How to roleplay a vengeance Paladin who think's she's a devotion paladin?

[Michael7123]

Basic backstory:

Aesildra's an aasimar. Her father is killed by a tiefling when she is twelve years old, and she witnesses the murder and swears her oath of vengeance as the tiefling flees, although she doesn't officially become a paladin until two years later, when her elder brother allows her to go and find their father's murder while he manages the family's affairs.

At this point she worships Torm (although not officially part of the clergy), who is basically a Beinf of pure law and good (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0267.html), and believe she is on a righteous quest to bring her father's killer to justice and fight for all that is good and holy. In truth, she is kind to strangers (baring tiefling adults who haven't proven themselves noble), charitable, law abiding, humble, diligent, and extraordinarily selfless, to the point of being willing to sacrafice herself for the sake of strangers. She's a paladin, after all. She's practically a ideal lawful good hero in that respect.

However, there are two sins that she is completely unrepentant of (and ignorant of for that matter). First, she wants revenge. She wants it incredibly badly, but has convinced herself that she is seeking justice. Secondly, Aesildra harbors an immense hatred to evil. In her eyes, the life of an innocent being is infinitely valuable. Furthermore, it is the duty of the strong (aka, her) to protect and shelter the innocent, with her life if need be. However, once you cross the line from innocent to guilty, you will receive no mercy from her that doesn't come in the form of a greatsword to the face. At that point, you are a stain upon the world, and need to be purged. As an added "bonus", she enjoys ending the life of the guilty- (at least in her eyes)- in the same way that she would enjoy saving a child from a burning orphanage.

With all of these things in mind, how should I roleplay her? I'm looking for lines I could use in any potential monologues, things she could to say to the guilty people she is not able to smite at this moment due to practical reasons, one liners, etc. But most importantly, I'm looking for things that sound like they could come out of the mouth of any paladin of devotion, but with a darker, vengeful twist.


http://orig07.deviantart.net/6a61/f/2013/331/d/d/tamisen_the_paladin_by_sirtiefling-d6vvgix.jpg

[Safety Sword]

I'm not sure you can technically do this at all.

Paladins are supposed to swear an Oath to their particular path, so they should be well aware of what it is...

Of course the particular personality your paladin has is up to you. In the past in the Forgotten Realms, Paladinhood was bestowed by a deity. In 5E that's not actually required, but perhaps it does fit your concept.

You can of course be a kind, good and likeable vengeance paladin who unleashes fury upon her enemies.

I'm playing an Ancients Paladin in an upcoming game, and I fully expect that I'll be really nice until the natural balance is threatened. Then the gloves will be coming off.

[Broken Crown]

So, she's sworn an Oath of Vengeance, but she thinks she's sworn an Oath of Devotion?

Presumably, she would follow the tenets of the Oath of Devotion, and then be very confused when she loses her paladin powers due to violating her Oath of Vengeance. She might at that point become embittered, feeling betrayed by Torm (even though she wasn't), and become an Oathbreaker Paladin. Or she might seek spiritual guidance, figure out her true motivations after a period of soul-searching, and either commit herself wholeheartedly to the Oath of Vengeance, or else abandon her desire for vengeance and truly swear to abide by the Oath of Devotion.

Or is she aware that she's motivated by an Oath of Vengeance, but (perhaps mistakenly) thinks that her actions are consistent with the tenets of the Oath of Devotion?

In this case, she will likely feel justified in her actions ("Torm grants me miraculous powers, so I must be right."), but probably be in conflict with fellow members of her church.

[dropbear8mybaby]

{scrubbed}

[goto124]

GM: My head hurts.

[vasharanpaladin]

Some weird mishmash of Seryu Ubiquitous and Handsome Jack should do it. Easy enough, as long as your party doesn't expect to see any actual Devotion paladins for awhile...

[Cazero]

You're overthinking the fluff/crunch dichotomy.
Nothings stops a paladin from following the tenets of both Devotion and Vengeance oaths while getting the mechanical benefits of only one. They won't conflict often enough for it to be a matter, and even if they ever do, the conflict will not be between your Vengeance oath and a pure flavor Devotion oath, but between your Vengeance oath and your lawful good alignement.

[KorvinStarmast]

However, there are two sins that she is completely unrepentant of (and ignorant of for that matter).
First, she wants revenge.

OK, you can call that a sin if and only if the deity she serves is the RL Christian deity. Few other deities make such a deal about forgiveness ... and no, I am not going to take this thread into some really wasteful religious debate. Remember the setting you are in: the polytheistic cosmos of multiple pantheons of rival and (in many cases) bickering supernatural beings/deities.

We are in D&D 5e. The alignment straightjacket on Paladins has been relaxed a bit. The OD&D Judeo-Christian archetypes (See Dragon Magazine #17 and the attempt at making angels a playable creature for some discussion on that; see also the original "vampires are vulnerable to a cross strongly presented" from the beginning, later changed to "holy symbol" and so on) have long since been overcome by the polytheistic state of being of almost every D&D world out there.

The Vengeance Paladin does not sin due to being vengeful ... that is a complete fidelity to their holy / powerful oath.

Secondly, Aesildra harbors an immense hatred to evil. That isn't a sin, particularly in the context of a Vengeance Paladin, but generally true of all three Paladin types. Their entire being is in the pursuit and defeat of evil.

I will suggest that you're

a) overthinking this
b) in need of reading up on the Paladin again in the PHB for 5e. ,

The description of Paladin and the point about righteousness (pro) and evil (con) being the dichotomy they operate under is clearly spelled out. Particularly Vengeance Paladins. The nature of the oath as a source of divine power is an interesting attempt at providing more flex to the Paladin, and I think it's a pretty good effort to add depth and color to the class.

Just play a Vengeance Paladin ... and if the RP is so important, when/if she finds her father's killers and lets them have it, I suggest you either multi class from that point on, or retire the character unless her thirst for disrupting and destroying evil remains within her ... having found that personal revenge doesn't quite solve things.

[Michael7123]

I'm not sure you can technically do this at all.

Paladins are supposed to swear an Oath to their particular path, so they should be well aware of what it is...

Of course the particular personality your paladin has is up to you. In the past in the Forgotten Realms, Paladinhood was bestowed by a deity. In 5E that's not actually required, but perhaps it does fit your concept.

You can of course be a kind, good and likeable vengeance paladin who unleashes fury upon her enemies.

I'm playing an Ancients Paladin in an upcoming game, and I fully expect that I'll be really nice until the natural balance is threatened. Then the gloves will be coming off.

That's really what I was going for with this. In nearly every way, she is an ideal Paladin. The only difference is that her intent isn't so much about "I'm going to protect the weak and innocent." (as much as she truly believes that" as much as "I intend to purge the prime material of those who are guilty." Sort of how if Roy and Belkar both go off and kill a bunch of people, Roy's committing a heroic rescue (good act) while Belkar's killing for enjoyment (an evil act). Aesildra's somewhere in the middle: she only kills people who have done something seriously wrong (murder, rape, attempted murder, etc). The problem is that she enjoys the act of taking a guilty life way more than is healthy or that a oath of devotion paladin would likely be comfortable with.


So, she's sworn an Oath of Vengeance, but she thinks she's sworn an Oath of Devotion?

Presumably, she would follow the tenets of the Oath of Devotion, and then be very confused when she loses her paladin powers due to violating her Oath of Vengeance. She might at that point become embittered, feeling betrayed by Torm (even though she wasn't), and become an Oathbreaker Paladin. Or she might seek spiritual guidance, figure out her true motivations after a period of soul-searching, and either commit herself wholeheartedly to the Oath of Vengeance, or else abandon her desire for vengeance and truly swear to abide by the Oath of Devotion.

Or is she aware that she's motivated by an Oath of Vengeance, but (perhaps mistakenly) thinks that her actions are consistent with the tenets of the Oath of Devotion?

In this case, she will likely feel justified in her actions ("Torm grants me miraculous powers, so I must be right."), but probably be in conflict with fellow members of her church.

She's following the tenants of devotion and vengeance. When the two conflict, she follows vengeance. (See the last sentence of the Devotion oath, well, the entire concept of the oath of vengeance). As it stands right now, she sees no difference between herself and any other devotion paladin.

