Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback The problem with Paladins

In the older edition and on tabletop, it was simpler.

For one, with a DM, you could argue your logic for why your paladin did X, you can explain his PoV.
For another, with old paladins they got their powers from a diety that had a specific moral system, but that was known and it was the dieties rules.

There is no DM to argue with in a CRPG.
And oaths? Oaths are personal. They are quite open to interpretation.
Paladin should speak the truth? Always? How about when going undercover and someone asks you who you are? White lies? What are the exceptions?
Show no mercy o my true enemies? Who is your true enemy? Wouldn't that be something you decide?
You can make a logical conclusion on where the line is, but if the dev disagrees Or didn't take it into account - you fall.
This makes me worried, but I cannot come up with a plausible solution.

I already see frustrated Paladin players.

And it seem getting companions is a lot more limited in this game. Either do evil act or you cannot get evil companion. I recall in BG2, you could recruit pretty much any evil companion without ever doing anything evil and IIRC, they stayed in your party and didn't bail immediately.

Traditional Paladins OD&D, AD&D were L/G, drawing power from a single deity, so going undercover is not in their repertoire. They would always speak the truth (as they see it), followed swiftly by martial enforcement, if appropriate.

The modern Paladin of 5e is difficult to comprehend, by comparison, as it seems to be "some jolly committed warrior" that does not cleave to any particular deity, but receives divine power. I suppose that it is trying to encompass all forms of dedicated warriors, including what used to be the Blackguard, but does a really bad job of justifying itself.

The focus on an "oath" is pretty meaningless unless the Paladin's power in some way actually derives from the oath, but it doesn't, the power is divine, as it has always been. A better idea would have been to use oaths to bind Paladins directly to a patron, in the manner of Warlocks, which would allow "traditional" Paladins, Blackguards, and any other dedicated warrior, as well as being much more in keeping with the real-world Paladins who were the oath-bound bodyguard of the Carolingian Emperors.

WotC just made a mess out of the Paladin as far as I am concerned.

I believe this issue is simply an intensification of the problem that has existed ever since games started having moral choices in their dialogues and cut scenes. Think Mass Effect, for instance, thought they called it paragon/renegade. Regardless of the terminology, there are going to be times when a player makes a choice that they believe would indicate they are going in one direction, but the writer/developer has something else in mind for that particular line of dialogue. Or perhaps a player’s desired personal moral choice simply isn’t represented among the options given.

I find a similar problem with romances, though how that plays out in this game remains yet to be seen, at least by me. The problem was significant in baldur’s gate 2, though. Aerie wants to romance. I like Aerie, but I’m currently romancing Jaheira, but every dialogue with Aerie that isn’t a brutal rejection of her seems to take us down the path of furthering her romance… Why can’t I be kind to her and yet still make it clear I’m not interested in romance! I know real life relationships can be tricky, but real life gives far more dialogue options!

In any case, I feel your pain. I was thinking of going Paladin, as well… but between an ambiguous “oath system” and the seeming superiority of ranged combat, I decided against it.

I detest the idea of a Lawfull Stupid paladin - an image I see for too many people follow.
On the Lawfull vs Good axis, paladin should priority good over law. It makes no sense to fall for any chaotic action. For a CRPG developer, they should be as lax as possible with interpretations and limitations specifically because they cannot cover all the reasonings.

Paladins not capable of going undercover? I disagree. It is absolutely stupid to walk into a sleeping enemy den and wake them to challegne them to a fight or other IDIOTIC actions that some people think paladins MUST take.

In BG3, at least, if you are happy with the Oath-Breaker subclass, then it's easy to choose to do whatever you want as a Paladin ( choose any other subclass and make inappropriate behaviour a priority ), become oath-breaker, profit.

Add in a little berserker-barbarian frenzy to the mix for added damage, advantage on attack, more tankiness and another attack; divine smites are not spells, so you still get those while raging.

Undercover implies deceit/impersonation, not unchivalric actions. Paladins, as originally conceived, would not lower themselves to deceit or impersonation, because they would be too busy smiting the unrighteous, whether slumbering or not.

The idea of Paladin as a Grail Knight of King Arthur, or other such chivalric nonsense is at best a subclass or specialization, not the basis of every Paladin's ethics ( which are better described as smiting the unworthy, according to the Paladin's idea of worthiness ).

Yes, some people have an odd notion of Paladin behaviour, and some Paladins, in some games, do behave Lawful/Stupid. They usually have no place in my party.

The issue is with devs/DM's that put too many restrictions on a paladin, and as a result ruins roleplay.

I love paladin, but I always dread playing them in CRPG's.

Again, oathbreaker is not a solution when you verhemently disagree that the oath has been broken. I don't know how to fix it, but I'm, curious if anyone else has any ideas.

I mean it makes sense from the perspective that paladins serve gods, and those gods are the judges of what constitutes oath breach, not the individual paladins. But from what I hear this game is particularly harsh with oath enforcement so I would just not recommend playing paladin in BG3 full stop unless you specifically intend to play as oathbreaker.

I agree, when it comes to paladins it´s not easy how to interpret oaths and such. It is one of my favorite classes but I am still trying to figure out how to play my paladin in BG3...

When it comes to romancing in BG2, if I remember correctly if you kick out someone for three days the romance with that character will stop. So if you kick out Aerie and return for her after three days, the romance will not continue and you can romance Jaheira.

Has anyone any thoughts or knowledge on how multi-classing a Paladin could affect the oath breaker thing? Or how the oath breaker thing could affect multi-classing?