6 Levels of Paladin, Multiclass into -> ?

[Talamare]

So I have 6 levels of Paladin, I didn't choose Ancients so my level 7 isn't really interesting.
Level 8 stat increases are always nice, but then it's not really interesting until 11.

Paladin is a good core chassis to MC into a variety of things, which MC do you guys find to be most interesting

Sorcerer, Bard, Warlock?

Note, I'm offtank sword and broad style.

[Yuki Akuma]

Warlock.

Those per-short-rest smites are great.

[Kane0]

If you aren't interested in more casting then fighter and barbarian are both great options also.

Otherwise both sorc and warlock make excellent additions.

[MaxWilson]

So I have 6 levels of Paladin, I didn't choose Ancients so my level 7 isn't really interesting.
Level 8 stat increases are always nice, but then it's not really interesting until 11.

Paladin is a good core chassis to MC into a variety of things, which MC do you guys find to be most interesting

Sorcerer, Bard, Warlock?

Note, I'm offtank sword and broad style.

I quite enjoy Paladin/Sorcerer for the added versatility (Enhanced Ability!) and defensive abilities (Shield, Blur, Expeditious Retreat, Web) and offensive abilities (Firebolt, Booming Blade, Fireball, eventually Animate Object). A splash of Warlock 2 doesn't hurt either for better ranged capabilities and short-rest spell slots.

In your shoes I'd invest level 7 in Sorcerer, level 8-9 in Warlock, level 10-12 in Paladin for Aura of Vitality/Revivify, and level 13-20 in Sorcerer. Be sure to pick up Warcaster, whatever you do. That will let you grapple monsters without losing your ability to Shield; it will let you Booming Blade on opportunity attacks; and it will prevent you from having to worry at all about losing concentration on your defensive/control spells like Wrathful Smite and Blur.

[bid]

So I have 6 levels of Paladin, I didn't choose Ancients so my level 7 isn't really interesting.
Level 8 stat increases are always nice, but then it's not really interesting until 11.

Paladin is a good core chassis to MC into a variety of things, which MC do you guys find to be most interesting

Sorcerer, Bard, Warlock?

Note, I'm offtank sword and broad style.
Paladin 9 has a few killer spells that you can prepare as needed, such as aura of vitality and crusader's mantle. But you can delay them for a 3-level dip in any casters.
All casters give you more slot for more smites, but you'll need to sheath your sword or grab warcaster if you want to do more.
- Lore bard is ok for a skill monkey, but adds little combat power.
- Sorcerer adds pre-battle buffing (and quicken GFB + normal 2 attacks).
- Tome warlock has rituals and utilities (and EB to cover range), but only becomes great if you have a few short rest per day.

It all depends on your party and your RP concept.

[Kane0]

Pally 11 / Warlock 2 / Sorc 7
Pally 6 / Warlock 2 / Sorc 12

Both are good options

[Malifice]

Sorcerer 5 for Haste, shield, mirror image and metamagic (quickened greenflame blade) plus more slots for smite usage.

Wild magic sorcerer + Ancients Paladin works well fluff wise too

[choryukami]

Sorcerer: Blast and melee. At higher levels Quickened Fireball + Full Attack (possibly with smites), and Haste are glorious on a paladin. And having higher level slots with nowhere to go but into Divine Smite. Mine is a Wild Sorcerer so if I get a weird surge, it happens in melee with bad guys.

Warlock: Smites on short rest are good. Infernal Pact being able to fireball is also good. Blade Pact (being able to add charisma to damage at 18th level total) is pretty good but late. You may want to go with another pact for utility, YMMV.

Bard: I would go with Lore Bard. At level 12 total (6/6) you can poach 2 spells from any list, which includes paladin. You can grab Banishing Smite even though you lost access to it from multiclassing. Besides that, Magical Secrets has a lot of really awesome options.

Fighter: You could do a 2 level dip for action surge, a second fighting style, second wind (though you already have healing). Or a 3 level dip for EK. Resummon your weapon with a bonus action. Get some cantrips. Get a couple wizard spells, maybe a familiar (which can give you advantage 1/round). Or get maneuvers as a BM (you only really need a 3 level dip, it barely gets better).

Barbarian: If you don't care about casting actual spells at all, you can smite while raging. I have considered doing a Half-Orc Paladin/Barbarian. The bonuses to barbarian are evident: more damage, resistance to damage. If you don't care about buffs this is an overall win.

