Paladin - Oath of Vengeance - Fight the Greater Evil tenet is ambiguous

[Sharagh]

Fight the Greater Evil
Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the greater evil.

Now, that's very open to interpretation and makes no sense from a logical standpoint. It's as if it were written like this:


Faced with a choice of apples or pears, I choose oranges.

What is a greater evil? Are paladins sworn enemies always considered greater evil? There is most likely someone out there who can cause greater grief and pain than paladins sworn foes? Wouldn't they then be considered a greater evil? Who should the paladin fight if faced with such a choice?


What are the RAI on this?

[Waazraath]

Doesn't a paladin with an oath of vengeance has that oath of vengeance aganist something? That is, dragons, giants, demons, orcs? The one they swore vengeance against? In that case, 'the greater evil', for that paladin, is obvious. If you have an oath of vengeance against orcs, you fight the orc in a combat with both orcs and goblins. If you swore vengeance against the giants that trampled your home town, you really want to go on the quest to the giant lair, and not against the lich's stronghold. Don't think there is more to it than that.

[Sharagh]

If you swore vengeance against the giants that trampled your home town, you really want to go on the quest to the giant lair, and not against the lich's stronghold.

I agree with you in your example, but yours is actually a crossroads type of situation and not an actual combat situation. What if the paladin is in combat against his sworn foes, cultists for example and another party - an evil balor from the Abyss.

Let's say that the balor is more powerful and far more evil than those cultists. He would cause much greater mayhem, pain and grief than some measly cultists if left unchecked. However, if the paladin chooses to switch his focus on the balor, the cultists, his sworn foes would most likely choose that chance to escape.

What would the paladin do?

[Ninja_Prawn]

Yeah, vengeance is deliberately narrow-minded. A vengeance paladin is not the kind of person you call when you need a goodly holy warrior. They are dangerous folks who might even be a liability in some situations.

Their oath demands that they fight their sworn foes - and always consider them to be the greatest evil - to the exclusion of almost everything else. This can be particularly troublesome if the sworn enemy is not *always* evil.

Edit due to ninja: in that scenario, the balor is likely aligned with the cultists, or at least related to their cause. A vengeance paladin would be within their rights to fight the balor even if it meant the humanoids got away. It doesn't have to matter to the paladin if the balor has betrayed the cultists or something. 'Demon cult' and 'demonic general' are close enough that they could both count as sworn enemies.

[Sharagh]

Edit due to ninja: in that scenario, the balor is likely aligned with the cultists, or at least related to their cause. A vengeance paladin would be within their rights to fight the balor even if it meant the humanoids got away. It doesn't have to matter to the paladin if the balor has betrayed the cultists or something. 'Demon cult' and 'demonic general' are close enough that they could both count as sworn enemies.

Let's not bend the story to fit the "rules" :P

The problem arises when that balor is NOT aligned with cultists (it doesn't have to be a demon cult). Now comes the question from whose standpoint does the tenet apply? The paladin might, from a twisted perspective, see that the cultists are the greater evil... but the balor is definitely a greater evil from the perspective of anyone else.

What do you choose then and what breaks the oath?

[Arkhios]

The way I see it, if a vengeance paladin faced a cult balor worshippers, he might choose their leader (or the balor itself, if it's the one calling the shots to terrorize the area of interest) as his sworn enemy and disregard the meager followers. Heck, he might even infiltrate among them to root out their leader, and then deal with him/her and be done with it.

A greater evil over the lesser evil depends of the context as is pointed out at several occasions. A balor in its home plane might be completely oblivious about the lunatics who worship him, or simply not care, and thus isn't necessarily the greater evil per se.

If paladins in general saw all fiends a greater evil at all times, whether or not they were present at the paladins' home plane, that would require an all-out war to commit a genocide to all fiends throughout all the planes of existence. By logic, and how the rules are set, that's obviously an impossible task. Again, it falls to the context. Mortal (good) paladins living in the material plane most likely only seek to drive the fiends and their influence way from material plane, and that's it.

[Ninja_Prawn]

If the balor and the cult have nothing in common - say it's an Ashmadai cult that is actually trying to kill the balor - the paladin should fight the cult (assuming that's who they swore vengeance against).

Objectively speaking, it's not even obvious that the balor is the greater evil. Asmodeus takes his cultists very seriously and can wreak some pretty nasty evil through them.

At the end of the day, the paladin must have had a good reason to swear their oath. You wouldn't swear your oath against some two-bit cult that isn't a threat to anyone, right?

[Sharagh]

The way I see it, if a vengeance paladin faced a cult balor worshippers, he might choose their leader (or the balor itself, if it's the one calling the shots to terrorize the area of interest) as his sworn enemy and disregard the meager followers. Heck, he might even infiltrate among them to root out their leader, and then deal with him/her and be done with it.

A greater evil over the lesser evil depends of the context as is pointed out at several occasions. A balor in its home plane might be completely oblivious about the lunatics who worship him, or simply not care, and thus isn't necessarily the greater evil per se.

I never said the cultists worship the balor. In fact, I intended them to be completely separate, unaffiliated parties. What does the paladin choose then? Between his sworn foes and an unrelated, but obviously more dangerous threat (not just to himself).

[Sharagh]

If the balor and the cult have nothing in common - say it's an Ashmadai cult that is actually trying to kill the balor - the paladin should fight the cult (assuming that's who they swore vengeance against).

Objectively speaking, it's not even obvious that the balor is the greater evil. Asmodeus takes his cultists very seriously and can wreak some pretty nasty evil through them.

At the end of the day, the paladin must have had a good reason to swear their oath. You wouldn't swear your oath against some two-bit cult that isn't a threat to anyone, right?

It's completely unimportant what the cult is or who they're worshiping. I just made those foes up on the spot to provide an example and the entire point is that the paladin faces two independent threats. One are his sworn foes, the other is OBVIOUSLY (for the sake of the example) more evil.

