Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Paladin Oath question

I haven't played D&D since it was AD&D and Dark Sun was around so I'm unsure as to how oaths might manifest in game. All lawful good with the exception of vengeance as lawful neatrul? Does this menn that I will become an oathbreaker if I fail take to a very strict approach to decision making. I'm not sure how nuanced Larian's take on good/evil and law/order might be. I want to play a Duergar vengance paladin but the lines about helping those impacted by evil seems to indicate that I will not be able to play an Illithid hating obsessive but only a traditional hero archetype if I want to maintain my oath. Less Judge Dredd/The Punisher and more Batman. Am I correct?

I don't know precisely how strict the system will be or if every evil conversation/action is properly flagged by the game to break your oath but you will for sure be more restricted in conversation and you'll have to be very mindful of what you do. Like when Minthara asks you to infiltrate the druid camp and help her kill everyone there. You can probably agree to the plan without becoming an oathbreaker because you can still turn on her and sort of lead her into an ambush but if you actually decide to commit to helping her and destroy everyone there then you will be an oathbreaker. But sometimes a conversation choice leads to an immediate evil action that you commit in a cutscene so there's no taking back those. So if you really care about maintaining you starting Paladin class you do have to mind what you say and what you do.

This is actually a really good question. The oaths/oathbreaker mechanic are fairly wonky in EA, and were a large topic of discussion when patch 9 launched.

Since alignment is less significant in D&D 5e, paladins would generally be tied more closely to the tenets of their oaths and any particular alignment. The best example I can give is an Oath of the Ancients Paladin could be more aggressive (leaning more neutral than good) as long as they were protecting nature, while a Redemption paladin would/should be slow to attack even when facing evil (the thought being everyone has a last chance at redemption). I didn't play a paladin myself but the general consensus was most people mistakenly became oathbreakers with limited consistency on the reasoning.

Now that I think about it I'm surprised questions about the oaths have really died down as we got closer to launch.

Thank you for your responses, which both confirm my concerns to some degree. I very much like the idea of paladins being tied to oaths as opposed to alignment but if it is difficult to maintain, and this is casting no aspersions on Larian - it must be a nightmare to write, it may be best to try to avoid playing a more nuanced character as a paladin until we get some feedback from completionists/wiki writers.

My perception of 5ed/BG3 Paladins is that their defining characteristic is LAWFULL. I.e. sticking to their Oaths, e,g, no taking candy from children on Tuesdays.
But once you go Oathbreaker you can be anything, though.

I spesifically went for Oathbreaker on the one paladin I've tried and it wasn't too hard to achieve/understand. Basically I promised to help a couple people kill a third imprisoned person and upon releasing them I immediately turned on the first two, thus breaking the promise or "oath". As I recall from the patch 9 stream the "nature" paladins easily fall if they consciously commit violence or cruel acts upon animals/nature. So it seems the oaths mainly seem to break when you act upon your words, not when you merely say them. I.e. lying in my example didn't trigger oathbreaking, but acting on it did.