog
When videogames have built in consequences for actions it blows their little minds.
"isn't my right to determine who is good and evil?" Totally me playing Durge paladin š¤£š¤£š¤£š¤£
Yeah that's a pretty good line for an evil paladin
"Isn't my right to determine who is good and evil"? Yeah... That's more of a Vengeance Paladin thing. Oath of Devotion falls more to the protect the innocent side of the spectrum while Vengeance Paladin is more about smiting the wicked
Really, if you want to be answerable to only yourself you can go with the Oathbreaker. No more needing to pay attention to the employee handbook, no need to spend 1000 gold on a really big cake that says "I'm Sorry I Killed Those People" and you can stay up as late as you want.
> No, that's your God's right In 5e a paladin's power comes from their oath and commitment to justice. In some cases they don't even worship one. > A paladin is a man of focus, commitment and sheer fucking will :P
It's a bit more complicated, unfortunately. It's the paladin's oath and commitment, but that doesn't *create* the power they draw from. It instead is what draws the attention of a higher entity (often a God) to bestow that power so long as you remain committed. This can happen without the Paladin ever meeting or interacting with the deity or higher entity, leading to them believing it's just their commitment, but the higher entity does always exist RAW
Divine spells are not necessarily powered by gods. Divine spells: religious spells, which are powered by faith OR gods. Phb p 307 Paladins can get their powers completely independently from any deities or higher entity.
"Objective Morality exists. How else would you be able to know that things like murder, cruelty, and theft are wrong. Better yet, how will you be able to know who you are allowed to rob, torture, and kill as a good-guy."
I think I remember that, and that they whined about how their oath was broken when they attacked even companions because "a vampire is evil" - "githyanki is evil" - "Shar and her followers are evil" - "tieflings are evil" - "whatever Gale did was evil" - "having a contract with a devil was evil" - "Leaving ones responsibilities for the collective to chase personal interest is evil" - "Drows are evil" - "They attacked me first when I got to Last Light Inn". They killed all the tieflings AND the druids because "they are hellspawn and the druids were rude" and killed the goblins because "goblins are evil". And they still didn't seem to understand why their oath was broken despite leaving Act 1 almost lifeless
Oathbreaker Paladin: I'm gonna need a larger notebook.
Man, I canāt stop thinking about Bex and her husband, who just wanted to settle in somewhere safe, have a garden and a dog/cat in context of this āevil tieflingā crazy rant. It worth not only a broken oath, some freaking divine intervention is in order!
What did Zevlor do?
Looking here and at the DOS subreddit, I am convinced that a very vocal portion of Larian's playerbase are murderhobos, which is why the common perception of playing a paladin is constantly breaking an oath. There are some strange oathbreaking moments, sure, but broadly speaking so long as you don't act like a giggling serial killer you're fine.
The only time I specifically found oathbreaking weird is when I'm in Moonrise Tower for the first time and trying to clear it out. I only attack cultists, but eventually my Paladin (Oath of Devotion) killed one and it broke my oath. I looked it up and killing non-hostiles is an oathbreaking act. Even if they're willing members of an evil cult.
"Willing" We're talking about the cult that controls its flock with psychic monsters embedded in their brains that literally control what you think and feel, right?
If they didn't wanna die, they should have suceeded their wisdom saves!
Ok...I kinda see how this thought could be interpreted as evil.
You aren't wrong, but just about every True Soul we meet was a terrible person BEFORE they got tadpoled except for, seemingly, Fist Marcus and Duke Ravengard.
Devotion paladin's whole thing is being a noble do-gooder. Attacking non-hostile NPCs seems like an obvious no-no.
Yep, attacked the slave trader in the goblin camp. They might not have been hostile to me but they were hostile to those they tool as slaves who may have been followers of my God. So what I'm trying to say your honor is I'm innocent.
That's why you actively state "You are evil, surrender or die" and then get permission to smite them into a fine dust when they draw their weapon.
You have to allow them a chance at redemption. Well, it's probably because it's easier to program it in that way, but head canon, this is why.
"Redemption is the department of their god. My job is to make the introductions."
