Forcing someone to marry someone they don't want to marry, isn't very good or lawful. "Dream" isn't historical in any way and neither is D&D so the argument that he is imposing different moral standards on the story is just weird. As a side note, what is *very* historical are stories about people helping other people who are being forced to marry someone they don't want to marry against their will. Shakespeare wrote a play about that...
No "Dream" isn't historical but the notion of marrying for a civic or public or even family business "good" was a well known phenomenon in Shakespeare's times. The contemporary romantic notion of marriage isn't even a global universal today and is largely a very recent conception almost luxury commodity in present society. In other words, Love, then Marriage is more a product of contemporary privileged agency. Marriage, then love (if both parties are "good") was a common notion going back to even a few centuries after Shakespeare.
Gotta use less broad strokes and recognize the lines you're painting within when going on about "lawful" "good" and other values.
Did you have a point in all that or did you just want to repeat things already said? Because if that's your thing I can just repeat what I already said, there is nothing that says that a game of D&D has to follow the same morals as any real world society so saying "but that's historical!" is basically the wangrod defence but applied to a setting.
And as also mentioned, the romantic notion that people should be allowed to marry out of love is an ancient one. The play that I mentioned that Shakespeare wrote? That's the very play that the OP has made a game about. I thought that would be fairly obvious from the context, my apologies if it went over people's heads.
What is your son’s alignment? If he’s lawful good he could still see the law as wrong but abide by it because he isn’t a criminal. If he’s any other alignment, and I mean any otheralignment, then it could be justified as to why he wants to break the law.
Lawful Good characters tend to follow just, or at least not blatantly unjust, laws.
Were I the GM I'd see this as in-character for a LG paladin, especuially one who favors the G over the L.
A LN or LE character would have o problem with it, so the statement "ANY" other alignment is false.
OK... I thought I would let this conversation play out. Somehow it became a narrative on parenting and social justice. The intent of the question was really meant to ask if disobeying a law would affect my son's paladin oath and what to do if they break their oath, at what point do they turn down the road of an Oathbreaker "anti-paladin" and how much and what type of atonement would be appropriate. Beyond that, the play was not meant to be set in Shakespeare's time, but rather in the time of Theseus, so we can't impose the morality of Europeans at the time of Shakespeare on the text. With that in mind, we must look at the role of marriage in the time of ancient Greece. While we cannot be completely certain of the everyday social norms, we can look at texts such as those from Cyrene to piece together what the social norms would be. What is certain is that the daughter was the property of her kyrios, who decided to whom she would be wed. It was not a matter of love, but economics or social mobility. This included the right to put a wife or daughter to death for disobedience. I realize that this may upset the social police, but erasing history does not change it. I was hoping to make a point to my son that when looking at a text, we need to understand the social context in which it was written and maybe, just maybe understand why the characters are making their choices. This does not make it right, but allows us to understand the why. I was hoping to make him broaden his mind a little and possibly transcend the text to see how the world is filled with views beyond his own.
I don't think anyone has asked this, so if you don't mind saying, how old is your son? Are you a professional teacher? You have a very rich vocabulary and a great understanding of historical information and social norms.
Well, you can do it that way, but D&D is a modern game written for a modern audience so there's an expectation that the morality presented will be acceptable to 21st Century people. It's not supposed to be an accurate representation of the ethical values of a two thousand year old society.
But you do you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
1) The intent of the question was really meant to ask if disobeying a law would affect my son's paladin oath and what to do if they break their oath, at what point do they turn down the road of an Oathbreaker "anti-paladin" and how much and what type of atonement would be appropriate.
2) Beyond that, the play was not meant to be set in Shakespeare's time, but rather in the time of Theseus, so we can't impose the morality of Europeans at the time of Shakespeare on the text.
3) With that in mind, we must look at the role of marriage in the time of ancient Greece. While we cannot be completely certain of the everyday social norms, we can look at texts such as those from Cyrene to piece together what the social norms would be. What is certain is that the daughter was the property of her kyrios, who decided to whom she would be wed. It was not a matter of love, but economics or social mobility. This included the right to put a wife or daughter to death for disobedience. I realize that this may upset the social police, but erasing history does not change it. I was hoping to make a point to my son that when looking at a text, we need to understand the social context in which it was written and maybe, just maybe understand why the characters are making their choices. This does not make it right, but allows us to understand the why. I was hoping to make him broaden his mind a little and possibly transcend the text to see how the world is filled with views beyond his own.
