D&D 5E Paladins in SCAG are all good-aligned?

[Flamestrike]

We have an Oath of Vengeance paladin that is LG. I think it's fairly open to interpretation given that there are races that are inherently evil, like Devils and demons.

And yet in DnD cannon outisders like devils and demons can (and do) change alignment. Asmodeus (and all Erinyes) were all once LG angels, Grazzt was once a LE baatezu, and Eleudecia[FONT=arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]was a LG succubus paladin. The Titans were all once CG inhabitants (of Elyssium from memory) before a few chose to rebel and got kicked down into (I think it's Hades?) where they're all NE/CE (mostly) now.

The moral of the story is that DnD, even inherently evil or good creautures like fiends and angels have free will and can change alignment.

I find any tenent or part of a code that commands act of genocide and ruthless pitiless murder (whether thats against infidels, a particular race or ethnicity) to be incredibly hard to shoehorn into anything other than 'evil'.

No Godwin here, but the Vengance paladins oath makes outright genocide of a whole race of people, or religious group OK.

Dont get me wrong. Im sure they think they're good people, and what they are doing is just and righteous. But that doesnt make it objectively so.

A LG paladin of Vengance who has 'The nation of Thay and its peopele' as his chosen foe, who tosses screaming and wailing Thayan children on a pyre, is certainly fulfilling his oath, but isnt exactly how I picture my LG. It aint even LN.

 

[hawkeyefan]

[MENTION=6788736]Flamestrike[/MENTION] I don't think we see an Oath of Vengeance Paladin exactly the same. I don't think that it has to be something so broad as "the Nation of Thay and its people" so much as something like "the Red Wizards of Thay" or even more specifically "the Zulkirs of Thay" or maybe even "Szazz Tamm of Thay".

I don't hold to the idea that a paladin cannot exercise personal judgment to the point that he must commit genocide on his enemies. To me that's the idea taken to the extreme. Which is certainly fine as a character concept, but I don't think it must be so for every Oath of Vengeance Paladin.

Batman swore an oath of vengeance. I don't think we generally consider him evil.

 

[Flamestrike]

Here's one issue I've run into. I want to play a paladin but I'm not allowed to since our group has a neutral evil rogue. The DM'S argument is based upon the contents of this holy diver mentality from previous editions. The beauty of 5th is they've left the room necessary for a neutral paladin. He believes that you simply won't be able to get the two to coexist. My argument is that the god or diety that's worshipped could simply be bane or loth.

Dude Paladins do not have to be good. The PHB has examples of non good paladins. Have you suggested the Oathbreaker Paladin (its in the DMG) who is exclusively evil?

Most Vengance paladins would struggle to avoid being LE depending on how fanatical they were in their beliefs.

My Paladin worships Bane and is as LE as they come. (He doesnt think he's evil however).

I dunno, maybe it's just the old school part of me, but non-LG paladins just don't feel right to me..

Been playing since BECMI and it feels OK to me. We got past halfling monks and dwarven Wizards, we can get past this too.

But if you have someone who is Chaotic being a Paladin? How does that even work?

Two words: Darth Vader. As Chaotic evil as they come (after the Joker).

He betrayed, turned on or abandoned:

• His mother
• The Jedi
• His wife and children
• His master and best friend
• The Republic
• The Sith (several times)
• Lando Calrissian
• The Empire
• The Emperor (his second master)

Thats literally everyone he knows. He killed and betrayed both masters (Obi wan and the Emperor), destroyed both orders of force users to which he belonged (the Jedi and the Sith) and was responsible for the downfall of both the Empire and the Republic while ostensibly working for them.

Also: For a fantastic example of a CE Paladin code, look a the Sith code (take what you can and betray your master when you are strong enough to destroy him) and the Rule of Two (which despite being thier only rule, most Sith broke all the time anyways).

Following a code that promotes chaos isnt itelf a lawful act.

 

[dewderino]

Dude Paladins do not have to be good. The PHB has examples of non good paladins. Have you suggested the Oathbreaker Paladin (its in the DMG) who is exclusively evil?

Most Vengance paladins would struggle to avoid being LE depending on how fanatical they were in their beliefs.

My Paladin worships Bane and is as LE as they come. (He doesnt think he's evil however).



Been playing since BECMI and it feels OK to me. We got past halfling monks and dwarven Wizards, we can get past this too.



Two words: Darth Vader. As Chaotic evil as they come (after the Joker).

He betrayed, turned on or abandoned:

• His mother
• The Jedi
• His wife and children
• His master and best friend
• The Republic
• The Sith (several times)
• Lando Calrissian
• The Empire
• The Emperor (his second master)

That literally everyone he knows. He killed and betrayed both masters (Obi wan and the Emperor), destroyed both orders of force users to which he belonged (the Jedi and the Sith) and was responsible for the downfall of both the Empire and the Republic while ostensibly working for them.

Also: For a fantastic example of a CE Paladin code, look a the Sith code (take what you can and betray your master when you are strong enough to destroy him) and the Rule of Two (which most Sith broke all the time anyways).

Following a code that promotes chaos isnt itelf a lawful act.