One choice breaks the oath. Which do you choose?
One may be greater evil from paladins point of view, the other is greater evil from everyone else's point of view. Which do you choose?


That's my entire point. The tenet is ambiguously written and could be interpreted either way and that's not good.

[Arkhios]

I never said the cultists worship the balor. In fact, I intended them to be completely separate, unaffiliated parties. What does the paladin choose then? Between his sworn foes and an unrelated, but obviously more dangerous threat (not just to himself).

No, you didn't, it was just a way to paint a bigger picture. If both parties are present, I'd say the Paladin should consider if the cultists stand deliberately in his way to defeat the balor who is spreading destruction and malice, then the cultists are, even if temporarily, the bigger threat. Even then, however, a paladin with oath of vengeance should eliminate (by killing or otherwise) the ones responsible to this, which I'd consider as leaders within the cult. Killing each and every cultists just because they all are evil is a waste of time and resources, and might give the leaders time to escape. If the cult disbands as a result of their leaders being defeated, that's a bonus.

No need to get all roused up by this debate. I'm sure ninja_prawn as much as myself is aware it's only an example. It is within this example how we are addressing the issue of yours.

As a case in my point is: in the case whether the superiors or the subordinates are the greater evil for the Oath I'd say that obviously the superiors. Letting the subordinates live is a lesser evil. Slaughtering the subordinates would cause a breaking of the oath.

[Ninja_Prawn]

And we're all saying it's not ambiguous. The paladin should keep their oath and fight their sworn enemy (which is how they define "greater evil"). It would take some extremely dire circumstances to make them choose to break it.

[Tarvil]

I never said the cultists worship the balor. In fact, I intended them to be completely separate, unaffiliated parties. What does the paladin choose then? Between his sworn foes and an unrelated, but obviously more dangerous threat (not just to himself).

IMO, Cultists go first. If Paladin swore his oath against them, he probably have some personal grudge, and cultists aren't some no-names with fancy masks. He might EVENTUALLY agree to use them to banish Balor and strike them when they're weakened.

[Sharagh]

IMO, Cultists go first. If Paladin swore his oath against them, he probably have some personal grudge, and cultists aren't some no-names with fancy masks. He might EVENTUALLY agree to use them to banish Balor and strike them when they're weakened.

I understand he has a personal grudge, obviously, but that doesn't make them the greater evil, does it?

For the sake of the argument, let's say that those cultists pose a local threat - meaning they pose a great danger to the town or city they are... culting ... around.

Meanwhile, a balor poses at least a regional threat - so an entire region encompassing several towns/cities.

Let's say that by a streak of some weird chance all of them - cultists, a balor and the paladin find themselves in a three-sided battle.

Which foe should the paladin choose?
Are his sworn foes always considered as greater evil? If so, why not write it that way? That balor seems like a pretty evil thing... maybe his sworn foes should take the second seat on this one.

Also, who decides if an oath is broken? Paladin's deity? Paladin's order? Paladin himself? Because, in the end, that's actually the only thing that matters... what is the greater evil in the eyes of the one who decides if an oath is broken or not.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Are his sworn foes always considered as greater evil? If so, why not write it that way?

I would say that the way it is written; a dichotomy between "sworn foes" or a "lesser evil", that makes it pretty clear that the sworn foe is always the greatest evil. So in the paladin's view, the local cult might have the capacity to expand into a regional threat if unchecked. Perhaps they believe that only they can stop the cult, while other people are equally qualified to face a balor.

I think the arbiter of the oath varies. Not all paladins belong to an order, after all. Not all worship a deity. I'm currently DMing for an devotion paladin who swore her oath directly to a fey prince, so in her case, the prince would decide.

[mephnick]

The paladin of vengeance is supposed to be obsessive in almost a detrimental way. Played right it almost shouldn't be allowed in a lot of campaigns if you're actually going to hold a player to its tenets because their focus is almost always going to be individual of the party. Why is the PoV treasure hunting this tomb? Shouldn't she be tracking down and destroying slave rings? Or wiping pirates from the earth?

Your lust for vengeance is so great you've been granted or developed divine powers for it! It's not something you just toss away when there's a "bigger" threat around.

Edit: I think the PoV should have been the DMG sub-class. Oathbreaker fits the average PC a heck of a lot better.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Edit: I think the PoV should have been the DMG sub-class. Oathbreaker fits the average PC a heck of a lot better.

Not a bad call at all. I might actually adopt that as my standard approach.

[Sharagh]

a dichotomy between "sworn foes" or a "lesser evil"

I'd argue that the way it's written is a mistake of some kind because it really doesn't make much sense.

First, you'd always chose to fight your sworn foes over some lesser evil... that's not even a choice, right? It doesn't even require a tenet. That's something that pretty much every person would do, paladin or not. The real choice presents itself only when the other opponent is a greater threat.

Second, the wording of the sentence IS ambiguous. That's not even questionable.


Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the greater evil.
=
Faced with a choice of A or B, I choose C.

It should've been:


Faced with a choice of A or B, I choose A.

OR

Faced with a choice of A or B, I choose B.

That way, nothing is left open to interpretation and the meaning is clear. That's how rules are written. That's why I think the way it's written may have been a mistake.

[Ninja_Prawn]

But a tenet isn't a rule. It's supposed to be open to interpretation, because WotC wanted to move away from the idea of paladins being so constrained by legalese as to be unplayable.

In this case, the default interpretation is clearly: "when faced with a choice between A and B, I will choose NOT(B)." But it gives you some wriggle room to go back and appeal to your order/God/whatever: "don't strip me of my powers, I have a good argument for why that balor was a greater evil."

[Sharagh]

The paladin of vengeance is supposed to be obsessive in almost a detrimental way. Played right it almost shouldn't be allowed in a lot of campaigns if you're actually going to hold a player to its tenets because their focus is almost always going to be individual of the party. Why is the PoV treasure hunting this tomb? Shouldn't she be tracking down and destroying slave rings? Or wiping pirates from the earth?

