Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Technical & Gameplay Problems Oathbreaker issues with Withers

Ran into a nasty issue in Chapter 1 - was playing a Paladin, intentionally broke my oath. Gale died, tried to resurrect him via Withers and he wouldn't do it until I restored my Oath. This occurred when I acquired Withers as a Veangence Paladin, then broke my oath after - he would not do anything for me until I restored it.

Also, adding my 2 cents on Oathbreakers and respeccing etc. The fix should be fairly easy. If you break your oath you character is now flagged and can only ever respec into a Oathbreaker Paladin - the other Oaths are disabled for that character until they are restored via the NPC in camp.

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 murderers whose 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.

The Oathbreaker NPC is a perfect case in point of a "Good" Paladin who breaks their oath but doesn't become evil. In my 5e D&D campaign I'm playing an Oath of the Crown Paladin who follows a Lord because they believe in the order they bring to the region. If that Lord, just as the one on the NPC's story, changes his focus and works contrary to the intent of my oath I would be happy breaking it to become an Oathbreaker. Technically I have forsaken my vows, but I haven't done it for evil reasons.

I would like to see Oathbreaker be a legitimate subclass, they have different skillsets and abilities although they do seem to be more evil oriented. They can still be played as Good, using those powers to promote the Light while stepping into the darkness now and then.

After seeing we'd had a bit of a flurry of paladin-related posts this morning, I am trying a new experiment and have created a sticky thread here to discuss all things related to the way paladins have been implemented in BG3.

Can we try using that thread for paladin discussions and see how it goes?

Which point are you trying to make? I literally said breaking an oath does not make a paladin evil, however paladins of the oathbreaker sub-class in 5th edition are exclusively evil.

5th Edition Dungeon Master's Guide page 97: "An Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin’s heart has been extinguished. Only darkness remains."

It's not the breaking of the oath that makes them the oathbreaker, it's the pursuing "some dark ambitition or [serving] an evil power". And if that's not specific enough for you, 2nd paragraph states:

"A paladin must be evil and at least 3rd level to become an Oathbreaker. The paladin replaces the features specific to his or her Sacred Oath with Oathbreaker features."

5th Edition Monster Manual page 47: "When a paladin that falls from grace dies without seeking atonement, dark powers can transform the once-mortal knight into a hateful undead creature."

Also look at the powers of the oathbreaker sub-class; controlling undead is very much on course towards the death knight's skillset, and death knights are unambiguously evil.

Don't accuse people of being incorrect or spreading falsehoods when you can't even be bothered to check what they've said; I'm entirely 100% correct in this case.

The oathbreaker paladin subclass is literally listed in the DMG as a villainous class option; it's specifically intended for evil paladins, there is no hint of ambiguity whatsoever, and it's not even intended for normal use by players at all, it's for NPCs. It is only a player option with a DM's explicit approval, because it has interactions that can actually bolster enemies and make a campaign harder for the players, though the BG3 version lacks these.

What it isn't, is a sub-class for every paladin that breaks their oath for whatever reason. This is why it's always been a stupid name for the sub-class, because it only confuses people into thinking all paladins that break an oath must become an "oathbreaker" paladin, but they don't. It should be named "Apostate" or something more suitable.

It's also worth adding that having an evil alignment doesn't necessarily make a character murderous, it makes them ruthless, usually arrogant and selfish; an evil character can do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Mercenaries and thieves can be evil if they don't care who they fight/steal from. But oathbreaker paladins specifically have "dark ambition" or "serve an evil power" which implies a step beyond that.

Paladins who break their oaths are paladins without oath-specific powers, but choosing a new oath, or re-speccing as fighters or something else are entirely valid paths for them to continue in 5e without being forced to either renew their oath or pursue a "dark ambition".

The oathbreaker himself (who appears in camp) shouldn't be an oathbreaker paladin either; he should have simply switched from crown to vengeance or something else more appropriate since he could no longer follow his king.

I am playing multiplayer with 2 friends. At some point we decided to attack Goblin camp even though there were not "aggro". I killed one and got oathbreaker. Now issue is I wanted to multiclass into Warlock and at some point just dump STR since it won't be needed anymore. But I can't, unless I spend 1100 gold, only to probably break the oath again at some point, and then experience the bug where people say that the oathbreak knight doesn't appear to make you oathbreaker for the second time So I'm stuck