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

[Dragonus45]

And the current paladin doesnt do that because... why?

Because by being able to swear to an ever increasing litany of random oaths to random ideas it's utterly meaningless to have the class and you would never be in danger of falling, and to add insult to injury on that front it entirely has devalued the idea of the paladin to begin with. If you meet one now they are likely to kill you for looking at them funny as to be that knight in shinning armor they were before. More likely even.

It's telling that you're starting from the premise that that should be a requirement to begin with, rather than questioning it. At best it's Appeal From Tradition.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I am responding to your premise about paladins being multifacated PCs because they aren't outsiders by saying that as a self selecting group it would make sense for Paladins to all be LG just like it would make sense for all fighters to swing weapons around. Kindly keep the context in mind when responding to me please.

Paladin of Freedom was pretty popular even on this board IIRC. Probably even moreso than Tyranny if I were inclined to count up the threads/builds about it.

I remember it having some cool mechanics but it's oaths felt poorly thought out and I remember having to workshop them a bit. Mostly I just find the name remarkably silly and think it should have been called something else.

But my point stands - the concept did not originate with 5e.

And? 5e codified it and did so in the worst of possible ways. I never said it originated it.

[MCerberus]

Oh man we have a version argument about purity and restriction measured against player choice and convenience that seems to be going in a circle.

This game really IS the dnd experience.

[Batcathat]

Because by being able to swear to an ever increasing litany of random oaths to random ideas it's utterly meaningless to have the class and you would never be in danger of falling

Why? The paladin is still at risk of falling by breaking their own specific oath. If Bob the Lawful Good Paladin breaks his oath he falls, even if his behavior lines up perfectly with Brenda the Lawful Evil Paladin's oath.

[Rynjin]

Oh man we have a version argument about purity and restriction measured against player choice and convenience that seems to be going in a circle.

This game really IS the dnd experience.

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

[Keltest]

Because by being able to swear to an ever increasing litany of random oaths to random ideas it's utterly meaningless to have the class and you would never be in danger of falling, and to add insult to injury on that front it entirely has devalued the idea of the paladin to begin with. If you meet one now they are likely to kill you for looking at them funny as to be that knight in shinning armor they were before. More likely even.

What? Dude, the oaths arent simultaneous, theyre mutually exclusive. You can't be oath of Devotion and Oath of Vengeance, once you swear an oath youre stuck with it, and you are plenty at risk of falling as a Vengeance paladin if you decide to, for example, stay and knit blankets for orphans rather than chase down the guy who burned down their orphanage.

[Zevox]

To be clear, I'm not saying Disney Hercules is a paladin because of his divine heritage. Rather, if you were representing a character like him in 5e, Glory would fit well; a kind of himbo Dudley Do-Right type whose prowess is reinforced by the heavens and seeks to good-naturedly get his party members to hit the gym with him would mesh with Glory pretty well.

Right, but that's because the subclass was specifically designed around the Greek Hero archetype. I just think that archetype doesn't belong in the Paladin class. It doesn't mesh with the divine crusader motif - ancient Greek heroes didn't believe in a higher cause, they were, as the subclass name itself implies, glory-seekers. Which was viewed more favorably to the ancient Greeks than it is now, but was still a very different thing from what the Paladin class represents. And as a result, it leads to the subclass being boring, because there's not really much of an oath to devote yourself to - all of the "tenents" listed for it just revolve around striving to be strong and courageous, not what they're actually trying to accomplish with that strength and courage. It feels hollow as an oath.

Very easy to imagine someone wanting to play a lawful oathbound knight type who is not a good person.

Or someone who isn't lawful, but does have other strong beliefs they are driven to uphold and spread. My current Paladin in my D&D game would not be possible in prior editions because he is Neutral Good, for instance, but he's no less idealistic and devoted to making the world around him a better place just because he's occasionally willing to deceive his enemies when necessary, or because he's willing to work outside the law when it will lead to better results than working within it. It's allowed him to act as a bit of a bridge between well-meaning people on both sides of the Law and Chaos divide at times, in fact, which is quite refreshing.

[Errorname]

Because that is exactly what I don't want to happen by diluting the paladin down to just anyone who swears a vow to anything so now it's just some random Knight and not a paladin. But more specifically the Paladin is an idea of someone being held to a higher standard by something objective that stands above it all. When the knight in shining armor screws up he might pay a fine or get exiled. When the paladin screws up they fall.

See I think that's needlessly restrictive for a core class. Knightly Oaths and Vows are fascinating things to build characters around, the Lawful part of a Paladin is way more important than the good bit.