Your lust for vengeance is so great you've been granted or developed divine powers for it! It's not something you just toss away when there's a "bigger" threat around.

Edit: I think the PoV should have been the DMG sub-class. Oathbreaker fits the average PC a heck of a lot better.

I disagree, actually. You're not just some lunatic on a vengeance quest. You're a force of good. A person of great faith and devotion whose actions have provided them with divine power from a goodly deity. Even though your oath is that of vengeance, you're not just some tunnel-vision maniac... no... you can see beyond that and fight for the greater good. Some great injustice may have set you on that path and you have sworn to avenge that injustice, but you can see more than just that and THAT'S WHY you're a paladin and not just some murder-hobo on a vengeance quest.

For a reference in pop-culture, think of Bruce Wayne/Batman. Because I see him as a 100% oath of vengeance paladin (even though his fighting style is a bit... different).

[Sharagh]

But a tenet isn't a rule. It's supposed to be open to interpretation, because WotC wanted to move away from the idea of paladins being so constrained by legalese as to be unplayable.

In this case, the default interpretation is clearly: "when faced with a choice between A and B, I will choose NOT(B)." But it gives you some wriggle room to go back and appeal to your order/God/whatever: "don't strip me of my powers, I have a good argument for why that balor was a greater evil."

Actually, tenet IS a rule. You are correct in that WotC wanted to loosen up the legalese of paladins, but they made it so that paladins don't have to uphold ALL the virtues to the dot, but just a select few of them. And those select few make up the tenets of their respective oaths.

[Malifice]

I agree with you in your example, but yours is actually a crossroads type of situation and not an actual combat situation. What if the paladin is in combat against his sworn foes, cultists for example and another party - an evil balor from the Abyss.

Let's say that the balor is more powerful and far more evil than those cultists. He would cause much greater mayhem, pain and grief than some measly cultists if left unchecked. However, if the paladin chooses to switch his focus on the balor, the cultists, his sworn foes would most likely choose that chance to escape.

What would the paladin do?

'Greater evil' in the context of the above passage means 'the Paladins sworn enemies'. Whomever he has sworn an oath of vengance on.

For example my Paladins sworn enemies and 'greater evil' are the Church of Torm (my Paladin is LE and worships Bane).

If given a choice between fighting some Cyricists or some LG Tormite scum, I choose eradicating the latter.

By any means.


I disagree, actually. You're not just some lunatic on a vengeance quest. You're a force of good.

Wrong edition. Vengance Paladins are in no way required to be good aligned.

My Paladin is LE, worships Bane and views the LG God Torm to be a false prophet, and his followers to be deluded heretics. They're my enemy number 1.

I'll happily commit genocide, pogroms, torture them and kill them with no mercy (having regards to my other tenents which forbid mercy to my sworn foes). Its for the 'greater good' of Faerun (and my own personal reasons).

Barring kids of course. Im not a total monster.

[Temperjoke]

I think its intended that you target your sworn enemy first. Logic dictates that, yes, in the situation you presented, the balor would be the greater threat compared to some simple cultists. But a Vengeance paladin isn't about logic, it's about pursuing a particular enemy until either they or you die, and maybe even after your death. Of course, oaths are also subject to interpretation by the person that holds you to your oath. In your cultist example, if these cultists are nothing but low level minions, and your oath is against the cult itself, well, killing them doesn't do much to advance your goal, since minions are easily replaced. I get that you're trying to simplify the situation to get a clear-cut answer, but paladin oaths aren't something that simple 99% of the time.

I would like to point out that struggling with an oath, balancing between your desire and your bonds, is good for RP and character development.




Barring kids of course. Im not a total monster.

What if they're the children of devote Tormite followers, destined to grow into the future of the order?

[Sharagh]

If given a choice between fighting some Cyricists or some LG Tormite scum, I choose eradicating the latter.

By any means.

Would Bane agree with that? He's the one giving you divine powers, right? Wouldn't he consider Cyricists a far greater evil (threat) than some "LG Tormite scum"? If I were DM in your game, I'd consider that oathbreaking, but not the unforgivable kind. You'd have to beg for forgiveness (or whatever paladins of Bane would do to regain favor).


Paladins don't have to be good.

True, but the point still stands, just change the alignment to suit your needs.

[Addaran]

Sharagh's exemple was a bit confusing, because so many people view cultists and balors as automatic allies. If we change it a bit:

Paladin swores vengeance against dragons for having killed his hometown. A balor is openning a demonic portal near a baby white dragon's lair. The paladin see the dragon trying to escape but also knows what the balor is doing. Would he still go after his sworn foe, even if the baby dragon isn't an immediate huge threat, and when older, won't be as destructive as an horde of rampaging demons?

[Malifice]

Would Bane agree with that? He's the one giving you divine powers, right? Wouldn't he consider Cyricists a far greater evil (threat) than some "LG Tormite scum"? .

Dude Bane hates Torm far more than Cyric. Torm killed him in Tantras. The two faiths are at war.

He loathes Cyric too of course as 'the usurper'.


If I were DM in your game, I'd consider that oathbreaking, but not the unforgivable kind. You'd have to beg for forgiveness (or whatever paladins of Bane would do to regain favor)

What? My oath of vengance is against Tormites, not 'ememies of Bane'. Butchering Tormites IS my oath.


What if they're the children of devote Tormite followers, destined to grow into the future of the order?

So be it. I was an orphan once myself after my parents were killed at Tantras giving their lives so that Torm could slay Bane (ironically). If they are strong enough to seize power and come after me, then I am not strong enough to hold it. Im not a total monster; kids are off limits.

LE and all that.


True, but the point still stands, just change the alignment to suit your needs.

What point are you making exactly?