Ultimately, I plan on having the tiefling she's been hunting turn good, and have her be a bit of an inspector Javert. That's gonna lead to a lot of soul searching. Then again, this might change


{scrubbed}

Not touching this one with a ten foot poll. Not engaging in a political debate.


GM: My head hurts.

Mission accomplished. I actually told my DM about the idea, he's cool with it.


Some weird mishmash of Seryu Ubiquitous and Handsome Jack should do it. Easy enough, as long as your party doesn't expect to see any actual Devotion paladins for awhile...

Looks up Seryu Ubiquitous

This might help. Thank you.


You're overthinking the fluff/crunch dichotomy.
Nothings stops a paladin from following the tenets of both Devotion and Vengeance oaths while getting the mechanical benefits of only one. They won't conflict often enough for it to be a matter, and even if they ever do, the conflict will not be between your Vengeance oath and a pure flavor Devotion oath, but between your Vengeance oath and your lawful good alignement.

Oh, I fully expect that last issue to come up. I currently think that the worst she'll ever be is lawful nuetral with strong good leanings unless she encounters a severe change of character.


OK, you can call that a sin if and only if the deity she serves is the RL Christian deity. Few other deities make such a deal about forgiveness ... and no, I am not going to take this thread into some really wasteful religious debate. Remember the setting you are in: the polytheistic cosmos of multiple pantheons of rival and (in many cases) bickering supernatural beings/deities.

Yes, but I imagine Torm wouldn't exactly be happy about a follower who takes a bit too much pleasure killing evil things.

I guess I might be putting my IRL values into the game a bit to much (being a christian IRL), but keep in mind she is worshiping Torm. He's pretty pure hearted unless I've missed something.



We are in D&D 5e. The alignment straightjacket on Paladins has been relaxed a bit. The OD&D Judeo-Christian archetypes (See Dragon Magazine #17 and the attempt at making angels a playable creature for some discussion on that; see also the original "vampires are vulnerable to a cross strongly presented" from the beginning, later changed to "holy symbol" and so on) have long since been overcome by the polytheistic state of being of almost every D&D world out there.



The Vengeance Paladin does not sin due to being vengeful ... that is a complete fidelity to their holy / powerful oath.
That isn't a sin, particularly in the context of a Vengeance Paladin, but generally true of all three Paladin types. Their entire being is in the pursuit and defeat of evil.

Mentioned this before (in this post), but I feel that it bears repeating: Roy and belkar could both work together to kill a bunch of goblins. Roy would be doing it for pure reasons (like rescuing people), while Belkar would be killing people for it's own sake. Aesildra isn't just killing people for kicks (after all, she's a paladin), but her motivations aren't really as pure as Roy's.


I will suggest that you're

a) overthinking this
b) in need of reading up on the Paladin again in the PHB for 5e. ,

The description of Paladin and the point about righteousness (pro) and evil (con) being the dichotomy they operate under is clearly spelled out. Particularly Vengeance Paladins. The nature of the oath as a source of divine power is an interesting attempt at providing more flex to the Paladin, and I think it's a pretty good effort to add depth and color to the class.

Yes. And note how the PHB notes that the vengeance paladin is often either LN or TN, in spite of being a class that's focused on stopping evil. I'm asking for help with roleplaying a vengeance paladin who is also kinda like a paladin of devotion.What things can I say that initially sound pure LG, but then have a dark twist to them.


Just play a Vengeance Paladin ... and if the RP is so important, when/if she finds her father's killers and lets them have it, I suggest you either multi class from that point on, or retire the character unless her thirst for disrupting and destroying evil remains within her ... having found that personal revenge doesn't quite solve things.
I'll cross that bridge when I come to it, but I do plan on having her turn around.

[Kerleth]

Hmmm, I assume you want it to be relatively subtle. The sort of thing that people can't point out as wrong, but is slightly unnerving or unexpected. I only have one good idea, and that's based on your comparison to rescuing orphans. Imagine the look on somebody's face at the end of a movie when they are holding a small child they just saved. The relief, happiness, just general well being. That sweet, kind smile. Now imagine that on the face but as you pan down you see a sword dripping blood and three brutally slain bandits, complete with realistic gore. So perhaps you could describe your character smiling ear-to-ear after beating the stuffing out of a bad guy, looking like a kid that just got praised by their hero or something like that?

Actually, one other idea. Would work best after a couple of people have been unnerved by her....righteous zeal. Someone clearly evil is on the loose, and the town npc's do what they normally do, which is absolutely nothing. Sure, technically, they are innocents, but if evil deserves to be punished, and they are not punishing it, then... I mean, the town blacksmith is strong and tough, and the lord has all that fancy artwork he could sell to fund mercenaries to hunt the big bad guy? Don't they have a responsibility to do so? If they knowingly allow others to be hurt, are they truly innocents?
This part is of course campaign dependent, but you get the idea I think. It could lead to a nice revelation and change of character down the road. Could be especially potent if Aesildra decides to abandon her quest for vengeance and the dm allows you to switch oaths. That mechanical change in abilities could really highlight a change of heart.

Note: Just remembered what you said about meeting the murderer turned good. Sounds like you have something similar in mind already, with a what does guilt really mean theme going on. If possible, it could be interesting for the dm to play things up more. The tiefling didn't just commit a callous murder once. He was a MONSTER!, who commited horrid crimes multiple times. But now he's reformed, and is known for being a complete and total dogooder. Trying to help people out and set them on the "right path". Or so that's what he makes it seem like. After all, could he really change? Could someone who ENJOYS THE ACT OF KILLING that much ever not be a monster? Are they really so different? Tune in next time, As the Great Wheel Turns! :smallbiggrin:

I can't get over the posts that seem to be implying "You're doing it WRONG!" Really? Do people honestly think that the paladin's oath is word for word what is written in the player's handbook? That he stands in front of a justice of the peace and reads from page XX of the paladin's handbook? Oh come on people! Aaargh! This is the sort of thing that makes for great roleplaying. How far are you willing to take your quest for "justice"? This is exactly the sort of thing you see in books, tv series, etc. as a part of characters. And it can be AWESOME. Okay, I'm done, just, gah. END RANT

[Michael7123]

Hmmm, I assume you want it to be relatively subtle. The sort of thing that people can't point out as wrong, but is slightly unnerving or unexpected. I only have one good idea, and that's based on your comparison to rescuing orphans. Imagine the look on somebody's face at the end of a movie when they are holding a small child they just saved. The relief, happiness, just general well being. That sweet, kind smile. Now imagine that on the face but as you pan down you see a sword dripping blood and three brutally slain bandits, complete with realistic gore. So perhaps you could describe your character smiling ear-to-ear after beating the stuffing out of a bad guy, looking like a kid that just got praised by their hero or something like that?

A more subtle smile might suit her better than an ear to ear grin, but this basic idea works very well. Bonus points if she's holding both a (freshly traumatized) rescued child and a bloody Greatsword at the same time.


Actually, one other idea. Would work best after a couple of people have been unnerved by her....righteous zeal. Someone clearly evil is on the loose, and the town npc's do what they normally do, which is absolutely nothing. Sure, technically, they are innocents, but if evil deserves to be punished, and they are not punishing it, then... I mean, the town blacksmith is strong and tough, and the lord has all that fancy artwork he could sell to fund mercenaries to hunt the big bad guy? Don't they have a responsibility to do so? If they knowingly allow others to be hurt, are they truly innocents?
This part is of course campaign dependent, but you get the idea I think. It could lead to a nice revelation and change of character down the road. Could be especially potent if Aesildra decides to abandon her quest for vengeance and the dm allows you to switch oaths. That mechanical change in abilities could really highlight a change of heart.

I do plan on having her becoming an actual oath of devotion at some point, but I actually want to DM and have her be one of the campaigns antagonists (Javert style).

As it stands right now, she would chew the hell out of people who were truly capable of defending the village and refused to do so out of cowardice. Still, while she believes that all beings are called to live a moral and righteous life, not everyone has to actively crusade against evil like she does.