1) This depends entirely on the paladin and the oath, which we know nothing about. We don't know the paladin's alignment, which type of oath (subclass) they took, or what their general character is like.
2) Shakespeare wrote for a contemporary audience (and he wrote what audiences wanted to see, as he professes himself in As You Like It), and Dream is a comedy rather than a history. Attributing historical accuracy is a bit silly, particularly with the rather English fairy folklore mixed in.
3) I don't know your son so I can't assess his familiarity with texts from Cyrene, but if I had to hazard a guess his knowledge of hellenistic morality is probably less than passing. And learning there are many diverse views on ethical and moral issues is one thing, but it doesn't necessarily (or even likely) lead to thinking a character in a TTRPG - particularly one known to have strong ideals - should adopt an ethically relativistic approach.
OK... I thought I would let this conversation play out. Somehow it became a narrative on parenting and social justice. The intent of the question was really meant to ask if disobeying a law would affect my son's paladin oath and what to do if they break their oath, at what point do they turn down the road of an Oathbreaker "anti-paladin" and how much and what type of atonement would be appropriate. Beyond that, the play was not meant to be set in Shakespeare's time, but rather in the time of Theseus, so we can't impose the morality of Europeans at the time of Shakespeare on the text. With that in mind, we must look at the role of marriage in the time of ancient Greece. While we cannot be completely certain of the everyday social norms, we can look at texts such as those from Cyrene to piece together what the social norms would be. What is certain is that the daughter was the property of her kyrios, who decided to whom she would be wed. It was not a matter of love, but economics or social mobility. This included the right to put a wife or daughter to death for disobedience. I realize that this may upset the social police, but erasing history does not change it. I was hoping to make a point to my son that when looking at a text, we need to understand the social context in which it was written and maybe, just maybe understand why the characters are making their choices. This does not make it right, but allows us to understand the why. I was hoping to make him broaden his mind a little and possibly transcend the text to see how the world is filled with views beyond his own.
so we can't impose the morality of Europeans at the time of Shakespeare on the text.
Woooooow, dude.
Even if you think Shakespeare was a historian and not a dramaturgist, this is just all kinds of wrong.
As far as getting feedback on whether the paladin is on the road to being an Oathbreaker or not, you were so busy ranting about "social justice" (???) you forgot to tell anyone what Oath the paladin had taken (if any). So there's absolutely no way to address that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
OK... I thought I would let this conversation play out. Somehow it became a narrative on parenting and social justice. The intent of the question was really meant to ask if disobeying a law would affect my son's paladin oath and what to do if they break their oath, at what point do they turn down the road of an Oathbreaker "anti-paladin" and how much and what type of atonement would be appropriate. Beyond that, the play was not meant to be set in Shakespeare's time, but rather in the time of Theseus, so we can't impose the morality of Europeans at the time of Shakespeare on the text. With that in mind, we must look at the role of marriage in the time of ancient Greece. While we cannot be completely certain of the everyday social norms, we can look at texts such as those from Cyrene to piece together what the social norms would be. What is certain is that the daughter was the property of her kyrios, who decided to whom she would be wed. It was not a matter of love, but economics or social mobility. This included the right to put a wife or daughter to death for disobedience. I realize that this may upset the social police, but erasing history does not change it. I was hoping to make a point to my son that when looking at a text, we need to understand the social context in which it was written and maybe, just maybe understand why the characters are making their choices. This does not make it right, but allows us to understand the why. I was hoping to make him broaden his mind a little and possibly transcend the text to see how the world is filled with views beyond his own.
Yeah... Shakespeare didn't give a toss about the ancient greeks, he wasn't a historian and he wrote for a contemporary audience just like D&D 5E is written for a contemporary story. But anyway, the weird ranting and raving about the "social police" aside, nothing in your original post tells us anything about whether or not they are on "the road of an Oathbreaker "anti-paladin"" or not. By the standards presented in this thread by various posters, probably not.