I'm aware of the oath breaker, but that's not what I'm speaking of. I'm talking about another archetype altogether that allows for an evil character that hasn't broken oath.

 

[Flamestrike]

@Flamestrike I don't think we see an Oath of Vengeance Paladin exactly the same. I don't think that it has to be something so broad as "the Nation of Thay and its people" so much as something like "the Red Wizards of Thay" or even more specifically "the Zulkirs of Thay" or maybe even "Szazz Tamm of Thay".

I don't hold to the idea that a paladin cannot exercise personal judgment to the point that he must commit genocide on his enemies. To me that's the idea taken to the extreme. Which is certainly fine as a character concept, but I don't think it must be so for every Oath of Vengeance Paladin.

Batman swore an oath of vengeance. I don't think we generally consider him evil.

Agree. You can definately take a softer version of the oath of vengance. Batman is great example of a LG vengance paladin type. He tempers his vengance with a code against killing though, which makes him 'G'.

Paladins who uphold these tenets are willing to sacrifice even their own righteousness to mete out justice upon those who do evil, so the paladins are often neutral or lawful neutral in alignment.

The core principles of the tenets are brutally simple:

• Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil.
• I choose the greater evil.
• No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.
• By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can’t get in the way of exterminating my foes.
• 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.

For an example of a LE vengance paladin type, look no further than the Punisher.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm aware of the oath breaker, but that's not what I'm speaking of. I'm talking about another archetype altogether that allows for an evil character that hasn't broken oath.

You dont need one. The PHB allows you to play a LE or even CE vengance paladin. Devtion and Ancients might be a bit hard.

Its your DM that isnt allowing you. And there is nothing you can do about that aside from talk to him.

 

[Delazar]

Batman swore an oath of vengeance. I don't think we generally consider him evil.

Well said, when I think about Oath of Vengeance Paladin, Bataman immediately comes to mind.

I was actually inspired by a picture of a medieval Batman to play a Vengeance Paladin whose family's crest is a bat.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Don't use the Spider-Man quote for Paladins.* Just don't. The Paladin is so ... Superman. Bland. Jerk-y. Kind of know that he's a fascist.**


*Yes, various versions of the phrase pre-date Spider-Man. I'm partial to Teddy "Don't Call Me Franklin" Roosevelt.

**Yes, I know the history behind his creation. And while I might feel bad for that usage, I will not apologize. Batman was always so much more cool. If you're into DC.

While I completely agree that the Paladin is aiming for the same archetype as Superman, I really have to say you should feel bad for calling him a fascist. Superman--particularly the DCAU version--is a character I like quite a lot, even though it's a challenge to write interesting+reasonable stories about him (Red Son being a fantastic example...where Superman is a commie). When he's well-written, he's a legitimately interesting character, sometimes even for reasons similar to Batman. As an example: who is he really? Clark Kent the human, Superman the hero, Kal-el the Kryptonian, some combo of the three, or something else entirely?

And...I'm confused, where do you get that he's "jerk-y"? One of the most frequent complaints about the character is that he's not sufficiently humanized because he doesn't act like a jerk now and then! Because he doesn't suffer from occasional moral failings, and is instead Incorruptible Pure Pureness.

Now, the Paladin certainly has a stereotype of jerkish behavior. Just like how Wizards have a stereotype of having superiority complexes and Fighters have a stereotype of being idiots. But I know, from having played one, that Paladin doesn't entail being "jerk-y." And if you won't accept my anecdote, at least accept Tales of Wyre, since Eadric is a wonderfully human and complex character, in addition to being an exceptionally good Paladin. (There's also Michael Carpenter of The Dresden Files, who is pretty much the epitome of a good Paladin.)

As for the "Spider-Man quote," I personally think that the Paladin is actually the exact inverse: with great responsibility comes great power. The Paladin has taken up an oath, an ethos, a covenant of some kind. It is through the purity and strength of that conviction--whether because that conviction is backed up by divine edict or not--that the power is gained. My good blade carves the casques of men,/My tough lance thrusteth sure,/My strength is as the strength of ten/Because my heart is pure. (Emphasis mine; Sir Galahad, Tennyson.)

 

[S'mon]

For an example of a LE vengance paladin type, look no further than the Punisher.

Yeah, that's what I thought too.

HOWEVER it's worth noting that Gygax's own view of Lawful Evil was diabolical, with loads
of treachery and betrayal. Darth Vader's frequent betrayals while seeking to "bring Order to the Galaxy" - with him on top - is classic Gygaxian Lawful Evil. Conversely Gygax seems to peg committed genocidal or murderous fanatics like the Punisher as Lawful Good, at least if they have socially
sanctioned enemies. In the 1e Monster Manual, Dervishes are Lawful Good. Killing the goblin babes is Gygaxian LG - the moreso if you're a Vengeance Paladin with an oath against Goblins.

Later editions use Good much more to mean "What we IRL actually think of as Good", but that's not really what it means in 1e AD&D. In Gygaxian Alignment you can have Lawful Good Christian Knights vs
Lawful Good Muslim Dervishes, happily slaughtering each other without mercy - and this being not only in accordance with their Alignment but promoted by it!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*