Note: Just remembered what you said about meeting the murderer turned good. Sounds like you have something similar in mind already, with a what does guilt really mean theme going on. If possible, it could be interesting for the dm to play things up more. The tiefling didn't just commit a callous murder once. He was a MONSTER!, who commited horrid crimes multiple times. But now he's reformed, and is known for being a complete and total dogooder. Trying to help people out and set them on the "right path". Or so that's what he makes it seem like. After all, could he really change? Could someone who ENJOYS THE ACT OF KILLING that much ever not be a monster? Are they really so different? Tune in next time, As the Great Wheel Turns! :smallbiggrin:

Oh I already plan on him being a monster. He was an old NE/CE PC of mine. Real bad guy. Sort of going for a Javert vs Valjean vibe, except Tristain (the rouge) did a hell of a lot more than steal a loaf of bread. Of course, she won't believed he's really reformed, and will keep on looking for an excuse to execute him even after she finds out he's sincere.



I can't get over the posts that seem to be implying "You're doing it WRONG!" Really? Do people honestly think that the paladin's oath is word for word what is written in the player's handbook? That he stands in front of a justice of the peace and reads from page XX of the paladin's handbook? Oh come on people! Aaargh! This is the sort of thing that makes for great roleplaying. How far are you willing to take your quest for "justice"? This is exactly the sort of thing you see in books, tv series, etc. as a part of characters. And it can be AWESOME. Okay, I'm done, just, gah. END RANT

Agreed.

[EvilAnagram]

An interesting way to RP it is that she, in the heat of the moment, swore an oath of vengeance. She didn't realize that she was doing so, but as she stood over her father's grave, she swore to punish the wicked and pursue justice at any cost. The hatred she felt at that moment combined with the natural magic of a focused Will, and her oath bound her to the path of Vengeance.

She follows the tenants of Devotion to a point, and she has joined an Order of Devotion, fulfilling her obligations and duties faithfully, but she is magically bound to the Oath of Vengeance.

[Aetol]

... and then gets all confused when she doesn't get the same powers as her fellow Paladins of Devotion.

Getting the feature of an Oath by following the tenets of another is a bit weird... but if your DM is ok with that, go ahead I suppose.

[busterswd]

Your DM could set up scenarios to make showing this a bit easier; as a cliched example, your character may be forced to choose to either chase after and finish off the incredibly evil person, or to protect the wounded/vulnerable innocents who are left behind. But there's a lot of morally gray areas that could help differentiate your character from a devotion paladin.


However, once you cross the line from innocent to guilty, you will receive no mercy from her that doesn't come in the form of a greatsword to the face. At that point, you are a stain upon the world, and need to be purged.

How would your paladin react to an evil doer that tries to surrender, but promises information in return for sparing their life? Or to someone who's done truly horrible things, but is actually trying to change (even if the long term prospects for success look bad)? In general, what point does somebody cross the line to become "guilty"? And what would your character do if she ever crossed that line herself?

The key difference is mercy vs. justice; a merciful person gives people chances to redeem themselves. Everyone has shades of gray, and while conflict is inevitable, mutual understanding can prevent escalation. A just person is interested in balancing the scales. Evil must be balanced by good before it spirals out of control, and good can be incredibly unforgiving.


As an added "bonus", she enjoys ending the life of the guilty- (at least in her eyes)- in the same way that she would enjoy saving a child from a burning orphanage.

I think your use of "enjoy" may be important for your character's personality; it's possible for a good person to enjoy doing good, but I think the consequences of not saving the child would be the focus of most devotion paladins. In other words, a typical paladin would save the child because the thought of leaving a child to suffer and die is unthinkable. They may enjoy the afterglow later, but it's that core motivation that probably drives their actions.

Your character may do things because they are, logically, the RIGHT thing to do, as opposed to things that she feels an urge to do. (Smiting evil, on the other hand, comes completely naturally.) Either way, she could lack some empathy. My mental image is her successfully escorting the child out of the building, and as the sobbing child turns to her to hug her and say thank you, she absentmindedly smiles, pats him/her on the head and stomps off to find the person who set the fire.


With all of these things in mind, how should I roleplay her? I'm looking for lines I could use in any potential monologues, things she could to say to the guilty people she is not able to smite at this moment due to practical reasons, one liners, etc. But most importantly, I'm looking for things that sound like they could come out of the mouth of any paladin of devotion, but with a darker, vengeful twist.

Another source suggestion: look up the jingoistic Space Marines in Warhammer 40k. There's a lot of very harsh beliefs, mainly because in that universe, evil very literally spreads and creates more evil from within, and must be stopped at any cost.

Random soundbite quote suggestions:

Threat to a future target: "Torm's gauntlet reaches far."

General saying/philosophy: "Everyone deserves recompense." (Say it while giving money to a church, while praising someone for doing something noble, while paying a longstanding debt to a friend... then to an enemy you're about to coup de grace.)

[Dralnu]

Uh.. Wha..

You're making an oath, which includes a certain set of rules. It doesn't make sense to me that you'd not know what oath you've signed up for.

If you like the roleplay of Devotion but the mechanics of Vengeance, you could just ask your DM to merge the two. It doesn't break anything. You could refluff Vengeance ability names into Devotion names and call it a day.

[Ardantis]

"Torm grants you succor" *kills evil thing*

"May the light shine within you" *smite*

"Peace be upon you" *charge*

Basically, say really final-sounding churchy things before inflicting violence on enemies.

Every fight scene for you is a fight in the (metaphorical) rectory.

[Michael7123]

Your DM could set up scenarios to make showing this a bit easier; as a cliched example, your character may be forced to choose to either chase after and finish off the incredibly evil person, or to protect the wounded/vulnerable innocents who are left behind. But there's a lot of morally gray areas that could help differentiate your character from a devotion paladin.

I'm honestly not sure what my character would do here. She is still good aligned after all. Still, there will be cases where she acts differently from a devotion paladin.


How would your paladin react to an evil doer that tries to surrender, but promises information in return for sparing their life? Or to someone who's done truly horrible things, but is actually trying to change (even if the long term prospects for success look bad)? In general, what point does somebody cross the line to become "guilty"? And what would your character do if she ever crossed that line herself?

In order:

1. Proficiency in intimidate, and have one of the party spellcasters cast enhance ability so I have advantage. "Tell me what you know, and I shall make your death swift, and if you wish it, will pray with you to the gods so they might have some measure of pity on your black soul. Refuse, and I'll spend at least a week with you before I send your soul screaming to the hells (or abyss or hades, as appropriate). Either way, you'll tell me what I want to know.

If that fails, just have someone cast detect thoughts when I ask "what are your plans". Once we find them out, smite.

2. Smite. Maybe pray for their forgiveness with them before delivering the sentence, if appropriate.

3. The line that seperates the innocent from the guilty is when you start to actively and deliberately place the value of your life above others for their determent. A deliberate murderer, rapist, someone who enslaves others (baring the case of slavery being used as a punishment for a very real crime. She'd be on the fence about that), etc. She's certainly not going to smite a starving child for stealing a loaf of bread to save his sick sister. After all, that's merely a case of the child trying to save the life of another, just going about it the wrong way. Keep in mind nobody accidentally decides to become a murderer. If you were willing to stab someone who got in your way of a robbery, you probably don't have any moral code against killing anyone who gets in your way.

4. I do plan on having her make a speech at some point basically telling her party members that if she ever becomes that which she fights, she wants them to kill her.


The key difference is mercy vs. justice; a merciful person gives people chances to redeem themselves. Everyone has shades of gray, and while conflict is inevitable, mutual understanding can prevent escalation. A just person is interested in balancing the scales. Evil must be balanced by good before it spirals out of control, and good can be incredibly unforgiving.

Aesildra thinks what I highlighted in bold is BS. Good isn't meant to "balance out" evil. It's meant to purge evil with it's dying breath. What type of paladin would rest knowing that they merely stooped some evil and let other evil exist for the sake of balance.

"What would the world be without darkness, you ask? Do you honestly think that shadows are necessary for our existence. I want my children and my children's children to live in a world of pure, unfettered radiance. Keep your shadows while they last. They shall all be purged by the light some day." -Aesildra, speaking metaphorically, of course.