[Talamare]

So Warlock can probably be tucked under the bed

Sorcerer gives more numerical push with defensive bursts from Shield spells, and offensive push with quicken
While Bard has probably a more versatile push with the vast amount of bonuses to skills, and the ability to get my high level Paladin spells back eventually (or any other spell I might find useful)

I understand Fighter and Barbarian are solid choices are well, but I do want to try to become a better caster. Even if that Battlemaster Fighter looks fun to play, and Champion Increased Crit range on Paladin Smites sound OP XD. I definitely recognize the strength in Bearbarian but I chose the Noble background and I have been RPing like a rich ******* with my pinky extended when I drink beer.

I'm probably going to try to look into both, but that ability to Quicken spells sounds so insanely useful.

[choryukami]

It absolutely is. My paladin (look at the sig) can burst like no other with Quicken Scorching Ray and two attacks with higher level smites. It'll get even more powerful in 1 level when he can use all those 3rd level slots for fireballs.

And I am definitely a bard advocate, I realize how powerful the bard is. But you already have the best stuff from Valor bard: better weapons, armor, two attacks. Lore bard has some pretty neat stuff. It'll come later and really add to your versatility and add to your casting ability.

But the burst of a sorcerer is hard to pass up.

My explanation for having sorcerer levels for my paladin is that he was affected by plane shattering events he was nearby, and his magic got suffused with wild magic. Baston is also a noble, but he is separated from the plane his homeland is on. He is researching stronger magic to try and find a way home as well. Bard really makes a lot of sense for a noble also, imo and could use the same explanation.

[bid]

Sorcerer gives more numerical push with defensive bursts from Shield spells
Remember you'll need warcaster or subtle metamagic to cast S/VS spells.

[MadBear]

Just a warning I've found in general.

While a small dip is useful immediately, I've noticed that I usually end up regretting it with the paladin in the long run. With spell casting classes you're picking up marginal utility since you're likely to not get much higher then 3rd level spells, and with martial classes the new abilities only seem to barely make up for the loss in damage you would have gained anyway with sticking to the core class.

The only time dipping really seemed worth it was at the highest levels (16-20), and only then if you were looking for a specific trick (assassin for auto-crit smites, Sorcerer for extra spell slots, Warlock for a good ranged attack, etc.

[Safety Sword]

Multi-class into Paladin.

And then more Paladin.

Take a dip in Paladin.

Paladin.

[MaxWilson]

Just a warning I've found in general.

While a small dip is useful immediately, I've noticed that I usually end up regretting it with the paladin in the long run. With spell casting classes you're picking up marginal utility since you're likely to not get much higher then 3rd level spells, and with martial classes the new abilities only seem to barely make up for the loss in damage you would have gained anyway with sticking to the core class.

The only time dipping really seemed worth it was at the highest levels (16-20), and only then if you were looking for a specific trick (assassin for auto-crit smites, Sorcerer for extra spell slots, Warlock for a good ranged attack, etc.

The trick is to pick a class whose 1st and maybe 2nd level spells are desirable for a paladin. That's one reason Sorcerers are a good pick. With a one-level investment in Sorcerer you can pick up Shield and Expeditious Retreat, which bumps your survivability by about 100%. (Also, Tides of Chaos, Booming Blade, Fire Bolt, Sleep.) Stick it out to level 3 or 4 and you get Enhanced Ability and Blur. I wish I'd take Sorcerer levels sooner. Next time I play a Paladin, instead of going straight to Paladin 6, I'm going to go Paladin 1, Sorcerer 1, Paladin 2-6, and also take Warcaster at level 1. That sorc level is too good to wait for.

[CaptAl]

Next time I play a Paladin, instead of going straight to Paladin 6, I'm going to go Paladin 1, Sorcerer 1, Paladin 2-6, and also take Warcaster at level 1. That sorc level is too good to wait for.

Can't take warcaster as Paladin 1. No spells to meet the prerequisite. At least not without a DM handwave.

[Talamare]

Just a warning I've found in general.

While a small dip is useful immediately, I've noticed that I usually end up regretting it with the paladin in the long run. With spell casting classes you're picking up marginal utility since you're likely to not get much higher then 3rd level spells, and with martial classes the new abilities only seem to barely make up for the loss in damage you would have gained anyway with sticking to the core class.

