D&D 5E Oath of Vengeance Paladin?

[Flamestrike]

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. Furthermore, even if they act completely evil, forcing them to be an "Oathbreaker" doesn't even make much sense since they aren't breaking their oath to do things like torture for the greater good... and it's hardly a punishment since Oathbreaker has so many benefits itself.

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, alcohol poisonings, etc, which all had alcohol in common. He went on a quest to abolish alcohol by any means necessary. 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).

I have a view of Paladins as they are described in the handbook in the opening pages before any of the oaths come into play 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. I'm not quite sure 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.

Edit: I don't want to punish the player for role playing well. He does a fine job. His character is supposed to be "good" aligned, but there doesn't seem to be a penalty in any way for doing evil things to innocent people because of Oath of Vengeance's "By Any Means Necessary" tenet. There are some role playing things that can be done to reign him in, but I'm kinda hoping I overlooked a way to enforce a Paladin not harming innocent people when he's not breaking a tenet on a technicality.

You'd hate my LE paladin of Bane who takes 'by any means necessary' and 'show no mercy' to rather extreme ends.

Just take into account its only your perception thats standing in the way here. Paladins can be any alignment. Just feel free to change his alignment if he interprets his code to permit genocide, murder or brutal torture as his 'any means necessary'.

 

[Herobizkit]

Two words:

Beer Baron. ^_^

 

[Arial Black]

You don't have to be good to be OoV; you can even be evil.

The reverse is also true: being an OoV paladin, and fighting what you consider to be the 'greater evil', in no way prevents your alignment from sliding to Evil.

Redacted by moderator......but I digress.

In game, a creature's alignment changes over time, in response to what the creature actually does. OoV doesn't prevent that. If the problem paladin has CG written on his sheet, rub it out and replace it with CN, and let the player know that it will change to CE (or back to CG, or stay CN) depending entirely on the character's actions, and the PC believing he is doing good is neither here nor there.

BTW, OoV paladins are prepared to do evil so that good people don't have to. He should be aware that he is doing evil, but even if he fools himself that he is 'good', his actions are what determines his alignment, not his thoughts.

If you have an evil PC, it doesn't matter if that PC is a paladin or not; it's the same problem. How do you usually deal with evil PCs in a good party? Do that!

Mod Note: Discussion of real-world political topics is restricted to the OT forum, in threads specifically tagged as Religion or Politics. Please keep it out of other threads. Thanks. ~Umbran

 

[KahlessNestor]

*sigh* This is why I don't like that they divorced paladins from their source of power (the gods). I don't mind the open alignment. I think any god, evil or otherwise, can have paladins, but with the gods you have a safety net for when shenanigans like this occur (and it's more paladin thematic; same with clerics).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm a Banana, the point isn't that a Paladin can be evil without being a Death Knight, it's that a character who claims to be good and THINKS they are absolutely good and righteous in their cause has a license to do very dubious things to get to their sworn enemy.

At that point, though, it's just an Alignment Debate.

Player: "If I do all these horrible things but for a Good Reason, I'm still Good!"
DM: "Uh....nope."

Not that alignment matters much in 5e, but it's still a thing the player and the DM agree on a PC being. And if he's Evil you've got no house rule against evil PC's, it shouldn't be a big deal - he's not going to fall from paladinhood. The only way to do that in 5e is to break your oath, and it's a deliberate decision, not something that happens accidentally. In other words, the alignment mostly just describes what the character is like, it doesn't restrict them to certain classes or anything.

If you DO have a house rule against evil PC's and your group determines he is one, it'd be a good idea for the player to retire the paladin and whip up something that EVERYONE agrees is not evil.