A vengance paladin swears an oath to slay [pick a faith, ethnicity, race, nationality, whatever]. THEY are the 'greater evil' he swears to bring righteous vengance on. In my case this was Torm (and his followers). Im also working on a concept for a polearm using vengance paladin who is an ex knight of Thay and has sworn vengance on the Red wizards as her chosen enemy.

If faced with a choice to fight his greater evil [chosen enemy] or someone else, he chooses his chosen enemy. He shows them no quarter or mercy.

In fact I struggle to see how such a person can be good aligned, or remain so for long, but I aint gonna get into that can of worms again.

[Sharagh]

Dude Bane hates Torm far more than Cyric. Torm killed him in Tantras. The two faiths are at war.

He loathes Cyric too of course as 'the usurper'.



What? My oath of vengance is against Tormites, not 'ememies of Bane'. Butchering Tormites IS my oath.



Who Bane hates more is arguable, but Cyric is the greater threat at the moment.

I don't know which tenets you're using (I'm going to go on a limb here and say you're sure as hell not going with restitution) and so I can't really properly judge your scenario. It's just the way I imagined it.

Even though paladins can be non-good, they are still pretty much made to be good. Everything kind of points that way and to actually make them evil, you have to change the fluff quite a bit.


What point are you making exactly?

A vengance paladin swears an oath to slay [pick a faith, ethnicity, race, nationality, whatever]. THEY are the 'greater evil' he swears to bring righteous vengance on. In my case this was Torm (and his followers). Im also working on a concept for a polearm using vengance paladin who is an ex knight of Thay and has sworn vengance on the Red wizards as her chosen enemy.

The point I'm making is that a paladin was given divine powers from a deity so that paladin can go around and well... "proselytize" in his own way. He is not just a vengeance machine. Vengeance is his PENULTIMATE goal, but serving his deity and promoting the ideals of said deity is his ULTIMATE goal. Paladin first, oath second. Anyone can go on a vengeance rampage. Not everyone can be a paladin. Also, I'd argue that paladins don't swear to defeat a certain faith, ethnicity, race or some general enemy... they're not choosing a favored enemy... no, they're swearing vengeance against a very specific foe, by name. Swearing vengeance against an entire race... just doesn't make much sense. That's just hatred. You can swear vengeance against a specific foe who did you wrong in some way.


If faced with a choice to fight his greater evil [chosen enemy] or someone else, he chooses his chosen enemy. He shows them no quarter or mercy.


Again, you're treating vengeance like it's a favored enemy. You don't choose them. They choose you. And the tenet doesn't say it's HIS greater evil.


In fact I struggle to see how such a person can be good aligned, or remain so for long, but I aint gonna get into that can of worms again.

And you'd be correct that such a person can't be good aligned, but I'd argue that's not how you play a goodly PoV. Think Batman.

[Malifice]

Who Bane hates more is arguable, but Cyric is the greater threat at the moment.

So what? Bane didnt swear my oath - I did.

My oath of vengance is against the Church of Torm. I also loathe Cyricists, Torms allies, and the Cult of the Dragon (the latter killed my brother and precipated my fall to evil).

But the greater evil of my oath is Torm and his followers.

If Bane is going to intervene and strip divine powers off his clerics and paladins for pursuing vendettas against his sworn enemies then we play in very different games indeed. Im fairly sure Bane is more than happy accepting an (ex paladin of Torm) into the fold, who has fallen into evil and disillusionment with his old faith, sworn an oath of vengange against his former church, and who is fanatically devoted to wiping that church (and even the God himself) from the face of Faerun.


I don't know which tenets you're using (I'm going to go on a limb here and say you're sure as hell not going with restitution) and so I can't really properly judge your scenario. It's just the way I imagined it.

Tenets of Vengeance:


The tenets of the Oath of Vengeance vary by paladin, but
all the tenets revolve around punishing wrongdoers by
any means necessary. Paladins w ho uphold these tenets
are willing to sacrifice even their own righteousness to
mete out justice upon those w ho do evil, so the paladins
are often neutral or lawful neutral in alignment. The
core principles of the tenets are brutally simple.

My sworn foes are 'The Church of Torm'. They do immesurable evil in the realms by spreading the word of the false god Torm (a God who 'lied to' and failed me by stripping away my powers when I brutally slew my unarmed brothers killer, who failed my brother - who was a paladin of Torm - leading to his death at the hands of the cult of the dragon, and failed my parents - who also worshipped him - by 'killing them' so he had the power to slay Bane etc).

From my perspective Torm is clearly an evil monster, full of lies, and responsible for the deaths of my family. He is fickle, full of deciet and deserves vengance for the wrongs he has done.

People try and fool you that Torm is really LG. I know the truth of it though. And I refuse to be swayed in my convictions.

Now lets look at how I interpret that oath:


Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting
my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil. I choose the
greater evil.

I hate the cult of the dragon. When confronted by a knight of Torm in HoTDQ (from the order of the gauntlet) offering to help the party defeat them, I instead spit on him, denounce him as a heretic and tell him if we cross paths again, he dies.


No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win
my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.

When we duel and he surrenders, I run him through. No mercy for my sworn enemies.


By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can’t get in the
way o f exterminating my foes.

Twinged with guilt at the irony of a member of the Martyrs progeny (whose parents died so Torm could kill Bane, whos brother and him were raised in the Church of Torm) who now worships the very god his parents gave thier lives to slay, I push those thoughts from my mind and engage in acts I would have once thought unspeakable.

Torture. Pogroms. Holy war. Genocide. It saddens me, but it has to be done... for 'the greater good'.


Restitution. If my foes w reak ruin on the world, it is
because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed
by their misdeeds.

The church of Bane was hurt by Torms misdeeds (as was Bane himself, who was killed by Torms 'treachery'). As were my fellow Martys progeny, and the children of Torms deluded worshippers (that did not get a choice in their parents 'evil'). I help those harmed children by releasing them, with an untimatum; and an instruction that if they seek vengance against me, I understand - they know where to find me. Additionallly I give deluded members of the Martyrs progeny a choice. Join Bane, or die.