The only time dipping really seemed worth it was at the highest levels (16-20), and only then if you were looking for a specific trick (assassin for auto-crit smites, Sorcerer for extra spell slots, Warlock for a good ranged attack, etc.

Might go heavier into this 2nd class than just a quick dip. I wouldn't even be against going like maybe 9 levels into it, so I can still get Lv11 Improved Smite... Maybe not. Tho, I'm not exactly sure how I would alternate after diving at least 3 for metamagics.

I'm not even hard against the idea of going 14 in the 2nd class, but again time will tell on that. For now I definitely want to MC and with all the suggestions Sorcerer does seem the most fun.
Oh, and yea it would have been Lore Bard. Lot's of interesting Spells and huge amount of skills.


It absolutely is. My paladin (look at the sig) can burst like no other with Quicken Scorching Ray and two attacks with higher level smites. It'll get even more powerful in 1 level when he can use all those 3rd level slots for fireballs. Wouldn't Fireball end up blasting yourself? Why not just use Lightning Bolt? Same damage, same slot and can snipe a distant target.

[MaxWilson]

Can't take warcaster as Paladin 1. No spells to meet the prerequisite. At least not without a DM handwave.

Whoops, you're right. I'll still prioritize it highly though, and take Sorc as soon as possible.

Thanks for the correction.


Wouldn't Fireball end up blasting yourself? Why not just use Lightning Bolt? Same damage, same slot and can snipe a distant target.

In 5E, Fireball ironically has better range and target selection than Lightning Bolt. Fireball is a 20' radius sphere, centered anywhere within 150' of you. Lightning Bolt is a 100' line, starting at your current position. It is easier to avoid friendly fire casualties with Fireball because you can place it right on the enemy without worrying about hitting any allies between you and the target. It also has longer range.

[HarrisonF]

Just a warning I've found in general.

While a small dip is useful immediately, I've noticed that I usually end up regretting it with the paladin in the long run. With spell casting classes you're picking up marginal utility since you're likely to not get much higher then 3rd level spells, and with martial classes the new abilities only seem to barely make up for the loss in damage you would have gained anyway with sticking to the core class. I disagree. Paladin doesn't get a lot of damage increases after level 5. Improved divine smite at 11 and the level 20 capstones are the only direct increases. The others come from spells, which full spellcasting classes can do better.

Sorcerer with quicken spell and the new melee cantrips (and real spells like fireball) really are a bigger DPR increase imo.

[HarrisonF]

The trick is to pick a class whose 1st and maybe 2nd level spells are desirable for a paladin. That's one reason Sorcerers are a good pick. With a one-level investment in Sorcerer you can pick up Shield and Expeditious Retreat, which bumps your survivability by about 100%. (Also, Tides of Chaos, Booming Blade, Fire Bolt, Sleep.) Stick it out to level 3 or 4 and you get Enhanced Ability and Blur. I wish I'd take Sorcerer levels sooner. Next time I play a Paladin, instead of going straight to Paladin 6, I'm going to go Paladin 1, Sorcerer 1, Paladin 2-6, and also take Warcaster at level 1. That sorc level is too good to wait for.If you create a Dex paladin and can convince your DM that the MC requirement of Str can be done with Dex for paladins, then going Sorcerer 1, Paladin 6, Sorcerer rest, is the way to go. This gives you Constitution saving throw prof and lets you take Warcaster at level 1. This really is the ideal build imo, but does require DM agreement that the Str requirement for Paladin is odd (or waste a 13 attribute). The only drawback is that you need to wait a level to get Extra Attack (but your cantrip attack is pretty good anyways).

[dunnetg]

This is not entirely relevant to the OP's question, but I always start as a Fighter 1 when playing a paladin. Taking that one level dip right at the beginning gives you CON saves, a huge help for paladins, and an extra fighting style, which let's you take Protection in addition to a damage boost.

Warlock levels are of course really good, too :)

[Corran]

This is not entirely relevant to the OP's question, but I always start as a Fighter 1 when playing a paladin. Taking that one level dip right at the beginning gives you CON saves, a huge help for paladins, and an extra fighting style, which let's you take Protection in addition to a damage boost.

A lot of people make this mistake. You lose more things than what you get, at any and all levels.


I disagree. Paladin doesn't get a lot of damage increases after level 5. Improved divine smite at 11 and the level 20 capstones are the only direct increases. The others come from spells, which full spellcasting classes can do better.