[Dragonus45]

Why? The paladin is still at risk of falling by breaking their own specific oath. If Bob the Lawful Good Paladin breaks his oath he falls, even if his behavior lines up perfectly with Brenda the Lawful Evil Paladin's oath.

Because Bob the Lawful Good paladin doesn't get played a table where he could possible fall anymore. He is now Bob the whatever oath is convenient to the game being played paladin because the "correct" oath to play is always out there so he Bob that whatever is convenient alignment wise right now, but this is also a bit beside the point. Which is that having all of these different parallel versions of Bob out there devalues the basic idea of the Paladin as Bob the good guy you know will help you out when you are in trouble. Now we have in BG3 a paladin who slaughters children and innocents and doesn't fall and I get multiple threads full of people defending that because that is what a paladin is now. That is the issue plain and simple. When I say it's wrong for her not to have fallen 5e says that's just a valid life for a paladin to lead. Slaughtering innocent refugees. It disgusts me.

As for Brenda the LE? I already said upthread Conquest and Oathbreaker were manageable solutions for replacing Blackguard under a class system as restrictive and limiting as 5e but still wish they weren't called paladins.

[Psyren]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I am responding to your premise about paladins being multifacated PCs because they aren't outsiders by saying that as a self selecting group it would make sense for Paladins to all be LG just like it would make sense for all fighters to swing weapons around. Kindly keep the context in mind when responding to me please.

Every class is a self-selecting group except maybe Sorcerer. None of them need alignment at all, let alone alignment restrictions

And? 5e codified it and did so in the worst of possible ways. I never said it originated it.

You said that thinking they were right to do so was a bold claim. I provided support for that claim. 5e Paladin is well-loved despite ditching the alignment piece, therefore I feel justified in saying that it was an unnecessary hanging chad/vestigial limb that has finally been snapped off.

[Keltest]

Because Bob the Lawful Good paladin doesn't get played a table where he could possible fall anymore. He is now Bob the whatever oath is convenient to the game being played paladin because the "correct" oath to play is always out there so he Bob that whatever is convenient alignment wise right now, but this is also a bit beside the point. Which is that having all of these different parallel versions of Bob out there devalues the basic idea of the Paladin as Bob the good guy you know will help you out when you are in trouble. Now we have in BG3 a paladin who slaughters children and innocents and doesn't fall and I get multiple threads full of people defending that because that is what a paladin is now. That is the issue plain and simple. When I say it's wrong for her not to have fallen 5e says that's just a valid life for a paladin to lead. Slaughtering innocent refugees. It disgusts me.

As for Brenda the LE? I already said upthread Conquest and Oathbreaker were manageable solutions for replacing Blackguard under a class system as restrictive and limiting as 5e but still wish they weren't called paladins.

So the problem is that Bob can play the character he wants to play instead of the one you want him to play? Really? Thats what youre going with?

Maybe more to the point, do you not think "kill the heretics!" is a legitimate part of paladining? Because its been in there since 1e.

[Dragonus45]

What? Dude, the oaths arent simultaneous, theyre mutually exclusive. You can't be oath of Devotion and Oath of Vengeance, once you swear an oath youre stuck with it, and you are plenty at risk of falling as a Vengeance paladin if you decide to, for example, stay and knit blankets for orphans rather than chase down the guy who burned down their orphanage.

What? I never said you could have multiple oaths at once. I said that Billy the vengeance paladin probably doesn't sign up to play a game about managing an orphanage and not crusading against evil when he could play Billy the new Paladin subclass that just fits that better and makes no waves. It would actually be interesting to have to balance your knitting time versus hinting the orphan burners but that could be inconvenient for the party which has been the accusation dogging paladins since the beginning of time it feels like

Right, but that's because the subclass was specifically designed around the Greek Hero archetype. I just think that archetype doesn't belong in the Paladin class. It doesn't mesh with the divine crusader motif - ancient Greek heroes didn't believe in a higher cause, they were, as the subclass name itself implies, glory-seekers. Which was viewed more favorably to the ancient Greeks than it is now, but was still a very different thing from what the Paladin class represents. And as a result, it leads to the subclass being boring, because there's not really much of an oath to devote yourself to - all of the "tenents" listed for it just revolve around striving to be strong and courageous, not what they're actually trying to accomplish with that strength and courage. It feels hollow as an oath.

And that is what worries me most about the ever increasing number of oaths coming out. Literally just an out of check out how cool I am who needs to worry about falling in this campaign!

