D&D 5E Vengeance Paladin alignment

[doctorbadwolf]

Can a vengeance paladin be of a Good alignment instead of Lawful Neutral?

Of course.

The whole helping those hurt by your enemies bit makes Good a natural fit.

I’d go so far as to say that the default should have been Neutral Good.

 

[Hussar]

When your code of behavior is do whatever as long as the big bad guy dies then it doesn't really qualify as a code in the traditional lawful sense. IMO

It would be like swearing an oath to be chaotic. Speaking of an oath of chaos.... is that lawful?

To me, the notion that a CN would care what happens to people outside his own personal circle of friends is flawed. A CN might care if you hurt someone he loves, but, hurt some stranger? Not my problem. Can you imagine Jayne, from Firefly, or Q from Star Trek TNG, giving the slightest toss if some stranger gets hurt or killed? Let alone taking an oath to righteously enact vengeance upon the perpetrator?

I certainly can't.

 

[Leatherhead]

Can you imagine someone that is so petty about hurting you back that they try to undo everything that you have done? Because that's the angle of CN vengance.

 

[jsaving]

It would be like swearing an oath to be chaotic. Speaking of an oath of chaos.... is that lawful?

Priestesses of Lolth swear an oath to be chaotic. Would anyone describe them as lawful for doing that? No, any more than someone who took the "chaos" writeup in the PH as their oath would be considered lawful. Following oaths /= lawfulness, it is the content of the oath that matters.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Of course.

The whole helping those hurt by your enemies bit makes Good a natural fit.

I’d go so far as to say that the default should have been Neutral Good.

I don't think so. In fact, I think it should be default Neutral Evil. For it is not only the light that opposes the darkness, but also the darkness that on occasion turns on itself.

While Good Vengeance Paladins can potentially exist, the fluff of the class seems to suggest to me moreso the kind of person that obsesses over their vengeance until it consumes them. To swear vengeance so deeply that it gives you supernatural powers doesn't say good things about your sanity. The flavour text of the subclass says otherwise, but has anything good ever come out of unbridled lust for vengeance? The most fitting story for that Oath is of a person who fulfills their vengeance and brings ruin to all who wronged them and defiles their legacies forever, only to walk away with the feeling that it was all a waste of time. Vengeance feels empty. (warning: TVTropes link)

There's a saying that's bandied around in many forms, but the most common is "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves," with the implication that the first grave is for the target of your revenge and the second is for yourself. People often attribute the saying to Confucius, but it's more likely that it's an adaptation of the Japanese phrase「人を呪わば穴二つ」- "if you curse someone, there are two holes."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't think so. In fact, I think it should be default Neutral Evil.

While Good Vengeance Paladins can potentially exist, the fluff of the class seems to suggest to me moreso the kind of person that obsesses over their vengeance until it consumes them. To swear vengeance so deeply that it gives you supernatural powers doesn't say good things about your sanity. The flavour text of the subclass says otherwise, but has anything good ever come out of unbridled lust for vengeance? The most fitting story for that Oath is of a person who fulfills their vengeance and brings ruin to all who wronged them and defiles their legacies forever, only to walk away with the feeling that it was all a waste of time. Vengeance feels empty. (warning: TVTropes link)

There's a saying that's bandied around in many forms, but the most common is "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves," with the implication that the first grave is for the target of your revenge and the second is for yourself. People often attribute the saying to Confucius, but it's more likely that it's an adaptation of the Japanese phrase「人を呪わば穴二つ」- "if you curse someone, there are two holes."

The subclass has literally no connection whatsoever with the pursuit of personal vendettas. That isn’t part of the archetype. At all.

 

[FrogReaver]

The subclass has literally no connection whatsoever with the pursuit of personal vendettas. That isn’t part of the archetype. At all.

I think it's included in the subclass provided the one that personally wronged you is connected to some bbeg evil that you ultimately blame and swear to defeat. Though it's certainly not the only story that works for a vengeance paladin.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

The subclass has literally no connection whatsoever with the pursuit of personal vendettas. That isn’t part of the archetype. At all.

I find your categorical denial of the darker and more intimate side of the Oath of Vengeance suspect. The other Paladin Oaths provide ample room for alternate interpretations and expressions, why not here?

"When evil forces slaughter helpless villagers, when an entire people turns against the will of the gods, when a thieves’ guild grows too violent and powerful, when a dragon rampages through the countryside — at times like these, paladins arise and swear an Oath of Vengeance to set right that which has gone wrong. To these paladins — sometimes called avengers or dark knights — their own purity is not as important as delivering justice."

Who's to say that the nascent Paladin isn't one of those villagers who escaped the horde, or someone who suffered personal loss against that ascendant thieves' guild?

Consider the path of those who follow the path of The Fury.

The Fury is there whenever you suffer pain or anguish. Aureon’s laws provide a path for order in a civilized society, and Dol Arrah guides the justiciar. But perhaps you feel the forces of the law are corrupt and will never punish your enemy. Perhaps the wrong that’s been done to you isn’t a crime, but you still want the cause of your pain to suffer for what they’ve done. Or perhaps you don’t want justice… you want bitter and bloody REVENGE, to make your enemy suffer and feel the pain they’ve inflicted upon you a thousand times over.

...

The Oath of Vengeance is an obvious choice for a paladin of the Fury, a warrior infused with divine power to me used in pursuit of revenge. This path works just as well for a Zealot barbarian, or potentially a cleric with the War or Death domains. This could fit the idea of the vengeful hand: you were a peaceful civilized person until you swore your oath of vengeance, and you have been filled with the power you need to see it through. On the other hand, you could also have been granted your powers to help others take vengeance; you are the one who answers the call of the crimson candle. In either case, I again call out this difference between this and the path of Dol Arrah. The hands of the Fury don’t pursue justice; they seek vengeance, regardless of how much new pain and suffering is generated in the course of revenge.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I find your categorical denial of the darker and more intimate side of the Oath of Vengeance suspect. The other Paladin Oaths provide ample room for alternate interpretations and expressions, why not here?

Who said there can’t be alternate interpretations? I spoke to the default alignment of the class, why are bringing alternate stuff into it?

I didn’t say there can’t be a vengeance Paladin who is evil. I said it’s not something the subclass actually presents. It’s something you would be adding yourself.

I think it's included in the subclass provided the one that personally wronged you is connected to some bbeg evil that you ultimately blame and swear to defeat. Though it's certainly not the only story that works for a vengeance paladin.

It’s not the default assumption upon which the archetype is built, which is what I spoke to.

I don’t care about these tangents regarding what could be optionally done with a variant take.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Who said there can’t be alternate interpretations? I spoke to the default alignment of the class, why are bringing alternate stuff into it?

I didn’t say there can’t be a vengeance Paladin who is evil. I said it’s not something the subclass actually presents. It’s something you would be adding yourself.

Ok, then let me reorient and rephrase. I take issue with your statement that "the default should have been Neutral Good."

Consider the tenets of Vengeance:

Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the greater evil. - So an Avenger is likely to just up and leave if they get a lead on their target. That village to the south being raided by Gnolls that could be saved if you took a detour? No connection to the mobsters that killed their entire family? No time for that!

No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not. - No room to make amends, the cycle of revenge must continue. Especially troublesome if your target is a mortal individual or organization like that Thieves' Guild, as your actions against them surely will have immediate and noticeable ripple effects.

By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can’t get in the way of exterminating my foes. - License to MAIM! KILL! BURN! right here.

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. - there's one unambiguously good tenet, but it's up against three that aren't. Not painting a good picture.