I think your use of "enjoy" may be important for your character's personality; it's possible for a good person to enjoy doing good, but I think the consequences of not saving the child would be the focus of most devotion paladins. In other words, a typical paladin would save the child because the thought of leaving a child to suffer and die is unthinkable. They may enjoy the afterglow later, but it's that core motivation that probably drives their actions.


For Aesildra, it's an equal mix of both. Considering she suffered horribly as a child (watching her own father be assassinated while she was twelve). All the more reason to make sure any SOB who would harm the most defencless beings in faerun dies in agony. At the end of the day, she wouldn't even hesitate to lay down her life for a random child. She's LG after all.



Your character may do things because they are, logically, the RIGHT thing to do, as opposed to things that she feels an urge to do. (Smiting evil, on the other hand, comes completely naturally.) Either way, she could lack some empathy. My mental image is her successfully escorting the child out of the building, and as the sobbing child turns to her to hug her and say thank you, she absentmindedly smiles, pats him/her on the head and stomps off to find the person who set the fire.

Eh, I don't see her lacking empathy as much as not having it towards certain people. She would probably take every pain imaginable to make sure that child is cared for and is safe. If need be, she'd adopt the child herself. After all, it's the duty of the strong to protect and nurture the weak.

Then she would go find the son of a mother who started the fire and kill him as slowly as she could justify. Her basic attitude towards evil is indignation. "How DARE you put those children in danger. What give you the RIGHT!" Then smiting commences.



Another source suggestion: look up the jingoistic Space Marines in Warhammer 40k. There's a lot of very harsh beliefs, mainly because in that universe, evil very literally spreads and creates more evil from within, and must be stopped at any cost.

Random soundbite quote suggestions:

Threat to a future target: "Torm's gauntlet reaches far."

General saying/philosophy: "Everyone deserves recompense." (Say it while giving money to a church, while praising someone for doing something noble, while paying a longstanding debt to a friend... then to an enemy you're about to coup de grace.)

"Everyone deserves recompense" is amazing. Definitely going to use that at some point. Torm's gauntlet reaches far is also nice. I'll also look up stuff from the space marines.

Thanks for the help!

[dropbear8mybaby]

{scrubbed}

[Michael7123]

It's not political, it's established fact that Republicans are selfish, cruel narcissists. It's part of their recruitment literature.

1. Aesildra might be many things, but I'm not really sure I would use the word "selfish" to describe somone who would sacrafice their life for that of a child she's never even met.

2. The argument can be made that she has a cruel side to realy villanous people. But it's not like she goes around smiling jaywalkers.

3. She's actually rather humble and isn't one to brag about her good deeds.

4. Did you just ignore the part about her being Lawful Good?

{scrubbed}

7. People dissagree on what policies are best suited to help others, and even about what is right and wrong on a fundamental level. Not all people who dissagree with you are evil (although some of them might be).

8. Be careful that you don't use the word fact to make your oppinion sound more professional.

I'm gonna leave it at that, having said my peace on the matter. This isn't an attempt to start a debate, just my two cents. Take it for what you will. If you really want to go at it with me on politics, we could take it to PM's I supose. Altough I'd rather not TBH. I don't come to this forum for politics, I come here for D&D.

I'll probably get some flack for this, but oh well.

[Michael7123]

"Torm grants you succor" *kills evil thing*

"May the light shine within you" *smite*

"Peace be upon you" *charge*

Basically, say really final-sounding churchy things before inflicting violence on enemies.

Every fight scene for you is a fight in the (metaphorical) rectory.

Some of those are rather fitting. Thanks for the help!

[Michael7123]

Uh.. Wha..

You're making an oath, which includes a certain set of rules. It doesn't make sense to me that you'd not know what oath you've signed up for.

If you like the roleplay of Devotion but the mechanics of Vengeance, you could just ask your DM to merge the two. It doesn't break anything. You could refluff Vengeance ability names into Devotion names and call it a day.

I've already answered this more or less earlier in this thread, but to make a long answer short, she thinks of herself as being a pure defender of the innocent, (and really is a noble woman in many respects), however, she's really more vengeful that she's willing to admit.

[JoeJ]

It sounds like she's got a lot of Miko Miyazaki in her. Maybe she could be unaware of what path she's truly walking because she never ever considers the possibility that her judgment of good and evil could be wrong.

[djreynolds]

You know Bruce Wayne, Batman, is similar. He's out for justice, but has to force himself in his efforts not to slip to vengeance. He wants to kill the Joker, say Dark Knight for example, for the death of whatever her name is and the deformity of Harvey Dent, but he doesn't. Really good source material.

If he were paladin, he'd be a paladin of vengeance trying to bring justice, not to god but perhaps to his father's legacy and the work they tried to accomplish in Gotham.

[Malifice]

For starters, shes' LN and not LG.

She probably thinks she's LG though.

[Aetol]

1. Proficiency in intimidate, and have one of the party spellcasters cast enhance ability so I have advantage. "Tell me what you know, and I shall make your death swift, and if you wish it, will pray with you to the gods so they might have some measure of pity on your black soul. Refuse, and I'll spend at least a week with you before I send your soul screaming to the hells (or abyss or hades, as appropriate). Either way, you'll tell me what I want to know.

I'm pretty sure even a Paladin of Vengeance wouldn't lower herself to that. Unless this is just for show and you don't actually carry out the torture (and even then it's dodgy), IMO this'll kick you right into Evil territory.

[Michael7123]

It sounds like she's got a lot of Miko Miyazaki in her. Maybe she could be unaware of what path she's truly walking because she never ever considers the possibility that her judgment of good and evil could be wrong.

She does have some similarities, but she isn't as uptight.

At the risk of oversimplifying, she's got Roy's basic sence of right and wrong when it comes to "who should be killed" and "how I should behave outside of combat." (And if anything, is more LG than him in that aspect). She's got Miko's sense of how to behave in combat thought.


You know Bruce Wayne, Batman, is similar. He's out for justice, but has to force himself in his efforts not to slip to vengeance. He wants to kill the Joker, say Dark Knight for example, for the death of whatever her name is and the deformity of Harvey Dent, but he doesn't. Really good source material.

If he were paladin, he'd be a paladin of vengeance trying to bring justice, not to god but perhaps to his father's legacy and the work they tried to accomplish in Gotham.

The biggest differences I can think of are:

1. Her father was killed with a rapier. She's running around with a Greatsword. Instead of shunning the setting equivalent to guns, she choose to have a bigger gun.

2. She'd kill the joker without hesitating (at least in some of the more modern adaptations). There's no question about this.


For starters, shes' LN and not LG.

She probably thinks she's LG though.

Care to explain? She acts pretty much LG except when it comes to combat. I'm honestly considering having her donate at least half of her share of the party gold to good causes.


I'm pretty sure even a Paladin of Vengeance wouldn't lower herself to that. Unless this is just for show and you don't actually carry out the torture (and even then it's dodgy), IMO this'll kick you right into Evil territory.

The week will be sent inside a zone of truth then, with a bit of detect thoughts. She'll definately kill the prisoner afterwords though.

[djreynolds]

Obeying the oath maybe more important than alignment. You may have to deal with that. Honestly, IMO, a lawful good character doesn't kill prisoners. But in order to fulfill your obligation, you must act within that deity's alignment. Chaotic good maybe a more reasonable alignment.

You know for example, think saving Private Ryan and killing the prisoner. It wrecked all cohesion, and though he died because of it, CPT Miller choice would be in line with lawful good.

[Michael7123]

Obeying the oath maybe more important than alignment. You may have to deal with that. Honestly, IMO, a lawful good character doesn't kill prisoners. But in order to fulfill your obligation, you must act within that deity's alignment. Chaotic good maybe a more reasonable alignment.

You know for example, think saving Private Ryan and killing the prisoner. It wrecked all cohesion, and though he died because of it, CPT Miller choice would be in line with lawful good.

