Oath of the Ancients

[Socko525]

hello again Playground!

So I'm currently playing an Oath of the Ancients Paladin, and I'd love some input on roleplaying the various tenants/oath overall. How exactly do you envision (or how have you been if you're playing one as well) the "light" aspects of the various tenants? Do you separate yourself from the stereotypical devotion paladin? How have you (if at all) been incorporating the chaotic nature this Oath seems to have surrounding it?

I get a little confused as well when reading the intro description for what's clearly the OotA paladin, as this character almost sounds maniacal:

"Silver hair shining in a shaft of light that seems to illuminate only him, an elf laughs with exultation. His spear flashes like his eyes as he jabs again and again at a twisted giant, until at last his light overcomes its hideous darkness"

And then later you have:
"Are you a glorious champion of the light, cherishing everything beautiful that stands against the shadow, a knight whose oath descends from traditions older than many of the gods?"

So I feel like there's some mixed signals there. Anyway, I look forward to the feedback!

[Eslin]

hello again Playground!

So I'm currently playing an Oath of the Ancients Paladin, and I'd love some input on roleplaying the various tenants/oath overall. How exactly do you envision (or how have you been if you're playing one as well) the "light" aspects of the various tenants? Do you separate yourself from the stereotypical devotion paladin? How have you (if at all) been incorporating the chaotic nature this Oath seems to have surrounding it?

I get a little confused as well when reading the intro description for what's clearly the OotA paladin, as this character almost sounds maniacal:

"Silver hair shining in a shaft of light that seems to illuminate only him, an elf laughs with exultation. His spear flashes like his eyes as he jabs again and again at a twisted giant, until at last his light overcomes its hideous darkness"

And then later you have:
"Are you a glorious champion of the light, cherishing everything beautiful that stands against the shadow, a knight whose oath descends from traditions older than many of the gods?"

So I feel like there's some mixed signals there. Anyway, I look forward to the feedback!

Less fanatical, more embodying a fey (and therefore somewhat alien) mindset.

[McBars]

If you are at all familiar with the green knight from the Bretonnian army in Warhammer fantasy, that's what I think of.

[OldTrees1]

Honestly the Oath of the Ancients Paladin strikes less of a Nature tone for me and more of a goodness focused Paladin. Everything revolves around the Light. Being the Light, nurturing the Light in others, and protecting the Light from harm. You do not fight evil people because they are evil. Instead you protect their victims and seek to rekindle the goodness that has been smothered inside those evildoers. All at the same time as you are constantly trying to improve yourself so you can shine as an even brighter example to others. In the cosmic battle of Good and Evil, you are the one strengthening, reinforcing, and defending the side of good rather than attacking and slaughtering the side of evil.

[silveralen]

I tend to imagine him in much the same way as a I do a fey pact warlock personally, though definitely of the more friendly/sunshine happiness variety.

[Jacque]

I play my gnome paladin with Oath of the Ancients much like a Paladin of Freedom. He puts good higher than law and chaos (and evil naturally), and spreads this goodness through other means than direct combat. I more or less ignore all the ancient nature stuff.

[Valefor Rathan]

Honestly the Oath of the Ancients Paladin strikes less of a Nature tone for me and more of a goodness focused Paladin. Everything revolves around the Light. Being the Light, nurturing the Light in others, and protecting the Light from harm. You do not fight evil people because they are evil. Instead you protect their victims and seek to rekindle the goodness that has been smothered inside those evildoers.

I feel like the word that best encompasses this is "Hope".

In the excerpt from the PHB, it talks about the darkness of the monster - think of it as the potential for more bad-doing (...need more coffee it seems...).

It seems like the OotA Paladin is about inspiring Hope in people - Hope in the Good, that Things Will Change.

[Socko525]

I must say, I didn't expect this variety of answer...which is great!

I love how you all have a different interpretation of what the OotA means, which is probably how it would actually be within the lore of the game.

The core concept is the same across all OotA paladins, but each one makes it their own.

[Stormageddon]

hello again Playground!

as this character almost sounds maniacal:



Well they did remove the LG restriction. That might account for the description.

[Inevitability]

Are you sure that description isn't referring to a Paladin of Vengeance?

[Beleriphon]

If the devotion paladin is the Green Lantern the oath of the ancients paladin is the Blue Lantern.

Look at it another way, the Oath of the Ancients is aboutn protecting the light and beauty in the world at all costs. That can mean natural beauty, the amazing civilizations of the world and their ability to create art, to just not wanting wandering monsters to curb stomp some idyllic village. If I wanted to make Samwise Gamgee I'd probably create him as an Oath of the Ancients Paladin with a particular focus on protecting the Shire (at least as far as his personality goes).