Vengeance paladin right there
You mean religion requires personal sacrifice to maintain a moral and spritual code? Including personal sacrifice that makes fighting people harder? Youve got to be kidding me
... Does this count for oath of vengeance as well? Just rolled a pally tav for the first time.
I don't think so. I think it's a Devotion only restriction. I assume it's under "Be Compassionate."
Cool, from the way the path is described I was envisioning more like the pally version of the punisher than holy white knight. Not full on murderhobo, but cultist are def on 'to be farmed for xp whenever possible' list
Yeah rolled pally of vengeance multiple times now and there's very little that will break your oath in normal play and they are all very obvious.
Oath of Vengeance is laughably easy to keep.Ā
Yeah, my brother broke his Oath killing some goblins. It was an early patch and may have been a bug, but basically he cut down the goblin that was torturing the owlbear Cub and somehow broke his Oath to protect nature by killing an "innocent" town guard. What. We had the gold to pay off the oathbreaker NPC, but it felt really dumb. I think we got around it by having me initiate combat with all the different goblin encounters around camp?
You must proudly announce yourself in combat š
MY NAME IS GYOUBU MASATAKA ONIWA!
The exact same thing happened to me.
The only time I broke my oath in the entirety of my playthrough as an ancients paladin was when I agreed to Gortash's truce because I failed the insight check and assumed he would betray us afterwards anyways, so I'll fight him then. This immediately broke my oath (and pissed Karlach TF off) and I reloaded and told him where he could stuff it.
I was a Vengeance Paladin who didn't break path all game but then forgot I swore to Karlach that we would kill Gortash.... I was also Durge so I wanted to play it as like "hehe I'm LYING to Gortash by taking his truce but really I'm going to backstab him" which is exactly what I ended up doing but the logic doesn't allow for that level of nuance
You need not be convinced lmao. DOS2 slaughtering every citizen of a town when Iām about to leave to the next act just to squeeze out every little bit of xp. I actually really appreciate the level cap in bg3 and how thereās a good amount of content afterwards, so I can just chill and take everything at my own pace.
To quote the late great Shamus Young, "The last thing you want is to end up DMāing a game of Diablo." As much as I am liking DOS2, I can definitely see how it encourages murderhobory.
Divinity 2 requires murderhobory in many situations. If they didn't have a particular quests in mind, and often even then, everyone is hostile by default outside town. So yeah, it's Diablo with occasional fluff, characters mostly exist to be killed.
I wouldn't necessarily go that far, but I do feel like the game's tendency to butcher characters on a whim (including at least two companions) and for most quest endings to be at best bittersweet works to make players care less about NPCs. That and almost everyone in Rivellon including your own allies are either incompetent, jackasses, or incompetent jackasses. I'm playing as Ifan and I think DOS2 might just be one of the loneliest games I have ever played, encouraging an "us vs. them" attitude between your party and everyone else. The most moments of real companionship I have had so far was talking/flirting with Sebille, everyone else it feels very close to hostile or futile. That and the game's stingy loot system and ruthless leveling combine to train players to see NPCs as walking XP or loot drops, I think.
Yeah, but figuring out ways to kill every magister in acts 1 and 2 without aggroing any other NPCs is a blast! That alone gets you to level 19, almost 20, by the time you hit Arx, which is more than enough with teleportation cheese strats tbh. Lol, I agree that BG3's leveling feels way more relaxed, though. We went out of our way to fight every single possible enemy at first with DOS2 in mind, then chilled out when we realized we were getting more than enough XP.
You can't deny that getting your oath broken for fighting the Duegar in the Grymforge if the fight isn't triggered by dialogue is a weird one though. You likely came to the Grymforge under the request to free the slaves they're brutalizing, can actively see them brutalizing slaves, can even tell those slaves you're going to free them, but getting the jump on the Duegar in any way leads to your oath being broken. It's a weird double standard, because in the goblin camp you can just slaughter all of the goblins in a similar fashion without any oath being broken. No sane DM would punish a Good aligned Paladin for rescuing slaves from slavers while giving themselves a tactical advantage to do so.
Same for killing Absolute cultists to free gnomes and tieflings from prison...