Or someone who isn't lawful, but does have other strong beliefs they are driven to uphold and spread. My current Paladin in my D&D game would not be possible in prior editions because he is Neutral Good, for instance, but he's no less idealistic and devoted to making the world around him a better place just because he's occasionally willing to deceive his enemies when necessary, or because he's willing to work outside the law when it will lead to better results than working within it. It's allowed him to act as a bit of a bridge between well-meaning people on both sides of the Law and Chaos divide at times, in fact, which is quite refreshing.

Those sound a lot like clerics to me.

See I think that's needlessly restrictive for a core class. Knightly Oaths and Vows are fascinating things to build characters around, the Lawful part of a Paladin is way more important than the good bit.

No, the good part has always been the more important aspect of Paladins. Plenty of other classes across the editions have played with oaths or lawful oriented Knightly things. Hellknights are a great example of that from Pathfinder.

[Keltest]

I really have to wonder what kind of campaigns and DMs you had that this constant fear of falling in a campaign you were nominally suited for. Because either your DM was way too harsh or you made a bad character for the campaign.

[Batcathat]

And that is what worries me most about the ever increasing number of oaths coming out. Literally just an out of check out how cool I am who needs to worry about falling in this campaign!

Yes, a player could theoretically play different types of paladin, but once the game has started they are stuck with a specific oath, just as the original Lawful Good paladins. So yeah, different types of paladin may be more or less likely to fall in any given campaign, but that's just as true of a Lawful Good one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to imply that keeping a Lawful Good oath is inherently tougher than keeping any other oath, is that a correct interpretation?

[Dragonus45]

Every class is a self-selecting group except maybe Sorcerer. None of them need alignment at all, let alone alignment restrictions

No, most people don't ask to be sorcerers. It's a pretty common plotline with them even.

You said that thinking they were right to do so was a bold claim. I provided support for that claim. 5e Paladin is well-loved despite ditching the alignment piece, therefore I feel justified in saying that it was an unnecessary hanging chad/vestigial limb that has finally been snapped off.

you provided support that the class they currently call paladin is well loved, not that a core aspect of that class I call paladin wasn't excised from it. A core necessary limb.

So the problem is that Bob can play the character he wants to play instead of the one you want him to play? Really? Thats what youre going with?

Basically that yes. Bob now gets the mechanics of a class that is supposed to have a core mechanic about maintaining a potentially difficult oath and gets to skip it entirely because it's been made meaningless.

Yes, a player could theoretically play different types of paladin, but once the game has started they are stuck with a specific oath, just as the original Lawful Good paladins. So yeah, different types of paladin may be more or less likely to fall in any given campaign, but that's just as true of a Lawful Good one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to imply that keeping a Lawful Good oath is inherently tougher than keeping any other oath, is that a correct interpretation?

In theory it shouldn't be tougher to maintain by a large margin although I would argue it would be to some degree, and some campaigns do certainly cater to it. But the way D&D tends to actually get played? There is a reason why asking someone to distract the paladin is such a universal a meme. As is ****ting on the class for being boring sticks in the mud who bring the party down with their requests that people stop beating prisoners.

[Psyren]

And that is what worries me most about the ever increasing number of oaths coming out. Literally just an out of check out how cool I am who needs to worry about falling in this campaign!

You. Can. Still. Fall.

More Oaths available does not mean you can't break the Oath you picked. What it does mean is that a much, much wider variety of character concepts get to combine those concepts with paladin mechanics.

No, most people don't ask to be sorcerers. It's a pretty common plotline with them even.

Right, which means they're not self-selecting. Thanks for agreeing?

you provided support that the class they currently call paladin is well loved, not that a core aspect of that class I call paladin wasn't excised from it. A core necessary limb.

Your opinion of what gets to be called paladin is not the only opinion that matters.

[Errorname]

What? I never said you could have multiple oaths at once. I said that Billy the vengeance paladin probably doesn't sign up to play a game about managing an orphanage and not crusading against evil when he could play Billy the new Paladin subclass that just fits that better and makes no waves. It would actually be interesting to have to balance your knitting time versus hinting the orphan burners but that could be inconvenient for the party which has been the accusation dogging paladins since the beginning of time it feels like

If what Billy wants to do and what his oath demands of him don't conflict then Billy is playing a boring Paladin, but I don't think it's a critical design mistake to let him do that.

No, the good part has always been the more important aspect of Paladins. Plenty of other classes across the editions have played with oaths or lawful oriented Knightly things. Hellknights are a great example of that from Pathfinder.

