D&D 5E (2014) Oath of Vengeance Paladin?

[Phantarch]

The first thing that came to my mind was the Untouchables when reading this post. If he wants to be an evil, jerkish version of Eliot Ness, maybe give him an Al Capone. Having an entire organized crime syndicate out to kill him should keep him busy. Couple that with law enforcement going after him for his corrupt methods, and maybe he'll realize that he can't fight his battle on two fronts. Or he'll end up dead, which doesn't sound like a bad thing.

 

[CyanideSprite]

1) Alignment restrictions are gone. 2) Penalizing a character OR player is wrong. The point of the game is to make STORIES. Throwing penalties on a character because they don't meet your ideal is a bad attitude to have. There's a reason such tools don't exist - because they were a bad idea in the first place.

I disagree completely for the same reason that the game IS about stories. And characters in stories have consequences for their actions. Having tools to enforce a focused character leads to great role playing and sessions that don't slow to a crawl when situations like this occur. It's for good storytelling.

Hardly. Its clear that the avenger is designed to seek out vengence against specific things that you can fight against. Allowing alcohol is frankly something that makes no sense

Yes it does, especially in the context of the character and the campaign, which had a lot to do with alcohol. The premise was for the party be going around the world trying to find the best drinks... A tavern hopping road trip. The Paladin works for the government and makes it his sole duty to find anything and everything wrong with these taverns so he can shut them down in the name of righteousness, no matter how petty the reason. The other party members have some of their own reasons for going tavern scouting, whether it's a fighter looking party and have a good time, or a pirate who wants the Paladin to succeed so he can make a killing by bootlegging.

"Fight the Greater Evil. Faeed with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the greater evil." The character should be inside a major city lobbying for laws against alcohol, or closing down taverns, not adventuring. This is frankly a dumb reason to have on an adventurer, because they'd never have a reason to fight, oh, I don't know, the dragon destroying everything around you, since you're forced to care more about the old man enjoying a pint before going home from work.

This entire thing doesn't make sense.

That's a problem with OoV, not the fact that he chose "alcohol" as his greater enemy. He saw his family destroyed by alcohol and countless brawls, spousal abuses, etc... It IS his sworn greater enemy. If it was a Lich who killed his family and caused mayhem to his childhood village and there was a dragon at his back, he would still chase down the Lich. Just because it doesn't make sense to YOU as a person doesn't mean jack to the character. That's the point of role playing.

I think the most damning thing about OoVs being bad design in general for this situation is that they are called "loners" in their description.

 

[CyanideSprite]

I like the ideas of giving him like an Al Capone character against him. A rival would be a clever idea too. If his character can't be meaningfully penalized for acting out of alignment, then the next best thing would be to focus it.

I've ran evil campaigns in the past and I'm thinking I should start treating this campaign like it. The best way to run an evil campaign in good conscious is to make sure the people the players might end up torturing are even worse and possibly deserving of it.

 

[abirdcall]

That's a problem with OoV, not the fact that he chose "alcohol" as his greater enemy. He saw his family destroyed by alcohol and countless brawls, spousal abuses, etc... It IS his sworn greater enemy. If it was a Lich who killed his family and caused mayhem to his childhood village and there was a dragon at his back, he would still chase down the Lich. Just because it doesn't make sense to YOU as a person doesn't mean jack to the character. That's the point of role playing.

I think the most damning thing about OoVs being bad design in general for this situation is that they are called "loners" in their description.

I think they are perfectly designed.

It is up to the players and the DM to ensure that all characters will fit well together. Pairing up someone who hates alcohol and all things related with characters who just want to go bar hopping sounds like a bad idea. Really, sounds like the paladin would be best as the main antagonist in the story.

For an example of a great Oath of Vengeance paladin look at Inigo Montoya. This is a perfect portrayal of the character which is probably why I like the paladin so much in this edition. That and well, basing the class on being a warrior devoted to a cause is more compelling to me than being lawful stupid.

 

[CyanideSprite]

No they are not perfectly designed, ad_hoc, because while Inigo Montoya might be the best example of the Oath of Vengeance Paladin in YOUR mind, so is this character here in the player's. He follows all his tenets ravenously and is very devout in his cause... From Inigo Montoya to this character, that is a VERY broad spectrum to encapsulate when, as you said, this character COULD have otherwise served as the main antagonist.

If there was more to the OoV Paladin in place that would define it more like Inigo Montoya, I would completely agree with you. Or hell, even Batman where he still has principles about torturing anyone other than those who are directly related (as shown by how often he has to stop his comrades from doing just that...)... but no, the OoV isn't that well defined. Morality has little to do with the subclass at all.

 

[abirdcall]

No they are not perfectly designed, ad_hoc, because while Inigo Montoya might be the best example of the Oath of Vengeance Paladin in your mind, so is this character here. That is a VERY broad spectrum of character especially when, as you said, this character COULD have served as the main antagonist. The same can't really be said for Inigo Montoya.

A character of any class could serve as the main antagonist to a story. That argument is silly. Having a broad spectrum of characters that can be represented by a class is a good thing.

