I'm hoping Oathbreakers are on the list for some major fixes as I had a lot of difficulty not becoming an oathbreaker as it's often very unclear what options will break your oath when trying to uphold it. Also there are some enemy groups that will attack on sight, but if you attack them first apparently that's breaking your oath (even though they're vicious murders who's trail of bodies I've been following).
I love that they included it as a possibility, though strictly speaking in D&D 5e the "Oathbreaker" sub-class isn't for paladins who merely break their oath, it's for those who are specifically evil and on course towards becoming death knights. Being an "oathbreaker" is just the first stage (losing access to oath-specific powers), and for most characters it would make more sense to change class to fighter.
On that basis I think breaking the oath should give you access to a free re-spec from the oathbreaker (no Withers required), but perhaps with limited options; e.g- barbarian, fighter, maybe monk, or paladin but with oathbreaker as the only option.
But for those of us trying to stick to our oaths they need to make it clearer which dialogue options will result in us immediately breaking our oaths, or make sure the choices that can cause it always have a [Paladin] option or something, and let us kill bhaal cultists without consequence (I wasn't even the one that started the fight, Astarion did it!).
It's one of those areas that highlights where an actual DM would smooth out the problems, because fundamental changes to your character should be a collaboration; e.g- they might ask questions like "If you attack first, that goes against your oath of redemption which requires you to believe in second chances", or they might remind you of your alignment and suggest that it may need to go from good to neutral etc. Plus it's also possible for players to be clearer in their intentions, i.e- you're making a dubious choice but on complex moral grounds like someone bad being a victim and begging for a second chance or such, but currently sparing anyone "bad" can result in instant oath breaking.
Incorrect. Oathbreaker is assumed to be evil. They most likely are as "most" Paladins are initially good but not all...and even if they were good breaking their Oath doesn't inherently make them evil. Paladins are bound by Oaths they swear and it matters to whom, or from what ideals they swear them. However as an example of a most likely Good aligned Oathbreaker Paladin if they were first a Conquest Paladin of Zariel and they break their Oath that would not make them evil if they broke their Oath to defend the innocent.
Secondly....Death Knight is an undead entity and not something you become by going down an evil Path as a Paladin. A lich is usually who creates a Death Knight and more often than Paladin they are some other form of martial combatant first.
This is not World of Warcraft where Death Knight is something specifically a Paladin becomes. Becoming an Oathbreaker is not a road to becoming undead. Death Knight is not a progression of any kind of Paladin. Yes Oathbreaker can control undead but they are not becoming one. This is an incorrect assumption on your part and not how the actual lore of the world via Wizards of the Coast in any of their settings for D&D 5e works.
Please don't respond saying there is no Conquest Paladin. There is in the TTRPG just not BG3. When you start strictly talking about lore factors its not a BG3 exclusive topic anymore.
Please don't say "strictly speaking" when talking about actual lore topics without being properly informed on the topic. You are spreading opinions or assumptions only partially informed and not completely to the actual lore of D&D and it at best does nothing and at worst hurts the hobby.