[Socko525]

Are you sure that description isn't referring to a Paladin of Vengeance? an


Well here are the other two descriptions:
"Clad in plate armor that gleams in the sunlight despite the dust and grime of long travel, a human lays down her sword and shield and places her hands on a mortally wounded man. Divine radiance shines from her hands, the man’s wounds knit closed, and his eyes open wide with amazement."

So I assume that's devotion.

"A dwarf crouches behind an outcrop, his black cloak making him nearly invisible in the night, and watches an orc war band celebrating its recent victory. Silently, he stalks into their midst and whispers an oath, and two orcs are dead before they even realize he is there."

This one sounds like vengeance to me, and the one I posted earlier talks a lot about "light"

[OldTrees1]

I feel like the word that best encompasses this is "Hope".

In the excerpt from the PHB, it talks about the darkness of the monster - think of it as the potential for more bad-doing (...need more coffee it seems...).

It seems like the OotA Paladin is about inspiring Hope in people - Hope in the Good, that Things Will Change.

Yeah that is a good word choice. Not perfect, but good. I would use Improvement instead. Hope can be an active or passive Hope. An active Hope motivates the person to try to make their Hope a reality. A passive Hope merely waits wishing for their Hope to become reality. An OotA Paladin is more akin to Active Hope but even there sometimes good is not easy and becoming more good does not match with the hopes of the individual. An OotA would be more interested in redeeming a villian than in motivating them to fulfill their dark hopes.

[Devils_Advocate]

If being a dwarf is about doing your duty ESPECIALLY if it makes you miserable (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0084.html) and an elf is the exact opposite of a dwarf (http://rustyandco.com/frequently-asked-questions/monster-guide/), and the Oath of the Ancients kind of represents an elfier sort of paladin... well, maybe you can sort of see where I'm going with this.

Think less Torm and more Lliira.


So I'm currently playing an Oath of the Ancients Paladin, and I'd love some input on roleplaying the various tenants/oath overall. How exactly do you envision (or how have you been if you're playing one as well) the "light" aspects of the various tenants? Do you separate yourself from the stereotypical devotion paladin? How have you (if at all) been incorporating the chaotic nature this Oath seems to have surrounding it?
"The light" is good stuff and "the darkness" is bad stuff.

What, is that still unclear? Well... good stuff is stuff that sentient beings like and bad stuff is stuff that sentient beings dislike. In a case where someone likes something and someone else dislikes it, then it's good for the former and bad for the latter. Try to find an option that's good for everyone involved. But if there's no other way available to stop someone from worsening the lives of others, siding against that individual is generally okay. Are you writing this down?

Because if you are, then it might be better for you to ignore it. The Oath of the Ancients isn't very specific, and that doesn't seem to be an accident. A formal code of behavior can be deliberately twisted or even inadvertently misunderstood, and besides, this isn't a calling to be forced on anyone; so it's not a tool to make someone do good even if that person has no interest in doing good. More like a list of handy reminders of how good action breaks down. These aren't orders you'd give to an amoral automaton to get it to behave well; they're not for someone who doesn't already understand what it means to be a good person. Do you think it's possible to program goodness into someone with a few bullet points? My word.

So, yeah, fairly non-lawful if not exactly chaotic. Like... "Be good. What does the word 'good' mean? Well, here are a bunch of examples. If you see the obvious pattern, well, there ya go. If not, well, I'm not sure how to formally specify the relevant thing that all of that stuff has in common. It's probably not something you're cut out for if you don't already have an intuitive grasp of it."



I get a little confused as well when reading the intro description for what's clearly the OotA paladin, as this character almost sounds maniacal:

"Silver hair shining in a shaft of light that seems to illuminate only him, an elf laughs with exultation. His spear flashes like his eyes as he jabs again and again at a twisted giant, until at last his light overcomes its hideous darkness"

And then later you have:
"Are you a glorious champion of the light, cherishing everything beautiful that stands against the shadow, a knight whose oath descends from traditions older than many of the gods?"

So I feel like there's some mixed signals there.
I'm confused by your confusion. Which, um, signals do you think are mixed?

