It's a video game, not GM here to pad your dipshit decisions to make sure you never oathbreak because you don't want to.
Well, I think that's a very narrow-minded way to see things in addition to being unnecessarily judgmental and insulting as well.
I think that Niara has made a lot of good points. You don't have to agree with it. You can, of course, express you disagreement. But you don't have to go there with the insults.
It's not good points, Niara is asking the game behave like a GM where you can talk with them "off-game" to decide when, what, where and how you will oathbreak. Because that's how it work in tabletop, the GM will either ignore or pad situation until the player makes the decision that this one will lead to oathbreaking. Usually with lots of negative emotion and "little oathbreaking" leading to the big moment.
There is no GM here. It's a video game, it's not going to change a choice of "lets kill her together, oh sorry, I'm actually siding with her and will kill you now because that's what she's asking we do" into a totally different situation just because you are playing Paladin and you don't want to oathbreak today. You can't even say it's a mistake, you purposely choose to backstab them. Pick one of the other dialogue choices if you don't want to oathbreak, that's how it work in a video game: you have to manage your own storyline without the GM help.
And I consider "lets kill her together, oh sorry, I'm actually siding with her now" a dipshit decision.
edit:
You can complain there is not "quest" to atone and you have to pay money for it right now, but it's possible it is in-game just no available in the early access area.
And I also wonder what happens if you don't talk to the Oathbreaker Knight right away and continue to oathbreak. You can probably manage your own "descent to darkness" that way.