Depends on the oath.
OoV paladins get haste at level 9, which is the backbone of their damage. Oathbreakers get aura of hate at level 7, which adds a lot of damage too.
Getting access to 3rd level spells at character level 9 (instead of at a greater character level by multiclassing into full caster) is no small deal either.
And I know that you mentioned IDS, but I would just like to emphasize on how important this feature is for a paladin's dpr, given a paladin is optimised.
And ofc feats, which you will get at a steady rate of you stay in your paladin class. Feats add to dpr.

Ime multiclassing out of paladin rarely adds damage. Most often you lose on damage and instead add versatility and defense.

[djreynolds]

Of all the classes, IMO, the paladin is the only class that can truly tank and strike simultaneously. But to optimize you must select how you fight in combat, S&B or GW. Unless, you rolled crazy stats most of your ASI will land in strength or con, or GWM or sentinel, or resilient con or war caster. If you multiclass, you're gaining some extra defensive measures you lack, some extra spell slots to smite with, or something martial based like a fighting style or action surge or cunning action.

Now this guy is S&B? Is his style defense, protection, duelist or GWS?

Beginning a paladin will net you wisdom and charisma saves, huge. You really do not need strength save proficiency and everyone wants wisdom save proficiency. Wisdom saves are just as important as con saves. And when charisma saves come up, you do not want to fail those.

The key, is after 6th level you have a really good base for any caster and plenty of smites. Now where do you go? 11th level adds radiant damage to all attacks, and unlike hunter's mark doesn't require any spells or concentration. Do you want this?

For me a paladin should fight with a great sword, he has the ability to cast bless or shield of faith to either up the defense for not having a shield or cast bless to ensure he hits. And he has GWM feat. And maybe sentinel if he can afford it.

A paladin could dip sorcerer for 4-5 levels, IMO, and snag shield and mirror image, two huge spells. He will cast bless a lot on himself and because he has no shield, he will use most reactions on the shield spell, so sentinel will not be worth it.

Now war caster vs. resilient con, reality says you cannot afford both. But you can wait on this till like level 12 or 16, really. The only concentration spell you are using is bless usually, so who cares if you drop it, and any damage that penetrates the +5 AC shield spell you just spammed in more than likely breaking your concentration anyhow. After 6th level, every ASI in charisma is now giving you and your allies +1 on saves. And they will be close to take advantage your Aura.

I think if after 6th level if you multiclass with a caster class and are S&B, war caster is wanted because now you have cantrips and a shield and sword will complicate MC spell casting.

If you stay the paladin with the big great sword, resilient con is better as you will be taking shots in melee and that 2AC you are missing from a real shield will hurt.

A paladin can snag really one attack feat, some like GWM as it is +10 damage, and some like polearm master for the bonus attack which also will add radiant damage at 11th level. If you can afford both go for it. You have 5 feats. A half elf can with standard array can have 20 strength, 18 charisma, GWM, and resilient con/ war caster.

[Corran]

snip
You make some very good points, though there are a few things I do not agree with.

Regarding paladin fighting style, optimization comes through the oath. Before the oath, by looking only at class features, S&B and polearm seem to fit best. Once the oaths kick in, it gets a bit more complicated. For example, OoV work better with either greatsword/maul or with polearm, OoA work better with S&B (dex based nets more benefits in this case) or with polearm, oathbreaker works best with polearm hands down, etc.

[djreynolds]

You make some very good points, though there are a few things I do not agree with.

Regarding paladin fighting style, optimization comes through the oath. Before the oath, by looking only at class features, S&B and polearm seem to fit best. Once the oaths kick in, it gets a bit more complicated. For example, OoV work better with either greatsword/maul or with polearm, OoA work better with S&B (dex based nets more benefits in this case) or with polearm, oathbreaker works best with polearm hands down, etc.

Well even better, now the OP has an even better means of evaluating his progression. I like that optimization comes through his oath.

[Arkhios]

The following is biased from an immersive point of view of the game:

I've said this before, and I repeat: Warlock by definition shouldn't be taken lightly when multiclassing to or from Paladin, simply because both classes are pretty much the opposites from the point of ideologies.