From a game design perspective I think that's silly. Having two classes that fill the same core fantasy but are restricted to different alignments is dumb, just have one class that can be played in a variety of ways.

[Zevox]

Those sound a lot like clerics to me.

Oh, he's nothing like a Cleric. His devotion to his ideals doesn't come from religiosity or devotion to a deity, but to the knightly order he's a part of, and the ideals he learned from its stories and traditions of its heroes of old, whom he seeks to emulate.

[Keltest]

Basically that yes. Bob now gets the mechanics of a class that is supposed to have a core mechanic about maintaining a potentially difficult oath and gets to skip it entirely because it's been made meaningless.

Neat! They still have to do that. Its sort of the point. So whats the problem then, other than people having badwrongfun?

[Batcathat]

From a game design perspective I think that's silly. Having two classes that fill the same core fantasy but are restricted to different alignments is dumb, just have one class that can be played in a variety of ways.

Yeah, this is a lot of my reasoning as well. Evil Fighter and Good Fighter are the same class, so is Evil Wizard and Good Wizard and so on, so I don't see why this particular class should be an exception.

[Dragonus45]

You. Can. Still. Fall.

More Oaths available does not mean you can't break the Oath you picked. What it does mean is that a much, much wider variety of character concepts get to combine those concepts with paladin mechanics.

It means you pick an oath you know you won't break, not that you have to worry about breaking the one you picked. Meanwhile the paladin becomes watered down to accommodate all of those possible concepts and now apparently Vengeance paladins slaughter innocent children and everyone thinks that is perfectly in keeping with the class. .

[Keltest]

It means you pick an oath you know you won't break, not that you have to worry about breaking the one you picked. Meanwhile the paladin becomes watered down to accommodate all of those possible concepts and now apparently Vengeance paladins slaughter innocent children and everyone thinks that is perfectly in keeping with the class. .

Why would you play a LG paladin if you know you would have to break the oath and Fall? Just play a fighter.

[Batcathat]

It means you pick an oath you know you won't break, not that you have to worry about breaking the one you picked.

But that can be true of the original flavour paladin too. If I were to play a paladin in a group of do-gooders in what I knew was a heroic campaign in an idealistic setting, the risk of a standard paladin falling would be practically non-existant. So in those cases, being able to play a differently flavoured paladin would presumably make things more interesting.

[Dragonus45]

Your opinion of what gets to be called paladin is not the only opinion that matters.

Actually it is.

[QUOTE=Errorname;25843532]If what Billy wants to do and what his oath demands of him don't conflict then Billy is playing a boring Paladin, but I don't think it's a critical design mistake to let him do that.[/QUOTE

I kind of do, but I also think that about a lot of things not just Paladins.

From a game design perspective I think that's silly. Having two classes that fill the same core fantasy but are restricted to different alignments is dumb, just have one class that can be played in a variety of ways.

I would say they fulfill fundamentally different core fantasies.

Yeah, this is a lot of my reasoning as well. Evil Fighter and Good Fighter are the same class, so is Evil Wizard and Good Wizard and so on, so I don't see why this particular class should be an exception.

Because from their inception the point was that they were that exception. Being that exception was the core idea and fantasy. Acting like just removing that has no meaning makes no sense to me.

Why would you play a LG paladin if you know you would have to break the oath and Fall? Just play a fighter.

If it's an evil campaign doing so to get into blackguard or oath breaker would make sense but you could just do that for backstory. If it's a campaign though that just does not fit the idea of a paladin then yea, why play a paladin?

But that can be true of the original flavour paladin too. If I were to play a paladin in a group of do-gooders in what I knew was a heroic campaign in an idealistic setting, the risk of a standard paladin to fall would be practically non-existant. So in those cases, being able to play a differently flavoured paladin would presumably make things more interesting.

Yes but there is still the whole other things I have been talking about here. When you have a dozen flavors of paladin a paladin stops being something specific and special and starts being another variation of cleric or warlock. "Here comes the paladin, slaughterer of children and the innocent better run away! " Is not a sentence that should be said.

[Psyren]

It means you pick an oath you know you won't break, not that you have to worry about breaking the one you picked.

You mean people make lifelong promises they think they can keep? Unpossible!

Meanwhile the paladin becomes watered down to accommodate all of those possible concepts and now apparently Vengeance paladins slaughter innocent children and everyone thinks that is perfectly in keeping with the class. .

Vengeance doesn't say anything about "slaughtering innocent children."

Actually it is.

Annnnnd we're done here.

[Rynjin]

You mean people make lifelong promises they think they can keep? Unpossible!