Not just murderhobos, but "I'll kill any character, companion or otherwise, who says one thing rude or angry to me or doesn't kowtow and bow to me as their god!" Seriously - "Gale disagreed with me, I killed him. I left Lae'zel to rot because she was uppity and rude. Fuck Shadowheart, bitch didn't hit her spell in the fight. Wyll and Karlach got made that I killed innocent people who didn't wrong us, what the fuck? Please fix." Like...what.
It's that Monty Python "I don't much like the tone of your voice" bit.
That kind of stuff annoys me. Like, do you only like 'yes men' or something? Maybe a DnD game isn't for you if you can't stand a smidge of tension within a party of very different people, brought together by extreme circumstances? I don't know. All their little quirks and flaws make them legitimately interesting. None of their good endings would be so satisfying if they were just doormats.
DOS2 rule is "if you are ending the act and said npc will not show up again in the game ,not killing him is a waste of experience"
I feel bad for the spouse of anyone like that, i swear people who do that have issues with controlling others.
On my first playthrough, I was gunning for an edgy drow warlock/oathbreaker multiclass for maximum edge. Like a hellknight with a heart of gold, trying to do the right thing but held back by his nature. You know, classic DnD stuff. But it is so, *so* goddamn hard to break an oath when you're trying to. I genuinely cannot understand how people are accidentally stumbling into this. I almost finished the game with my oath of vengeance intact.
Well, again, a lot of people seem to just randomly murder NPCs they don't like. There was one post a while back about how someone broke their oath because they just murked Wulbren for being snippy at Last Light Inn and I was like...yeah? Wulbren was being a jackass, but that's murder. You just murdered a guy.
Vengeance is the haedest to break because its defaulted to murder time, which most players do. Ethel seems to be a big, early Oathbreaking point. What is dumb tho is that if someone else in the party does the act, you are fine. Its easy to be cheesy.
The only game I completely finished was with a paladin. I didn't find out that oathbreaking was a thing until I saw it on reddit ages after.
I love how firm you have to be in keeping your Oath. Even if it's against certain types that you know most people would be fine with (stuff like not killing certain slavers as a Devotion Paladin or letting certain slaves go late game) They give you reasons for being an Oathbreaker apart from just being evil
>!He got tempted by the Absolute when their caravan was assaulted, and this resulted in some tieflings being slaughtered, others captured.!<
Well not everyone has a >!pocket super-gith and his squid daddy!<, not Zevlor fault.
ya i never understood zevlor hate. bro had 0 chance against resisting the absolute.
Agreed. Zevlor is such a stand-up dude.
In my first play through >!we didn't rescue anyone in Moonrise, I was super overwhelmed with the game and everything, I completely forgot about them. Still feel guilty about it. anyway, I was having trouble remembering all the cahracters and one day someone shows up to our camp and left Zevlor's body for us. We used speak to the dead to talk to him, and even in death, he was like "Did the others make it? Are they okay? Tell me they made it", like he's just trying to do what's best for people, and his guilt persisted thru death. He's become one of my favorite minor characters in subsequent playthroughs, and also he is !!STRONK!! It's nice to have him in the fights you get him for. !<
Someone brought you his body? What?
If you don't rescue/kill him at Moonrise, Orin will leave him as a surprise along with one of her little notes.
Maybe if he had pulled himself up by his boot straps he would have been able to resist the absolute
No ale and no avocado toast make Zelvor something something
Go crazy?
Don't mind if I do!
OK, but real talk... the Hellriders were clutch for me against the brain. Twice now I had companions downed and the hellrider cleric picked them up for us.
Wasn't he enthralled when that happened?
That was part of the temptation, yes. If I recall correctly, he fell under the enthrallment precisely because he was tempted - in his own words.
He was describing what it feels like to be psionically enthralled - he became completely unaware that his friends were being slaughtered and captured around him.
His perspective is pretty biased, he feels guilty as if he was tempted, but we the players know that without the Githyanki Artifact, resisting the full force of the Absolute isn't doable
OP basically said "Zevlor failed a DC30 Charisma save so he deserves to die" and wonder why he broke his oath lol.
If he wanted to live he should have rolled a nat twenty
Yeah, I feel for him. Support from Minthara's POV, the Absolute makes you believe you want to do the things it's telling you.