I haven't seen saving private Ryon, so I don't get the reference. Still, I would really dissagree with her about being CG. Keep in mind Ned Stark (who's practically the poster child for Lawful Good) executed people for far less serious crimes than a villain's henchmen commit on a regular basis in Faerun.

[goto124]

1. Her father was killed with a rapier. She's running around with a Greatsword. Instead of shunning the setting equivalent to guns, she choose to have a bigger gun.

Apologies, this cracked me up.

[Michael7123]

Apologies, this cracked me up.

No need to apologize, it is pretty funny now that I think about it.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's not political, it's established fact that Republicans are selfish, cruel narcissists. It's part of their recruitment literature. This post does not belong in this game thread. Please leave the political noise where it belongs: somewhere else.

[KorvinStarmast]

Obeying the oath maybe more important than alignment. You may have to deal with that. Honestly, IMO, a lawful good character doesn't kill prisoners. But in order to fulfill your obligation, you must act within that deity's alignment. Chaotic good maybe a more reasonable alignment.

You know for example, think saving Private Ryan and killing the prisoner. It wrecked all cohesion, and though he died because of it, CPT Miller choice would be in line with lawful good.
DJ, you may wish to revisit the way alignment works in 5th edition. it's a little more complicated than before, and more flexible.

[KorvinStarmast]

Care to explain? She acts pretty much LG except when it comes to combat. I'm honestly considering having her donate at least half of her share of the party gold to good causes. So she's either LG trending LN, or LN trending LG. Try not to think of alignment as a straight jacket, but as the goal to be achieved and the ideal to strive for. Funnily enough, that is how the book describes it.


(Basic Rules, p. 4) Choose your character’s alignment (the moral compass that guides his or her decisions) and ideals.
(Basic Rules, p. 11) Alignment: Most races have tendencies toward certain alignments, described in this entry. These are not binding for player characters, but considering why your dwarf is chaotic, for example, in defiance of lawful dwarf society can help you better define your character.
(Basic Rules, p. 33-34). A typical creature in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). Thus, nine distinct alignments define the possible combinations. These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment

You are free to overcomplicate your character, if that's fun for you. Best wishes, sounds like you have an enjoyable journey ahead of you.

[Malifice]

She does have some similarities, but she isn't as uptight.

At the risk of oversimplifying, she's got Roy's basic sence of right and wrong when it comes to "who should be killed" and "how I should behave outside of combat." (And if anything, is more LG than him in that aspect). She's got Miko's sense of how to behave in combat thought.



The biggest differences I can think of are:

1. Her father was killed with a rapier. She's running around with a Greatsword. Instead of shunning the setting equivalent to guns, she choose to have a bigger gun.

2. She'd kill the joker without hesitating (at least in some of the more modern adaptations). There's no question about this.



Care to explain? She acts pretty much LG except when it comes to combat. I'm honestly considering having her donate at least half of her share of the party gold to good causes.



The week will be sent inside a zone of truth then, with a bit of detect thoughts. She'll definately kill the prisoner afterwords though.

Her 'take no prisoners/ execute all those who wrong me/ quest for vengeance/ no empathy for wrong doers' doesn't exactly scream 'mercy, kindness and compassion' to me. This is why vengence Paladins are recommended to be LN (mine is LE). The whole 'take no prisoners' thing and a genocidal mindset isn't (by any definition of the word) 'good'.

She's not evil - but that isn't good by any stretch of the imagination.

For a more drastic example look at the Punisher. He only kills (and tortures with no empathy or remorse) 'evil' people (and their associates). He acts towards (ostensibly) good ends; but he's LE.

Your actions contribute towards your alignment - not your goals. Otherwise any act of genocide, torture and mayhem can be excused as long as you do it 'for a good reason'.

Don't get me wrong - your character thinks she's a good and righteous person. She'd be genuinely shocked to find out she's objectively not. Maybe she donates money out of a sense of remorse (whether she knows it or not). My LE paladin has a soft spot for orphans (and Raistlin who was CE had a soft spot for Gully dwarves and the downtrodden) for background reasons. It's what made them more than one dimensional monsters.

The tenents of the Oath of Vengance are easy to break for Good aligned characters. When faced with saving an innocent child or pursuit of your enemies to further your genocide, you pick the latter and let the child die. That's kind of 'not good' in my books.

YMMV.

[djreynolds]

I haven't seen saving private Ryon, so I don't get the reference. Still, I would really dissagree with her about being CG. Keep in mind Ned Stark (who's practically the poster child for Lawful Good) executed people for far less serious crimes than a villain's henchmen commit on a regular basis in Faerun.

See the movie, its well worth it and will not waste your time at all and it dramatizes some of the very issues you're talking about. Its a good way to see how choices, whether good or evil or justified, can turn out. Morality is difficult to just theorize about and often fiction can help flesh out a character. Just like Batman's dealings with the league of shadows. Are they evil? Are they serving good or justice? Should he execute the prisoner or for justice to be served, must that person stand trial. Who decides? Peers, judges.

You have a very cool backstory and I hope your DM sets up moral dilemmas for you to sift through. Is your enemy justified in their own self-defense and if so are they truly evil? Often POW's are not executed, they are tried by a separate power and those powers determine their guilt.

Your paladin is going make for some great debate at your table. Enjoy.

[Michael7123]

Alright. First of all, I would like to thank everyone who participated in this thread and gave constructive feedback.

Second of all, after thinking it over for a while, I've come up with a basic code for my character to follow. I'm not sure if she'll actually hold this code word for word, or if it will just be my guide to roleplay her, but either way I'd like some feedback on it:

1. Everyone deserves recompense for their actions, good or evil.

2.The strong have a duty to protect the weak (not just referring to physical strength, obviously).

3. What separates the innocent from the guilty is the value of the life of sentient creatures. The value of innocent life is infinite, and those who devalue it or disregard it's dignity ought to be reprimanded.

4. For minor cases of devaluing life (theft, fraud, and such), offenders should be brought to proper authorities. If proper authorities don't exist or are unavailable, attempt to find a suitable way for them to redeem themselves.

5. For major cases of devaluing life (murder, rape, enslavement, etc), death is to be brought to those responsible as swiftly as possible. While these living blights deserve agony, I am called to be merciful as a paladin. I can rest comfortably knowing they shall suffer in the afterlife. [Hint: this isn't really mercy]

6. Half of any gold or other currency I obtain should be given away for the betterment of others.

7. If the guilty harm the innocent, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help the victims of evil doers whenever possible.

8. I must not tell any malicious falsehood.

9. I am to obey the laws of the land unless to do so would involve commuting an evil act or allow others to do so.

10. When given a choice between saving the lives of innocents and stopping an evil doer, find a way to do both. [I am aware this is unrealistic. She's hard on herself].

Thoughts?

[JoeJ]

No. 3 could create some interesting dilemmas. If an innocent life is of infinite value and you're faced with a situation where it's impossible to save everybody, how do you choose? Also, is freedom of infinite value as well? Because if it's not, then any infringement of freedom, no matter how great, is justified if it reduces even slightly the risk of an innocent person dying.

The second question is, I think, the more interesting one. Just how far is your character willing to go to save one innocent life? How will she react if she meets another paladin who values freedom and self determination even, if necessary, ahead of life itself?

[Michael7123]

No. 3 could create some interesting dilemmas. If an innocent life is of infinite value and you're faced with a situation where it's impossible to save everybody, how do you choose? Also, is freedom of infinite value as well? Because if it's not, then any infringement of freedom, no matter how great, is justified if it reduces even slightly the risk of an innocent person dying.

The second question is, I think, the more interesting one. Just how far is your character willing to go to save one innocent life? How will she react if she meets another paladin who values freedom and self determination even, if necessary, ahead of life itself?

1. As for the first question, she would try to save whatever amount of people had the largest number, than run off to save the smaller group (because, you know, paladin). If the group's are of equal size, she'll try to save whatever group has the most children in it.

After saving these people, she'll run off too plunge her sword through the face of whoever deliberately endangered their lives.

2. What circumstances would you be thinking about? She certainly wouldn't approve of somone willing to endanger others for the sake of their own freedom, for example, but I'm not sure that's what you mean.

