Baldur's Gate 3- What does fried Nautiloid taste like?

[MCerberus]

All they needed to do was call it "Divine Champion" or something and I'd have no complaint, just sayin'.

To be clear I in no way intended to call out any individual or take a side.
It's just that this argument is, let's say well-tended ground

[Keltest]

And my point is made on live TV in living color. "Nothing says vengeance paladins can't slaughter children."

Taken literally, vengeance paladins fight evil, not perpetrate it. Taken less literally, if your cause says that those refugees need to be slaughtered, the vengeance paladins are the ones who do the dirty work. Going back to the actual game for a moment, the paladin in question is part of a cult. Vengeance is the sword to Devotion's shield.

By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can't get in the way of exterminating my foes.

[Rynjin]

Which oath is "I pledge to not murder people in cold blood unless they made me mad?"

Accidentally chopped this bit off.

That would be Vengeance.

Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the greater evil.

No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.

By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can't get in the way of exterminating my foes.

Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds.

The middle two in particular allow you to justify a great many atrocities.

In my eyes, an interesting story is one where a Paladin might need to put aside their Vengeance to perpetrate Justice. The other way around (as "No mercy" implies) is significantly less interesting to me. Having characters you have just...decided MUST die, and therefore all else can be forgiven, reeks of dumb edgelord characters like the Punisher who just arbitrarily decide some people are worse than others and deserve worse harm just because they hurt the character specifically.

That's not a moral stand; it's quite the opposite. "You wronged me, you must pay" is the default unthinking hatred a lot of regular people fall into. It's...base. It's not a morality to aspire to, as a Paragon of Good should imply...hell, it's not even something to live down to, like the depravity an Evil character can embody.

It's just...normal. Regular. Uninteresting.

[Psyren]

My gripe wouldn't be so strong if 5e Paladins had oaths like:


And less like "I worship Zariel, there is no further nuance to my character".

You keep listing Oaths that don't exist in 5e as examples of what you dislike about 5e Oaths

Which Oath corresponds to "I worship Zariel, there is no further nuance to my character?"

If a paladin player shows up at your table with that concept, they are the problem, not the class.

And what I'm saying is that I liked it better when the class encouraged you to make an interesting character; and more to the point, encouraged interesting NPCs to appear in official material. Every 5e "Paladin" I've engaged with in premade material has been exactly as shallow and boring as I've mentioned, because they're just dudes now, there's absolutely nothing special about them.

That is a table issue. What we are telling you is that we have seen textured and compelling 5e Paladins across a variety of oaths and alignments, including tables that eschewed player alignment completely (in favor of relying on e.g. Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws.)

Note that BG3 doesn't have alignment either, yet you can pretty much tell what every party member stands for based on the things they approve/disapprove of. Just like 90% of other party-based RPGs.

I just posted one each of LG, NG, and CG Oaths that I find very good. My issue is primarily with Evil and perhaps even worse, Neutral Paladin Oaths.

The Oath itself is not evil, that's the point. The character is. Vengeance Paladins can be Good or Evil depending on how extremely they approach the tenets, what happens when they achieve their objective etc.

[Zevox]

And my point is made on live TV in living color. "Nothing says vengeance paladins can't slaughter children."

Correct. Because the Oath of Vengeance's tenents revolve around fighting and exterminating their sworn enemies. If those sworn enemies happen to be, say, the people of a hostile country, or another race, that can lead to bad things. Hence Vengeance being the PHB oath that is the most in line with a neutral or evil Paladin.

The kind of Paladin you want still exists, it's just the Oath of Devotion specifically. Other oaths represent other forms of ideals (aside from the Oath of Glory, which is pretty empty of ideals, as I criticized it for earlier), and of course will not conform to those of the Oath of Devotion.

[Rynjin]

You keep listing Oaths that don't exist in 5e as examples of what you dislike about 5e Oaths

Which Oath corresponds to "I worship Zariel, there is no further nuance to my character?"

If a paladin player shows up at your table with that concept, they are the problem, not the class.

Well, that character showed up "at my table", in BG3. That was the whole spark that kicked off this conversation. And it fits my experience, again, with pre-written material. Which shows pretty well the way that Wizards and those who license the property see Paladins these days.