It didn't start off that way. It was a simple question about whether or not my son's character could break the law and his oath as a paladin. I was hoping for some guidance as to what to do when he does. Then it became a rant about everything else.
Digressions aside you have not answered the questions asking details about the paladin which is needed ot give an answer.
You have said the Paladin has broken his Oath but you haven't said what the Oath was, in fact your first post didn't even say he had broken his Oath just the Law and his alignment.
I am no a great fan of alignments, as the question as to what is good and what is lawful often comes into a grey area. It can be useful to imply this person will do all they can to help others and is essentially good but when faced with a choice of killing someone who has been possessed / dominated or letting them kill innocents making either choice does not mean the person isn't good (or even acted in an evil way in that instance). If a character is Lawful what system of laws do they keep. A demon will quite happily kill someone in a country where murder is illegal but wont break a contract they have signed.
Unless a paladin breaks their Oath they have done against being a Paladin. You say he has broken his Oath but as we do not know the Oath he has sworn to we do not know if that is hte case, and there will be cases where a Paladin should break the law because their Oath demands it. For example a Devotion Paladin swears to "Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them." A "Devotion Paladin" in Nazi Germany absulutely would protect the Jews and punish those who are sending them to the gas chambers because he has sworn to do so, even though it would be against the law.
Assuming the Paladin has broken their Oath a one off ina morally difficult situation should not cause the Paladin to become an Oath Breaker, the description of an Oatherbreaker is "An oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks their sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin's heart been extinguished. Only darkness remains." This is more than a slip up it is a deliberate move to the dark side. Unless clearly deliberate I would let a first offence slide, multiple offences or a single deliberate one would get some sort of warning, whether this is from another Paladin of their order or through a vision or something. The next level is they have ot do some sort of quest to cleanse themselves for what they have done. At this point I would possibly start talking OOC with the player that continuing down this path will have mechanical implications, one thing you could do it prevent them from taking further levels in Paladin as their lack of respect for the Oath means thay can gain no further powers from it. Oath-Breaker is really designed for Evil NPCs, only if the Character is truly evil should you consider changing their oath to Oath-breaker.
It didn't start off that way. It was a simple question about whether or not my son's character could break the law and his oath as a paladin. I was hoping for some guidance as to what to do when he does. Then it became a rant about everything else.
The thing is, your son's character could break the law but not his oath, or vice versa, or both, or neither depending on the actual situation, on his oath, and on what he decides to do. Without more information, we can't know what "when he does" even means and as such, it's pretty hard to offer suggestions. As per the play, the law of the land can be overruled by the king: at what point does it become unlawful to try and undo a law's consequences, if you feel you might achieve this by appealing to a higher law? As per the rules, paladins can have different ideals, put different priorities on them and swear very different oaths: by what measure will you decide whether or not your son's character broke his vow? This matters a great deal, particularly if you hope there will be a lesson in the whole experience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Sorry to come at this so late, but you get that the Elizabethan audience was 100% on your son's side on this one right? No one sitting in the Globe theater watching this entirely fictional portrayal of Ancient Greece was confused about whether the pretty girl should be put to death because she wants to marry the boy she loves.
This "Athenian law" is the 1605 equivalent of a bomb that will go off if the bus goes under 55 mph. It's just something to get the story moving.
This "Athenian law" is the 1605 equivalent of a bomb that will go off if the bus goes under 55 mph. It's just something to get the story moving.
I'm not sure I have the words to describe how much I love this analogy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It didn't start off that way. It was a simple question about whether or not my son's character could break the law and his oath as a paladin. I was hoping for some guidance as to what to do when he does. Then it became a rant about everything else.
Frankly, you’re confusing the law with morality.
Plenty of actions are legal but immoral, and moral but illegal.
Lawful in lawful good is more about following a moral code, not obedience to black letter law.
Obedience to his oath is the lawful aspect of a paladins behavior, not adherence to the whim of every warlord and despot of every village he visits.
There are some laws it would be impossible to follow and still be “good”.
Kind of depends on how you think of "lawful" and "serious" What alignment would you call someone who tried to help people on a personal, case-by-case basis? They don't care about the law at all really, except maybe in the sense that they know better than to go directly against it hard enough to get tossed in the slammer. Is someone like that being serious about helping people?