Even though paladins can be non-good, they are still pretty much made to be good. Everything kind of points that way and to actually make them evil, you have to change the fluff quite a bit.

No mate. Vengance Paladins are expressly called out to be often N in alignment. Many of the tenents condone acts of extreme evil like genocide and murder. The class refers to 'good and evil' not as objective cosmic forces, but rather as the subjective POV of the Paladin. The 'greater evil' can (from the paladins perspective) be a bunch of LG solars.

[Tanarii]

A Paladin of Vengeance is free to fight a greater evil instead of his sworn foe.

Only choosing a lesser evil over his sworn foe would violate the oath. Because that's what it considers, the trigger conditions, if you will. It doesn't come in to play at all if the Paladin is faces with a choice between fighting his sworn foes and a greater evil, since that doesn't meet the trigger conditions for the tenet.

[Tanarii]

Even though paladins can be non-good, they are still pretty much made to be good. Everything kind of points that way and to actually make them evil, you have to change the fluff quite a bit.
Not Vengeance Paladins.

PHB page 68:
"Paladins who uphold these tenets are willing to sacrifice even their own righteousness to mete out justice upon those who do evil, so the paladins are often neutral or lawful neutral in alignment."

IMO it'd probably be harder to play Vengeance Paladins who are any Gooad alignment than LE. Mostly because of the tenet By Any Means Necessary. It'd be doable, I just think that specific tenet makes it difficult.

[Corran]

Is it by chance that the wording of this tenet is ambiguous? It seems to me, like with so many other rules and rulings, the wording is how it is just to allow various approaches. Meaning. Your sworn enemy is B, but enemy C seems to be a greater threat at that time, and you want to go for C...easy..... C is the greater evil, you go for it. You want to roleplay a very single minded paly that will go against B just for vengeance's sake, then B is the greater evil in your paladin's eyes, so go for it.

[Malifice]

Not Vengeance Paladins.

PHB page 68:
"Paladins who uphold these tenets are willing to sacrifice even their own righteousness to mete out justice upon those who do evil, so the paladins are often neutral or lawful neutral in alignment."

IMO it'd probably be harder to play Vengeance Paladins who are any Good alignment than LE. Mostly because of the tenet By Any Means Necessary. It'd be doable, I just think that specific tenet makes it difficult.

I can certainly see a 'Nazi' type fascist paladin, or an 'inquisitor' type engaging in all kinds of genocidal and horrific acts against his chosen 'greater evil'.

All for 'the greater good' of course.

[Sharagh]

So what? Bane didnt swear my oath - I did.

My oath of vengance is against the Church of Torm. I also loathe Cyricists, Torms allies, and the Cult of the Dragon (the latter killed my brother and precipated my fall to evil).

No mate. Vengance Paladins are expressly called out to be often N in alignment. Many of the tenents condone acts of extreme evil like genocide and murder. The class refers to 'good and evil' not as objective cosmic forces, but rather as the subjective POV of the Paladin. The 'greater evil' can (from the paladins perspective) be a bunch of LG solars.

It's your game, you can play it as you like. That's the beauty of DnD in the end. 1 of 4 official oaths leans more towards neutral than good... you still have to change the fluff quite a bit to make it evil. But you can. In DnD, good and evil are cosmic forces and paladins represent their respective forces on the material plane. Everyone thinks they're doing what's right or they wouldn't be doing it. From their perspective, they're doing good. But that doesn't mean that they are actually doing good or that they are good.

I don't know if you've played TF2 (I haven't actually, but I've seen this clip). There's a character in that game called Pyro. Check this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUhOnX8qt3I) out and then tell me what alignment would that character be.

Just because you think you're doing the right thing, doesn't mean you are.

[Tanarii]

In DnD, good and evil are cosmic forces and paladins represent their respective forces on the material plane. Everyone thinks they're doing what's right or they wouldn't be doing it. From their perspective, they're doing good. But that doesn't mean that they are actually doing good or that they are good.For most characters, that doesn't matter. Because in 5e, Alignment is about what a character believes, their attitudes toward morality and society/order. This is explained in the section on Alignment in the Personality chapter of the PHB/Basic Rules. Specific actions don't really matter to alignment. It only informs typical, but not consistent or perfect, behavior. As one facet of a character's personality. Ie it's a tool to help the player get in character.

In fact, even for Paladins, all that matters is: are they obeying or violating the specifics of their Oath? "Cosmic good" and "Cosmic Evil" only matter as laid out within the Oath. Edit: or as additionally defined by the DM and Player in their specific campaign, obviously.

[Malifice]

It's your game, you can play it as you like. That's the beauty of DnD in the end. 1 of 4 official oaths leans more towards neutral than good... you still have to change the fluff quite a bit to make it evil.

Im not changing any of the fluff. Its a by the book RAW Vengance paladin.


But you can. In DnD, good and evil are cosmic forces and paladins represent their respective forces on the material plane. Everyone thinks they're doing what's right or they wouldn't be doing it. From their perspective, they're doing good. But that doesn't mean that they are actually doing good or that they are good.

I agree. But a paladins oath has nothing to do with objective good and evil.


Just because you think you're doing the right thing, doesn't mean you are.

I wholly agree. Im just saying that that is irrelevant with a paladins oath.

[MaxWilson]

Fight the Greater Evil
Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the greater evil.

Now, that's very open to interpretation and makes no sense from a logical standpoint. It's as if it were written like this:


Faced with a choice of apples or pears, I choose oranges.

What is a greater evil? Are paladins sworn enemies always considered greater evil? There is most likely someone out there who can cause greater grief and pain than paladins sworn foes? Wouldn't they then be considered a greater evil? Who should the paladin fight if faced with such a choice?