Like, the whole "fighting for peace" thing has been dubious since forever, and certainly one can question whether violence is ever justified or compatible with goodness. But the implicit assumption in D&D has pretty much always been that yeah, sometimes it is; or at least, it is in a world where evil is real, active, and taking Chaotic Evil 101. That still leaves plenty of questions about when violence is appropriate and what measures should be taken to prevent it, but the game actively includes designated "good guys" who specialize in combat, based on the idea that violence against some foes can be right and maybe even necessary. Paladins are basically supposed to be righteous warriors who do things like venture into lawless lands to serve as judge, jury, and executioner against threats to civilization.

So, if you can accept the idea that civilization even needs people like that, or at least that going out and stabbing other beings repeatedly can be a good thing to do, under the right circumstances... is there any further difficulty posed by the prospect of someone enjoying it?

Because, um... fun isn't bad. Fun is good. Like, a good ruler can certainly stop people from having fun at the expense of others, but someone who reduces everyone's fun in favor of "moral behavior" is not a good ruler. Doing the right thing shouldn't be unpleasant. It should be pleasant. No, seriously, do you think that it's appropriate for selfishness to be rewarding and for helping others to be tortuous? Like, if you do think that "being evil is easy", that your happiness is for some reason -- What reason?! -- inversely proportional to the happiness of those around you, why the hell wouldn't you regard that state of affairs as a problem to be solved?! I mean, look, Ilmater is... as nice as it's possible for a god of suffering to be, probably, but some of the stuff that he says is so messed up. You shouldn't be eager to suffer for others. Willing, maybe, in some exceptional cases, but man.

Like, I understand the potential danger that if you enjoy hurting others, then you're going to be tempted to look for reasons to think that hurting someone is a good thing. For that matter I also understand the potential danger of being overly dismissive of the possibility that something you'd like to do will cause harm to someone else or even yourself as an unwanted side effect, and I'm not denying that people are in fact sometimes biased in that regard. The desire for pleasure is one of the most basic drives there is and maybe even accounts for the majority of all rationalization.

But if you say on that basis that the anti-fun side of an argument should be assumed correct, that someone saying that something you like to do does more harm than good is probably right, then beyond endorsing opposition to alcohol consumption, fornication, gambling, rock and roll, dancing, and playing Dungeons & Dragons -- to name just a few things -- you're, um, also endorsing the view that doing things for entertainment is a bad idea in general, because we're just too likely to ignore or minimize the drawbacks of anything we do for that reason. Trying to fight one bias with a counter-bias is a perilous undertaking, and it's worth noting that people tend to rationalize in favor of any course of action they've already decided on for any reason, and more generally in favor of retaining whatever beliefs they already have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). There is cause for general skepticism and caution, and that includes skepticism about and caution towards being extremely skeptical and/or cautious about one possibility but not the alternatives. And if we're to be on the lookout for motivated reasoning, then perhaps we should consider the possibility that those arguing in favor of restrictions on behavior are driven by an unacknowledged craving for power and control over others.

But if you say that you shouldn't enjoy fighting someone who you're fighting for a good reason and not for fun, then that's not even coming out against doing something for fun, that's coming out against fun itself. In one particular case, but still. If you wanna talk about the possible long-term psychological consequences of one's attitude, then it's worth noting that being grim about stuff is liable to turn someone bitter, temperamental, or just plain burnt out. "If you allow the light to die in your own heart, you can’t preserve it in the world." Yes, violence is an unfortunate necessity at best. No, that doesn't mean that you can't enjoy it.

In general, you shouldn't feel that you need to feel unhappy about bad stuff, which is good, because you're going to spend a lot of time dealing with bad stuff, attempting to make it better. Instead, feel good about how things can be made better. Show others that you can still be happy even if things aren't so great right now. Avoid temptations to act against the welfare of others by enjoying helping them. "Be a glorious beacon for all who live in despair. Let the light of your joy and courage shine forth in all your deeds." You think you're miserable because your life sucks? Wrong, your life sucks because you're miserable. You should appreciate the good things that you do have, and you ought to work to solve problems, not sulk about them. Let me show you how. Low odds of success are no good reason not to try your best, because not trying your best just lowers the odds even further, and what good is that?

Sacrificing your own happiness isn't a good thing, any more than sacrificing anyone else's happiness is a good thing. Sacrificing anyone's happiness is a bad thing. It might be worth it -- sometimes bad things are worth it -- but it's bad as an end in itself. Being happy is good... I shouldn't even have to say that; how twisted around does someone have to be not to think that already, what do you even think is good if being happy isn't good?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

For some reason, I feel like ancients paladins would be run one of those monasteries with a brewery and lots of devotional songs with bawdy lyrics. A life of light is a life lived to the fullest. An ancients paladin is popular everywhere he goes, and nobody is jealous because they all know he'd genuinely do anything he could to help them out.