[JoeJ]

2. What circumstances would you be thinking about? She certainly wouldn't approve of somone willing to endanger others for the sake of their own freedom, for example, but I'm not sure that's what you mean.

What about people risking their own safety? Does she support laws against drinking or drug use? What about building codes for houses? Would she be okay with sending somebody to jail for doing something dangerous? At the extreme, how would she feel about a dictator who ruthlessly stamps out every expression of free speech or freedom of religion, but is doing a good job of protecting the physical safety of their subjects?

[Michael7123]

What about people risking their own safety? Does she support laws against drinking or drug use? What about building codes for houses? Would she be okay with sending somebody to jail for doing something dangerous? At the extreme, how would she feel about a dictator who ruthlessly stamps out every expression of free speech or freedom of religion, but is doing a good job of protecting the physical safety of their subjects?

In order:

1. She'd advice against people being reckless, and try to heal them if they got hurt while being reckless (in addition to giving a stern lecture). At the end of the day though, she'd leave them to their own devices as in Faerun there's a God trying to blow up the world every other week, and she has bigger fish to fry.

2. She'd be in favor of laws against drugs, and wouldn't strongly protest laws against drinking.

3. If it endangered others, yes (horse riding while drinking? Is that even a thing?). Ife they're being irresponsible on their own, she'll try to personally stop it, but eventually move on to fighting the various things that want to kill scores of people.

4. She'd smite someone who disregards human dignity to that extent. I'll modify the code to indicate the value of dignity of human life.

[Malifice]

4. She'd smite someone who disregards human dignity to that extent. I'll modify the code to indicate the value of dignity of human life.

She'll brutally kill (with no remorse, compassion or mercy) anyone she declares to have disregarded human life?

Heh.

Sounds very Judge Dredd (LN) to me.

[Michael7123]

She'll brutally kill (with no remorse, compassion or mercy) anyone she declares to have disregarded human life?

Heh.

Sounds very Judge Dredd (LN) to me.

If that was the only thing she did, I'd agree with you. However, she does other things besides fighting evil, and is even willing to break laws (which judge dread did approximately 0 times) if they are evil or interfere with doing good. If she's in Thay, she's going to be freeing slaves. If silverymoon's (home city) leaders became evil, she'd try to stop them.

Secondly, I'd argue that while she wouldn't have any remorce or be merciful about killing them as quickly as possible (or honestly, as slowly as she can justify to herself, which normally is a swift beheading or stab in the chest), that she's not doing it without compassion.

Part of her backstory is being a helpless victim, holding her father's dying body in her arms at the age of 12. She's suffered a great deal, and seen countless people who didn't deserve a gruesome death get one anyways. Her entire reason for adventuring is so that these innocent people don't have to go through the same hell she went through, and continues to put herself through every day being on the front lines on the fight against evil.

What would that be called if not compassion?

[Malifice]

If that was the only thing she did, I'd agree with you. However, she does other things besides fighting evil, and is even willing to break laws (which judge dread did approximately 0 times) if they are evil or interfere with doing good. If she's in Thay, she's going to be freeing slaves. If silverymoon's (home city) leaders became evil, she'd try to stop them.

Secondly, I'd argue that while she wouldn't have any remorce or be merciful about killing them as quickly as possible (or honestly, as slowly as she can justify to herself, which normally is a swift beheading or stab in the chest), that she's not doing it without compassion.

Part of her backstory is being a helpless victim, holding her father's dying body in her arms at the age of 12. She's suffered a great deal, and seen countless people who didn't deserve a gruesome death get one anyways. Her entire reason for adventuring is so that these innocent people don't have to go through the same hell she went through, and continues to put herself through every day being on the front lines on the fight against evil.

What would that be called if not compassion?

You're confusing her motives (which are pure) with her actions (which are not).

I could build a time machine and travel back in time to smother Adolf Hitler as a baby in his cot, or to brutally and sadistically torture him as a child until he saw the error of his ways. While my motives are certainly pure, my actions are not.

Paladins 'fall' not for having evil motives, but for doing evil acts (even when done in pursuit of the purest of goals). They could desire to kill a rival - even start to think of ways to justify the murder - but until they act on it, they don't fall.

To go any other way is to approve genocide, torture, and the vilest of acts as long as they are done 'for the greater good' - which of course is how every genocide, torture, and vile act is always justified by those that perform them.

A LG person needs to be above that. He doesn't torture. He doesn't kill children. He doesn't engage in pogroms or genocide. He believes in redemption, charity, pity and mercy. He only kills in self defense (or the defense of others), and even then only when there is no other option. He shows mercy to his enemies, charity to those less fortunate to him, and leads by example. He is honorable in all his dealings.

For example, my Vengance Paladin is on a mission to bring order and peace to Faerun, for the greater good of all humanity. He wants to end all wars, stop conflict, and bring unity and peace.

His method of achieving this is to seek to establish a theocratic tyrannical fascist regime devoted to Bane, via a continent wide holy war. As a part of this, he intends to engage in pogroms against other deities followers, outlawing them at first, forced conversions next, and finally executing all their worshipers who fail to convert. Individual liberties will be curtailed to the needs of the State. Obedience to Bane will be total and absolute. Non human minorities will have rights stripped from them, then be rounded up and placed in 'work camps' to produce goods for the State, and then exterminated if need be (as a 'final solution').

Once all this is done, a thousand year peace will follow under the iron fist of Bane. War, religious conflict, ethnic conflict will all be removed. Under the tyranny of Bane, humanity will be able to combine its collective might to achieve its full potential.

It's all done for the greater good of Faerun, and to ensure continued peace and prosperity.

He is of course, LE.

[djreynolds]

If you commit a necessary evil to save the land, that act is still evil. And if you are good, you will be haunted by this act.

[djreynolds]

If that was the only thing she did, I'd agree with you. However, she does other things besides fighting evil, and is even willing to break laws (which judge dread did approximately 0 times) if they are evil or interfere with doing good. If she's in Thay, she's going to be freeing slaves. If silverymoon's (home city) leaders became evil, she'd try to stop them.

Secondly, I'd argue that while she wouldn't have any remorce or be merciful about killing them as quickly as possible (or honestly, as slowly as she can justify to herself, which normally is a swift beheading or stab in the chest), that she's not doing it without compassion.

Part of her backstory is being a helpless victim, holding her father's dying body in her arms at the age of 12. She's suffered a great deal, and seen countless people who didn't deserve a gruesome death get one anyways. Her entire reason for adventuring is so that these innocent people don't have to go through the same hell she went through, and continues to put herself through every day being on the front lines on the fight against evil.

What would that be called if not compassion?

That's not compassion. Once you raise the sword it should change you. Lots of people suffer but do not take up arms in the name of lost loved ones, and those that do are acting in vengeance. Assassins no longer have to be evil, but they are misguided to say the least. You're paladin is misguided and that is great role play stuff. You think you are devoted to justice, but you are committing acts of vengeance.

[Malifice]

That's not compassion. Once you raise the sword it should change you. Lots of people suffer but do not take up arms in the name of lost loved ones, and those that do are acting in vengeance. Assassins no longer have to be evil, but they are misguided to say the least. You're paladin is misguided and that is great role play stuff. You think you are devoted to justice, but you are committing acts of vengeance.

That's my view on it too. Shes (objectively) LN, but (subjectively) views herself as LG.

Perhaps her charity is a subconscious way of recognizing this fact.

[goto124]

Well, it does fit OoV...

[Malifice]

Well, it does fit OoV...

Yeah - and OoV are specifically called out as LN (at best).

[djreynolds]

She is acting evil. That's what's happening. The Saving Private Ryan example with the POW is spot on. A paladin/assassin of vengeance, its eerie how similar now these class can be from a thematic view point. Its great for her. Its going to push that wizard in the company or bard just to see where they stand when she flies off into rage. How does that dwarven fighter feel, does the warlock egg her on.

I'd rather have people play a character and let the DM decide her actions, of course she feel's justified. The best bad guys and villains don't consider themselves monsters. I hope the player allows this freedom. I hope the players at the table confront, or side with her. Its great game play.

