D&D 5E Oath of Vengeance Paladin?

[KahlessNestor]

Or, you know, just take away his powers. If he's a paladin he probably is a member of an order. Have them show and be like "wtf are you doing?"

 

[CyanideSprite]

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.

Localizing it to personal consequences is ideal. Party splitting is less so, but that's the party's decision in the end. One of the party members is his childhood friend and another wants him to succeed for financial reasons so I don't think they would choose to just LEAVE him. But maybe. And this guy would probably fight off the constable in order to get rid of alcohol haha.

Or, you know, just take away his powers. If he's a paladin he probably is a member of an order. Have them show and be like "wtf are you doing?"

He's actually not. He's even hardly religious but his powers ARE divine in nature so a god could take them away if he disobeys his oath.

 

[Eltab]

Basically, when thinking of Vengeance paladin, think; I'm Batman.

It should be noted that Batman can only operate as he does because Bruce Wayne has a special agreement with Police Commissioner Gordon: as long as Batman is fighting the criminal leaders personally; is not embarrassing the police department (much; dumping handcuffed crooks on the police dept's doorstep is embarrassing in its own way); and is not a danger to the common citizens - THEN he can do his thing in the way he thinks good.
If normal people start calling for Batman's arrest because they can't tell any difference between him and the criminals, the deal is off.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Why is it a problem? What consequences were you hoping to have?

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.

Why are you looking to class mechanics for consequences? What would you do if the party barbarian or the party rogue or the party wizard were acting like this? Why can't you do that here?

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.

You can be an Oath of Vegeance paladin who believes alcohol is the greatest evil, and NOT have issues, too. It's not the game rules that create the issue.

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.

Who's fighting? It's not a fight. There's no attacking. There's no defending. Just a bunch of D&D nerds having a convo.

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.

No one called anyone a dink - there's the word if there that you're ignoring. There's no way I could know if your player is a dink or not. It was merely one possibility.

At any rate, it sounds like you don't have a problem to fix as much as you are just looking for story ideas about how you can follow up on the character's actions. So lets get more specific about the character's context - what kind of adventures has the group been on? What has the paladin done to annoy or side with NPC's? Are there other characters who've take the Oath of Vengeance in the game world? What are some of the big bads in the setting?

 

[CyanideSprite]

Why is it a problem? What consequences were you hoping to have?

Those for alignment changes.

Why are you looking to class mechanics for consequences? What would you do if the party barbarian or the party rogue or the party wizard were acting like this? Why can't you do that here?

Either class mechanics or basic rules that localize it to the character for acting outside their alignment. Because he's literally just following his tenets, which if he doesn't follow, THEN there are personal consequences. The other classes aren't held to those standards.

Who's fighting? It's not a fight. There's no attacking. There's no defending. Just a bunch of D&D nerds having a convo.

Argument, debate, fight. Call it what you want, you don't WANT there to be an issue with the class and so you'll derail at any opportunity to make it an issue with the player. Defend the class if you think it's worthy of being defended and let's have that conversation instead of missing the point over and over.

At any rate, it sounds like you don't have a problem to fix as much as you are just looking for story ideas about how you can follow up on the character's actions. So lets get more specific about the character's context - what kind of adventures has the group been on? What has the paladin done to annoy or side with NPC's? Are there other characters who've take the Oath of Vengeance in the game world? What are some of the big bads in the setting?

That is one potential fix which has been the bulk of the productive discussion here. There are no other Oath of Vengeance characters. They are on a cross country tavern hopping expedition. He has a position in the government with authority to go shut down taverns. The big bad is more of the goal to find this legendary drink called the Brimstone Ale. He has been willing to torture for information on it.

 

[Eltab]

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.

If that part I underlined is a typo, it should not be. The authorities are not going to be amused by the Vengeance Paladin's behavior, and may decide to 'drive the evil spirits out of him' (pardon the pun) - giving you a chance to check out the Suffocation / Drowning rules. A bundle of 10 foot poles, hung out over a lake (on the end of a pier?), with him on one end and 500 lbs of rocks on the other, should about do it. If the authorities have to do this more than twice ... they might decide to give him a minute longer underwater each time.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I would like to take a stab at this.