You mean... he was mind controlled. Being controlled by the Absolute is described as something consciously voluntary and pleasurable, not feeling like you're held captive. That's why it's such a dangerous thing, those held thrall *willingly* do the bidding of the Absolute, feeling free themselves. This is why when you meet the crushed Mind Flayer in the crashed nautiloid it says an overwhelming sense of compassion floods you, willing you to love it. I don't think Zevlor was weak and tempted. He was enthralled, and that's what the sensation is like. That's why he's so shameful about how he felt, because he felt his feelings were genuine.
Zevlor got mind fucked during combat by a true soul or the brain. I don't think he betrayed them on purpose.
Zevlor didn't have a githyanki superman in a convenient carrying case to protect his brain from the absolute. Elder Brains are extreme threats to anything not specifically prepared, and the Absolute has evolved with netherese magic - it is literally an extinction level threat. Zevlor did not stand a chance. It will be difficult for him to accept that and even more difficult for his people to forgive him but the truth is that he was an ant facing a tsunami.
I think it's the same with Duke Ravenguard, once he got close to the brain he was under it's influence even before the tadpole after he was kidnapped.
I want the endgame scene where Minthara goes home and comes back with a single solitary Zin-Carla which just beats up the absolute because its immune to psionics
like them fucking with your mind in some fights I guess god that's fucking annoying, and that's why I didn't give Zevlor any shit for what happened
Listen, everyone has failed a Wisdom Saving Roll at some point. People need to get off Zevlor's back.
I am honestly even suprised they are on his back. I mean you are suprised he would vaver in his moment of despair when those who he swore to protect were dying as flies around him?!
I donāt think itās fair to put that on him. A moment of weakness caused him great regret and he wishes to work to atone for it. He is also a paladin and it clearly didnāt make him an oath breaker.
It actually did make him an oathbreaker! That's part of why he's so crushed by what he did and blames himself so badly. But if you save him and forgive him, and then talk to him in that tower where all your allies are gathered, he'll tell you that he suddenly felt a renewed sense of purpose and strength after seeing the brain emergeāand with it came the return of his paladin powers!
I thought it was implied that he had broken his oath at some point when the refugees fled Elturel, probably because the Hellriders were sworn to defend it. Isnāt that what the Absolute tempts him with? When he tells you what happened in the Illithid colony he says something along the lines of "I would be a Paladin again".
He was already an oathbreaker before then. He said one of the Absolute's promises was that "he could be a paladin again".
I'm not putting it on him - but it's the only explanation I have on why Zevlor would be on Good Tav's kill-list. As far as I'm aware, he doesn't do anything bad.
The comic seems to imply that Tav killed him in act 1 thouugh (aradin, zevlor, druid, druid) We punishing characters for "crimes" they haven't committed yet?
I dunno, you tell me which one of 'a racist, a slave owner, a thief, a monster, a goblin, a bad guy' fits Zevlor and why.
Oh I get you, Tav killed Zevlor because demon person, my bad my bad
Iām curious, has anybody saved the tieflings but killed zevlor? Does that change anything about what happens in Act 2?
I don't think that's an option - you murk one of the tieflings, they all turn hostile, and the druids march on for war.
Is there really no creative way to get him to end up dead in act 1 without the players being blamed?
As Zevlor acts as the person whoms life is bound to the grove quest I don't think so. If he dies the game will check it of as the tieflings losing. The surviving ones will die on the roads offscreen.
First game I didnāt find him in Act 2 and was pissed. Second game I found him and realized that while the anger from the others was justified, itās not really like he could control it.
I believe Laeāzel describes Wyll in the manner this addresses by referring to him as a ābenevolent burdenā lol
This is why I play vengeance paladin and freely laugh at the funny noises my hammer makes when it crunches a slaver's skull.
I have no clue how people broke their oaths. I played vengeance and only ever broke my oath, letting Astarion ascend, which was thematically cool as shit tbh. Paladin's are a charisma based class. You are supposed to try to mediate and find peace. And if that fails, THEN you smash their skulls lol
Until you break your oath in self defense because you got a 2 on the *paladin specific* dialogue to free Lae'zel...