Yes, play this character how you feel fit and let your "society" judge you. IMO, I'm right... but IYO I'm wrong. Really cool. I'd like it if you had a thread somewhere and posted on the game and its evolution.

[Michael7123]

You're confusing her motives (which are pure) with her actions (which are not).

I could build a time machine and travel back in time to smother Adolf Hitler as a baby in his cot, or to brutally and sadistically torture him as a child until he saw the error of his ways. While my motives are certainly pure, my actions are not.

Paladins 'fall' not for having evil motives, but for doing evil acts (even when done in pursuit of the purest of goals). They could desire to kill a rival - even start to think of ways to justify the murder - but until they act on it, they don't fall.

To go any other way is to approve genocide, torture, and the vilest of acts as long as they are done 'for the greater good' - which of course is how every genocide, torture, and vile act is always justified by those that perform them.

A LG person needs to be above that. He doesn't torture. He doesn't kill children. He doesn't engage in pogroms or genocide. He believes in redemption, charity, pity and mercy. He only kills in self defense (or the defense of others), and even then only when there is no other option. He shows mercy to his enemies, charity to those less fortunate to him, and leads by example. He is honorable in all his dealings.

For example, my Vengance Paladin is on a mission to bring order and peace to Faerun, for the greater good of all humanity. He wants to end all wars, stop conflict, and bring unity and peace.

His method of achieving this is to seek to establish a theocratic tyrannical fascist regime devoted to Bane, via a continent wide holy war. As a part of this, he intends to engage in pogroms against other deities followers, outlawing them at first, forced conversions next, and finally executing all their worshipers who fail to convert. Individual liberties will be curtailed to the needs of the State. Obedience to Bane will be total and absolute. Non human minorities will have rights stripped from them, then be rounded up and placed in 'work camps' to produce goods for the State, and then exterminated if need be (as a 'final solution').

Once all this is done, a thousand year peace will follow under the iron fist of Bane. War, religious conflict, ethnic conflict will all be removed. Under the tyranny of Bane, humanity will be able to combine its collective might to achieve its full potential.

It's all done for the greater good of Faerun, and to ensure continued peace and prosperity.

He is of course, LE.

I would make the argument that he'd be a full fledged oathbreaker at this point for helping Bane, one of the most vile villains in the forgotten realms, take over the continent. But that's not important.

Keep in mind, my character places an immense value on the dignity of innocent human life. As an added bonus, she's worshiping Torm, and Torm has made it abundantly clear since the time of troubles that you shouldn't persecute members of good aligned faiths. While she doesn't really like chaos, she knows how to separate chaos from evil.

She's all about the actions of an individual takes. If she were to kill an evil man, only to find out he had an infant son, who in spite of his evil actions was taking care of like a proper parent, she would spare no expense to make sure that child would be raised decently. She would never kill anyone below the age of 15 (human maturity standards, obviously), as they aren't old enough to make sound judgement before then. The concept of genocide is so abhorent to her because it inheritnly targets the innocent as well as the guilty. Even if she were to wipe out every adult of a drow city who has committed murder, (which would be pretty much all of the drow adults in that city, considering that they would all be trying to kill her at least, because, you know, drow), she wouldn't lay a hand on their children except to save her own life. And even then, she'd be keeping it nonlethal.


If you commit a necessary evil to save the land, that act is still evil. And if you are good, you will be haunted by this act.

I would agree with you there. However, I don't see what she is doing to be as evil as you guys make it out to be. It's certainly not as good as what a paladin of devotion would do, but I'm not sure what I would call that evil.,

Lets go by Order of the Stick standards here, since its something we're all familiar with.

Roy did this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html), and at no time when he was being interviewed in heaven did that even come up. The angel even said he was clearly good, and only raised some questions about his lawfulness regarding other matters.

My character isn't really willing to do anything more than Roy did in the first part of that strip, only she'd also Coup de Grace goblins who were awake if she had the chance. The only people she would kill that Roy (who is LG) hasn't killed would be Belkar, and only after he killed an innocent person. And lets be honest, half the reason Roy didn't kill Belkar much earlier was for the sake of plot.

More than anything, my character's true motives are more placed in a desire for vengeance than they are for real justice, and she's convinced herself that she's actually being just, largely because any devotion paladin would approve of about 90% of the actions she takes, if not more.


That's not compassion. Once you raise the sword it should change you. Lots of people suffer but do not take up arms in the name of lost loved ones, and those that do are acting in vengeance. Assassins no longer have to be evil, but they are misguided to say the least. You're paladin is misguided and that is great role play stuff. You think you are devoted to justice, but you are committing acts of vengeance.

For the most part, this is accurate. Although she does commit a bunch of actually just acts as well. She is far more selfless than most LN people are, and extremely generous.


That's my view on it too. Shes (objectively) LN, but (subjectively) views herself as LG.

Perhaps her charity is a subconscious way of recognizing this fact.

I'd say that she's lawful good trending lawful nuetral (which is where I'd put Miko. Stupididty is not a factor of alignment). But I can't help feel that's an oversimplification. If she was given a choice between doing what was good or doing what was lawful, she'd do the good thing at least nine times out of ten.


She is acting evil. That's what's happening. The Saving Private Ryan example with the POW is spot on. A paladin/assassin of vengeance, its eerie how similar now these class can be from a thematic view point. Its great for her. Its going to push that wizard in the company or bard just to see where they stand when she flies off into rage. How does that dwarven fighter feel, does the warlock egg her on.

I'd rather have people play a character and let the DM decide her actions, of course she feel's justified. The best bad guys and villains don't consider themselves monsters. I hope the player allows this freedom. I hope the players at the table confront, or side with her. Its great game play.

Yes, play this character how you feel fit and let your "society" judge you. IMO, I'm right... but IYO I'm wrong. Really cool. I'd like it if you had a thread somewhere and posted on the game and its evolution.

I feel like it's worth mentioning she doesn't exactly go into a bloodthirsty charge the moment she sees any sort of injustice. She's got an INT of 14 (largely because I loath the trope that paladins are dumb), so she's going to try to bring the creature to justice in the smartest way possible. If that means smiting the hell out of it then and there, she'll do that. If that means reporting him to the local law authorities and letting them take care of it, she'll do that. She's not so vengeful that she has to kill every murderer herself (although she wouldn't really mind being the one to deliver the blow).

By chance, do you know where I could post stories about how my game is going? It will probably only be an eight session campaign, but I might want to post stuff anyways.

[Malifice]

I would make the argument that he'd be a full fledged oathbreaker at this point for helping Bane, one of the most vile villains in the forgotten realms, take over the continent. But that's not important.

Keep in mind, my character places an immense value on the dignity of innocent human life. As an added bonus, she's worshiping Torm, and Torm has made it abundantly clear since the time of troubles that you shouldn't persecute members of good aligned faiths. While she doesn't really like chaos, she knows how to separate chaos from evil.

She's all about the actions of an individual takes. If she were to kill an evil man, only to find out he had an infant son, who in spite of his evil actions was taking care of like a proper parent, she would spare no expense to make sure that child would be raised decently. She would never kill anyone below the age of 15 (human maturity standards, obviously), as they aren't old enough to make sound judgement before then. The concept of genocide is so abhorent to her because it inheritnly targets the innocent as well as the guilty. Even if she were to wipe out every adult of a drow city who has committed murder, (which would be pretty much all of the drow adults in that city, considering that they would all be trying to kill her at least, because, you know, drow), she wouldn't lay a hand on their children except to save her own life. And even then, she'd be keeping it nonlethal.



I would agree with you there. However, I don't see what she is doing to be as evil as you guys make it out to be. It's certainly not as good as what a paladin of devotion would do, but I'm not sure what I would call that evil.,

Lets go by Order of the Stick standards here, since its something we're all familiar with.

Roy did this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html), and at no time when he was being interviewed in heaven did that even come up. The angel even said he was clearly good, and only raised some questions about his lawfulness regarding other matters.

My character isn't really willing to do anything more than Roy did in the first part of that strip, only she'd also Coup de Grace goblins who were awake if she had the chance. The only people she would kill that Roy (who is LG) hasn't killed would be Belkar, and only after he killed an innocent person. And lets be honest, half the reason Roy didn't kill Belkar much earlier was for the sake of plot.

