D&D 5E Oath of Vengeance Paladin?

[I'm A Banana]

I'm tryin' to wrap my head around this apparent contradiction:

...there (is) almost no campaign where this is productive. The sociopathic quality should be the exception, not the rule.
...
The game can hardly progress if we are constantly having to deal with his stuff. He's driving the action away from what everyone else wants to do. They might be having fun doing whatever but they don't have the freedom to role play and do their things when he gets all zealous.

So the player's RP is a problem because he makes the game entirely about his character's crusade and no one else can do anything....and yet....

I never said the other players are not having fun.
...
It's all heavy stuff and great meaty narrative goodness

...so it's not really a problem.

The clarity that I can find seems related to this:

But the main point is that there should be more specific consequences for divine based characters like Oath of Vengeance Paladins

...which makes it sound like you want it to be against the rules for him to be a spotlight hog like this, and are frustrated that it is not explicitly against the rules, despite the fact that apparently no one has a real problem with him being a spotlight hog.

If it's not actually disruptive, then there's no actual problem here.

If it IS actually disruptive, then you don't need the Oath of Vengeance to tell you to tell the player to stop being a dink. You can tell the player to stop being a dink regardless of their class, race, or oath, no matter what the rulebooks say, even if they are roleplaying their character PERFECTLY.

On another note, there's this:

You can take up a know-it-all attitude and say "Well if *I* was the player, I wouldn't be disruptive at all, or if *I* was the DM this would never happen", but you're not helpful, you're barely paying attention to the discussion, and you're free to go to a mirror and give yourself all the smiles and praise you need for being a Stepford tabletop gamer.

It sounds like you're pretty angry, but you might want to reconsider the aggression you're responding with. It's against the rules of ENWorld. You're pretty new here, so maybe you missed 'em, but if the attitude continues, you may be asked to leave shortly.

 

[CyanideSprite]

Either people are having fun, or they aren't. You can't have 'they're having fun, yes, but I think they'd have some other kind of fun if this character wasn't in the game.' At that exact point, you should know what you need to do: discuss the issue with the group and the player and see if a compromise, where the player tones down the zealotry, can be reached or tell him he has to play a different character, that one's not working with your game.

... Let me ask you something; have you ever not been able to play a game you wanted, or been able to watch a movie because your family or another obligation dragged you along somewhere and you made the best of it? Yeah you had fun, but it wasn't what you wanted to do.

Again, the zealotry is what makes the character fun but there should be personal consequences he has to deal with. These personal consequences have to extend to the whole party without something that specifically targets the character or binds the character against doing that.

Hogwash. There's nothing in that class that requires you to embrace evil actions if you don't want to. You're allowing a player to justify being an evil jerk and then blaming it on his class. That's a serious case of blame-shifting.

The class literally says "their own purity is not as important as delivering justice" and "By Any Means Necessary" is one of its very tenets. That is not blame shifting at all. That's IN the tenets of the class. I would be more in the right to strip him of his power if he held back from potentially accomplishing his goal.

Originally, I suggested dealing with the character by having his actions have consequences, but now you're rejecting that concept as just making the game more about him. It seems to me that the only way you have to make the game less about him, considering that you won't address the matter with him, think that it's his class and your hands are tied because of that, and you can't do more in-game stuff because that just reinforces the spotlight on his character, that you are not the least interested in a solution and just want to complain that the OoV sub-class is wrong. This thead is smelling more with every post.

I don't know how to make it more clear to you that the desired goal is something that can give consequences to his character without bogging down the campaign. Like... I don't know what more to tell you. This IS a topic about having an issue with Oath of Vengeance paladins. I mean that IS the title. I have no idea what you're looking for. You want me to just say "Oh yeah you guys are so smart. I can't believe I never thought to tell the player he can't role play like that because I don't like it" ... For like the 10th time now, that's not the problem.

 

[TwoSix]

Does the other class encourage them against moral decision making in the name of justice?

The game isn't giving the player incentive for or against the undesired behavior. The game is giving guidelines, and the player is using those guidelines in a manner that is causing game friction.

Again, I'm not going to railroad his character with homebrew rules. He role plays him well and he's following the rules as far as I can tell (and I was hoping someone would have brought to my attention some rules I might have missed by now but the only people who have never responded when I asked them for page numbers and such), so I'll just do the best I can given the circumstances.

Otherwise, I disagree that unless there is something that can provide personal consequences to the character, there is something wrong with the class purely because its tenets determine how you roleplay it. If doesn't follow the tenets, THEN I can strip his powers and stuff. And you're right, he is more than a singleminded murderbot. That's not the issue here. The character THINKS they are doing the world a favor and saving it from suffering.

