Paladin\Oath of Vengeance

[Engine]

My question is about the "sworn foes" described in the Oath of Vengeance. Could you change your sworn foes during your carreer? E.g. You started swearing vengeance against brigands, then when you face a much greater evil like a vampire you decide to swearing vengeance against this creatures.

Or you have to stick with the ones you chose when you took the Oath?

[Shadow]

Pretty sure that's just fluff. It never asks you to choose a foe, like a Ranger chooses a favored enemy.
Any great wrong-doer is your foe.

[Engine]

But a Paladin should follow the tenets of her Oath. Page 86 of the PHB, under "Breaking your Oath", it says that a DM could force you to abandon the Paladin class, so I wouldn't says that whatever is written in the Oaths is "just fluff".

[Shadow]

Yes, but your "chosen foe" could be whatever is appropriate, not a singular sworn enemy or organization.... unless you decide that's the case. Leaving that open ended and in flux as the situation demands is well within reason until you find a greater cause.
It's something that you need to work out with your DM.
Maybe your original sworn foe has been dealt with, and having enjoyed righting terrible wrongs, you're now looking for a new cause. Maybe you have already chosen one and reflect it in your story. But nowhere does it actually tell you that you need to have chosen right now, so it's between you and the DM.

[Shadow]

You could easily not even have a distinct sworn enemy, and simply search for sinners of the highest order.

Example:
Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil. I choose the greater evil.
Could mean: You must always focus on the most dangerous enemy on the field.

No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.
Could mean: No one proven to have committed atrocities will be permitted to live.

By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can’t get in the way of exterminating my foes.
Could mean: No retreat will be acceptable when a target has been identified. or possibly The ends justify the means.

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.
Could mean: If an enemy escapes, it is your resposibility to provide for the victims until justice can be exacted.

[madwolf10]

Engine, I too am working on a Paladin, oath of Vengeance concept. :smallbiggrin:

I myself envisioned the Oath, or at least the Oath for my character concept, as covering 2-3 broad categories of "Evils," such as:
Injustice
Tyranny
Deception

Broad, yes, especially the 1st and 3rd, but that can be, will be, worked out with my DM.
If it needs to get any more detailed, more effort can happen... Nor do the above "targets of vengeance" mean I can NOT have a specific individual on the list too. The above target concepts will never happen without someONE behind them:smallyuk:
The target concepts being broad, also means I must pick my battles. Where would my god want me to apply my force most?...

Still working through all this (which is why I asked for forum help on another post, and received TONS of great advice!)

[Shining Wrath]

This lies within the provenance of DM ruling.

I just wrote up a Tiefling Paladin of Vengeance last night, and the back story I decided on was a family of merchants, selling fine fabrics (silk and the like). The PC was traveling with his clan, they were refused entrance to the city because they were Tieflings, and while camped outside the walls human nomads attacked and slaughtered the entire clan save the PC and his little sister - the PC was fighting valiantly to save her when a guard violated orders and opened a postern gate, allowing the PC and his sister to survive.

His initial oath is against the nomads. At some point, though, he may come to realize that prejudice against Tieflings is really the greater enemy. I wrote the character up as an exercise, so there's no DM to talk it over with, but some sort of "when I was young, I thought the problem was X. Now I realize it's really Y." character growth ought to be *encouraged*.

And perhaps at some point he decides that Tieflings who act in a manner that feeds the prejudice is a yet greater enemy, and becomes a slayer of Tiefling crime bosses.

[Mr.Moron]

This is something for the GM to decide. If as written it feels a little vague and disjointed that's because it is. The GM is the one who decides how their setting works and what their divine reality expects. There is a ton of room for interpretation the way they've set this up (and not really in the good way), so there isn't any giving an objective answer to question.

For what it's worth this is what I would say as a GM.

You are commanded to search out the worst of the worst. Thieves and bandits don't qualify, nor does someone who who killed in a moment of passion. Certainly these are wrongs for sure, acts that should be prevented or brought to justice when possible. However, they aren't what the divine calling speaks to and they are not in and of themselves a betrayal of humanity.

The calling is against those persons and things that commit acts so vile they are as a wound on the world itself. Torture, killing for fun, slaughtering civilians, slavery. These are the things that cannot be tolerated that you must seek out and stop.



I have some issues with the rest of the oath. The whole "No Mercy" and "By any means necessary" would feel off tone to me in any context claiming to be heroic. I'd probably strike/modify these in my games. It feels especially off-putting given how they've framed the rest of the paladin class. However my hang ups with the rest of the oath are neither here nor there, just a matter of personal taste.

[Mikeavelli]

The Oath of Vengeance is pretty blatantly inspired by the Mercykillers (http://mimir.net/factions/mercykillers.html) from Planescape, who have chosen Lawbreakers as their Greater Evil. Reading up on a lot of the fluff (http://www.rilmani.org/timaresh/Mercykillers) surrounding the faction will give you a good feel for how they should behave.

