|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
|
This is another situation where our actions, and our motivations for those actions, aren't dealt with very well.
When I first saw the Oathbreaker show up in the panel demo, I was curious how it would differ for paladin's of evil deities. I guess that was foolish on my part. Currently, you don't select any deity as a Paladin and the two subclasses are goody-two-shoes. Devotion is based of the pre-5e Lawful Good Paladin. Of the Ancient is "there is beauty in the world and I must protect it" that focus on good and fighting off darkness and despair. Neither would work for a Paladin following an evil deity. I'm not quite sure what you were expecting there. If you want to role-play a paladin who follow an evil deity you have to go Oathbreaker. Maybe at release they will have added Conquest or some homebrew evil Paladin subclass since even Vengeance is about fighting off evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Upholding Laws don't make you Lawful Good, and a Drow Oath of the Ancients Paladin, is very different from a Wood Elf Oath of the Ancients paladin. If I double-cross Minthara, I'm assuming Oathbreaker comes beams down and gives me his spiel same as if I had double crossed Zevlor.
Last edited by Sozz; 16/12/22 03:56 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
|
Yeah, right now since Lolthsworn drown are assumed to be loyal to Lolth, you for example you get unique dialogue options when dealing with heretics like Minthara or Nere. So if you are rolling with a Lolthsworn Paladin, you'd by extension be a Paladin of Lolth. How on earth that is supposed to interact in any sensible way when the current Paladin subclasses are entirely oriented towards playing a goody-two shoes is beyond me. Doing literally anything that a Paladin of Lolth would do seems bound to cause you to 'fall'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Sep 2022
|
In the PfH we saw the cut scene with Lae'zel having been captured by the Tiefling hunters, and I noticed that they have put in a new Deception (Paladin) check to get the Tieflings to leave so you can free Lae'zel. That's a lie. You're still lying to them. But somehow this doesn't break your oath, but normal non-Paladin lies will? I don't like that. You wouldn't have to put in that allowance if you didn't universally punish Paladins for lying in the first place. Is it really a lie? Paraphrasing, it's like 'Let me take care of her because she's too dangerous for you.' Nowhere do you say 'I will kill her because like you I think all Githyanki are evil,' but that meaning could easily be inferred. Should that line even be tagged [Deception]??
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Sep 2022
|
Can anyone test/confirm that Divine Smite affects all creatures hit by a 2-handed weapons Cleave special attack? I think I saw that in a stream. Can't confirm yet, however as they become afraid, it'll be Wrathful smite interacting with cleave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Nov 2020
|
In the PfH we saw the cut scene with Lae'zel having been captured by the Tiefling hunters, and I noticed that they have put in a new Deception (Paladin) check to get the Tieflings to leave so you can free Lae'zel. That's a lie. You're still lying to them. But somehow this doesn't break your oath, but normal non-Paladin lies will? I don't like that. You wouldn't have to put in that allowance if you didn't universally punish Paladins for lying in the first place. Is it really a lie? Paraphrasing, it's like 'Let me take care of her because she's too dangerous for you.' Nowhere do you say 'I will kill her because like you I think all Githyanki are evil,' but that meaning could easily be inferred. Should that line even be tagged [Deception]?? If you aren't a paladin, you can say the exact same line, which is tagged deception, and as far as I've seen, that counts as lying for the purpose of breaking your oath. I personally think that particular line should have two options for deception or persuasion, because both could be applicable in that specific case. My issue with that whole sequence is regarding the draconian method of determining whether or not a paladin breaks their oath. Gently misleading someone to try and defuse a situation that is quickly turning violent should not count, but it does, but instead of changing the method to be less strict and allow for such situations, they put in a special allowance for paladins that is no different from the regular deception option. The fact that that's even in there means that someone realised that their strict judgement on oaths would cause problems in some places, and I really hope it gets changed before release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Aug 2022
|
Breaking your oath isn't just 'I did this thing one time that went against it, oops' - it's a major thing, and it's a deliberate and intentional rejection of the principles you swore to. Similarly, redemption is a major, major thing, and a pivotal, important turning point in a character's story and development.
The flippant and cavalier treatment of this is worse, by far, than not having it show up as a concept at all.
What we should have is a clear delineation of the tenets we take on when we choose a particular oath - when we take that oath. The oath and its tenets are different things. when you swear to an Oath, that is not the same as binding yourself to always uphold and pursue all of its tenets all the time or else - it is an honest and heart-felt dedication to do your best to uphold those tenets to the best of your ability, and it allows that there may be times where you slip, or stray, or have to choose one tenet over another, and that the world is messy and it can't be perfect all the time. Your Oath is that you will be a stalwart for these tenets to the best of your mortal capability, and that you believe in them with your true and honest heart.