Honestly, I'm starting to feel like this whole scenario is some comedy of manners. If you don't want the player to do X, then tell the player to not do X, because it's messing up the game. You seem to have this idea that because the player is roleplaying well, that suddenly means that any problems the group has is because of the game design, because gosh darn it, the player is really is in character! The game does not presume that roleplaying within a character class's general parameters suddenly means that the entire party will have no conflicts as to their goals and purposes.

I don't know how to make it more clear to you that the desired goal is something that can give consequences to his character without bogging down the campaign. Like... I don't know what more to tell you. This IS a topic about having an issue with Oath of Vengeance paladins. I mean that IS the title. I have no idea what you're looking for. You want me to just say "Oh yeah you guys are so smart. I can't believe I never thought to tell the player he can't role play like that because I don't like it" ... For like the 10th time now, that's not the problem.

Well, you've already ruled out house-ruling, and you don't want the character to stop playing his character that way because you've had a conversation that it's impacting the game. Are you looking for, what, narrative consequences? Those seem trivial to generate considering the amount of ill-will the PC must be generating in-game. Is he willing to face down entire villages in pursuit of his Spanish Prohibition? Or accept devils cozying up to him to offer him power to continue his crusade?

 

[CyanideSprite]

So the player's RP is a problem because he makes the game entirely about his character's crusade

Look, how many times do I have to say it for it to come across? His crusade isn't the problem. The consequences that befall him for acting in his tenets are.

...which makes it sound like you want it to be against the rules for him to be a spotlight hog like this, and are frustrated that it is not explicitly against the rules, despite the fact that apparently no one has a real problem with him being a spotlight hog.

It's not that he wants to be a spotlight hog, it's that by acting in his tenets it happens naturally with the consequences of them that don't specifically target him. If he had to deal with divine retribution, waning powers, or something damning from having a forced alignment change, that would be one thing. But it's not as far as I can tell.

If it IS actually disruptive, then you don't need the Oath of Vengeance to tell you to tell the player to stop being a dink. You can tell the player to stop being a dink regardless of their class, race, or oath, no matter what the rulebooks say.

The player isn't being a "dink". Didn't I just tell you that? I'm pretty sure I just told you that... a lot. He's just following his class's tenets and that's bringing about these issues.

It sounds like you're pretty angry at being given advise, but you might want to reconsider the aggression you're responding with.

I'm fighting against the same 3 people who keep coming in here and insist on seeing what they want to see while refusing to listen to the issue of personal consequences in lieu of attacks against my player who is role playing just fine. People like Eltab, Gyor, and Lowkey have brought good perspectives in here, while I seem to have to repeat the same thing over and over to others. If you want to defend Oath of Vengeance, fine, let's have that discussion. Otherwise, if you have specific rules to point toward for specific consequences or anything that has been misread about the Oath of Vengeance Paladin instead of going off topic and calling my player a "dink", then I would love to hear that and be glad to discuss it.

 

[CyanideSprite]

The game isn't giving the player incentive for or against the undesired behavior. The game is giving guidelines, and the player is using those guidelines in a manner that is causing game friction.

Tenets are more than guidelines. NOT following them is a big issue and you can take away a Paladin's powers for THAT.

Well, you've already ruled out house-ruling, and you don't want the character to stop playing his character that way because you've had a conversation that it's impacting the game. Are you looking for, what, narrative consequences? Those seem trivial to generate considering the amount of ill-will the PC must be generating in-game. Is he willing to face down entire villages in pursuit of his Spanish Prohibition? Or accept devils cozying up to him to offer him power to continue his crusade?

House ruling is probably a final resort. He modeled his character around his tenets and I would hope there is a catch-22 in that itself for consequences, but I haven't been able to see it yet. Narrative consequences are kind of the issue in that they are either insignificant, or they distract the party from what they want to do. And I'm guessing he would make deals with the devil to abolish alcohol. After all "purity is not as important as delivering justice".

 

[Shendorion]

These aren't "shenanigans;" he's playing the archetype as it was intended to be played. OoV is built for players who want to explore the archetype of the zealot. Doing questionable things in service to a "greater good" that's not necessarily even good is par for the course.