Regardless if you think Paladins should be allowed to be evil without being something like Death Knights (and I do disagree with you on the Oath of Devotion being evil like that. That clearly goes against tenets such as helping the most and harming the least), by the Oath of Vengeance, they can do a lot of things that would normally not be good or even neutral because it fights their "sworn enemy". And outside of coming up with a variety of NPC scenarios to combat this and suddenly make the focus all around this character, there's very little to deter the character from those actions outside of the DM just saying "hey don't do that", which I try to avoid when someone is role playing a character very well and they technically aren't doing anything wrong. If he's a zealot who believes alcohol is the source of all evil and he's not going to stop at anything until every last drop of it is destroyed, then that's great. I just wish that as a Paladin, there was more in the rules to describe conduct

The problem you are describing - "outside of coming up with a variety of NPC scenarios to combat this and suddenly make the focus all around this character, there's very little to deter the character from those actions" - that's a player issue, not a game rule or game fiction issue. That's an issue with a player playing a character that no one else wants around, and that ruins the fun for everyone else. It's like playing a kleptomaniac kender or a mage who can't help but fireball the town or the evil character that's making an armor out of the skin of children and so spends their downtime kidnapping and murdering local newborns because "that's what my character would do." Or even something less severe, like the craaaazy gnome wild mage in the grim dark Ravenloft Meets Dark Sun campaign. (I say this as someone who is playing a crazy gnome wild mage. )

In D&D, if you make a character that wrecks the experience for other players, I don't hesitate much to say that you're playing D&D wrong.

An inappropriate character isn't a problem with their role-playing ("This is totally in character for my sociopath!") or even necessarily their character concept itself ("The rules don't say I CAN'T be a klepto!"), but it's a problem because it ignores that everyone else needs to have fun at the game, too, and the character is failing to make the game more fun for everyone. It's not the end of the world to have to swap out a character, and it shouldn't even be a big deal, but it's not something you can solve through in-character rewards and punishments, really. If your core character concept is disruptive, your character needs to ride off into the sunset.

You as a DM may want to put tighter rails on what your party is or is not, but I like to reward great role playing and that usually starts by allowing a character to be the character they imagine within the context of the written rules (hence this debate) and a little tug and pull.

It is entirely possible to fantastically role play a horrible, disruptive character who should not be played. In a Dark Sun game, I had a mul former slave who wanted to overthrow the sorcerer-kings, but he didn't mesh with the more amoral and self-interested party, so I had him ride off into the sunset and made a character who COULD adventure without their personal crusade. It's not about the quality of the player's performance, it's about the quality of the player's consideration for the other players.

Like, I could play an Oath of Vengeance Paladin who believed that Alcohol was the greatest of all evils in a way that wasn't disruptive. It'd be mostly downtime color, maybe I give everyone in the bar grumpy looks, maybe I try to get in good with the local lords and kings and convince them that temperance is the first of all virtues, etc. There's nothing inherent to the character concept that means "I am going to make this game about me, now." If a player interprets it that way, it's not a problem with the paladin - it's a more problem with the player.

Which is why talking to the player about this is probably a better solution than ANYTHING you could do to his character.

 

[Mephista]

KahlessNestor, this has nothing to do with gods. If you can twist an Oath out of context, you can do the exact same thing with gods. To use FR as an example... Helm, god of guardians and watchers against evil, has LE adherants. They're more than willing to torture and slay in the name of "greater good." Having gods isn't a safety net. Having alignment isn't a safety net either - that just opens up arguments about what is or is not an appropriate alignment for an Avenger.

Haters gonna hate. Potatoes gonna potate. Rules lawyers gonna lawyer.

 

[Quartz]

I'm not quite sure 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.

It seems to me that you have a problem player more than a problem character.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[CyanideSprite]

that's a player issue, not a game rule or game fiction issue. That's an issue with a player playing a character that no one else wants around, and that ruins the fun for everyone else.

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.

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:

BTW, OoV paladins are prepared to do evil so that good people don't have to.

As far as I can tell are just making things up and using their own interpretation because the OoV section is remarkably brief and I don't see rationalizations inherent to the class like that.

And the vast majority of everyone else here are debating the wrong thing like:

You'd hate my LE paladin of Bane who takes 'by any means necessary' and 'show no mercy' to rather extreme ends.

You are completely missing the point of this.

Honestly "changing his alignment" doesn't mean much anyway because there's no punishment for doing that to Paladins. He thinks he's good, so saying "hey your alignment is evil" doesn't change much because alignment means so little anymore, even for the classes which would make sense if they should. But hey if a Paladin gets their holy powers through sheer determination "as much as they do from a god", then hey alignment be damned if the whole class isn't made to make sense at all.

I think there are several ways to look at this (many pointed out upthread), but the way you need to do it depends on how you define the problem. I'll try to break it out and synthesize the various responses.