We make mistakes; we're mortal. Scratch that - divinities make mistakes as well. Everyone does. When we stray, the source of our divine power can and should remind us of our oath, and coax us to do better, and even potentially, divest us of or weaken our access to the powers our Oath grants for a time, or until we correct our behaviour, or express in earnest communication our understanding of where we went wrong, and our continuing belief in the tenets we swore to uphold. The game Is Capable of doing this; it absolutely is!
Breaking your Oath is a much bigger, more dramatic thing, and it's a deliberate choice that an entity makes - it's not just 'failing to follow'; it's active renunciation. This should be something that we as players can do in game, as major, pivotal points in the story where it can come up - set pieces, if you will, where a choice point may lead a character to renounce their oaths and side with a situation that serves them personally better. This is where the dramatic flaming hellknights might show up; after the player has made an active, deliberate, and impactful renunciation of their oath in favour of selfish means.... not because we shoved a peasant off a bridge when he tried to stop us crossing. The same goes for redemption; it's major action, and a character changing moment -it's what can happen at the crux of a crisis at the moments in our story that really define us and set our path.... not because we said sorry to some armoured sod that hangs out at our camp. +1 !!!! Thank you! Of all the paladin subclasses, I think that the Oath of the Ancients has the most misconceptions surrounding it. Upholding Laws don't make you Lawful Good, and a Drow Oath of the Ancients Paladin, is very different from a Wood Elf Oath of the Ancients paladin. If I double-cross Minthara, I'm assuming Oathbreaker comes beams down and gives me his spiel same as if I had double crossed Zevlor. Double-crossing Minthara shouldn't count as breaking the Ancients oath, in my opinion. Maybe the Devotion oath? But not the Ancient oath ("This oath emphasizes the principles of good above any concerns of law or chaos", PHB). Deception isn't inherently evil. You are choosing to defend a side (the Tieflings, the mostly unarmed one who don't want a war, just want to survive) and use the tactic that you believe would work best to save the Tieflings . For instance, your character might think that trying to kill the three leaders on your own is suicide (the Tieflings will be left defenseless again), but the Grove has some tactical advantages. But then again, as pointed out by Niara, breaking the oath should be more deliberate than that (at least, I share that opinion). People/Characters can make honest mistakes, even paladins.
Last edited by MelivySilverRoot; 16/12/22 11:59 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
Is it really a lie? Paraphrasing, it's like 'Let me take care of her because she's too dangerous for you.' Nowhere do you say 'I will kill her because like you I think all Githyanki are evil,' but that meaning could easily be inferred.
Should that line even be tagged [Deception]?? Yes, it should - It is Deception. Deception ≠Lying. Deception encompasses lying, but it's a much broader concept, and the sort of person who wheedles to say "Oh, but I didn't technically 'lie', so I'm in the clear!" is, in most cases, a proliferate deceiver. In this case, the player is, without question and with no shadow of any doubt, deceiving the tieflings. It's a deliberate deception, and it's right to be rolled as such. You can rationalise and justify it in your head, but that in itself is dishonest - you know what you're doing, you know what you're implying and allowing them to think with your choice of words in this particular situation - the fact that you didn't 'technically' lie is utterly irrelevant to the fact that you are deceiving and need to roll deception. Asmodeus does the extreme vast majority of his work with truth, and without ever telling any lies at all; in almost every case, every word he speaks is true, and he deceives through that. If we want to look at some other divine patrons, try Tymora - she's as good as it's possible to come, more or less, but she loves a good trick, sports the trickery domain, and is openly aware and appreciative of the means by which trickery and deception can be used to do the right thing when it matters - as arguably we do here, to diffuse the situation and split up the fearful-of-difference tieflings and the bloodthirsty non-gith-are-lesser-beings gith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Sep 2022
|
If you aren't a paladin, you can say the exact same line, which is tagged deception, and as far as I've seen, that counts as lying for the purpose of breaking your oath. I personally think that particular line should have two options for deception or persuasion, because both could be applicable in that specific case.
