Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Paladins : where are the tenets (where is the lore)?

Paladins get a class dialogue option to bully/Intimidate Rugan to hand over the shipment he is on a mission to transport. Zhents have a bad rep and all but that's basically stealing in the name of "good" without knowing anything about the case at hand or the person involved. Surely the Zhents also operate legally sometimes. Being a Paladin doesn't mean you get to bully people and take their stuff without a shred of evidence if you don't like their employer lol. Since it's a Paladin specific option it seems as it's meant to be a righteous or just thing to do which is a little too black and white. Paladins are also allowed to travel with a revealed Sharran priest so a little double standardy.. perhaps? Not so black and white with her...

Folks should be sure where they can spare the time and energy to make submissions of these inconsistencies and poorly devised systems to Larian's direct feedback forms as well; we don't know how much time and leeway we have to affect tweaks at this stage, but making every voice count to avert travesties like these are all we can do.

+1

If things stay like this I will not play a paladin in the final game.
You can accidentally break your oath without knowing why.
So you have to use trail and error (and reload) to find out which actions make you lose your class.

I like that there is the oathbreaker class and going against your tenets has consequences.
But it must bea deliberate choice by the player, not something that happens when you attack a goblin or save a companion.
In case of the oath of the ancients I am not even sure to what breaking the oath actually means. ". . . be the light" Does it mean casting a darkness spell breaks your oath?
Unless I have a better idea I can think of nothing but you select: option 1, option 2, option 3 (warning, this option will break your oath!), option 4

For example take the paladin of devotion: Which of these choices should break your oath?
- Side with the goblins and attack the grove
- Make a deal with a devil
- Make a deal with a hag and let her keep the girl
- Not killing a vampire who tries to stab you on your first encounter and tries to bite you at night
- travelling with evil companions and not scolding them when they suggest or endorse something evil (note, alignment is not really in the game)

I am absolutely not sure.
I have not played the game since ages, so I do not know content that has been added later.
These are just some random examples I came up with.

In PnP players and GM can discuss this but in a computer game the devs have to program which actions can be done, which dialogue can be chosen and which of these actions or choices break which oath.


Are paladins the only class that can change their subclass because of gameplay choices?
For example clerics should lose their powers when they repeatetly and willingly go against the dogma of their god.
But without alignment that is just as hard to make as paladin oaths.

Honestly, I still haven't find the motivation to continue my playthrough, in part because of this.
I haven't broke my Ancients Oath...yet...and while I'm not far into the game, I don't like this feeling of having the Sword of Damocles hanging over my head.

Ranting ahead (last one about this matter), keep moving, nothing to see here:

And why doesn't the Oathbreaker appear in dreams? A flaming undead knight like that just killing time at your camp makes the whole thing feel about as exciting as washing dishes. It's extremely immersion breaking when crazy stuff like that happens right next to you and no one reacts to it.

Yeah, the fact that you need to check your chestpiece description to discover your oaths is just hilarious. And the wording of those oath is very vague - a new player will never understand it.

I think that yes paladins are more than lawful stupid, but they're also not really meant to be "follow your conscience" characters. The oaths ARE your conscience, to a large degree. If you're a paladin, you're someone who believes whole-heartedly in the tenets of your oath and that following those tenets are the right choice in basically every situation. Those tenets are open to some degree of interpretation, but such as whether or not ambushing murderous criminals counts as honesty or not, but ultimately you agree to be bound by a codified standard. At the same time, I do think that the version we have currently isn't a great example. As others have said, it's not a case of "one transgression and you're out." In the tabletop, if you make a genuine transgression you don't immediately lose your oath, you can seek absolution from a cleric or colleague. And even then, there's gonna be a bit of wiggle room as to what exactly is a transgression.


The oath is worded the way it is in the player's guide. I think it's vague on purpose because it's meant to be a philosophy and guide to behavior, not a rulebook. There's meant to be degree of flexibility that's open to interpretation. That works great in tabletop, but in a game where everything has to be hardcoded then it does become problematic.

A) I picked the Ancients Oath because it does align with what my conscience usually dictates.
B) From the PHB :

I'm not saying this to agree with any complaints of people doing obvious devious things and breaking their oaths. But a lot of things are up for interpretations.
And to me the issue is the feeling of having a "Sword of Damocles" above my head because of the current implementation and the feeling of exclusion based on some members of the community (not necessarily here, also reddit...I know I know, reddit bad).


I mean that was my point and my way of reasoning. My interpretation is also based on what my conscience and logic is telling me is good.
But I still feel excluded from being a paladin with how things are (the game, the community).

To me, the Ancient Oath offers a lot of leeway in terms of interpretations (as long as you are trying to do good but there are a lot of gray situations in the game, I find).

I don't mean to contradict you, but I think this is an interesting conversation I want to engage in. There's a difference between "being devoted to good" and "following your conscience." By taking up an oath, a paladin, even an Ancients paladin, is deciding to put that oath above their conscience. The oath aligns with your conscence, but that's different from following your conscience. You're following an oath that agrees with it. In a case where an Ancients paladin's conscience diverges from their tenets, they're sworn to follow the tenets before their conscience. HOWEVER, this is all philosophical minutiae. Stuff that I as a massive nerd like to think about. In my opinion, if you were at a table with a reasonable GM, you'd have no problems understanding and playing a paladin.

I fully agree with you about the sword of damoclese issue. As paladins, out characters would know from years of study and consideration what actions would break their oaths The game should help us get on that level as players.