Also scroll up one, I accidentally erased part of my post when I posted it and reposted while you were typing it looks like.

[Dragonus45]

I just posted one each of LG, NG, and CG Oaths that I find very good. My issue is primarily with Evil and perhaps even worse, Neutral Paladin Oaths.

Like I mentioned before I think the Oath of Ancients also has potential, if anything it's hindered by being tied to the paladin instead of it's own base class. Lean into the fey stuff more and make it Arcane instead of Divine. Or even Primal if you are in that kind of setting.

Taken literally, vengeance paladins fight evil, not perpetrate it. Taken less literally, if your cause says that those refugees need to be slaughtered, the vengeance paladins are the ones who do the dirty work. Going back to the actual game for a moment, the paladin in question is part of a cult. Vengeance is the sword to Devotion's shield.

That would be issue with it summarized succinctly. If it gives Paladins permission to slaughter children it's bad.

Correct. Because the Oath of Vengeance's tenents revolve around fighting and exterminating their sworn enemies. If those sworn enemies happen to be, say, the people of a hostile country, or another race, that can lead to bad things. Hence Vengeance being the PHB oath that is the most in line with a neutral or evil Paladin.

It talks about fighting evil and the perpetuation justice. It has far to much wiggle room to begin with and the idea it leads to racial exterminations without falling is... disturbing to consider something a Paladin would do. Which is the issue.

[Anonymouswizard]

As a brief aside to the Paladin drama (although maybe I'll roll up a Dark Urge Vengence Paladin and give in to all the temptations on a second playthrough to see how long it takes to fall), is it possible to have intimate cuddles with more than one party member, or does the game lock you out of one after you've hit a character's romance flags? And if so is it possible to do so ethically, or does it fall into the trap of assuming anything nonmono is bad?

[Keltest]

Dragonus, the fact of the matter is youre coming off as telling people to stop having fun the way they want. Thats never going to get any traction with anybody.

[Psyren]

As a brief aside to the Paladin drama (although maybe I'll roll up a Dark Urge Vengence Paladin and give in to all the temptations on a second playthrough to see how long it takes to fall), is it possible to have intimate cuddles with more than one party member, or does the game lock you out of one after you've hit a character's romance flags? And if so is it possible to do so ethically, or does it fall into the trap of assuming anything nonmono is bad?

After dealing with the Grove,

Spoiler: mild Act 1 spoiler

Show

I chose to hang out with Gale after the party and everyone was commenting on it ("ooh I see you're getting cozy with Gale! Have fun!") and opted for the steamy version of his magic show. The following morning, I was still able to flirt with my true love Halsin and have him reciprocate

so I'd say you're not totally locked in. I'm sure there's a point of no return later in the game somewhere of course.

Well, that character showed up "at my table", in BG3. That was the whole spark that kicked off this conversation. And it fits my experience, again, with pre-written material. Which shows pretty well the way that Wizards and those who license the property see Paladins these days.

I haven't met every NPC in this game yet to corroborate your point of view. All I'll say is that if an NPC is badly written, that should be a reflection on that NPC, not 5e Paladin design. The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

Also scroll up one, I accidentally erased part of my post when I posted it and reposted while you were typing it looks like.

Yeah, that's not what Vengeance says. You can be a Good or Evil Vengeance paladin, and a well-written or badly-written one too.

[Dragonus45]

Dragonus, the fact of the matter is youre coming off as telling people to stop having fun the way they want. Thats never going to get any traction with anybody.

And? Minthara sucks and her existence stands against everything Paladins should be. She should be Conquest or an Oathbreaker. I don't care about convincing people about that but if they want to argue with me about it I'll argue.

[Rynjin]

Some characters are just DtF (Lae'zel is shockingly horny, even after I told her no she keeps passive-aggressively telling me it's such a shame she can't lick me all over; chill girl, damn), otherswant more wooing (Shadowheart so far is the only one I've tried to build a relationship with).

[Zevox]

It talks about fighting evil and the perpetuation justice. It has far to much wiggle room to begin with and the idea it leads to racial exterminations without falling is... disturbing to consider something a Paladin would do. Which is the issue.

