D&D 5E Oath of Vengeance Paladin?

[CyanideSprite]

My only note is that it can be interesting (from a RP perspective) to see what happens when a player *fully plays up the zealotry*.

Oh yeah I completely agree! It's like a character study and becoming so singlemindedly focused on this one goal to the point of the world around him crumbling through the weight of his own actions or inactions. It's all heavy stuff and great meaty narrative goodness. It would only be made more poignant if there was some semblance of morality allotted by the Oath of Vengeance instead of the design asking you to throw away your sense of morality in the name of justice against your sworn enemy.

I want to see him be zealous and have to come to terms with his own humanity in light of moral contemplation but the subclass itself calls that unimportant. And again, the consequences of his actions are what railroads the party away from progressing and having the deal with these things. If the rules allowed for him to have some personal consequences for him to deal with, that would be great. His Paladin powers wane as he struggles more and more to rationalize his actions for the greater good of destroying alcohol would be more interesting to the character's personality without slowing down the narrative and story progression.

 

[OB1]

I want to see him be zealous and have to come to terms with his own humanity in light of moral contemplation but the subclass itself calls that unimportant. And again, the consequences of his actions are what railroads the party away from progressing and having the deal with these things. If the rules allowed for him to have some personal consequences for him to deal with, that would be great. His Paladin powers wane as he struggles more and more to rationalize his actions for the greater good of destroying alcohol would be more interesting to the character's personality without slowing down the narrative and story progression.

It seems to me that this would be better handled by DM adjudication rather than a hard rule in the book as it seems to be very narrowly tailored to your specific campaign and PC. That said, if WoTC was going to change the rulebook to provide what you are looking for, how would you have that change read?

 

[Phantarch]

If everyone is having fun, then what's the problem? That's kind of the point. Or is it that everyone is having fun but you?

Regardless, you are coming across as very angry at what I, as an outsider, see as largely helpful advice that has covered the whole gamut of potential problems. People have been trying to be thorough about possible solutions, and your responses have been as though you were backed into a corner.

If you just needed to vent your frustration and be heard, then I'm sorry that you have found the rules to be frustrating and that it has created a frustrating situation in your game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, I'm confused, now. If everyone is having fun, and he's driving the action in your game, what's the problem, again?

EDIT: and I'm starting to get a tad suspicious that the issue keeps getting driven back into discussion of how the OoV sub-class is the problem, with it's oath requiring that you accept any rational for actions and any declaration of evil, and that there can't be any other personal or moral quandaries because the sub-class doesn't require them. This kind seems like a well-crafted problem to try to highlight a problem with the sub-class rather than a real issue. Especially given the immediate anger directed towards any advice to speak with the player or to say that choosing alcohol as an evil isn't workable, especially in a game that has clearly defined evil.

 

[TwoSix]

For the last time, no it is not. I never said the other players are not having fun. 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.

Rudeness to a mod when you're not yet 40 posts in doesn't tend to work real well. Not trying to do any in-thread moderation, just something to keep in mind.

The problem is that his Oath is giving him not only the freedom but the motivation to do these things in the name of righteousness and there is no way to handle that outside of role play scenarios we've discussed or banning the character. If there was something more appropriate in the rule book to limit this behavior for the Paladin like a moral code listed for the OoV then that would be perfect, but there's not. People saying things like:

The problem here is that it isn't a problem except for you. You said yourself that all your players are happy. So who isn't happy with what's happening besides yourself?

Seriously, it's 2015. It's assumed that a DM and their players can handle a meta conversation about styles of play and player buy-in to campaign concepts. If you want your paladin player to play within the confines of your expectation of what a paladin is, you need to tell them. Expecting the game manuals to enforce expectations of play through brute-force application of rules is outdated game design.

 

[CyanideSprite]

It seems to me that this would be better handled by DM adjudication rather than a hard rule in the book as it seems to be very narrowly tailored to your specific campaign and PC. That said, if WoTC was going to change the rulebook to provide what you are looking for, how would you have that change read?

I think it very much should be a "hard rule" because there almost no campaign where this is productive. The sociopathic quality should be the exception, not the rule. If I had power I would change it to be that the class has some semblance of morality to it. If they want it to be like Batman as it seems by calling the class "dark knight", they shouldn't just take the "I am vengeance, I am the night" portion of Batman and instead give the class some of Batman's moral limitations and humanity. If the tenets included some semblance of restraint on personal action instead of motivation to ignore morality in the name of slaying your sworn foe.