My issue with that whole sequence is regarding the draconian method of determining whether or not a paladin breaks their oath. Gently misleading someone to try and defuse a situation that is quickly turning violent should not count, but it does, but instead of changing the method to be less strict and allow for such situations, they put in a special allowance for paladins that is no different from the regular deception option. The fact that that's even in there means that someone realised that their strict judgement on oaths would cause problems in some places, and I really hope it gets changed before release. Hold up, hold up. Let's just clear the PFH situation. Swen did not use the [Paladin][Deception] tagged line. He picked the line that said to the Tieflings to get Lae'zel down so they could all then kill her (!) Then proceeded to betray the Tieflings (!!) and kill them (!!!). (Sorry, I muddied things by talking about my playthrough.) I'm not familiar with Paladin of the Ancients, I've put their tenets in spoiler below, but struggle to pinpoint what specifically was the main violation. Certainly there wasn't much mercy, nothing beautiful, not much delight and much to despair of. If I had to say, it'd be the manner of the killing + the killing itself. 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 can't 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
|
If you aren't a paladin, you can say the exact same line, which is tagged deception, and as far as I've seen, that counts as lying for the purpose of breaking your oath. I personally think that particular line should have two options for deception or persuasion, because both could be applicable in that specific case.
My issue with that whole sequence is regarding the draconian method of determining whether or not a paladin breaks their oath. Gently misleading someone to try and defuse a situation that is quickly turning violent should not count, but it does, but instead of changing the method to be less strict and allow for such situations, they put in a special allowance for paladins that is no different from the regular deception option. The fact that that's even in there means that someone realised that their strict judgement on oaths would cause problems in some places, and I really hope it gets changed before release. Hold up, hold up. Let's just clear the PFH situation. Swen did not use the [Paladin][Deception] tagged line. He picked the line that said to the Tieflings to get Lae'zel down so they could all then kill her (!) Then proceeded to betray the Tieflings (!!) and kill them (!!!). (Sorry, I muddied things by talking about my playthrough.) I'm not familiar with Paladin of the Ancients, I've put their tenets in spoiler below, but struggle to pinpoint what specifically was the main violation. Certainly there wasn't much mercy, nothing beautiful, not much delight and much to despair of. If I had to say, it'd be the manner of the killing + the killing itself. 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 can't 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. Are you wondering where Sven's choice broke the tenets? Betraying falls into this "wickedness" Of The Ancient is supposed to fight against and is totally counter to mercy, kindness and forgiveness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Sep 2022
|
...Should that line even be tagged [Deception]?? Yes, it should - It is Deception. Deception ≠Lying. Deception encompasses lying, but it's a much broader concept, and the sort of person who wheedles to say "Oh, but I didn't technically 'lie', so I'm in the clear!" is, in most cases, a proliferate deceiver. Interestingly, the Devotion tenets say 'don't lie', not don't use [Deception]. Though habitual deception certainly will stray into lying. But the line between the truth and the lie isn't so clear to me. I mean persuasion is not necessarily so honest either. If I want you to agree with me and I have reason A and reason B, and reason A is more important to me but reason B is more important to you, of course I'm going to present reason B. Is this persuasion or deception? How much of my motivation do I need to reveal, if any? On the other hand, a lie becomes blatant at some point. Wheedling is when most observers would say there's word-play at work. Truth is obvious and self-evident, and doesn't need explanation. **** Back to that BG3 scenario, my MC devotion paladin used deception in that encounter for a bloodless result. Probably word-play, but no harm/no foul, no Dread-Knight visitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
As an additional data point... my ancients paladin picked the [deception] option and was able to rescue Lae'zel without bloodshed and without triggering the broken oath guy in camp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
|
But then again, as pointed out by Niara, breaking the oath should be more deliberate than that (at least, I share that opinion). People/Characters can make honest mistakes, even paladins. What isn't deliberate about: - attacking non-hostile - making enemies non-hostile via dialogue and then murdering them - double crossing people (I have yet to see someone trying it with Minthara at the Grove, but someone did Oath break by taking both quest in Anders vs Karlach, but I'm not quite sure if the person found out Anders's secret) There is a case that sound like a bug where a roaming non-hostile will entire a fight, turn hostile and count as killing a non-hostile despite the creature initiating to attack too. That's how you break your oaths currently. Stealing doesn't break the oaths, but I haven't tried to steal the Idol, only stuff lying around in the grove. Being super harsh rendering judgement to Khaga's thief problem didn't cause oathbreaking for my Of the Ancient despite a mercy option being available too. What I'm seeing is that many people don't know how to play those Paladin subclass. Which is something the game could do better at, since it doesn't actually tell you what are the actual oaths you aren't supposed to break. I also get the impression that many pnp players have very permissive GMs who don't pay much attention to the actual oaths tenets and subclass description in the manuals... I also have an issue with people claiming Paladins don't need gods and can be any alignments in 5e when the subclass talks using divine symbols and divine abilities all the time and the oaths tenets force you to act into specific alignment range.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2022
|
First if all, it should've been an inevitable, like kolyarut.