A player would write something like "my son and myself are playing in a game based on the Midsummer Night's Dream play".
I looked up their post history, I think going by that odds are OP/the parent *is* the DM as they indicate DMing for their kids in other posts.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Did you have a point in all that or did you just want to repeat things already said? Because if that's your thing I can just repeat what I already said, there is nothing that says that a game of D&D has to follow the same morals as any real world society so saying "but that's historical!" is basically the wangrod defence but applied to a setting.
And as also mentioned, the romantic notion that people should be allowed to marry out of love is an ancient one. The play that I mentioned that Shakespeare wrote? That's the very play that the OP has made a game about. I thought that would be fairly obvious from the context, my apologies if it went over people's heads.
Cheers!
Lawful Good characters tend to follow just, or at least not blatantly unjust, laws.
Were I the GM I'd see this as in-character for a LG paladin, especuially one who favors the G over the L.
A LN or LE character would have o problem with it, so the statement "ANY" other alignment is false.
OK... I thought I would let this conversation play out. Somehow it became a narrative on parenting and social justice. The intent of the question was really meant to ask if disobeying a law would affect my son's paladin oath and what to do if they break their oath, at what point do they turn down the road of an Oathbreaker "anti-paladin" and how much and what type of atonement would be appropriate. Beyond that, the play was not meant to be set in Shakespeare's time, but rather in the time of Theseus, so we can't impose the morality of Europeans at the time of Shakespeare on the text. With that in mind, we must look at the role of marriage in the time of ancient Greece. While we cannot be completely certain of the everyday social norms, we can look at texts such as those from Cyrene to piece together what the social norms would be. What is certain is that the daughter was the property of her kyrios, who decided to whom she would be wed. It was not a matter of love, but economics or social mobility. This included the right to put a wife or daughter to death for disobedience. I realize that this may upset the social police, but erasing history does not change it. I was hoping to make a point to my son that when looking at a text, we need to understand the social context in which it was written and maybe, just maybe understand why the characters are making their choices. This does not make it right, but allows us to understand the why. I was hoping to make him broaden his mind a little and possibly transcend the text to see how the world is filled with views beyond his own.
I don't think anyone has asked this, so if you don't mind saying, how old is your son? Are you a professional teacher? You have a very rich vocabulary and a great understanding of historical information and social norms.
<Insert clever signature here>
Well, you can do it that way, but D&D is a modern game written for a modern audience so there's an expectation that the morality presented will be acceptable to 21st Century people. It's not supposed to be an accurate representation of the ethical values of a two thousand year old society.
But you do you.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
1) This depends entirely on the paladin and the oath, which we know nothing about. We don't know the paladin's alignment, which type of oath (subclass) they took, or what their general character is like.
2) Shakespeare wrote for a contemporary audience (and he wrote what audiences wanted to see, as he professes himself in As You Like It), and Dream is a comedy rather than a history. Attributing historical accuracy is a bit silly, particularly with the rather English fairy folklore mixed in.
3) I don't know your son so I can't assess his familiarity with texts from Cyrene, but if I had to hazard a guess his knowledge of hellenistic morality is probably less than passing. And learning there are many diverse views on ethical and moral issues is one thing, but it doesn't necessarily (or even likely) lead to thinking a character in a TTRPG - particularly one known to have strong ideals - should adopt an ethically relativistic approach.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Woooooow, dude.
Even if you think Shakespeare was a historian and not a dramaturgist, this is just all kinds of wrong.
As far as getting feedback on whether the paladin is on the road to being an Oathbreaker or not, you were so busy ranting about "social justice" (???) you forgot to tell anyone what Oath the paladin had taken (if any). So there's absolutely no way to address that.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah... Shakespeare didn't give a toss about the ancient greeks, he wasn't a historian and he wrote for a contemporary audience just like D&D 5E is written for a contemporary story. But anyway, the weird ranting and raving about the "social police" aside, nothing in your original post tells us anything about whether or not they are on "the road of an Oathbreaker "anti-paladin"" or not. By the standards presented in this thread by various posters, probably not.
But this is a joke thread, right?
