D&D 5E Vengeance Paladin alignment

[FrogReaver]

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.

My best summary would be
Good = generally tries to help others
Evil = generally trying to harm others
Neutral = generally being indifferent about others
Law = generally follows the law
Chaos = generally doesn't follow the law
Neutral = generally indifferent about the law

I would classify Q from Star Trek as lawful neutral. Jayne from firefly I would classify as Chaotic Neutral.

A vengeance Paladin's alignment is really going to depend on the campaign he's in. He can be put in situations where he would nearly always follow the law. Where he would nearly always break the law. Where he would nearly always be viewed as good or nearly always be viewed as evil. True neutral might be the best general classification for him and that would tend to shift for him in any campaign to any alignment.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.


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.

I'm sorry. The most likely background of a vengeance Paladin is that he swore vengeance after he was personally affected by some great evil. That's the concept the subclass was built on IMO.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

You can twist it however you want, I guess, but I find the exercise boring and unhelpful. Feel free to leave me out of it.

 

[FrogReaver]

You can twist it however you want, I guess, but I find the exercise boring and unhelpful. Feel free to leave me out of it.

TWIST????

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm sorry. The most likely background of a vengeance Paladin is that he swore vengeance after he was personally affected by some great evil. That's the concept the subclass was built on IMO.

Good for you and your games?

I’ve only ever seen them played as a sword in the hand of (the) god(s).

“My god told me that this trouble in your country is being caused by a lich. I have come to extinguish them.” And the like.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

You can twist it however you want, I guess, but I find the exercise boring and unhelpful. Feel free to leave me out of it.

Wow, weaksauce.

Good for you and your games?

I’ve only ever seen them played as a sword in the hand of (the) god(s).

“My god told me that this trouble in your country is being caused by a lich. I have come to extinguish them.” And the like.

Which I am contending that isn't meant to be the default flavour of the class. Or does "in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness" mean nothing?

 

[jgsugden]

While it may not be the majority interpretation, there are those out there that believe that the ends JUSTIFY the means. Justify means that justice is served. That phrase means that doing a wrong in pursuit of the greatest good is not only allowed - it means that it is just and should be done.

A LG paladin with the Oath of Vengeance is very reasonable to those that believe that the ends justify the means.

 

[FrogReaver]

While it may not be the majority interpretation, there are those out there that believe that the ends JUSTIFY the means. Justify means that justice is served. That phrase means that doing a wrong in pursuit of the greatest good is not only allowed - it means that it is just and should be done.

A LG paladin with the Oath of Vengeance is very reasonable to those that believe that the ends justify the means.

Exactly, and that was exactly what the 2nd post in this thread stated!

 

[abirdcall]

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.

You seem to suggest that the target of the vengeance paladin is ordinary.

Mobsters and Thieves' Guilds are examples you give.

While that obviously isn't against the rules, I don't think it is the assumption/intent. The tenants are about fighting the greater evil. Swearing vengeance against the school bully isn't really what we're talking about here.

It's more about ignoring the thieves' guild in order to concentrate on the archdevils. Yes, the thieves' guild is probably doing some wrong and a devotion paladin would be more likely to try to stop them from stealing from the townsfolk. A vengeance paladin doesn't care about such small grievances.

Yes, we could try to save that village from the gnolls, but if we do that we may allow the archdevils to corrupt the entire realm. That's the sort of thing we're talking about here.

The vengeance is for the greater good, not out of selfishness or the joy of slaughter.

 

[FrogReaver]

You seem to suggest that the target of the vengeance paladin is ordinary.

Mobsters and Thieves' Guilds are examples you give.

While that obviously isn't against the rules, I don't think it is the assumption/intent. The tenants are about fighting the greater evil. Swearing vengeance against the school bully isn't really what we're talking about here.

It's more about ignoring the thieves' guild in order to concentrate on the archdevils. Yes, the thieves' guild is probably doing some wrong and a devotion paladin would be more likely to try to stop them from stealing from the townsfolk. A vengeance paladin doesn't care about such small grievances.

Yes, we could try to save that village from the gnolls, but if we do that we may allow the archdevils to corrupt the entire realm. That's the sort of thing we're talking about here.

The vengeance is for the greater good, not out of selfishness or the joy of slaughter.

Yep, fight your sworn foe which presumably is and should be the greater evil by any means necessary. Of course the DM can always create an even greater evil which puts fulfilling your oath in a bit of a pickle...

Just another reason why the DM has to be on board with Paladins in general.