As for consequences, shouldn't those come from the game world, rather than homebrewing strictures on the character's behavior or implementing some system whereby they lose divine favor? Your world has tavern owners, right? There are governments and so forth, I expect, and those tavern owners pay taxes to their governments (and possibly kickbacks to local crime syndicates, depending on the light setting on your campaign). Don't these people and agencies object to some inquisitor blundering around trying to put an end to a very profitable vice that keeps the king's coffers full and the rabble from rousing? Seems to me he'd be under fire from the constables and the criminals both. Make storytelling happen!

If you don't want the consequences of his actions to drive the main story, could it be dealt with in a lighter spirit? If he's just destroying property and so forth, he could be rounded up by the constables every night and tossed in the drunk tank. Let him cool his heels and preach to a captive audience, and the party can collect him in the morning before going out to do whatever you want the story to be about them doing.

Sorry - I read that bit and edited the post accordingly. I've been in a lot of campaigns that were more about the trouble the party gets itself into and out of than some epic battle of good versus evil, and they're great, but they're not what everyone wants to play.

 

[CyanideSprite]

These aren't "shenanigans;" he's playing the archetype as it was intended to be played. OoV is built for players who want to explore the archetype of the zealot. Doing questionable things in service to a "greater good" that's not necessarily even good is par for the course.

As for consequences, shouldn't those come from the game world, rather than homebrewing strictures on the character's behavior or implementing some system whereby they lose divine favor? Your world has tavern owners, right? There are governments and so forth, I expect, and those tavern owners pay taxes to their governments (and possibly kickbacks to local crime syndicates, depending on the light setting on your campaign). Don't these people and agencies object to some inquisitor blundering around trying to put an end to a very profitable vice that keeps the king's coffers full and the rabble from rousing? Seems to me he'd be under fire from the constables and the criminals both. Make storytelling happen!

Yeah we've gone over this a lot. It's been the conversation for the last 7 pages. Thank you, although we're trying to find a way to localize consequences to the character in specific so the whole party isn't derailed from his zeal.

edit to your edit:

If you don't want the consequences of his actions to drive the main story, could it be dealt with in a lighter spirit? If he's just destroying property and so forth, he could be rounded up by the constables every night and tossed in the drunk tank. Let him cool his heels and preach to a captive audience, and the party can collect him in the morning before going out to do whatever you want the story to be about them doing.

That's a very good idea! However, I think it kind of needs to be more severe since he does some deplorable things in his quest that are probably deserving of more than a dunk tank heh.

 

[TwoSix]

House ruling is probably a final resort. He modeled his character around his tenets and I would hope there is a catch-22 in that itself for consequences, but I haven't been able to see it yet. Narrative consequences are kind of the issue in that they are either insignificant, or they distract the party from what they want to do. And I'm guessing he would make deals with the devil to abolish alcohol. After all "purity is not as important as delivering justice".

I guess I don't understand why the paladin pursuing a grand quest that creates tons of conflict is a bad thing. The whole point of roleplaying is to create conflict that can be molded into a story! The problem seems to be that the other players have other things they want to do, but aren't asserting themselves enough to pursue their own goals.

Making a deal with the devil to stop a greater evil is pretty much the vengeance paladin in a nutshell, BTW. So kudos to the paladin player for knowing their character so well.

 

[CyanideSprite]

I guess I don't understand why the paladin pursuing a grand quest that creates tons of conflict is a bad thing. The whole point of roleplaying is to create conflict that can be molded into a story! The problem seems to be that the other players have other things they want to do, but aren't asserting themselves enough to pursue their own goals.

I mean... To be honest, that's one thing I LIKE about the Oath of Vengeance Paladin. It's that it's such a driving class. But the issue is that it's VERY hard for other classes to be that assertive when the class is so singleminded against a sworn enemy like that inherently. I think the better way for the party to handle it is to convince said OoV paladin that their goal is the best way for him to achieve his goal too. Depends on the party and their goals though.

Making a deal with the devil to stop a greater evil is pretty much the vengeance paladin in a nutshell, BTW. So kudos to the paladin player for knowing their character so well.

Yeah I love it. I just wish the consequences could be more localized to him. It's easy to just say screw it and ignore consequences for him doing evil things and let the party sort it out whether they like it or not. That can be a tad hard and long-winded for them though.

 

[KahlessNestor]

How localized do you really need it to be? The constables show up, maybe with some more powerful backing, to arrest him. The other characters can just stand back and be like, "You crapped in the bath. Now you can sit in it." They don't need him to dig him out of his hole. They can go off on their adventure and he can sit in a dungeon contemplating if his actions are REALLY the best way to fight his GREAT EVIIIIIIL.

There are many ways to play zealotry that don't involve such disruption. As people mentioned, Batman does it without all the moral evil.