A paladin in general is a force of good and justice, and a protector of innocents, while a warlock in general is a force of chaos and mischief, dabbling into powers that could be considered evil in nature. (e.g. Armor of Agathys is a reference to a layer of Abyss; you know, a plane of fiends, who are "quite" evil)

While mechanically the classes mix well, it would require "quite a few" handwaves regarding lore issues as well as the aforementioned ideologies. (Honestly, I doubt mischievous acts would be considered good and/or just by most NPC's)

Additionally, Paladins don't ask for their powers, they are granted to them by some higher entity due to their ideals.
Warlocks, on the other hand, make pacts with powerful beings in order to get their powers. Pacts a.k.a. deals with such entities often require you to give something (a part of your soul, sanity, or whatever) in return, very much unlike a paladin would ever do.

True, a paladin must follow the tenets of their oath in order to continue receiving the benefits, but that's by far less severe than what warlocks do to get theirs.

D&D is a roleplaying game, like it or not, agree or don't. Roleplaying should require at least some level of immersion to the world, because otherwise you could just throw the story and flavor texts out of the window, and forget that you are actually playing a fantastical hero or villain instead of a simple statblock on a paper with various numbers in it. From that point of view, yes, anything can work. But not from immersive point of view.

I'm not saying a paladin/warlock couldn't work, I'm trying to say, that should you take that step and still want to take your character seriously (not disregard his or her personality and beliefs for the sake of simple mechanics), and pay some serious consideration on how you can make the classes work with each other's flavor.

An Oath of the Ancients Paladin (Usually Good, might be anything from Lawful to Chaotic) might be able to justify himself with a pact to an archfey, as long as the archfey was good in nature, and had no ill-will against the tenets of your Oath.
A Devotion Paladin (Usually Good, often Lawful) would have hard time picking any Patron, unless your DM allowed the UA Undying Light Patron. Even then, I'd suggest not taking spells that do not fit your theme.
Oath of Vengeance Paladin (not neccessarily Good, but not likely Evil either) could justify a deal with an Old God, or maybe a Fey. Or again, Undying Light.
An Oathbreaker could more easily sign a pact with any patron, except perhaps the UA Undying Light.

/end of rant.


That said, a sorcerer (any origin) should work just fine with a paladin (or any other class, really) as sorcerer's can get their magic by chance of bloodline or an external source. One might live his entire life never manifesting his powers, while someone might manifest them very early on (and thus, begin as a sorcerer). It's entirely possible that someone might manifest their sorcerous powers at a later point of their career, like suddenly just after reaching 6th paladin level ;)
Mechanically Sorcerer is best for paladin if you want more spell slots, to be flexible caster, and of course earlier access to better smites. Perhaps even a bit more smites than you would otherwise get, due to Font of Magic. Sorcerer is worst for paladin due to their hit dice (d6), but that might not be a big problem.

Likewise a bard works well with a paladin who has a deep interest for all sorts of stories and/or arts. Even though College of Valor grants proficiencies and an Extra attack which you already had from paladin, a traveling story-teller and a warrior (a.k.a. Skald) should fit well for a paladin. Likewise a Paladin with a knack for spellcasting or just multitalented with various skills might instead find himself following the path to a College of Lore.
Mechanically bard is best for a paladin because they get highly versatile list of spells known, more so with Magical Secrets. In addition, Bards get Jack of all Trades at second level, which gives half of your proficiency bonus to ALL ability checks for which you lack proficiency. (This includes your Initiative checks, as they are Dexterity checks; and who wouldn't want to act first as often as possible).
In addition, both Colleges grant nice benefits with Bardic Inspiration. Lore might be even better for a tanky paladin as you can effectively negate hits against your allies within 60 feet of you.

[djreynolds]

The following is biased from an immersive point of view of the game:

I've said this before, and I repeat: Warlock by definition shouldn't be taken lightly when multiclassing to or from Paladin, simply because both classes are pretty much the opposites from the point of ideologies.


A paladin in general is a force of good and justice, and a protector of innocents, while a warlock in general is a force of chaos and mischief, dabbling into powers that could be considered evil in nature. (e.g. Armor of Agathys is a reference to a layer of Abyss; you know, a plane of fiends, who are "quite" evil)

While mechanically the classes mix well, it would require "quite a few" handwaves regarding lore issues as well as the aforementioned ideologies. (Honestly, I doubt mischievous acts would be considered good and/or just by most NPC's)

Additionally, Paladins don't ask for their powers, they are granted to them by some higher entity due to their ideals.
Warlocks, on the other hand, make pacts with powerful beings in order to get their powers. Pacts a.k.a. deals with such entities often require you to give something (a part of your soul, sanity, or whatever) in return, very much unlike a paladin would ever do.