Call in a devotion paladin to help with that bugbear invasion and he'll do his duty to the utmost and refuse payment; call in a vengeance paladin and he'll go Yojimbo on every evil creature in a 10-mile radius and leave before you can say thanks. Call in the ancients paladin and he'll take that payment (if he knows you can afford it) and then go spend it on fixing up the tavern, theatre and library, and throwing a celebration for everyone.

[Gwendol]

They are more about betterment of society and life in general. I can see them teaming up with rangers on the borderlands.
For example.

[pwykersotz]

Being happy is good... I shouldn't even have to say that; how twisted around does someone have to be not to think that already, what do you even think is good if being happy isn't good?

Being happy is not any alignment. People of any ideology can be happy, sad, or angry. Most of the time those feelings are in response to someone either validating their beliefs or way of life, or by someone violating their beliefs or way of life.

[RedMage125]

I kind of also see OoTA Paladins as being like the Wardens of 4e. Defenders of the Wild with close ties to the druidic tradition.

[Shining Wrath]

A guy or gal who cherishes beauty and "plays it by ear" as to what must be done to uphold the Light against the Darkness.

[Devils_Advocate]

Being happy is not any alignment. People of any ideology can be happy, sad, or angry.
I completely agree, and made no claim to the contrary.

How to explain this... Okay. So. Bad things aren't necessarily evil, right? A volcanic eruption, for example, may be bad for nearby people, but isn't evil by anyone if no one chose to make it happen.

And just like how bad things aren't necessarily evil, good things aren't necessarily good.

Now, that sounds dumb because the same word is used as the antonym of both "bad" and "evil", but quite frankly the deficiencies of natural language are not my personal fault. Identical terminology does not make the two concepts identical to each other any more than the concept of badness is the same as the concept of evilness. Perhaps rephrasing as "Positive things aren't necessarily benevolent" makes it clearer.

This is a fairly crucial distinction, and quite relevant here because, so far as I can tell, the light/dark dichotomy is the good/bad dichotomy. As such, it is distinct from the good/evil dichotomy; but, at the same time, those two dichotomies are far from unrelated. For starters, goodness is a good thing and evilness is a bad thing, as a general rule at the very least. Furthermore, being good-aligned is trying to make things in general better, i.e more good, i.e. less bad. As such, "morality" that distracts and/or detracts from that is something other than good alignment.

As another point of clarification, let me say that my posts in this thread have been attempting to get across the mentality I see the Tenets of the Ancients describing. I phrase things as statements of fact in part for efficiency's sake, but also because it's a mentality that I agree with. But hopefully people can at least appreciate my explanation as one possible interpretation of the Oath of the Ancients, even if they don't think that it's the one right interpretation.

[CrusaderJoe]

Am I the only one who keeps thinking FF7 when they hear Oath of Ancients?

[xyianth]

Am I the only one who keeps thinking FF7 when they hear Oath of Ancients?

Not anymore. :smallannoyed: Thanks...

[CrusaderJoe]

Not anymore. :smallannoyed: Thanks...

You're Welcome... :smallamused:

[zeek0]

How to explain this... Okay. So. Bad things aren't necessarily evil, right? A volcanic eruption, for example, may be bad for nearby people, but isn't evil by anyone if no one chose to make it happen.


And this is where the difficulty of intention alone comes in. Let us consider two hypothetical worlds.

In the first, people have the best of intentions. They fully intend for their actions to create a better world. However, despite their intentions, the world that they create is decidedly bad. Suffering abounds, and unhappiness is the norm.

In the second, people have the worst of intentions. They are driven to action by greed, wanton rages, and petty imaginings. They fully intend for the world to burn around them. However, despite all of this, the world that they create is good. People are happy.

Both of these worlds are rather improbable. But it indicates something important that they are conceivable.

I suppose that what I mean to say is that there is by no means a direct connection between intention and outcome. Good things can happen from bad intentions, and bad things can happen from good intentions. Even on a large scale.

As heroes, we must examine both ends of the spectrum. We do not want to live in the naive world where evil pervades, but neither do we want to live in the good world that is motivated by evil.

As such, we must strive for both. We must check ourselves every time we wish to do good to make sure that our intentions are likely to actually create goodness. It is not enough to intend to do good, and it is not enough to create a better world. Somehow it would seem that both must be in conjunction.

[By the by, I have the utmost respect for your posts; they are inspiring]

[Mrmox42]

In my game world, I have three OoTA Paladin orders:

The first are elven paladins. They protect life, nature and the elven way of life. They often find steeds like Unicorns, and they are kind, but mostly to other elves. Non-elves are a bit nonplussed about these paladins, as they do good, but in strange and alien ways.

