Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Technical & Gameplay Problems Oathbreaker implementation is problematic

Hello everyone!

I'm not sure if it is just me, albeit I've seen a various
Reddit posts discussing this, but I think Oathbreaker implementation needs more telegraphing.

Context:
Getting ambushed by Goblins because my Teammate provoked them or misstepped or failed a roll caused me to break my Oath just because I defended my Party.
Whats the higher virtue here? Defending my Party or some random goblins who threaten to kill the Tieflings and Druids?
Like how are evil Goblins that ambush my Party something that my Paladin swore to protect let alone when did I ever promised not to do then any harm (as in going back on my word)?

Situation and why I think the implementation is lackluster:
I don't understand why this is the case and I hope this is changed in Live-release as I do not feel like paying 2000 gold every wrong decision that I make because the game doesn't really tell me who is "protected under my oath" and doing a bad informed decision basically forces me to lose one of my sub-class defining abilities.

I think Design-wise this will ultimately lead players like me to have to steal gold or murder for it (Don't think thats really noble Paladin behaviour) or save scum everytime I stumble upon such situations.

I think better telegraphing of the outcome would make this process a more cognicient decision rather than a "well you could've known that kind of thing - yes i COULD but I did not and its the games job to tell me that - unless its like really really obvious.
But killing mad goblins in defense isn't really like burning down the local orphanage or betraying my religious leader.

That's kind of the thing, i believe players aren't made too familiar/aware as to how the Oaths and their values translate into BG3's world building.
One could argue that it is thrilling not to know the outcome of dialogues and fights and I agree - however if something breaks your Lore-defining identity: your Oath I am pretty sure your character would have the knowledge to act alongside said Oath and the game should let you know what you are about to do because your character would know its against their doctrine/oath.

I believe the current implementation is too punishing and also forces you to avoid certain outcomes retroactively (pay, save scum) unless you are willing to take the toll - every single time - when in fact the game should proactively tell you what you are about to do so you can make a cognicient decision against your known values.


Possible fix?
Make us lose our channel divinity after we doubled down when talking to the "Fallen Paladin guy" and not mid combat/play.
Or
Telegraph and implement it in a way that the player is made aware of the implications of his handling.
His character would know when his actions would be Oath-breaking, so should we.



If responding please try stay on topic and try not to premise anything that the game doesn't tell you during your first steps as a Paladin in the Game.

Thanks for hearing me out!

Best regards.

This is exactly right, and the entire point of playing a Paladin. If it was easy, everyone would do it. Maybe try a Cleric?

Yes it is, and I do not mind that but your argument doesn't grasp what I'm getting at or maybe I did a bad job at explaining it.

It is definetly okay to be "forced" to abide your oath in order not to break it.
That's perfectly fine - but the character would know when they are about to break their Oath and henceforth you as a player would know.

Ergo the game needs to let you make an informed decision aka: inform you about the consequences of your actions.
It should also account for protecting your peers against an aggressor - in dubio pro reo - self defense should be a thing.

But whenever the game lets you fight for 20 minutes and then tells you *afterwards* it is just not immersive:

"oh yeah btw killing that goblin pack that you defended yourself was against your oath, pay 2000 to big daddy fallen paladin or save scum the last 20 minutes of immersive gameplay." or you are an oathbreaker just doesn't make any sense.

The point I'm making isn't towards that I dont like it but that the current implementation doesn't make sense.
"Forced outcomes" are only indicatedretroactively and repent for mistakes by paying a toll or alternatively save scumming is a bad design.

There need to bd indications for such severe decisions; for the most part it should be the games job to embedd my characters knowledge of right and wrong in accordance to their Oath inside of decision-making.
It does so with every class-specific dialogue option.
Additionally self defense should be protected under your oath.

If your character doesn't know what breaks your oath, how would the player?

If your teammate provoked them, or misstepped, or failed a roll ... then, by very deffinition of that word, you were not ambushed.

I would dare to say it kinda makes sense ...
Havin a Paladin in your group is a burden for whole group ... they all bust behave, since otherwise you risk coming into situation, where your Paladin either cant help you, or will break their Oath ... you cant really expect the game to let you just stand there smiling while your friends murder alive beings, who were not hostile towards them. :-/
(BTW, it does let you just stand there smiling actually ... you just cant join the killing.)

Try to look at it from other side ...
What was the provocation?
Did your party member attacked one of those Goblins? Did he stole something from them? Did he insulted them?
Why would your Paladin tolerate such behaviour? :P

Since, i honestly doubt that all your party members were just standing there, doing litteraly nothing ... and out of sudden everything around them become hostile.

Well you enter a village with goblins on a rooftop and arrows pointing towards you. I would define that as an ambush scenario.
The dialogue outcome after that can vary from whatever choice but it has nothing to do with the game-design flaw im pointing at - you look at it from an RP perspective but not from a game-design perspective.

All the ifs and whens you brought up are besides the point, I don't mind this particular outcome, the game just doesn't tell you the implications for the oath before it is too late..
It does not indicate that your "Paladin's Oath does not tolerate this behaviour" - so you cannot act accordingly. (Hope this answers your question and helps you understand what I am getting at.)

I must be doing a really bad job at explaining this. It is not about that the outcome can happen, it is the LACK of indication.

You are a Paladin, you have values of which you are AWARE - the game just doesn't tell you this and you only realize AFTER what you have done.

In DND5e you as a player know what your character knows.
Your Character doesn't necessarily know what you know (metagaming problematic etc.)

Following this logic, doing something against my Oath would be something my character does conciously - abiding the logic of informational flow, I as a player should too.
For a Paladin to break his oath should be indicated so I (the player know whats at stake if i act against it) can actively not do it - if the burden is to lay down my weapon and run, fine.
If I fight back cause I think i have to and then see my Oath broken - not fine.

I don't know how else to explain this really - the outcome isn't the problem here - its that you as a player aren't made aware of acting against your oath before you do it.

Let's say i want to issue an attack option on a goblin.
The game could now tell you "You sense the divine observing your every action, your belief system urges you not to strike - do you really want to do it? YES/NO"

similar to a DM in DND5e who would tell you somethign along the lines of "it would be against your fundamental beliefs (oath) to strike now do you really want to proceed?". (they might associate that with a religion check)

This is especially problematic if the combat is forced upon you by weird interactions as shown in various reddit posts.

Not really to your point, but as an aside, I sent Astarion loose sneaking around and he killed everything in Moonhaven other than the Ogres and the lovebirds while the party (including Paladin Tav) waited elsewhere. Not a peep about oathbreaking. EDIT: And to satisfy my curiosity, I had my paladin Tav shoot a non-hostile Goblin, which triggered the Oathbreaker thing. Then I reloaded and had Astarion do it, with Tav standing right next to him. Nothing.

But this may indicate that if you chose non-lethal attacks that and let others do the killing you can partake in fights without the Oathbreaker problem.
It doesn't change the point tho that the game does not tell you about these implications for your oath until it is too late.

My Paladin playthroughts will certainly have a Guide on 2nd page open what I need to avoid to not break my Oath as the game wouldn't tell me that; Less immersive but well it is a "fix" unless the devs improve the system.