1. Is it a class problem? Some people, myself included, still have the old "1e Paladin" model stuck in our heads (LG jerks in plate with a holy avenger). The 5e class is not the same as the old Paladin. That's not to say you can't build a 1e-type Paladin- but you don't have to. If your concern is only that, "This doesn't fit my conception of a 'Paladin,'" then that concern is misplaced. It would be like someone choosing Eldritch Knight and someone else objecting, "But fighters don't cast spells!" The class has changed- as others have suggested, just mentally replace "Paladin" with "Avenger" or "Batman" or something else for the Oath of Vengeance Paladin.

2. Is it the alcohol thing? I have to admit, this is an ... interesting ... roleplaying choice for a standard fantasy-themed game.* But there are certainly many models to base this on. Prohibition, various religions, etc. How it fits into the game world may be an interesting choice, and other people have touched on this. If alcohol is not considered a bad thing in your game world (or in the places they are currently adventuring), then there will be (and should be!) consequences for the Paladin's actions.

3. Is it an alignment issue? That's trickier. I would just have a discussion with the player about what it means to be "good" at your table. But remember that the alignment system is a rough approximation of the real world. To give you a quick example- could two countries in your world, that are both good, and believe themselves to be good and righteous, ever fight? Why? Is the "ends justify the means" a lawful behavior, a chaotic behavior, a good behavior, an evil behavior, or outside of the alignment system? Does it depends on what ends, and what means? Is that context-specific, and does it depend on the world's beliefs, and the character's beliefs? Can a person believe himself to be acting out of good motives, but be "objectively" evil, and if so, what alignment should he be classified as?

4. Is it a party issue? This is what it sounds like. That the rest of the players want to venture forth and slay a dragon, and Carrie Nation, Alcohol Avenger, keeps slaughtering the local members of the wine club. Sometimes party tension can be a good and fun thing if it is roleplayed correctly, sometimes it leads to the dreaded nofun. There are no good answers here, but if the issue is one character, maybe the character can be (within roleplaying) induced to break their oath, or maybe the player needs a different character.

5. Is it a player issue? If the issue is the player, and not the character, then good luck.


*I'll get some information from the barkeep! No, wait, I'll kill the barkeep!

1) Yeah I've already stated my qualms with that, and it's less 1e Paladin and more that they are STILL described in those terms, but people want to be edgy with it literally because "nothing says I can't"... But in this scenario it's more that it's the biggest loophole in the book for good/neutral characters doing evil to get to their sworn enemy.

2) It makes sense in the context of the world and character. As 5e so hamhandedly emphasizes with all the flaccid vigor of a spouse saying "eh whatever" when asked what they want for dinner: There are grey areas in everything. It's not that alcohol is inherently evil to the whole world, but he justifies its evilness through the lives he's witnessed alcohol destroy. He works for the government to inspect taverns and shut them down. He's still friendly with the party and treats them as victims of the evils of alcohol and allies on his quests to get to these increasingly more and more exotic taverns. He brings a very interesting dynamic to the game.

3) I'm tired of talking about alignment. It matters so little it seems. I've poured over the rulebook over and over and the instances when alignment matters are so few and far between. People have mentioned in this topic some rules for things like "fallen Paladin" which is not an Oathbreaker and other things, but I'm pretty sure they just made that up because all I can find is that... and he's not even going against his oath. "Forced alignment changes" are a card the DM can pull, but that holds all the power of elementary school hallway monitor. Unless I houserule say "hey alignment changes mean you lose your paladin powers", then this whole alignment situation seems pointless.

4) No it's not. Again, I never said they weren't having fun. They are along for the ride. They're not out to slay dragons. They want to go to taverns. There's even a pirate in the party who wants to see him succeed in destroying the alcohol institution so he can make a killing by bootlegging. The issue is the narrative is so heavily favored by what the OoV drives him to do and gives him the freedom to do without divine consequence at all. I mean literally him slowing down for lesser enemies is against his oath.

5) The end result that's probably going to happen is me telling him "hey just scale back the zealotry a bit". I don't want the campaign to be railroaded by him, and I know he's not trying to make it that way, but following his Oath so rigidly is making it that way.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*