And, as there are rogue modrons, it would be far-stretched, yes, but cool if it was a rogue inevitable, tainted by chaos. If it's a random demon/lich/whatever, it's kinda lame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
What isn't deliberate about:
- attacking non-hostile
- making enemies non-hostile via dialogue and then murdering them
- double crossing people (I have yet to see someone trying it with Minthara at the Grove, but someone did Oath break by taking both quest in Anders vs Karlach, but I'm not quite sure if the person found out Anders's secret) These may be failures to follow - but they are not in themselves renunciations of the principles to which you swore. A renunciation of your oath is and must be a more overt, deliberate and impactful thing, than failing to follow a tenet one time, or straying from the path you swore to. The oath and its tenets are different things: Failing, in a situation, to follow one of the tenets of your Oath is not the same thing as breaking your oath - they are very different things, by an order of magnitude. Defining going against your word as the 'wickedness' spoken about in one of the tenets is also a stretch, and a very liberal one at that. Going against a word you give does not break any of the tenets listed, not on its own. What you are doing may end up in defiance of those tenets, depending on what it is, but simply breaking your word on something, without context of what, does not. More likely, in game terms, is that everything is keying off Oath of Devotion, since keeping your word is a devotion tenet, not an Ancients one... and others here have reported that failing to show mercy or preserve life haven't caused breaks. If you're able, everyone should take a moment to set aside all internal thoughts and definition they might have of 'paladins must be good, honest, chivalric, religious, devout people' That is not a part of the definition of paladin any more, and has not been for the past fifteen years at least. Paladins can be anything - what matters is their dedication to particular ideals, divinities or causes, and the divine power they can tap through that dedication and faith. Nothing else is essential - not honesty, not integrity, not chastity (hah!), not eloquence, not fairness, not mercy, not forgiveness, not kindness, nor any virtue you care to name; none are essential to a paladin, unless their particular oath and cause makes it so (such as Devotion, which does make integrity an important tenet - but it's because of that specific oath, not because of paladin in general). == I also have an issue with people claiming Paladins don't need gods and can be any alignments in 5e when the subclass talks using divine symbols and divine abilities all the time and the oaths tenets force you to act into specific alignment range. It's not a claim; they don't. You might prefer the extremely old-school rigid lawful-stupid lock-in, but that's simply not the way it is; this is not a 'claim' - it's a fact, and has been so for the past fifteen years of the game. Paladins drawn on divine power to grant them capabilities, and it is the bond of their oath and their dedication to it that allows this. The power does not need to come from a specific deity, or any single deity at all, and the Paladin does not need to worship a particular deity, even if the source of their divine power is drawn from that deity's portfolio in some way. A holy symbol is a focus for your Oath - it Can be the symbol of a deity who serves as your divine intermediary, if that's the route you take, but it doesn't need to be. It only needs to honestly represent the form of your Oath - an Oath of Glory Paladin might even use their own family crest as their symbol. In that case, their power most likely derives from tapping the folios of divinities who favour champions and heroes, or divinities who appreciate individual excellence of body and form - and many of those latter aren't nice divinities, by the way, and the Oath of Glory in no way requires you to be a good person, by any stretch. Importantly, though, the Paladin in question may not even know who any of those divinities are, and certainly does not need to worship them, or preach their name - simply doing the work that their oath entails is enough. The individual Oaths are quite varied as well - but how they are conducted leaves space for a broad spectrum of alignments (some more than others, granted). Between all the various oaths we have, there is room for a paladin of any alignment to comfortably exist. Remember: alignment is not so much about what you do - it's about why you're doing it. Everyone can be the person that saves the world, good or evil, lawful or chaotic - why they are saving the world, however, is another matter. == If we go back to Lae'zel in the cage... The situation we have is this: - Some people that you have never seen before and know nothing about are talking about killing another person that they have trapped in a cage; they sound scared and uncertain, but they're still talking about killing an imprisoned person. - That person is not a stranger - it's the person that, recently, fought alongside you and helped you to escape from a terrible situation; they weren't very nice about it, but they fought as your ally against something far worse nonetheless. - Your recent ally tells you to get rid of the people. - You (perhaps because you don't trust your ability to lie convincingly), agree to help them 'deal with' the person, if they let her down from the cage. - These people Will kill your recent ally if you let them, and they've made this clear. - You side with her and defend her from them once she's out of the cage; however, you have an Oath to uphold, so you resolve to show mercy in this situation - you're not about to kill some random people you don't know over what could simply be a misunderstanding. You knock them out, make sure they're stable, and leave them to nurse headaches in a couple of hours, then get out of there with your companion. As an Oath of ancients paladin, you've acted in what is arguable the best way you could in a difficult situation; unable to talk either side down, you at least ensured that no-one was killed unnecessarily; you preserved life, showed mercy, and encouraged people to be better as much as you could in the situation. Only, according to the game, you broke your oath and now face the wrath of fiery damnation for forsaking your duty, fire and brimstone, dark powers, sudden visitations from dark figures who apparently have a psychic link to your brain and know your every action! Main issue: That last point made in the bullet points is irrelevant, and not even considered because the point at which the game decides you broke your Oath is the moment you side with Lae'zel - namely, the moment you went back on what it perceived to be your word. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any of your tenets as an Oath of Ancients Paladin - which you actually upheld with aplomb in this situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Is it really a lie? Paraphrasing, it's like 'Let me take care of her because she's too dangerous for you.' Nowhere do you say 'I will kill her because like you I think all Githyanki are evil,' but that meaning could easily be inferred.