More than anything, my character's true motives are more placed in a desire for vengeance than they are for real justice, and she's convinced herself that she's actually being just, largely because any devotion paladin would approve of about 90% of the actions she takes, if not more.



For the most part, this is accurate. Although she does commit a bunch of actually just acts as well. She is far more selfless than most LN people are, and extremely generous.



I'd say that she's lawful good trending lawful nuetral (which is where I'd put Miko. Stupididty is not a factor of alignment). But I can't help feel that's an oversimplification. If she was given a choice between doing what was good or doing what was lawful, she'd do the good thing at least nine times out of ten.



I feel like it's worth mentioning she doesn't exactly go into a bloodthirsty charge the moment she sees any sort of injustice. She's got an INT of 14 (largely because I loath the trope that paladins are dumb), so she's going to try to bring the creature to justice in the smartest way possible. If that means smiting the hell out of it then and there, she'll do that. If that means reporting him to the local law authorities and letting them take care of it, she'll do that. She's not so vengeful that she has to kill every murderer herself (although she wouldn't really mind being the one to deliver the blow).

By chance, do you know where I could post stories about how my game is going? It will probably only be an eight session campaign, but I might want to post stuff anyways.

I didn't break my oath.

I've actually sworn a vow of Vengance against the 'evil' (from my perspective) God Torm and all his deluded followers. Those apostates will be the first People I put to the sword. When the lying God responsible for my families death (Torm) is sufficiently weakened, I will travel to the outer planes and kill him personally for the ruin he's brought my family.

(My parents were Tormites killed in the Tome of Troubles by willingly martyring themselves for Torm so he could slay Bane at Tantras).

I find the tragic irony of their son devoting himself to the God they gave their lives to destroy, and on a mission to seek 'revenge' for thier deaths quite compelling as a character.

From my point of view Torm is a lying piece of **** that killed my parents after they both gave a life time of service devoted to him (leaving me an orphan). Enemy of my Enemy is my friend, and Torm the untrue has no greater enemy than the Black Hand.

Hail Bane!

[Michael7123]

I didn't break my oath.

I've actually sworn a vow of Vengance against the 'evil' (from my perspective) God Torm and all his deluded followers. Those apostates will be the first People I put to the sword. When the lying God responsible for my families death (Torm) is sufficiently weakened, I will travel to the outer planes and kill him personally for the ruin he's brought my family.

(My parents were Tormites killed in the Tome of Troubles by willingly martyring themselves for Torm so he could slay Bane at Tantras).

I find the tragic irony of their son devoting himself to the God they gave their lives to destroy, and on a mission to seek 'revenge' for thier deaths quite compelling as a character.

From my point of view Torm is a lying piece of **** that killed my parents after they both gave a life time of service devoted to him (leaving me an orphan). Enemy of my Enemy is my friend, and Torm the untrue has no greater enemy than the Black Hand.

Hail Bane!

Gotcha, that makes more sense as an oath of vengeance then.

Also, props to you for creating an awesome character. For an added dose of irony, I'm in a mythweavers game right now playing as Torm in the time of troubles. Our DM decided, for the sake of making things more interesting, that I would be forced to posses a mortal who would be my avatar (which actually is a thing, but it didn't actually happen to Torm in the cannon time of troubles). The character I chose was Aesildra's dad.

Man, I wish I could be in the same game as you. Although our characters would immediately try to kill each other, it would be hilarious to watch them be told by both their respective gods to work together in order to kill some mutual enemy (Some high level follower of Cyric or Shar perhaps).

Hail Torm!

[Malifice]

Gotcha, that makes more sense as an oath of vengeance then.

Also, props to you for creating an awesome character. For an added dose of irony, I'm in a mythweavers game right now playing as Torm in the time of troubles. Our DM decided, for the sake of making things more interesting, that I would be forced to posses a mortal who would be my avatar (which actually is a thing, but it didn't actually happen to Torm in the cannon time of troubles). The character I chose was Aesildra's dad.

Man, I wish I could be in the same game as you. Although our characters would immediately try to kill each other, it would be hilarious to watch them be told by both their respective gods to work together in order to kill some mutual enemy (Some high level follower of Cyric or Shar perhaps).

Hail Torm!

Haha. I was 6 when Tantras went down and raised in the Temple to Torm afterwards as a follower. Trained as a Paladin to Torn but always had a... Darkness and doubt inside. Nightmares watching my parents die. A childhood of lonliness and watching a conflict on a cosmic scale affect me on a deeply personal level.

If Torm was so powerful and just why did he leave me an orphan? Why did he kill his most loyal followers? Why did he abandon me when I sought righteous Vengance for the temple (ie he cut me off when I started ruthlessly killing my enemies).

The answer to me was obvious. Torm the true is one big giant lie. He has brought nothing but death and ruin to my life. He killed my parents, turned his back on me, left me as an orphan. Bane rewards his followers. Torm kills his. My eyes are now open.

I'll make the false, evil, murderous God and all his followers pay. And I'll create a utopia where all shall kneel to Bane. I will end all conflict and wars by forming an empire of glorious national, ethnic and religious unity. One God. One nation. One people. One law.

My parents will be avenged. My pain will be healed. And Faerun will have peace.

He's kind of an Annakin Skywalker post turnin to the dark side and embracing the empire (Vader). Has a soft spot for orphans (for obvious reasons) and keeps his word.

He genuinely thinks he's not evil, and that his quest is righteous and true. He does what needs to be done for the greater good. Someone has to do what's needed to expose the foul Torm for what he is, get Vengance for Torms victims (including my family) and ensure true unity and peace for all.

[djreynolds]

Anakin Skywalker is a great example.... of evil. Yes he is redeemed but that doesn't make up for committing evil acts. He is clearly confused and has his priorities askew. Obi one warns him, many times about disconnecting himself personally from his actions. Jedi are so paladin. Your paladin comes off as a Sith, which is why we have paladins of all alignments now.

And that's okay, justify your actions as you see fit and lets others judge them. This is the greatest aspect of the paladin class, the role play of morality. This is exactly why powers of the executive (paladins), and judicial powers are separate. You are judge and jury, I've seen Judge Dredd mentioned a lot. He is not good. He is lawful.

Goodness represents mercy and having to act upon the decisions of the judicial powers, may cause you dilemmas. You may decide you don't want to kill a villain though your god may dictate that. Disagreeing with him is against his law, but perhaps, not against good.

Play the character as you see fit and others will judge you. A village, where you held off an execution may hate you. And another village where you carried out that execution may hate you as well. But if you were doing on orders and agreed with those orders in either case, you are lawful. If killed these people because deep down inside a memory compelled you, you are evil.

The god Helm is a great example in Fearun, where he had to kill other gods in the time of trouble. He and Torm were close, but because of this their relationship had problems. Helm is lawful neutral, Torm is lawful good and Torm follows his heart and the law and decides which is the best.

Have fun.

[goto124]

That, is the advantage of Paladins being no longer restricted by alignment.

You don't even need to be Good!

[djreynolds]

That, is the advantage of Paladins being no longer restricted by alignment.

You don't even need to be Good!

Yes thank you, and you said everything in one sentence. No one evil really thinks they're evil. Its actions versus intentions. Jean-Paul Sartre.

Play the paladin as you want to and have fun and let others judge you. If you must justify your actions, then you know you're wrong and must seek penance.

I'd really love to see this, its very very good stuff. Excellent choice.

[Michael7123]

Alright, so I had my session zero today with the rest of the party. Even though our DM allowed evil party members, nobody decided to go for that. White that said, heres our lineup.

LG/LN Aasimar vengeance paladin (me)

NG Earth Gensai Life Domain cleric of Lathander

LN Wood elf Circle of the moon Druid

LN Wood elf Beastmaster ranger

NG (or at least some good, pretty sure NG) Silver Dragonborn Draconic Bloodline sorcerer.

CG Tiefling College of Lore Bard.

Since a lot of people seem to want this, I'll be posting updates about how the campaign is going on this thread. Our first actual session is going to be next Saturday.