What are the RAI on this?

That's not ambiguous. Something can't be both the lesser evil and the greater evil at the same time, ergo "my sworn foes" are implicitly "the greater evil."

"Faced with a choice of apples or pears, I choose not-pears." Logically that means you must be choosing apples.

From the perspective of an Oath of Vengeance paladin, his sworn foes are always the greater evil. It's a bit narrow-minded really, but if you're not comfortable with that viewpoint, you're not equipped to roleplay an Oath of Vengeance paladin in the first place.

[Vogonjeltz]

If the balor and the cult have nothing in common - say it's an Ashmadai cult that is actually trying to kill the balor - the paladin should fight the cult (assuming that's who they swore vengeance against).

Objectively speaking, it's not even obvious that the balor is the greater evil. Asmodeus takes his cultists very seriously and can wreak some pretty nasty evil through them.

At the end of the day, the paladin must have had a good reason to swear their oath. You wouldn't swear your oath against some two-bit cult that isn't a threat to anyone, right?

Presumably the paladin would let them destroy//weaken each other, and clean up when one side is left over.

[Tanarii]

From the perspective of an Oath of Vengeance paladin, his sworn foes are always the greater evil.

I disagree. The Tenet doesn't say or even imply that. It just says that the Paladin will always choose his sworn foe over any lesser evil. Of course it is the greater evil in that case. If it's between the sworn foe and a greater evil, the the Tenet doesn't come in to play at all.

It says if A or B, then not-B.

It doesn't say A = Not-B in all cases. If the choice is A or Not-B in the first place, then Tenet doesn't apply.

[Syll]

I'd argue that the way it's written is a mistake of some kind because it really doesn't make much sense.

First, you'd always chose to fight your sworn foes over some lesser evil... that's not even a choice, right? It doesn't even require a tenet. That's something that pretty much every person would do, paladin or not. The real choice presents itself only when the other opponent is a greater threat.

Second, the wording of the sentence IS ambiguous. That's not even questionable.


Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the greater evil.
=
Faced with a choice of A or B, I choose C.

It should've been:


Faced with a choice of A or B, I choose A.

OR

Faced with a choice of A or B, I choose B.

That way, nothing is left open to interpretation and the meaning is clear. That's how rules are written. That's why I think the way it's written may have been a mistake.

I don't think it's ambiguous at all. In fact, i think that sentence parses exactly as you're saying it 'should'.

Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes = A
combating a lesser evil = B
I choose the greater evil. = A

It's a tenet written FROM the perspective of the oathtaker. It's not an objective measure of how evil someone or something is simply because the paladin ISN'T objective... his sworn foe is the all-encompassing evil in his life/world; as other people have said it would take extreme circumstances for him to deviate from his sworn foe.

edit: Hadn't read MaxWilson's post when I wrote this, but apparently I came to the exact same conclusion he did.

[MaxWilson]

I disagree. The Tenet doesn't say or even imply that. It just says that the Paladin will always choose his sworn foe over any lesser evil. Of course it is the greater evil in that case. If it's between the sworn foe and a greater evil, the the Tenet doesn't come in to play at all.

It says if A or B, then not-B.

It doesn't say A = Not-B in all cases. If the choice is A or Not-B in the first place, then Tenet doesn't apply.

The implication lies in the false dichotomy. The person making the statement (the paladin) doesn't even consider the possibility that [sworn enemy] could ever NOT be the greater evil.

Non-political illustration: if I write,

"Given the choice between playing a fighter and something more interesting, I'll take the more interesting class every time,"

you'd be fully justified in assuming that I find fighters uninteresting (in reality I don't). The fact that I'm setting up a (false) dichotomy reveals a lot about my underlying assumptions. I believe the PHB writers intended for the Paladin of Vengeance's Oath to be similarly revealing about the paladin's assumptions.

[AbyssStalker]

Also keep in mind that oaths don't have to be against a specific people, they can be against a person's very beliefs or ideals as well, which changes who the oath extends too.

The "Restitution" part of the oath can cover up more of the vengeance pally's actions against a foe other than the sworn enemy, helping an innocent or ally who has been harmed by your sworn enemy is a part of the oath, and can (or at least should) extend to other issues that might be plaguing them, as their strength means your sworn enemies have a stronger enemy themselves.

You don't have to play the vengeance paladin vengeance stupid like another kind of paladin would go lawful stupid in a similar vein of thought. Conformance to the letter of the oath and the spirit of the oath are two different things.

As to the greater evil thing, I always kind of pictured it always pertains to what evil is most relevant to your situation as it stands with the oath considered as the end objective, just because your enemy is on the field doesn't mean you have to make a mad dash past every other opposing force to get to it with the utmost haste. It should simply mean that you under no lesser reason would you let them evade your vengeance. If you swore an oath against the people who murdered half your family, you shouldn't walk by someone stabbing your mother to get to someone who previously stabbed your sister, it kinda renders the oath moot.

[Tanarii]

The implication lies in the false dichotomy. The person making the statement (the paladin) doesn't even consider the possibility that [sworn enemy] could ever NOT be the greater evil.None of that exists in the Tenet. All the tenet says is if given the choice between the sworn foe, and a lesser evil, the paladin will choose the greater evil. Since the thing that isn't the sworn foe is a lesser evil, then the sworn foe is the greater evil. In that case.

If given a choice between a sworn foe and a greater evil, the Tenet never comes in to play. The Vengeance Paladin is free to do as he likes.

Edit: it's still a fairly restrictive Tenet. Characters do stuff to fight lesser foes all the time, especially in literal combat. A vengeance Paladin won't even consider it if it's a lesser evil, no matter the minor tactical or strategic advantage of the moment. For example, he won't try to pull a couple of melee mooks off his wizard if his sworn foe is available right there to fight instead.

