I've read so many forum threads, reddit posts, YouTube videos, and general blogs about the weird implementation of the "Paladin" in BG3 and every time I thought to myself that almost every time the OP and 90% of the responders did
NOT understand Paladins.
I think that's because they are lumping Paladins into a single bucket, which is IMO an incorrect way of looking at the class.
Threads like (why does killing X not break my oath?), (Why can I sometimes initiate combat while invisible but the next time I lose my oath?), and (Why do all Paladins smell like fish?)
In most of the non-fish related posts there are opinions that it must be a 'bug' or Larian should "implement it better". I'm of the
OPINION that Larian was spot on in a vast majority of the cases, because all Paladins are
NOT the same.
Are all Paladins Lawful Stupid? Yes, but the Key word there is "Lawful", not "Good".
Why can an Oath of Devotion Paladin murder in cold blood?? Because murdering "evil" creatures is "Good"
Why does an Oath of Ancients Paladin become an Oath breaker for murdering the same torturing goblin his Paladin friend just got away with?? Because Murder breaks his oath to uphold Life above all.
<Possible Spoilers ahead>
I'll give the Spike scenario as a prime example.
A devotion Paladin could skip the whole encounter walk up behind Spike and bash his brains in, no muss no fuss.
A Ancients Paladin would break his Oath by doing that.
If the Devotion Paladin initiated the encounter by saying he was going to take over torturing (even in an attempt to end the torture) and THEN attacked spike he would fall, because he lied to Spike.
However an Ancients Paladin COULD lie to spike in order to get spike to give the Paladin a reason to Kill him without committing "Murder".
I believe the scenario plays out in just this way, and that seems to confuse people because their "Paladin" did evil, or let evil persist, or ignored a greater evil to punish a tiny evil (misunderstandings abound).
Think of the scenario the original Oath breaker gave. He waded in literal oceans of blood because he thought it was the "right" thing to do, and didn't fall until he killed a single man to stop it.
A Paladin would be willing to start a crusade and kill thousands if he thought it was the right thing, even if those thousands didn't think it was right, or they were evil.. This is just religious politics.
If the old Alignment system were still a thing:
A devotion Paladin would be considered Lawful good (Killing evil doers must be done before Breakfast, Lying about brushing your teeth after you eat earns you the rack).. an example
An Ancients Paladin would be more a Lawful Neutral type (Killing baddies without an excuse is still murder, and murder goes against the law of nature, but give me a REASON to kill a goodie and it's all aces).
So my
suggestion is to stop lumping them together in order to understand them better.
The better you understand the Oaths, the easier keeping them will be (Or breaking them quickly if that's your true goal).