And that is all precisely the point. It is an oath built around the idea of vengeance against a particular type of foe you've identified as needing to always be fought - to be the "greater evil" over all others. If you are wrong about that, it will lead to bad things. Hence it being harder to work with a good-aligned Paladin than a neutral or evil one, unless your sworn foe is something that is genuinely always evil like fiends.

A Vengeance Paladin doesn't fall because they do something evil - that would be oaths like Devotion, Ancients, or Redemption. A Vengeance Paladin falls if they have an opportunity to fight and kill their sworn foes, but choose to show them mercy instead. A Vengeance Paladin falls if they have to choose between fighting their sworn foes or some other threat, and choose the other threat. Or if they act callously towards those their sworn foes have harmed, caring only about fighting those foes directly and not about reversing the damage they cause. They have devoted their lives wholly to opposing their sworn foes above all else, with all of the baggage that entails.

My group's next campaign is actually going to have a player who is playing and Oathbreaker Paladin who broke his Oath of Vengeance in his backstory by showing mercy to one of his sworn enemies, because he was put in a position of choosing between upholding his oath by fighting that foe to the death or saving someone he loves. He wishes to rekindle his former oath, but as he doesn't regret his choice and the oath is pretty uncompromising on what he needs to do in a situation like that, he will probably find that quite difficult. A little annoyingly, the mechanics for the Oathbreaker being centered around the idea that it's basically a Blackguard don't fit him well, but this is the concept the player is passionate about, and I'm happy to work with it.

[Errorname]

I do want more depth to Paladin oaths, I think the default options are generic. But they're only giving generic options for the same reason that if you play a custom Warlock you're never going to run into your patron. It's a lot easier to have narrative elements bundled with a class that a player can determine for themselves when the narrative is being written and modified on the fly by a DM. It would have been nice to have a Paladin origin character so you could get a specific oath bound up in actual knightly institutions in the same way that having a Warlock origin allowed them to still feature a Warlock patron as an active presence

[Keltest]

And that is all precisely the point. It is an oath built around the idea of vengeance against a particular type of foe you've identified as needing to always be fought - to be the "greater evil" over all others. If you are wrong about that, it will lead to bad things. Hence it being harder to work with a good-aligned Paladin than a neutral or evil one, unless your sworn foe is something that is genuinely always evil like fiends.

A Vengeance Paladin doesn't fall because they do something evil - that would be oaths like Devotion, Ancients, or Redemption. A Vengeance Paladin falls if they have an opportunity to fight and kill their sworn foes, but choose to show them mercy instead. A Vengeance Paladin falls if they have to choose between fighting their sworn foes or some other threat, and choose the other threat. Or if they act callously towards those their sworn foes have harmed, caring only about fighting those foes directly and not about reversing the damage they cause. They have devoted their lives wholly to opposing their sworn foes above all else, with all of the baggage that entails.

My group's next campaign is actually going to have a player who is playing and Oathbreaker Paladin who broke his Oath of Vengeance in his backstory by showing mercy to one of his sworn enemies, because he was put in a position of choosing between upholding his oath by fighting that foe to the death or saving someone he loves. He wishes to rekindle his former oath, but as he doesn't regret his choice and the oath is pretty uncompromising on what he needs to do in a situation like that, he will probably find that quite difficult. A little annoyingly, the mechanics for the Oathbreaker being centered around the idea that it's basically a Blackguard don't fit him well, but this is the concept the player is passionate about, and I'm happy to work with it.

Personally I would probably have that player be a fighter until and unless they felt they had sufficiently reconnected with their oath, or found a new one. Oathbreaker isn't just someone who failed their oath, but basically revels in having done so. Someone for who being faithless is an end to itself rather than a means. Theyre empowered by, well, the opposite of their original oath.

[Zevox]

Personally I would probably have that player be a fighter until and unless they felt they had sufficiently reconnected with their oath, or found a new one. Oathbreaker isn't just someone who failed their oath, but basically revels in having done so. Someone for who being faithless is an end to itself rather than a means. Theyre empowered by, well, the opposite of their original oath.