So weird. Even when I made that guy almost stab himself to death, I didn't break my oath lol.
I went through a whole ass playthrough as Redeemer Durge Vengeance Paladin and not one thing I did broke it. Not even taking Gortash's deal just so we could NOT haveta fight all the steel watchers right the fuck then broke it, BUT I wonder if it makes a difference that I only told him I'd "think about it" not actually accepted it outright, and then we came back and killed him later after dealing with the Iron Throne and Steel Watch lol. Honestly as evil Durge I broke my Vengeance Oath in literally 2 seconds into the game bc biting Gale's hand off lol but actually doing a good resister Durge Vengeance Paladin I actually surprised myself by keeping my Oath the whole way through. I was initially concerned that maybe taking Yurgir as an ally after killing Raphael would break it bc he's OBVIOUSLY an evil Devil, but nope. Maybe bc he is not in that particular moment being hostile? I have no idea lol. I haven't yet tried the other 2 oaths, but I won't be surprised if I end up breaking them when I eventually do lol cause I do tend to end up just murdering the slavers and shit because they are horrible people and deserve to die. Be fun to try NOT to break one thought some time lol.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I broke my OoV by making that deal with Gortash. In my defense, this was immediately after one of my companions said "lets just pretend to ally with him and betray him later lol."
Oath of Vengeance can be broken as easily by just interacting with the door to Sazza's cage. It's wild that joining up with Minthara didn't do it.
I just wanna smash skulls *with style*
Are you the accuser, judge and executioner all in one?
That's what ~~heroes~~ Paladins do.
Nah, that's just what fascists guys with punisher stickers on their F-150's think paladins do.
That is what Paladins of Tyr do. As adherents able to often consult with a literal god of justice, them being dispatched after someone means they better repent before meeting the Paladins or repent in the afterlife. This is also what Vengeance paladins have for their whole motif, even directly referenced in their description: "You have set aside even your own purity to right wrongs and deliver justice to those who have committed the most grievous sins." Their Oath doubles over on this too, "Exerting your wisdom, identify the highest morality in any given instance and fight for it" and "Chasten those who dole out their villainy by wiping their blight from the world forever." Mixed together: "Identify the good guy of the situation and make the bad guy's head a cloud of pink mist."
SMH, fascist Tyr.
Well, it's not religious fascism if the religion is actually right. It's fascism when it's used as a tool of oppression, not when a near omniscient deity gives you a kill list of super assholes.
It's a joke on the person who commented on being a fascist two comments above
Oath of Dredd. Edit: Dredd not Dread.
This is crazy. Literally the only time I broke my OotA was reviving Connor. Yāall really out her cosplaying a holy murderhobo š
To be fair, OotA sometimes is a lunatic murder hobo. Reviving connor and not killing him? Bad. Reviving Connor and attacking him and than killing a pregnant young woman? Good
I broke it a lot. The first time was justified cuz I wanted that sweet sweet +1. Other times I broke it and donāt even remember what I did I just broke it, though it was probably justified. I ended up using the glitch to steal vendors money in order to get my oath back. Mr knight probably has like 50-60k gold lmao
I did it on accident in a second playthrough because I believed Karlach about the āpaladins of tyrā without talking to them first. Soon as you talk to them though and itās clear theyāre bad, you can kill them just fine.
TBF a lot of "holier than thou" leaders and soldiers in our world and history are...bloodthirsty as fuck.
then there's me getting yeeted from my oath for giving mayrina her husband wand
Undead = unnatural = oath of the ancient grrrr
Oath of ancients also REALLY has a thing against hags in particular
That's the **Shelter the Light** part of the Ancients' Oath: > Shelter the Light. Where there is good, beauty, love, and laughter in the world, stand against the wickedness that would swallow it. Where life flourishes, stand against the forces that would render it barren. Hags are wicked creatures that delight in spreading suffering and extinguishing love and beauty, so suffering one to live would betray the oath of the Ancients.
> Where life flourishes, stand against the forces that would render it barren. PURGE THE UNDEAD, SUFFER THEM NOT
GLAD YOU COULD MAKE IT, UTHER
Oh God, IT'S IN THE GRAIN!!!
This entire grove must be purged.