The issue is not with the class. It sounds to me like it is an issue is a combination of confusion over the goals of play in your group and your desire for the Lawful Good Paladin that was in different games.

 

[CyanideSprite]

... That was YOUR argument that he could have been the villain. So yeah, sure. Go ahead and call your own argument silly.

And no, having a broad spectrum of characters that can be represented by a subclass isn't necessarily a good thing. For fighters, sure, it is because it's a generic class that could mean anything from a regimented soldier to a scrappy pub brawler. You fight, so you're a fighter. For Paladins who by definition have convictions and holy talents, it should have more focus and defined to that of a paladin. And that "Lawful Good Paladin that was in different games" is still in THIS game. It's fine to be all about vengeance, especially as a Paladin. I think the OoV tenet of Restitution is a wonderful concept for a Paladin... By Any Means Necessary is not.

And to that end, Inigo Montoya wouldn't be a great OoV, because I doubt Inigo Montoya would, say, torture someone just to be sure they don't know anything about Rugen.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I feel like the tenets "Fight the greater evil" and "By any means necessary" give a lot of freedom for the paladin to do extremely heinous things that are completely unsuitable for a paladin.

Paladins in 5e aren't the same as paladins in other editions. They can do heinous things if they want, as long as it upholds their Oath. There's nothing in the class that forbids being a massive jerk. There's nothing that even forbids being Evil or Chaotic or (gasp!) Chaotic Evil. Some of the Oaths seem to prohibit certain forms of being a massive jerk, but the Oath trumps alignment or jerkitude in the class.

In a game I ran recently, a paladin in the group went Oath of Vengeance and declared alcohol to be the greatest threat to humanity after seeing so many bar fights, abuses in families, etc, which all had alcohol in common. He went on a quest to abolish alcohol by any means necessary.

So far, a little weird, but not a problem.

During his adventures he would torture people or even use a Philter of Love to force someone to be obsessed with him for even the most vague information he could (like for information about a magic item that he rationalized MIGHT assist him in ridding the world of alcohol).

Sure. He's all Frank Miller Batman about stuff.

I have a view of Paladins as they are described as being the archetypal heroic knights in shining armor so this does NOT sit right with me but Oath of Vengeance seems to permit some ridiculous things without penalty.

Your view of paladins is outdated as far as the RAW of 5e is concerned. If you want something closer to that knight in shining armor philosophy, look at the Oath of Devotion. If that's the only kind of paladin you want, ditch the others.

I'm not quite sure as a DM how to reign that in while giving him freedom to have his character because it made the rest of the neutral/good party members extremely uncomfortable.

Hold up a sec - it's not your job to reign him in (or the job of the rulebooks, FWIW), it's the player's job. If the player can't come up with a reason the rest of the party should keep his character around despite his extreme methods, it's time for him to roll up a new character that CAN give the party a reason, if he wants to keep on the same storyline as the rest of the party.

If your character as conceived of can't do that, only one real reasonable reaction:

As a middle ground, if you give him some alcohol-related evil he can punish, it might at least serve to channel his energies in a party-friendly direction. Maybe there's a succubus behind a new bourbon distiller in town who plans on getting everyone drunk before summoning in some demon buddies. Maybe there's a group of hedonistic fey that come into town ready to party and cause chaos. Maybe there's a group of nefarious dwarven brewmasters who want their ale to succeed at any cost (que knife in the back of their enemies).

I might not personally do that because I don't consider a player's sociopathic character to be my problem as a DM, but if he wants to be Frank Miller's Batman, give him a Frank Miller Joker, too.

 

[Phantarch]

Two minor points about the problems with the vengeance paladin:

1) 5th edition is not really setup to be rules lawyery about. It's really written a lot more with DM empowerment in mind. Things tend to break down when people start getting into RAW technicalities.

2) Traditionally, Good and Evil in D&D are surprisingly rigid how they are defined. If somebody DOES want to get rules lawyery, technically, all of the oath of vengeance tenants are about fighting Evil, as evil is defined by D&D. Evil in D&D is concrete, not subjective. So, technically, it is well within the rules to NOT allow a Vengeance Paladin to swear vengeance against clowns (for example), because clowns do not fit into D&D definitions of evil. The same is true of "alcohol".

 

[CyanideSprite]

There's nothing that even forbids being Evil or Chaotic or (gasp!) Chaotic Evil.

Except that it describes that's exactly what they fight against...

Your view of paladins is outdated as far as the RAW of 5e is concerned. If you want something closer to that knight in shining armor philosophy, look at the Oath of Devotion. If that's the only kind of paladin you want, ditch the others.

That's wrong. Hell, even in the Oath of Vengeance description it talks about them in exactly those terms EXCEPT when it gets to the tenets when 2/4 of them are extremely dubious and seem to allow a good or neutral character a license to do evil.

Hold up a sec - it's not your job to reign him in (or the job of the rulebooks, FWIW), it's the player's job.

I disagree. And you seem to disagree too with your final statement being good advice on doing just that. He's playing the character and class like the zealot it can be. Giving him something worse to go up against is exactly what needs to be done IF there's nothing in the rulebook that will encourage a Paladin from torturing innocent people because of their Oath.