Should that line even be tagged [Deception]?? Yes, it should - It is Deception. Deception ≠Lying. Deception encompasses lying, but it's a much broader concept, and the sort of person who wheedles to say "Oh, but I didn't technically 'lie', so I'm in the clear!" is, in most cases, a proliferate deceiver. In this case, the player is, without question and with no shadow of any doubt, deceiving the tieflings. It's a deliberate deception, and it's right to be rolled as such. You can rationalise and justify it in your head, but that in itself is dishonest - you know what you're doing, you know what you're implying and allowing them to think with your choice of words in this particular situation - the fact that you didn't 'technically' lie is utterly irrelevant to the fact that you are deceiving and need to roll deception. Asmodeus does the extreme vast majority of his work with truth, and without ever telling any lies at all; in almost every case, every word he speaks is true, and he deceives through that. If we want to look at some other divine patrons, try Tymora - she's as good as it's possible to come, more or less, but she loves a good trick, sports the trickery domain, and is openly aware and appreciative of the means by which trickery and deception can be used to do the right thing when it matters - as arguably we do here, to diffuse the situation and split up the fearful-of-difference tieflings and the bloodthirsty non-gith-are-lesser-beings gith. It's hard not to think about knightly codes of conduct when something like Deception ≠Lying is bandied about. We should also separate different ways of measuring moral peril. Whether or not intent, or outcome, is what your deity considers important, or oath if your paladin is agnostic. You could shunt some of this off onto the alignment system, but that's hardly been a great system in other games to do it. If we can't fill in somehow, what our Paladin Tav is trying to accomplish with something like a [Paladin][Deception] check, we'll have this problem going forward. I did find being able to pass judgment on the Tiefling girl in the Grove was cool. Seems like something a Paladin should be able to do while travelling the land.
Last edited by Sozz; 17/12/22 04:43 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Sep 2022
|
I agree that those two Tieflings are would-be lynchers. They're just going to kill Lae'zel based on hearsay from an absent friend.
There needs to be a line of dialogue where you say Lae'zel's with you and isn't part of those other Githyanki, let her go. Or, better still, just like in the grove with Kahga, our paladin states we're versed in justice and will decide Lae'zel's fate.
And knocking out needs to be acknowledged with a not-killed state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
What. Zorru saw his friend murdered by the Githyanki patrol, and most of the corpses we find everywhere say Berenzhia killed them. A woman of silver and gold. That those Tiefs haven't killed her already is a testament to their character, I'd say.
Last edited by Sozz; 17/12/22 04:46 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Sep 2022
|
Aha, a bit of nuance here.
Yeah, if you go to the grove first, this scene has different context. Lae'zel's silence then seems more like being complicit than stoic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
It's beyond moronic that if you attack an enemy Goblin without warning, you immediately become an Oathbreaker and a menacing undead starts hanging out at your low level camp. And no one even cares.
Oh wait, there already was a lich / God avatar hanging out at your low level camp, selling cheap rezzes. I guess they can keep each other company while you're out adventuring.
It's really troubling how casually Larian throws out big stuff like this. Oathbreaker is just a skill template. Flaming undead knights and lich god avatars are business as usual at level 1 and they dont really have anything better to do except wait for you at camp. Everything becomes meaningless, eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
