In addition to that, and in my opinion, there is no universal rules on what's considered Good or Evil anyway.
In mean, there has been countless debate about what's moral or not.
I tend to follow my conscience, every situation is unique and its own case. I may ask a friend their opinion or do more research on such matter.
Good people do the best that they can with what they know and what they are able to do. Doesn't mean it always looks heroic or pretty.
But it appears that this is not something that the game allows (understandable, to some extend). In this case, it just feels (to me) like : "bam, that's wrong and evil, bible thrown at your face".
There are people who will defend the paladin class (not just in BG3, within the D&D community), saying that it's more than being "Lawful stupid", which gave me hope. But I also have seen "gatekeeping" from the community : "Don't agree with my sense of morality? Don't play paladin then" while sharing a perspective that is, to me, very black-and-white (and sometimes problematic and hypocritical, in my opinion). Not to say that all the people who defends the game's interpretation of the class are like that. Some of them do have some good points.
But, all of this feel pretty discouraging. So yes, I probably won't be playing paladin anymore.
Sorry for the rant, I needed the vent I guess 😔 by putting my thought in writings.
At the end of the day, it's a video game. I'm just sad that, a class that got me pretty excited, doesn't suit me the way it works here.
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.
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.
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.