[AbyssStalker]

Edit: it's still a fairly restrictive Tenet. Characters do stuff to fight lesser foes all the time, especially in literal combat. A vengeance Paladin won't even consider it if it's a lesser evil, no matter the minor tactical or strategic advantage of the moment. For example, he won't try to pull a couple of melee mooks off his wizard if his sworn foe is available right there to fight instead.

Maybe if he can actually effectively target the sworn threat, if the mooks impede his or someone else's progress to kill the sworn threat he has the oath ordained right to kill em off. Doubly so if they are actually a legitimately deadly threat, to enact vengeance you must be alive.

This paladin archetype has the same stupid dichotomy being splayed into it as the others in previous editions, Lawful stupid = Vengeance stupid the phrase vengeance is a dish best served cold springs to mind.

P.S. Or at least this is how I've been handling the vengeance pally iv'e been DMing, it's perfectly alright if someone else sees it differently, vengeance is a very subjective thing.

[Malifice]

None of that exists in the Tenet. All the tenet says is if given the choice between the sworn foe, and a lesser evil, the paladin will choose the greater evil. Since the thing that isn't the sworn foe is a lesser evil, then the sworn foe is the greater evil. In that case.

If given a choice between a sworn foe and a greater evil, the Tenet never comes in to play. The Vengeance Paladin is free to do as he likes.

Edit: it's still a fairly restrictive Tenet. Characters do stuff to fight lesser foes all the time, especially in literal combat. A vengeance Paladin won't even consider it if it's a lesser evil, no matter the minor tactical or strategic advantage of the moment. For example, he won't try to pull a couple of melee mooks off his wizard if his sworn foe is available right there to fight instead.

I certainly would help the Wizard. Hes a weapon in my fight against evil.

Big picture.

[MaxWilson]

None of that exists in the Tenet. All the tenet says is if given the choice between the sworn foe, and a lesser evil, the paladin will choose the greater evil. Since the thing that isn't the sworn foe is a lesser evil, then the sworn foe is the greater evil. In that case.

If given a choice between a sworn foe and a greater evil, the Tenet never comes in to play. The Vengeance Paladin is free to do as he likes.

Apparently we're talking past each other. I agree that the Tenet does not explicitly address a genuinely greater threat; you think that means the paladin is free to do as he likes; I think if that situation ever occurs in the mind of the paladin, it proves that the Vengeance Paladin chose the wrong foe, and it will trigger a moral crisis for the paladin.

But the disagreement isn't ultimately a big deal to me. Do as you like.

Peace,
Max

[endur]

That's my entire point. The tenet is ambiguously written and could be interpreted either way and that's not good.

All Paladin codes have always had ambiguities.

This is nothing new.

The paladin interprets and makes his choice.

If others in his order don't like his choices, they put him on trial.

[Pex]

An Oath of Vengeance Paladin does not have to vow vengeance against a particular foe. It's enough just to want to fight against evil. The Vengeance Paladin wants to destroy evil and does not concern himself with moral quandry of mercy towards unarmed enemies, prisoners they just captured, orc babies, and all sorts of gotcha questions that caused alignment debates in the past. It's ok if your particular character swore an oath against cultists so you choose to fight the cultists before the Balor, but that specific scenario says nothing about Vengeance Paladins in general. Another Vengeance Paladin who agreed to help a village against cultists while in doing so encounters the Balor can decide to fight the Balor first as the bigger threat because it's a Balor and deal with the cultists afterwards. If he can find a way to deal with them both even better.

[Sharagh]

Damn philosophy, all your replies made me think too much :P

Anyway, I actually, kinda agree with most of your points now, but I'll still say it should've been worded better. On the other hand, the sentence seems to be confusing just to me, so maybe I'm the weird one.

[Lonely Tylenol]

What is a greater evil?

You are a loose-cannon cop who lives on the edge of the law. A mobster murdered your partner, and your sworn duty is to find his killer and bring him to justice. But when you finally track him down and have him staring down the wrong end of the gun, your wacky civilian sidekick tells you that you can't kill this person: they're a key informant for the police, and they're essential to bringing down the Triad, which have been causing an upheaval in the criminal world and threatening to destroy the city in its entirety. Do you pull the trigger and deliver justice for your partner, but lose (perhaps forever) your chance to bring down a greater criminal threat, or do merely rough them up a bit, putting off your vengeance for later, and buddy up with this unlikely ally to bring down the Triad, knowing they might escape in the doing?

[Tenmujiin]

Where's this idea that paladins are always beholden to gods coming from? RaW they receive their power from devotion to a cause and belief of their own righteousness and as such are only going to lose their powers if THEY think they broke the oath.

[Sharagh]

Where's this idea that paladins are always beholden to gods coming from? RaW they receive their power from devotion to a cause and belief of their own righteousness and as such are only going to lose their powers if THEY think they broke the oath.

PHB 82:

"...a paladin's power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god."

RAW at least a portion of their power comes from a god. Also, they're wielding divine magic... it's kinda in the word divine :smallcool:

Also, it doesn't make much sense that the oath is broken only if paladins themselves think it's broken. Someone above them, I assume the one they swore the oath to, (their god) is the one who decides.

[Malifice]

PHB 82:

"...a paladin's power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god."

RAW at least a portion of their power comes from a god. Also, they're wielding divine magic... it's kinda in the word divine :smallcool:

Also, it doesn't make much sense that the oath is broken only if paladins themselves think it's broken. Someone above them, I assume the one they swore the oath to, (their god) is the one who decides.

Divine magic doesnt exist anymore.

[djreynolds]

Yeah, vengeance is deliberately narrow-minded. A vengeance paladin is not the kind of person you call when you need a goodly holy warrior. They are dangerous folks who might even be a liability in some situations.

Their oath demands that they fight their sworn foes - and always consider them to be the greatest evil - to the exclusion of almost everything else. This can be particularly troublesome if the sworn enemy is not *always* evil.