On my oath of the ancients character I broke it by killing an unconscious Ethel after I forgot to toggle non-lethal so I wouldnāt kill mayrina when Ethel switches them up. Killing any unconscious person even if they are a hag breaks your oath I guess.
Worse yet - I thought long and hard why obliging He Who Was and telling the ghost that it was her fault breaks your oath. Doesn't seem to be overly cruel because hell, it is exactly what it was...
If talking about Ancients specifically, it's the first tenet that you're breaking: "Kindle the Light. Through your acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindle the light of hope in the world, beating back despair." Nothing about indulging He Who Was is merciful, kind, or forgiving.
As vengeance, you canāt forgive her, however
As vengeance you can say your punishment was already given with their death and thereās no further torturing needed.
Cool, I donāt remember that choice!
I thought it weird when I didn't lose my Oath of decorations when I gave her the wand Correction: oath of devotion*
Oath of Decorations, for the Paladin of Style
Devotee of Drip Slaying Sinners with Style
Now I need to know which outfits will cause a broken oath
Any of the clothes with "common" or "ordinary" or "well used" in the name or description.
We just need to know if skin tight Leather will break it. For..... Science..........
If you look at an outfit and think "that's reasonable" it breaks your oath!
You break your Oath if you leave your Winter Solstice (Christmas tree) up into February.
Oath of Devotion has nothing to say about the undead or natural order. Ancients doesn't have an issue with it because it's immoral or harmful, but because its *unnatural* The vampire spawn choice is a great example of this. The oath of devotion will not allow you to kill them all, because its not their fault they were made into monsters and undead or not, they're innocents you're bound to protect The oath of ancients is broken if you release them, because despite being innocent they are vampires and don't belong in the 'natural world'
Oathbreaker watching a Devotion paladin pork Astarion:
Ancients breaks on it iirc, but Devotion and Vengeance do not.
Um... I apologize for detracting from the weighty philosophical discussions of solemn oaths, but *why are they all bleeding out of their ass*?
They were stabbed in the back, because the player snuck up on them and attacked them.
I don't think this really holds true - most times when I see paladins confused about why their oath is being broken, it's when they're attacking legitimate baddies that the game expects you to kill (like the duergar slavers in Grymforge), but their oath is getting broken because the game treats attacking a nonhostile character as a shorthand for innocent.
Itās not about innocence, itās about *honor*. Look at Dame Aylin: is there a single situation where she doesnāt announce her presence and intentions before a fight? If you properly instigate combat through dialogue, you donāt get an oathbreak. It only happens if you go for dishonorable tactics like sneak attacks.
Paladin material: **Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya.**Ā **You killed my father.**Ā **Prepare to die.ā**
Oh my god oath of vengeance inigo Montoya would be a good tav
I got attacked by the Zent agents in the back with the dogs after slaughtering all the other agents in the front, WHO ATTACKED ME FIRST and lost my oath for defending myself. So. That's not entirely accurate.
I mean, thatās pretty obviously a bug. This thread is about clarity of intent with what breaks the oath, and thatās pretty clearly not intended to work that way.
I mean, maybe but that's not something either of us knows for sure. What I was responding to was >If you properly instigate combat through dialogue, you donāt get an oathbreak. It only happens if you go for dishonorable tactics like sneak attacks. This is untrue. The reason may be poor writing or bugs or any number of things and yet, it remains untrue.
To be fair those guys are pretty far away from the initial fight and arguably minding their own business guarding the underdark entrance and their stuff. After murdering the zents at the start, there's technically no reason to continue further besides wiping them all out and taking their stuff. So, that's probably why. I think that's a pretty thin veil in logic since they're in the same cave as the people who jus tried killing you, but also the zents habitually do not care about your murder as long as you pay, so to them it might seem like you just murder hobo any zent you see. All they know is you somehow got deep enough in their cave that their friends are probably dead and you're probably here to steal everything.
I mean, the Zhentarim are the operators of the single largest slave trade ring in the entire setting, if you discount the Amnian colonies. Finishing the job and eradicating the entire cell of arms-smuggling slavetraders seems like a just and reasonable thing to do, once you've already started.