True, a paladin must follow the tenets of their oath in order to continue receiving the benefits, but that's by far less severe than what warlocks do to get theirs.

D&D is a roleplaying game, like it or not, agree or don't. Roleplaying should require at least some level of immersion to the world, because otherwise you could just throw the story and flavor texts out of the window, and forget that you are actually playing a fantastical hero or villain instead of a simple statblock on a paper with various numbers in it. From that point of view, yes, anything can work. But not from immersive point of view.

I'm not saying a paladin/warlock couldn't work, I'm trying to say, that should you take that step and still want to take your character seriously (not disregard his or her personality and beliefs for the sake of simple mechanics), and pay some serious consideration on how you can make the classes work with each other's flavor.

An Oath of the Ancients Paladin (Usually Good, might be anything from Lawful to Chaotic) might be able to justify himself with a pact to an archfey, as long as the archfey was good in nature, and had no ill-will against the tenets of your Oath.
A Devotion Paladin (Usually Good, often Lawful) would have hard time picking any Patron, unless your DM allowed the UA Undying Light Patron. Even then, I'd suggest not taking spells that do not fit your theme.
Oath of Vengeance Paladin (not neccessarily Good, but not likely Evil either) could justify a deal with an Old God, or maybe a Fey. Or again, Undying Light.
An Oathbreaker could more easily sign a pact with any patron, except perhaps the UA Undying Light.

/end of rant.


That said, a sorcerer (any origin) should work just fine with a paladin (or any other class, really) as sorcerer's can get their magic by chance of bloodline or an external source. One might live his entire life never manifesting his powers, while someone might manifest them very early on (and thus, begin as a sorcerer). It's entirely possible that someone might manifest their sorcerous powers at a later point of their career, like suddenly just after reaching 6th paladin level ;)
Mechanically Sorcerer is best for paladin if you want more spell slots, to be flexible caster, and of course earlier access to better smites. Perhaps even a bit more smites than you would otherwise get, due to Font of Magic. Sorcerer is worst for paladin due to their hit dice (d6), but that might not be a big problem.

Likewise a bard works well with a paladin who has a deep interest for all sorts of stories and/or arts. Even though College of Valor grants proficiencies and an Extra attack which you already had from paladin, a traveling story-teller and a warrior (a.k.a. Skald) should fit well for a paladin. Likewise a Paladin with a knack for spellcasting or just multitalented with various skills might instead find himself following the path to a College of Lore.
Mechanically bard is best for a paladin because they get highly versatile list of spells known, more so with Magical Secrets. In addition, Bards get Jack of all Trades at second level, which gives half of your proficiency bonus to ALL ability checks for which you lack proficiency. (This includes your Initiative checks, as they are Dexterity checks; and who wouldn't want to act first as often as possible).
In addition, both Colleges grant nice benefits with Bardic Inspiration. Lore might be even better for a tanky paladin as you can effectively negate hits against your allies within 60 feet of you.

Excellent points, never forget the roleplaying aspect. Oathbreaker paladin and warlock fit well, but you're right I mean paladins took an oath.

Its funny, but remember Icewindale PC game paladins and monks could multiclass, but only with select classes. And these classes were never in sync, paladin had wizard and monk could with sorcerer. So yeah, I understand optimizing but it should "feel" right

[Citan]

Just a warning I've found in general.

While a small dip is useful immediately, I've noticed that I usually end up regretting it with the paladin in the long run. With spell casting classes you're picking up marginal utility since you're likely to not get much higher then 3rd level spells, and with martial classes the new abilities only seem to barely make up for the loss in damage you would have gained anyway with sticking to the core class.

The only time dipping really seemed worth it was at the highest levels (16-20), and only then if you were looking for a specific trick (assassin for auto-crit smites, Sorcerer for extra spell slots, Warlock for a good ranged attack, etc.
I disagree. :)
1. Many spells of 1st, 2nd or 3rd level are great assets for Paladin, not "marginal utility", although there is, certainly, a fierce competition for the concentration slot, if only with Bless/ShieldofFaith/Oath spells.

2. Lvl 15 oath features are either defensive buffs or situational features, whereas additional spell slots means more consistent strategies throughout the day or better nova. Otherwise said, each dip in caster immediately brings regular benefit.
Only the capstone makes it worth go Pally 20, but most characters never go that far.