When playing these types of characters, one still needs to exercise a bit of control and use common sense. No ability gives you the right to wreck a game or cause all sorts of havoc just because you want to take every word literally. Alignment still means something in this edition even though it doesn't have a mechanic. You also need to realize your limits and go over the top. If you have a thing against demons you aren't going to charge headlong into a fight you know you can't win. Yes this demon may kill others but you know that one day you will be strong enough to end his existence. Also, you wouldn't abandon a friend over a demon because common sense tells you that two people fighting is better than one so your chances of killing him is greater.

Now if the person continues down this road then have some in game consequences.

1: The next time you are down and need help, your party members may ignore you or not be as quick to aid you.

2: You wake up the next morning only to find that everyone else has left.

3: Your order hears about your deeds and seeks you out for judgement.

Just a little common sense goes a long way.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I am not sure if someone brought it up and I missed it, or if it actually hasn't been mentioned:

"By any means necessary."

In all of one word, the tenets of the oath provide a deep philosophical quandary; What means are necessary? Is it the paladin that decides what is necessary? Is it whatever patron deity the paladin might have? Is it an inherent quality of whatever particular cause the paladin chooses which determines what is or isn't necessary?

Ultimately, because what is necessary isn't immediately and unquestionably evident, the use of the word even gives the DM the same ability to determine when the line - wherever it is drawn - has been crossed and the paladin has fallen while the oath itself allows (but doesn't require) separation from the standard Law<->Chaos; Good<->Evil spectra and some good ol' blue and orange morality (which I am purposely not linking so that if anyone find their way into a trope-spiral though time it is of their own doing, and not because I put a primed productivity-nuke in their hands).

However, I feel it is important to get at what really seems to be the heart of the issue: The rulebook telling the DM how and when to take away a paladin's powers starts problems, not solves them - which is evident by the fact that in the lengthy life of the D&D game no topic has generated more numerous, nor more impassioned disagreements than alignment, which is at the core of every disagreement about what a paladin "can't" or "shouldn't" do ever, including this very thread.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Those for alignment changes.
Either class mechanics or basic rules that localize it to the character for acting outside their alignment. Because he's literally just following his tenets, which if he doesn't follow, THEN there are personal consequences. The other classes aren't held to those standards.

Right. If he's following his tenents, then he's adhering to the higher standards of his Oath, and continues to be a paladin regardless of what alignment he is, and he suffers no personal consequences.

Is the issue just that you can't revoke his paladinhood for his character's behavior?

If that's the issue, it might be worth asking yourself what revoking his paladinhood would have accomplished, and pursue that goal through other means. What is the output you want? Because getting there might look different in 5e than in previous e's.

Argument, debate, fight. Call it what you want, you don't WANT there to be an issue with the class and so you'll derail at any opportunity to make it an issue with the player. Defend the class if you think it's worthy of being defended and let's have that conversation instead of missing the point over and over.

I don't particularly see a need to defend anything. Do you see a need to attack something?

That is one potential fix which has been the bulk of the productive discussion here. There are no other Oath of Vengeance characters. They are on a cross country tavern hopping expedition. He has a position in the government with authority to go shut down taverns. The big bad is more of the goal to find this legendary drink called the Brimstone Ale. He has been willing to torture for information on it.

So...there's no problem? Or is the issue that none of the other party members are particularly interested in the tavern hopping expedition storyline?

 

[MostlyDm]

Only the Devotion paladin is really true to the traditional D&D Paladins.

You have correctly noticed that the Oath of Vengeance (like Ancients, actually) is 100% compatible with being an evil character and doing specific kinds of evil things.

This isn't a bug of the class, it's a feature. It's why people keep telling you to talk to the player if you are bothered by the behavior, I think.

Batman could be a Vengeance paladin, yeah... But so could the Punisher, and Ghost Rider. And Jack Bauer. And probably Rorschach... Heck, Dexter from Dexter could probably qualify. Basically most figures from any list of Anti-heroes, Sociopathic Heroes, etc. could all be vengeance Paladins.

It's intentional. It allows a broad breadth of characters same as any class. It's up to you and your setting to reign in undesired behavior. You can't divert responsibility for reigning in your players onto the "rules" the way many DMs did in earlier editions.