That would defeat the purpose in this case, as this player's whole intent revolves around playing him as an Oathbreaker. He dislikes that the Oathbreaker subclass is treated as a Blackguard, and wants to use it for more what the name implies instead, and I can see why and wish to work with him on that. Details of how that will work are still being worked out between us, but the point was the example story concept of how Paladins who swear oaths that aren't like the more traditional good-aligned ones would fall in 5e's system.

[Kish]

Spoiler

Show

Also known as doing Paladins wrong.

Dude, if you were posting this in the 3.5ed D&D forum in a "which do you like better, 3.5ed or [later edition name here]" thread I'd probably agree, but you're not. You're flipping out over the fact that a 5ed game...uses 5ed rules. You knew it was a snake when you brought it home.

[Dragonus45]

Dude, if you were posting this in the 3.5ed D&D forum in a "which do you like better, 3.5ed or [later edition name here]" thread I'd probably agree, but you're not. You're flipping out over the fact that a 5ed game...uses 5ed rules. You knew it was a snake when you brought it home.

To quote Psyren from earlier. We're all allowed to share our opinions on a given topic; this is a discussion forum, not a blog. It's not flipping out to not the like the thing dude.

[LaZodiac]

As a brief aside to the Paladin drama (although maybe I'll roll up a Dark Urge Vengence Paladin and give in to all the temptations on a second playthrough to see how long it takes to fall), is it possible to have intimate cuddles with more than one party member, or does the game lock you out of one after you've hit a character's romance flags? And if so is it possible to do so ethically, or does it fall into the trap of assuming anything nonmono is bad?

Not only is polyamory a thing, if it comes up you end up having to talk with your current partner about it and whether or not it's a thing they're okay with. Hal/Astarian is a pairing I saw where Hal is quite literally so devoted to you that he thinks everyone should partake of how wonderful you are, and Astarian genuinely just enjoys pleasure as a concept so watching the show is as good as performing in his book.

It's probably the best polyamorous representation in a video game since Xenoblade Chronicles 2.

[Psyren]

Not only is polyamory a thing, if it comes up you end up having to talk with your current partner about it and whether or not it's a thing they're okay with. Hal/Astarian is a pairing I saw where Hal is quite literally so devoted to you that he thinks everyone should partake of how wonderful you are, and Astarian genuinely just enjoys pleasure as a concept so watching the show is as good as performing in his book.

It's probably the best polyamorous representation in a video game since Xenoblade Chronicles 2.

This is really good to hear! More games should do this!

To quote Psyren from earlier. We're all allowed to share our opinions on a given topic

The operative word there is "opinions." You're presenting yours as though they're objective fact when they're anything but.

And that is all precisely the point. It is an oath built around the idea of vengeance against a particular type of foe you've identified as needing to always be fought - to be the "greater evil" over all others. If you are wrong about that, it will lead to bad things. Hence it being harder to work with a good-aligned Paladin than a neutral or evil one, unless your sworn foe is something that is genuinely always evil like fiends.

A Vengeance Paladin doesn't fall because they do something evil - that would be oaths like Devotion, Ancients, or Redemption. A Vengeance Paladin falls if they have an opportunity to fight and kill their sworn foes, but choose to show them mercy instead. A Vengeance Paladin falls if they have to choose between fighting their sworn foes or some other threat, and choose the other threat. Or if they act callously towards those their sworn foes have harmed, caring only about fighting those foes directly and not about reversing the damage they cause. They have devoted their lives wholly to opposing their sworn foes above all else, with all of the baggage that entails.

My group's next campaign is actually going to have a player who is playing and Oathbreaker Paladin who broke his Oath of Vengeance in his backstory by showing mercy to one of his sworn enemies, because he was put in a position of choosing between upholding his oath by fighting that foe to the death or saving someone he loves. He wishes to rekindle his former oath, but as he doesn't regret his choice and the oath is pretty uncompromising on what he needs to do in a situation like that, he will probably find that quite difficult. A little annoyingly, the mechanics for the Oathbreaker being centered around the idea that it's basically a Blackguard don't fit him well, but this is the concept the player is passionate about, and I'm happy to work with it.

The mechanics of Oathbreaker are my biggest problem with it. I'd either like it tied more explicitly to failed Devotion paladins exclusively, or removed entirely in favor of a more textured falling system that ends with a subclass change.