3. As for damage, there is not much to gain in Paladin beyond the 11th lvl. Confer the point above and spells. You lose good-to-great smite spells that inflict damage and debuff (depending on CHA) and Circle of Power which is arguably the best buff of all spells. You get instead potent debuffs, AOE damage or ranged piked damage (Or go Lore Bard and get both).

Whereas many dips bring again immediate benefit, either by providing direct damage buff, enabling advantage or increasing mobility/defense (which in turn means you can be more adventurous): Fighting Style, Sneak Attack, Rage, etc...

Really, I believe that, contrarily to your say, it's especially better for a Paladin that emphasizes offense (to the detriment of the other "built-in" roles) to dip into another class than stick as pure, unless assured to go up to 20.

[MaxWilson]

If you create a Dex paladin and can convince your DM that the MC requirement of Str can be done with Dex for paladins, then going Sorcerer 1, Paladin 6, Sorcerer rest, is the way to go. This gives you Constitution saving throw prof and lets you take Warcaster at level 1. This really is the ideal build imo, but does require DM agreement that the Str requirement for Paladin is odd (or waste a 13 attribute). The only drawback is that you need to wait a level to get Extra Attack (but your cantrip attack is pretty good anyways).

That's a long ways out of my way to go just to take Warcaster early and get Con saves. It would compromise my role as party tank in three ways:

(1) Mage Armor gives a lower max AC than plate. (AC 20 for Mage Armor + Shield + Dex 20 vs. AC 21 for plate + shield + Defense style)

(2) It obligates me to max Dexterity, making me MAD, whereas a Str Paladin can get by just fine on Str 16 and still be mobile while maxing Cha and taking feats.

(3) It would impair my Athletics. IME, Str 16 and +7 on Athletics is just fine given Extra Attack and Hex support--but Str 10 and +4 on Athletics is pushing it farther than I'd want to push it.

Con saves are nice, but between Aura of Protection and Warcaster (plus Bardic Inspiration/etc. as needed), I'm not all that worried about concentration checks. I'd rather have the full AC 21 + Athletics package.

[tieren]

The following is biased from an immersive point of view of the game:

I've said this before, and I repeat: Warlock by definition shouldn't be taken lightly when multiclassing to or from Paladin, simply because both classes are pretty much the opposites from the point of ideologies.


A paladin in general is a force of good and justice, and a protector of innocents, while a warlock in general is a force of chaos and mischief, dabbling into powers that could be considered evil in nature. (e.g. Armor of Agathys is a reference to a layer of Abyss; you know, a plane of fiends, who are "quite" evil)

While mechanically the classes mix well, it would require "quite a few" handwaves regarding lore issues as well as the aforementioned ideologies. (Honestly, I doubt mischievous acts would be considered good and/or just by most NPC's)

Additionally, Paladins don't ask for their powers, they are granted to them by some higher entity due to their ideals.
Warlocks, on the other hand, make pacts with powerful beings in order to get their powers. Pacts a.k.a. deals with such entities often require you to give something (a part of your soul, sanity, or whatever) in return, very much unlike a paladin would ever do.

True, a paladin must follow the tenets of their oath in order to continue receiving the benefits, but that's by far less severe than what warlocks do to get theirs.

D&D is a roleplaying game, like it or not, agree or don't. Roleplaying should require at least some level of immersion to the world, because otherwise you could just throw the story and flavor texts out of the window, and forget that you are actually playing a fantastical hero or villain instead of a simple statblock on a paper with various numbers in it. From that point of view, yes, anything can work. But not from immersive point of view.

I'm not saying a paladin/warlock couldn't work, I'm trying to say, that should you take that step and still want to take your character seriously (not disregard his or her personality and beliefs for the sake of simple mechanics), and pay some serious consideration on how you can make the classes work with each other's flavor.

An Oath of the Ancients Paladin (Usually Good, might be anything from Lawful to Chaotic) might be able to justify himself with a pact to an archfey, as long as the archfey was good in nature, and had no ill-will against the tenets of your Oath.
A Devotion Paladin (Usually Good, often Lawful) would have hard time picking any Patron, unless your DM allowed the UA Undying Light Patron. Even then, I'd suggest not taking spells that do not fit your theme.
Oath of Vengeance Paladin (not neccessarily Good, but not likely Evil either) could justify a deal with an Old God, or maybe a Fey. Or again, Undying Light.
An Oathbreaker could more easily sign a pact with any patron, except perhaps the UA Undying Light.

/end of rant.