The second order are for humans (and some dwarves and half-elves). They are jolly types, who are sworn to protect places of great cultural worth, such as the Ancient Festival Grounds and the economically important Great Wineyards of Ban Boronn. They are kind to everybody and are genuinely loved, as they come to the aid of anybody in need.

The third order is a secretive one. It is for Halflings and Gnomes exclusively, and are set to protect their people, their homes and their businesses. They enjoy fun and good food, like most of their brethren. Most other people do not know that they exist, and they prefer it that way.

[CrusaderJoe]

In my game world, I have three OoTA Paladin orders:

The first are elven paladins. They protect life, nature and the elven way of life. They often find steeds like Unicorns, and they are kind, but mostly to other elves. Non-elves are a bit nonplussed about these paladins, as they do good, but in strange and alien ways.

The second order are for humans (and some dwarves and half-elves). They are jolly types, who are sworn to protect places of great cultural worth, such as the Ancient Festival Grounds and the economically important Great Wineyards of Ban Boronn. They are kind to everybody and are genuinely loved, as they come to the aid of anybody in need.

The third order is a secretive one. It is for Halflings and Gnomes exclusively, and are set to protect their people, their homes and their businesses. They enjoy fun and good food, like most of their brethren. Most other people do not know that they exist, and they prefer it that way.

Ha, totally need to make an OotA Paladin who worships himself. Cause he is an ancient warforged.

[noce]

I personally imagine OotA paladins heavily linked to nature, maybe more than the class itself suggests.
I couple them with druidic barbarians, or in other words, I see a OotA paladin like a two hander ranger. If you know that prc, ancient paladin strongly reminds me of Forest Master from Faiths and Pantheons (3.0).

You can very easily refluff this subclass to suit your playstyle.
Example given: go half orc ancient paladin, pick insight and medicine (and intimidation for free), take the outlander background (athletics, survival) and pick drums as musical instrument. You basically have a halforc shaman.

[Grayson01]

If the devotion paladin is the Green Lantern the oath of the ancients paladin is the Blue Lantern.

Look at it another way, the Oath of the Ancients is aboutn protecting the light and beauty in the world at all costs. That can mean natural beauty, the amazing civilizations of the world and their ability to create art, to just not wanting wandering monsters to curb stomp some idyllic village. If I wanted to make Samwise Gamgee I'd probably create him as an Oath of the Ancients Paladin with a particular focus on protecting the Shire (at least as far as his personality goes).

FIrst off love the GL BL comparison.

Second I would change The protection of the Shire to Protecting Mr. Frodoo specifically. Although the Battle for teh Shire at the end of teh book was my favorite part of Return of The King.

[ArqArturo]

Ha, totally need to make an OotA Paladin who worships himself. Cause he is an ancient warforged.

Well, if you're interested, here's a photoshopped Warforged :).

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y191/CygnusDarius/Sentry%20-%20Fighter_zpssocfljjm.jpg

[CrusaderJoe]

Well, if you're interested, here's a photoshopped Warforged :).

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y191/CygnusDarius/Sentry%20-%20Fighter_zpssocfljjm.jpg

That's pretty awesome, they look like they would worship themselves (not as a group but each individual would worship themselves).

[Santra]

I am playing mine as that little kid who always wanted to be Spiderman when he grew up...and got what he wanted.

A guy who loves travel, risking it all, and helping others. He gets up in the morning with a song in his heart and tries to make every day the best. The jovial guy who wisecracks at the bbeg while smiting his butt. He helps others not just for their own good because its what he wants to do. Then when he stops in a town he finds a bar buys a round of drinks for everyone and swaps tales with the other patrons.

A man with such a zest for living life that others around him cant help but be caught up by it. Sure the world may be crumbling but hell he will enjoy his life or die trying.

[ArqArturo]

That's pretty awesome, they look like they would worship themselves (not as a group but each individual would worship themselves).

Considering the source image (Warhammer 40k Space Marines, Imperial Fists more specifically), you're not so far off :p.

I'm thinking of starting a new campaign world to start DMing 5e (I have a Campaign World set and written, but it's too rooted in 3.X), and I'm kind of making it that Warforged were crafted as a sort of 'divine weapons' for a militaristic Sun-worshipping church. They're not evil, in fact they are good, but they are... Narrow-minded. So Paladins with the OoTA would be strange, but I'm sure some might find a way :).