I do agree with your assessment of Vengeance. And while I suppose someone could swear vengeance on "innocent children" to use the silly example given earlier, I probably wouldn't let them get paladin powers from doing so.

[Keltest]

I do agree with your assessment of Vengeance. And while I suppose someone could swear vengeance on "innocent children" to use the silly example given earlier, I probably wouldn't let them get paladin powers from doing so.

Somebody being so brutally insane that they genuinely think innocent children need to be destroyed with every fiber of their being is probably something I would allow as being a source of paladin powers, theoretically, its just not a character I would ever let be a PC. Even as an NPC that's something I would want to use with a light touch, its not really tonally compatible with the games I usually run.

[Dragonus45]

The operative word there is "opinions." You're presenting yours as though they're objective fact when they're anything but.

Would you feel better if I couched all my language on "I think" and "In my opinion"? Because that's kind of baked into me saying. If it wasn't my opinion I wouldn't be saying it.

I do agree with your assessment of Vengeance. And while I suppose someone could swear vengeance on "innocent children" to use the silly example given earlier, I probably wouldn't let them get paladin powers from doing so.

It's not a "silly example" murdering innocent children is something a paladin in this very game does.

[Kish]

To quote Psyren from earlier. We're all allowed to share our opinions on a given topic; this is a discussion forum, not a blog. It's not flipping out to not the like the thing dude.

Well, you're right about one thing: it's not a blog. If it was, and you turned comments off, you could reasonably expect to express repeatedly that you are baffled and enraged that the makers of a 5ed D&D computer game didn't implement one of your house rules and not get pushback.

[Dragonus45]

Well, you're right about one thing: it's not a blog. If it was, and you turned comments off, you could reasonably expect to express repeatedly that you are baffled and enraged that the makers of a 5ed D&D computer game didn't implement one of your house rules and not get pushback.

Baffled? Yes I think the character in question goes way past the point it couldn't be questioned. Enraged? I need you to take it back a notch when ascribing attitudes or emotions to my posts please.

[Psyren]

Would you feel better if I couched all my language on "I think" and "In my opinion"?

I don't feel anything for your houserules/boredom, as I made clear earlier. I'm just making sure you know that your viewpoints (and Rynjin's) aren't unchallenged.

And you've also made factually wrong statements such as:

No, the good part has always been the more important aspect of Paladins.

It's not a "silly example" murdering innocent children is something a paladin in this very game does.

Which has nothing to do with their class. It might with their subclass, if they were doing this as a Devotion Paladin and remaining such, but they're not.

[tonberrian]

I wonder how big you can get your polycule in this game. I just saw a video where Tav and Halsin agree to a foursome with a pair of drow, but that's not the same thing as being in a committed relationship. Is Halsin open to sharing with Astarion AND Karlach?

[Dragonus45]

I don't feel anything for your houserules/boredom, as I made clear earlier. I'm just making sure you know that your viewpoints (and Rynjin's) aren't unchallenged.

Really, I wouldn't have gathered that from all the disagreeing with me people were doing! I am shocked, and agog.

Which has nothing to do with their class. It might with their subclass, if they were doing this as a Devotion Paladin and remaining such, but they're not.

It has everything to do with the class. That's the point.

[Enixon]

And while I suppose someone could swear vengeance on "innocent children" to use the silly example given earlier, I probably wouldn't let them get paladin powers from doing so.

Now I'm picturing fantasy versions of Harry and Marv from Home Alone snapping after what Kevin did to them and swearing divine vengeance against him and all children.

[MCerberus]

I wonder how big you can get your polycule in this game. I just saw a video where Tav and Halsin agree to a foursome with a pair of drow, but that's not the same thing as being in a committed relationship. Is Halsin open to sharing with Astarion AND Karlach?

Everyone stop arguing about paladins the important discussion is at hand

[Errorname]

From what little I saw of Minthara, she as an individual does seem like she should be an Oathbreaker, but that doesn't mean evil paladins shouldn't exist. Just from a game design perspective having a core class be locked to a single very specific archetype when it's mechanics could easily be used for a lot similar character types is silly.