If everyone is having fun, then what's the problem? That's kind of the point. Or is it that everyone is having fun but you?

Regardless, you are coming across as very angry at what I, as an outsider, see as largely helpful advice that has covered the whole gamut of potential problems. People have been trying to be thorough about possible solutions, and your responses have been as though you were backed into a corner.

If you just needed to vent your frustration and be heard, then I'm sorry that you have found the rules to be frustrating and that it has created a frustrating situation in your game.

What? I JUST said I liked the character and I'm trying to find a way to handle the situation more specific to the character without making the consequences for his actions affect the whole party and railroad everything to him.

"If *I* was the player, this wouldn't happen" is not helpful advice. "Paladins can be evil now" is not helpful advice. The only frustrating thing is that that has to be reiterated over and over. If you want to defend the Oath of Vengeance paladin as a concept, fine, I'm more than willing to debate on you on that and adamantly argue that it could be far better. But the main point is that there should be more specific consequences for divine based characters like Oath of Vengeance Paladins who are described as singlemindedly motivated loners so that their zeal doesn't bog down progress in an adventure when they DO follow their tenets and do some evil stuff, especially when their class encourages it. The best suggestions so far have been role playing scenarios that drag the party in a tangent related to him getting in trouble by overstepping in his zeal.

 

[CyanideSprite]

Yeah, I'm confused, now. If everyone is having fun, and he's driving the action in your game, what's the problem, again?

As I've said what? 8 times now? 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 the only consequences for him role playing his character are going to bog down the campaign as a whole instead of targeting him specifically.

EDIT: and I'm starting to get a tad suspicious that the issue keeps getting driven back into discussion of how the OoV sub-class is the problem, with it's oath requiring that you accept any rational for actions and any declaration of evil, and that there can't be any other personal or moral quandaries because the sub-class doesn't require them.

It's not that it doesn't require them, it's that it actively encourages you to go against them.

The problem here is that it isn't a problem except for you. You said yourself that all your players are happy. So who isn't happy with what's happening besides yourself?

See above.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think it very much should be a "hard rule" because there almost no campaign where this is productive. The sociopathic quality should be the exception, not the rule. If I had power I would change it to be that the class has some semblance of morality to it. If they want it to be like Batman as it seems by calling the class "dark knight", they shouldn't just take the "I am vengeance, I am the night" portion of Batman and instead give the class some of Batman's moral limitations and humanity. If the tenets included some semblance of restraint on personal action instead of motivation to ignore morality in the name of slaying your sworn foe.



What? I JUST said I liked the character and I'm trying to find a way to handle the situation more specific to the character without making the consequences for his actions affect the whole party and railroad everything to him.

"If *I* was the player, this wouldn't happen" is not helpful advice. "Paladins can be evil now" is not helpful advice. The only frustrating thing is that that has to be reiterated over and over. If you want to defend the Oath of Vengeance paladin as a concept, fine, I'm more than willing to debate on you on that and adamantly argue that it could be far better. But the main point is that there should be more specific consequences for divine based characters like Oath of Vengeance Paladins who are described as singlemindedly motivated loners so that their zeal doesn't bog down progress in an adventure when they DO follow their tenets and do some evil stuff, especially when their class encourages it. The best suggestions so far have been role playing scenarios that drag the party in a tangent related to him getting in trouble by overstepping in his zeal.

Would you have this problem if any other class had the same roleplaying goals and methods? If not, then the problem is your expectations of the class, and the failure is you not expressing those expectations to the player before now. There's nothing wrong with the class, and a player is capable of playing that class as something more than a single-minded murderbot if they choose. That your player hasn't isn't the fault of the class, and if he was playing a barbarian, this discussion wouldn't even be occurring.

 

[CyanideSprite]

Would you have this problem if any other class had the same roleplaying goals and methods? If not, then the problem is your expectations of the class, and the failure is you not expressing those expectations to the player before now. There's nothing wrong with the class, and a player is capable of playing that class as something more than a single-minded murderbot if they choose. That your player hasn't isn't the fault of the class, and if he was playing a barbarian, this discussion wouldn't even be occurring.

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

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.

If he was a barbarian, chances are this wouldn't even be happening unless he had some role play zeal and was actively trying to distract the party, in which case, yeah this would very much be a player problem.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As I've said what? 8 times now? 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 the only consequences for him role playing his character are going to bog down the campaign as a whole instead of targeting him specifically.

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.

It's not that it doesn't require them, it's that it actively encourages you to go against them.



See above.

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.

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.