When in doubt, ask yourself: What would Vhailor do? (http://torment.wikia.com/wiki/Vhailor)

And as pointed out already, most of the vagueness is in place because 5e wants you to fill in the details for yourself, and come to an agreement between you and your DM. Strict RAW interpretations of these things caused so many problems, and so much angst, that the designers have moved away from writing rules along those lines.

The most important note is that you should not fall accidentally. Paladin's falling \ standing up for their ideals in a difficult situation should be an opportunity for character development, not a trap the DM can spring on players with a cackling "Gotcha!"

[Shining Wrath]

This is something for the GM to decide. If as written it feels a little vague and disjointed that's because it is. The GM is the one who decides how their setting works and what their divine reality expects. There is a ton of room for interpretation the way they've set this up (and not really in the good way), so there isn't any giving an objective answer to question.

For what it's worth this is what I would say as a GM.

You are commanded to search out the worst of the worst. Thieves and bandits don't qualify, nor does someone who who killed in a moment of passion. Certainly these are wrongs for sure, acts that should be prevented or brought to justice when possible. However, they aren't what the divine calling speaks to and they are not in and of themselves a betrayal of humanity.

The calling is against those persons and things that commit acts so vile they are as a wound on the world itself. Torture, killing for fun, slaughtering civilians, slavery. These are the things that cannot be tolerated that you must seek out and stop.



I have some issues with the rest of the oath. The whole "No Mercy" and "By any means necessary" would feel off tone to me in any context claiming to be heroic. I'd probably strike/modify these in my games. It feels especially off-putting given how they've framed the rest of the paladin class. However my hang ups with the rest of the oath are neither here nor there, just a matter of personal taste.

The Oath of Vengeance guys are "Dark Knights". Someone did something terrible *to them*, and they are going to make things right if it kills them - but, more likely, if it kills someone else. I think you have to have a nemesis, and while you may take on other evils as you encounter them on your journeys, your nemesis remains at the back of your mind. And someday you shall be avenged.

The problem with an OoV Pally is that really, the DM should set things up so that the capstone of the entire campaign is taking out your nemesis. Either the paladin should leave the party to better focus on his nemesis, or the nemesis becomes the focus of the party.

[Mr.Moron]

The Oath of Vengeance guys are "Dark Knights". Someone did something terrible *to them*, and they are going to make things right if it kills them - but, more likely, if it kills someone else. I think you have to have a nemesis, and while you may take on other evils as you encounter them on your journeys, your nemesis remains at the back of your mind. And someday you shall be avenged.


Well like I said, my particular tastes are really here nor there. I get that those elements are what have been presented in the Oath.

What I meant was it feels very unheroic to me and is something I'd generally only introduce into an cynical and gritty feeling campaign. I take a very dim view of executions and expedient pragmatism in general, summary executions being particularly revolting.

"No Mercy", "By any means necessary" these are the realm of the anti-hero at the very best and the sympathetic protagonist-villain more easily.


These wouldn't feel so off-putting to me if the paladin class generally (outside the oaths), were not described as a champion of righteousness & good. If the preceding flavor text just made them out to be more generally divine warriors, or warriors of conviction it'd feel more coherent to me. That they do that and then seem to call them behavior that (to me), is usually if not always downright evil is feels totally disjointed.

[TheOOB]

You're sworn enemy may differ from other paladins, and may change over time. For many Paladins of Vengeance, I suspect true evil is their sworn foe, but yours might be the "enemies of my country", "the fey", "orcs", "the targets given to my by my lord" ect. Further, the group may be specific or general. Paladins of vengeance all are about hunting don't an exterminating someone for someone for some wrong.

[Shining Wrath]

Well like I said, my particular tastes are really here nor there. I get that those elements are what have been presented in the Oath.

What I meant was it feels very unheroic to me and is something I'd generally only introduce into an cynical and gritty feeling campaign. I take a very dim view of executions and expedient pragmatism in general, summary executions being particularly revolting.

"No Mercy", "By any means necessary" these are the realm of the anti-hero at the very best and the sympathetic protagonist-villain more easily.


These wouldn't feel so off-putting to me if the paladin class generally (outside the oaths), were not described as a champion of righteousness & good. If the preceding flavor text just made them out to be more generally divine warriors, or warriors of conviction it'd feel more coherent to me. That they do that and then seem to call them behavior that (to me), is usually if not always downright evil is feels totally disjointed.

The Oath of Vengeance is dark, no question. Taking it upon yourself to destroy someone or some group because of their evil is dark.

Remember, though, most groups devolve into Wandering Murder Hobos. In practice they'll fit right in. :smallbiggrin:

[Janus]

No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.
Could mean: No one proven to have committed atrocities will be permitted to live.

By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can’t get in the way of exterminating my foes.
Could mean: No retreat will be acceptable when a target has been identified. or possibly The ends justify the means.
These make me want to make a Paladin of Vengeance based on this gentleman:
http://blog.iresq.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/dojo3.jpg

"Swipe the spellbook. I want the wizard out of commission."