People making lifelong promises that are easy to keep is not the core of an interesting story. Nobody cares about the guy who made an oath to "not murder people in cold blood unless it was really justified or they made you mad", they care about the guy who made an oath to "protect the innocent at any cost".

[Dragonus45]

Vengeance doesn't say anything about "slaughtering innocent children."

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

[Errorname]

People making lifelong promises that are easy to keep is not the core of an interesting story. Nobody cares about the guy who made an oath to "not murder people in cold blood unless it was really justified or they made you mad", they care about the guy who made an oath to "protect the innocent at any cost".

Yes, there should be conflict between the things you want to do or what would be easy to do and what your vows demand of you, and if your vow fits in perfectly with the things you wanted to do that's boring. But Paladins are not the only class where it is possible to make a boring character.

[Batcathat]

Yes but there is still the whole other things I have been talking about here. When you have a dozen flavors of paladin a paladin stops being something specific and special and starts being another variation of cleric or warlock. "Here comes the paladin, slaughterer of children and the innocent better run away! " Is not a sentence that should be said.

I don't think the difference between "supernaturally empowered warrior extremely devoted to an ideal" and "supernaturally empowered warrior extremely devoted to this one very specific ideal" is that big, nor do I think the exclusivity of the latter is worth preserving. Nor do I think it makes much sense from a design perspective to have one fighter regardless of alignment, one wizard regardless of alignment, etc. and then nine different sort-of-paladins.

[Psyren]

People making lifelong promises that are easy to keep is not the core of an interesting story. Nobody cares about the guy who made an oath to "not murder people in cold blood unless it was really justified or they made you mad", they care about the guy who made an oath to "protect the innocent at any cost".

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

Your problem is you believe only the LG oath can be interesting. You're entitled to that opinion, just don't be surprised when you're in the minority because of it.

Yes, there should be conflict between the things you want to do or what would be easy to do and what your vows demand of you, and if your vow fits in perfectly with the things you wanted to do that's boring. But Paladins are not the only class where it is possible to make a boring character.

Hell, paladins being boring was a far more common complaint back when they were all LG like these two seem to want.

[Rynjin]

Yes, there should be conflict between the things you want to do or what would be easy to do and what your vows demand of you, and if your vow fits in perfectly with the things you wanted to do that's boring. But Paladins are not the only class where it is possible to make a boring character.

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.

At least having them be tied to the tenets of a specific deity (similar to Pathfinder's Alternate Paladin Oaths) would help ensure that each "Paladin" flavor was unique (though I'd still prefer a name change at that point).

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

• I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless—my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.
• I will have faith in the Inheritor. I will channel her strength through my body. I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions.
• I am the first into battle, and the last to leave it.
• I will not be taken prisoner by my free will. I will not surrender those under my command.
• I will never abandon a companion, though I will honor sacrifice freely given.
• I will guard the honor of my fellows, both in thought and deed, and I will have faith in them.
• When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.
• I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.
• I will suffer death before dishonor.
• I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomedae’s perfection.

• I will protect my allies with my life. They are my light and my strength, as I am their light and their strength. We rise together.
• I will seek out and destroy the spawn of the Rough Beast. If I cannot defeat them, I will give my life trying. If my life would be wasted in the attempt, I will find allies. If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each.
• I am fair to others. I expect nothing for myself but that which I need to survive.
• The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.
• I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will redeem them by the sword.
• I will not abide evil, and will combat it with steel when words are not enough. I do not flinch from my faith, and do not fear embarrassment. My soul cannot be bought for all the stars in the sky.
• I will show the less fortunate the light of the Dawnflower. I will live my life as her mortal blade, shining with the light of truth.
• Each day is another step toward perfection. I will not turn back into the dark.

• I see beauty in others. As a rough stone hides a diamond, a drab face may hide the heart of a saint.
• I am peaceful. I come first with a rose rather than a weapon, and act to prevent conflict before it blossoms. I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect the innocent.
• I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be. All things that live love beauty, and I will show beauty’s answer to them.
• I live my life as art. I will choose an art and perfect it. When I have mastered it, I will choose another. The works I leave behind make life richer for those who follow.
• I will never destroy a work of art, nor allow one to come to harm, unless greater art arises from its loss. I will only sacrifice art if doing so allows me to save a life, for untold beauty can arise from an awakened soul.
• I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world’s potential for beauty is lessened.

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

Your problem is you believe only the LG oath can be interesting. You're entitled to that opinion, just don't be surprised when you're in the minority because of it.

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.