Very good insight, they can be dangerous. You may have to make a wisdom save, to stop yourself.

[Sharagh]

Divine magic doesnt exist anymore.

Huh... it looks like you're right. I didn't even notice that tidbit. Thanks for pointing it out. Although, as far as paladins are concerned, they still have plenty of "divine" in their repertoire... channel divinity, divine sense, divine smite, divine health...

[Arkhios]

It's a subtle change, but I think it's very intentional as well. No point to call a Rake a Pitchfork even though they look much alike. It doesn't make much mechanical sense either to have spells differentiated by arcane/divine aspects when all effects are exactly the same regardless of the class which has access to the spells. I think it's a great move to have the classes defining the source rather than the source defining the class.

[strangebloke]

I think the trick here is in the use of the comparative tense.

lesser evil implies that it is the lesser of the two evils presented, the other being your sworn foe. The greater evil of the two options is then necessarily the sworn foe.

Stated another way:

if allowed to choose your sworn enemy and an evil less than your sworn enemy, choose the greater of the two. (Since we're choosing one of the two, because that is how the question is framed.)

Nowhere in here do they say "the Greatest Evil."

The odd part here is that nothing else in the text indicates that your sworn foe has to be evil-aligned so if you swear vengeance against, say, angels, that tenet only applies if you have the option to fight someone less evil or more good than your angelic foes. So does a very strict RAW allows you to basically do whatever you want with your paladin powers? Seems a bit silly to me, but there it is.

Re: the PoV being unsuitable to player interaction: I don't see it. Think of Roy from OotS as a vengeance pally. He goes on all sorts of quests, chases down and defends the gates, in part to save the world, yeah, but also because he knows that Xykon is going to the gates as well and he really wants to kill the bugger. Every sidequest, like the starmetal sword, helps him to fight Xykon better when the next battle comes. Helping his allies and keeping them alive is key to his ultimate plan of bringing Xykon down.

"Fighting the greater evil" can involve a lot more than swinging a polearm. You can fight the evil by gathering magic weapons, allies, and friends to use against them. You can fight the evil by joining them and leading them to their own destruction. The only thing is that, even if you're good aligned, you have to be pragmatic about what wrongs you take the time to right. Ultimately, the goal always needs to be killing off the people you swore your oath against. The oath above all. I can see a PoV arguing for the world's destruction, since that would eliminate his enemy. By any means necessary, after all.

[Millstone85]

Divine magic doesnt exist anymore.Huh... it looks like you're right. I didn't even notice that tidbit.Er...


By 2nd level, you have learned to draw on divine magic through meditation and prayer to cast spells as a cleric does.
The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. [...] The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic.Nope, the distinction is still here. Is this about the spells themselves not having the keyword?

[Malifice]

Er...

Nope, the distinction is still here. Is this about the spells themselves not having the keyword?

It might still be there, but its a meaningless distinction in 5E.

Or to be more correct, it has enough meaning as you want it to.

Similar to how you can play a CE cleric of a LG god now. Depending on heavily how your Gods are involved in the world, this could range from totally acceptable [the 'heretic' gets judged in the afterlife] to unacceptable [the God intervenes and strips away the clerics powers].

Its up to the DM (and his campaign world) how this works.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ye Their oath demands that they fight their sworn foes - and always consider them to be the greatest evil - to the exclusion of almost everything else. This can be particularly troublesome if the sworn enemy is not *always* evil.
Just to make this interesting: care to cite the precise wording from the PHB on this? I don't recall the words saying that, but as I don't have the PHB with me at the moment, I may not remember correctly.


And we're all saying it's not ambiguous. The paladin should keep their oath and fight their sworn enemy (which is how they define "greater evil"). It would take some extremely dire circumstances to make them choose to break it. Like a greater evil than the sworn enemy. That means "judgment call" not "digital computer code rule" or legalese old version Paladin clunkiness.

But a tenet isn't a rule. It's supposed to be open to interpretation, because WotC wanted to move away from the idea of paladins being so constrained by legalese as to be unplayable.Cha ching, we have a winner. :smallbiggrin:


'Greater evil' in the context of the above passage means 'the Paladins sworn enemies'. . That is an opinion, not a fact, nor a clear statement in the rules as written.

Pay attention: this is not meant to be a step function. It is meant to put judgment calls and decisions into the hand of the Paladin, and the DM, which can make for some neat moral dilemmas and choices and rich game play.

The polemics, or black/white, most of you are arguing is at odds with what WoTC is trying to do with the Oath of Vengeance, see NinjaPrawn's point about it requiring interpretation.

[Douche]

Fight the Greater Evil
Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the greater evil.


We've established that
A) The paladin has sworn foes
B) There are lesser evils

Therefore, between A and B, we must conclude that the sworn foe must be the greater evil. If he always fights his sworn foe - the greater evil - then why even mention that there are lesser evils? Unless it's trying to establish that he will allow smaller injustices to occur if it gets in the way of combating his sworn foe. He doesn't care if he sees some slaves getting whipped out in the field if it jeopardizes his chances of getting revenge on the dude who killed his father or whatever.

[Goober4473]

I always read this to mean the vengeance paladin, unlike other oaths, are willing to ignore or work with evil people/creatures in order to serve the greater good (i.e. defeated the greater evil). The oath doesn't even really mention picking a specific enemy to be vengeful about, just that some wrongdoing has probably set them on this path in the first place. "I've seen too much evil in this world and I have to set things right," is just as good a reason to swear the oath as, "I have to kill the dragon that destroyed my home, and any like it." So while some vengeance paladins may feel that their sworn enemy is always the bigger threat, others may be more analytical, weighing the options in each situation, and others may fall somewhere in the middle.

Also, from the PHB: "The tenets of the Oath of Vengeance vary by paladin, but all the tenets revolve around punishing wrongdoers by any means necessary." So, interpret as you will for your own character, or come up with your own variation.