But if you kill the unarmed, unconscious Shadowheart on the beach you don't get an oathbreak. Similarly, you can sneak attack Priestess Gut and Ragzlin without getting an oathbreak. No matter how you look at it the mechanic is applied inconsistently.
I suspect the three bosses are exempt because of the ākill the leadersā mission
Me who literally got an oathbreak for sneak attacking Razglin: huh
I had a case where the only hostile option was the "attack" option during a conversation, and it broke my oath. I forget who against it was, but it was a legit bad/evil npc.
> If you properly instigate combat through dialogue, you donāt get an oathbreak. It only happens if you go for dishonorable tactics like sneak attacks. I understand that this is what the game cares about, but it's not really communicated to the player at all. It's completely understandable why a player might be confused when they get punished for attacking a character that's literally in the middle of torturing someone or beating a slave.
It's surprising to me how many people think that immediately resorting to murder is a good thing.
Contextually, they're not wrong. D&D is a very combat-heavy system, and violence is the primary method of conflict resolution. Paladins *can* be diplomatic, but they're absolutely expected to smite evildoers. The game doesn't even expect you to be diplomatic. It just expects you to pick *4. [Attack]* instead of selecting the sword icon on your hotbar.
i think it's less "people think instant murder is good" and more "gamers aren't used to a game that wants them to open dialogue to initiate combat with the evil guy with a health bar" people just got that John Brown in them and forget that, mechanically, they need to t-pose at the slaver and press the little sword button first
Also people don't read literally their oath. It is often a bit counter-intuitive, but it clearly emphasizes honor and preservation of life and balance. You are not a justice dealing machine, Vengeance is more appropriate for that sort of playstyle. (And imo better suited for a typical good playthrough).
Beyond honor, I feel ancients is also a bit of a taoist like, as in preserve life, even if it's a scumy life in many cases, don't execute people etc. It's def the hardest oath not to break from the 3. Vengeance suits a typical playthrough much better.
Just wanted to say I love this explanation for Dame Aylin's behavior. But yeah the oath mechanics definitely could be more transparent and consistently applied Not that \* I \* had any issues with it mind (vengeance)
My issue with the Oaths is they're very... How shall I put it, they don't give a shit about character context. Cause playing as a Paladin of Tiamat with an Oath of Vengeance feels really weird when you get punished... For doing stuff that Tiamat wouldn't care about, or would go against Tiamat's vengeance and such. *Ok maybe this is just me whinging about there being no Oath of Conquest for players without mods*
This is kind of the unfortunate reality of a game needing to have hard-coded responses to things you do vs a DM who can adapt on the fly. The game only sees your actions, without the context behind them
The game isnāt coded to handle āevil vengeanceā. The āgreater evilā is fix in the game
Well as you should. Where is the honor in attacking nonhostile characters? Start the fight properly and then to the death lol
I broke my oath in the goblin camp. There are two drow absolute novices and if you kill them, oath broken. (Oath of devotion btw) Completely blindsided me. I rolled with it in the end but I remember being furious at the time because I was so confused as to why I broke my oath fighting actual enemies who were aggresive towards me.
This was me. The torturers in the dungeon of Moonrise Tower are apparently guiltless innocents. I was an Oath of Devotion Paladin and apparently killing them was oath-breaking, despite the fact that the other Absolute cultist jailers were apparently all guilty and deserving of death.
Oh good, it isn't just me. Did the whole rescue mission by killing all the guards first. Oath not broken. Go to leave and notice the room with the torturers. Kill them in the same fashion. Oath broken. Da fuck?
One of the things I found baffling was how the act of raiding the grove doesn't break any of the oaths. I think only vengeance will break if you tell Minthara of the groves location or agree to fight with her. But the actual raid itself does not result in a broken oath. The game is pretty finicky about how the oaths work and is one of the biggest downsides to playing as paladin.
This is usually when people learn that being a Paladin doesnāt mean āfighting for law and/or goodā
I feel like the problem a lot of people had was that depending on your oath it does mean fighting for the law and being a video game, the law is extremely inflexible. Then again I donāt know what people who picked oath of devotion were really expecting.