It didn't start off that way. It was a simple question about whether or not my son's character could break the law and his oath as a paladin. I was hoping for some guidance as to what to do when he does. Then it became a rant about everything else.
Digressions aside you have not answered the questions asking details about the paladin which is needed ot give an answer.
You have said the Paladin has broken his Oath but you haven't said what the Oath was, in fact your first post didn't even say he had broken his Oath just the Law and his alignment.
I am no a great fan of alignments, as the question as to what is good and what is lawful often comes into a grey area. It can be useful to imply this person will do all they can to help others and is essentially good but when faced with a choice of killing someone who has been possessed / dominated or letting them kill innocents making either choice does not mean the person isn't good (or even acted in an evil way in that instance). If a character is Lawful what system of laws do they keep. A demon will quite happily kill someone in a country where murder is illegal but wont break a contract they have signed.
Unless a paladin breaks their Oath they have done against being a Paladin. You say he has broken his Oath but as we do not know the Oath he has sworn to we do not know if that is hte case, and there will be cases where a Paladin should break the law because their Oath demands it. For example a Devotion Paladin swears to "Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them." A "Devotion Paladin" in Nazi Germany absulutely would protect the Jews and punish those who are sending them to the gas chambers because he has sworn to do so, even though it would be against the law.
Assuming the Paladin has broken their Oath a one off ina morally difficult situation should not cause the Paladin to become an Oath Breaker, the description of an Oatherbreaker is "An oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks their sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin's heart been extinguished. Only darkness remains." This is more than a slip up it is a deliberate move to the dark side. Unless clearly deliberate I would let a first offence slide, multiple offences or a single deliberate one would get some sort of warning, whether this is from another Paladin of their order or through a vision or something. The next level is they have ot do some sort of quest to cleanse themselves for what they have done. At this point I would possibly start talking OOC with the player that continuing down this path will have mechanical implications, one thing you could do it prevent them from taking further levels in Paladin as their lack of respect for the Oath means thay can gain no further powers from it. Oath-Breaker is really designed for Evil NPCs, only if the Character is truly evil should you consider changing their oath to Oath-breaker.
The thing is, your son's character could break the law but not his oath, or vice versa, or both, or neither depending on the actual situation, on his oath, and on what he decides to do. Without more information, we can't know what "when he does" even means and as such, it's pretty hard to offer suggestions. As per the play, the law of the land can be overruled by the king: at what point does it become unlawful to try and undo a law's consequences, if you feel you might achieve this by appealing to a higher law? As per the rules, paladins can have different ideals, put different priorities on them and swear very different oaths: by what measure will you decide whether or not your son's character broke his vow? This matters a great deal, particularly if you hope there will be a lesson in the whole experience.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Sorry to come at this so late, but you get that the Elizabethan audience was 100% on your son's side on this one right? No one sitting in the Globe theater watching this entirely fictional portrayal of Ancient Greece was confused about whether the pretty girl should be put to death because she wants to marry the boy she loves.
This "Athenian law" is the 1605 equivalent of a bomb that will go off if the bus goes under 55 mph. It's just something to get the story moving.
I'm not sure I have the words to describe how much I love this analogy.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Frankly, you’re confusing the law with morality.
Plenty of actions are legal but immoral, and moral but illegal.
Lawful in lawful good is more about following a moral code, not obedience to black letter law.
Obedience to his oath is the lawful aspect of a paladins behavior, not adherence to the whim of every warlord and despot of every village he visits.
There are some laws it would be impossible to follow and still be “good”.
And paladins don't even have any sort of requirement to be lawful.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yeah especially depending on the specific oath. Oath of the Ancients for example really isn't concerned with law vs chaos at all.
All of the oaths are abstract enough that they absolutely do not automatically make the character lawful.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Kind of depends on how you think of "lawful" and "serious" What alignment would you call someone who tried to help people on a personal, case-by-case basis? They don't care about the law at all really, except maybe in the sense that they know better than to go directly against it hard enough to get tossed in the slammer. Is someone like that being serious about helping people?
<Insert clever signature here>
A lawful character has to follow some society's laws, though. They do not just make up a personal code to follow, that's really a chaotic thing.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.