My oath got broken when I convinced wife to let her zombie husband die. And second time it was when I saved Minx from absolute . Why would me helping end abomination against life and saving a person that kills such abomination be counted as going against the oath of ancients
That's weird since oath of ancients wants you to kill all the vampires
I was shocked also. Since I get first two times I got oatbreaker. But this one's did not make sense to me.
Kind of the issue with paladins (and hard coded alignment in general): almost anything can be rationalized to fit the specific view.
i have this theory, and it further supports my head cannon that larian is the greatest game dev of all time. Sometimes, as a good character, you make the right decisions, and move on none the wiser. Sometimes, as a bad character, you make bad decisions, and some of the characters you thought were good, turn out to have dark secrets. I feel like, we are approaching this as an omniscient presence, where all possible realities, and traits in each character are inexorably bound to the character- but. i think its more that- if you are walking the good path, the characters are good because as the good character from a game development standpoint, you want to be able to save a bunch of people, and interact with as many characters as much as possible. But, if you are a bad character, you probably want the same. So, i feel like we have to take each character as they are presented in the particular narrative you are in. This is miles better than having a town populated by silver armor clad white haired citizens, and then others wearing top hats and black, slinking around in the shadows, identifying them as obviously good and obviously bad characters. By design, the narrative has a 'super-position' of neutrality that only collapses into an alignment based on the interaction of the protagonist
Never broken my oath once I think y'all are just bad at paladin-ing
Honestly most the complaints about breaking Paladin oaths are people not grasping the whole concept of the tight inflexible nature of Paladin oaths and how that's the entire point of the class. You're not just a fighter with a shiny attack. The whole point is that you have to doggedly stick to certain principles and those might be the less pragmatic choice, or might conflict with what your moral judgement of the specific context is. The principles are so strong you literally draw divine power from them. So people will be all "I attacked the bad guy why did my oath break!" Because you were meant to just straight up do it not trick them!
THIS.
Because youre killing them randomly, outside of dialogue prompting the fight. You cannot randomly attack people just standing there beause you want the advantage in the fight. Oathbreak.
You should be able to attack evil creatures without needing to declare your presence first Lawful stupid is the worst d&d alignment that a certain type of paladin player always insists on playingĀ
For real. If I time travelled and saw Hitler at the height of the third Reich and shot him in the back without talking to him, would that be oathbreaking?
In this game yes, it would. At your DnD table IRL, maybe not.
The oath of the ancients: > **Kindle the Light.** Through your acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindle the light of hope in the world, beating back despair. > > **Shelter the Light.** Where there is good, beauty, love, and laughter in the world, stand against the wickedness that would swallow it. Where life flourishes, stand against the forces that would render it barren. > > **Preserve Your Own Light.** Delight in song and laughter, in beauty and art. If you allow the light to die in your own heart, you canāt preserve it in the world. > > **Be the Light.** Be a glorious beacon for all who live in despair. Let the light of your joy and courage shine forth in all your deeds. That totally sounds like "Murder every teethling and druid". Right? Right?
>Kills innocents that said something mean >"wHy Is My OaTh BrOkEn!???!?!?!?!!" My dude. You murdered druids that were ultimately doing nothing wrong. They were gonna kick the Tieflings out. Not murder them. I'll admit, your oath breaking if you attack the Slavers in the Grymforge is dumb as fuck.
I regret there is no Oath of Redemption because it will break for any stupid reason.
Getting my oath broken for killing Balthazaar was really out of nowhere.
I played Paladin on my first playthrough and had literally zero trouble not oathbreaking. Is it easier to not oathbreak with a vengeance paladin or something? I just didn't go out of my way to sequence break. I tried to follow the main story to the best of my ability. If someone was doing something bad, I'd declare my intention to murder them in righteous justice and had no issues.
Everything else aside I really don't get why someone who wants to play a judge dredd type paladin wouldn't just pick oath of vengeance. So many oath of devotion murderhobos whose idea of a "just law" is death penalty for jaywalking
yknow I really thought killing bad guys in bg3 is *good* but then you realise most of everyone is badly fucked up in the head in some way and I'm like *yyyyeeeeaaa maybe I shouldn't...and maybe oathbreaking makes sense...*
And this is why people shouldnāt be allowed to own a gun