I really disagree with this position, and I believe it comes from stereotypes and a too narrow view of both classes.

I am working on an OotA paladin that is a forest gnome that falls in love with the fey lady of an enchanted forest and pledges his service to her and she rewards him with boons, no lore or RP problem.

I can conceive a Devotion paladin that likes smiting evil doers entering into a pact with a fiend that enjoys tormenting the souls of evil doers. Maybe the fiend tries to tempt the paladin into wickedness, but is content to give him powers as long as he is fed a stream of evil souls to torment and devour.

The GOO warlocks barely make a conscious pact at all as opposed to making contact with something beyond comprehension, and that could happen to almost anyone in a great myriad of ways, but an OoV paladin looking for more ways to pursue his vengeance is pretty easy to fit to the lore.

[Talamare]

A paladin in general is a force of good and justice, and a protector of innocents, while a warlock in general is a force of chaos and mischief, dabbling into powers that could be considered evil in nature. (e.g. Armor of Agathys is a reference to a layer of Abyss; you know, a plane of fiends, who are "quite" evil)

While mechanically the classes mix well, it would require "quite a few" handwaves regarding lore issues as well as the aforementioned ideologies. (Honestly, I doubt mischievous acts would be considered good and/or just by most NPC's)

Additionally, Paladins don't ask for their powers, they are granted to them by some higher entity due to their ideals.
Warlocks, on the other hand, make pacts with powerful beings in order to get their powers. Pacts a.k.a. deals with such entities often require you to give something (a part of your soul, sanity, or whatever) in return, very much unlike a paladin would ever do.

True, a paladin must follow the tenets of their oath in order to continue receiving the benefits, but that's by far less severe than what warlocks do to get theirs.

D&D is a roleplaying game, like it or not, agree or don't. Roleplaying should require at least some level of immersion to the world, because otherwise you could just throw the story and flavor texts out of the window, and forget that you are actually playing a fantastical hero or villain instead of a simple statblock on a paper with various numbers in it. From that point of view, yes, anything can work. But not from immersive point of view.

I'm not saying a paladin/warlock couldn't work, I'm trying to say, that should you take that step and still want to take your character seriously (not disregard his or her personality and beliefs for the sake of simple mechanics), and pay some serious consideration on how you can make the classes work with each other's flavor.

An Oath of the Ancients Paladin (Usually Good, might be anything from Lawful to Chaotic) might be able to justify himself with a pact to an archfey, as long as the archfey was good in nature, and had no ill-will against the tenets of your Oath.
A Devotion Paladin (Usually Good, often Lawful) would have hard time picking any Patron, unless your DM allowed the UA Undying Light Patron. Even then, I'd suggest not taking spells that do not fit your theme.
Oath of Vengeance Paladin (not neccessarily Good, but not likely Evil either) could justify a deal with an Old God, or maybe a Fey. Or again, Undying Light.
An Oathbreaker could more easily sign a pact with any patron, except perhaps the UA Undying Light.

/end of rant.

While you're right, you should consider how it affects your character from a RP perspective. You just need to expand your thinking tho. A devotion Paladin makes a deal with the devil to gain powers to defeat a greater devil. An Ancients Paladin makes a deal with an Infernal, with the promise that if he does the Devil won't destroy his home. A Vengeance Paladin might even have goals that align with an Infernal, however its more of a Frenemies situation. Any of the Paladins mistakenly believe the Great Old One is actually their God. 100 more situations.

One thing I love about Vengeance Paladins is that destroying their targets is a higher priority that protecting Innocents. They are more of a "Ends justify the Means" Paladin or "Greater Good" Paladin. They would happily burn down a village killing thousands of innocents to kill a bad guy. Which is why one of their tenets is Reparations. They fully acknowledge that in the path to Saving the World they will end up doing some morally questionable ****, so remember that after you kill an innocent little girl's Good Parent's because they got in the way of you killing their Evil Brother. You help the little girl with a foster home or something. Just remember to wipe her family's blood off your armor first.

[bid]

Getting access to 3rd level spells at character level 9 (instead of at a greater character level by multiclassing into full caster) is no small deal either.
Not to mention paladin spells are **prepared**, meaning you are stuck with your choices.

[Arkhios]

I really disagree with this position, and I believe it comes from stereotypes and a too narrow view of both classes.

I am working on an OotA paladin that is a forest gnome that falls in love with the fey lady of an enchanted forest and pledges his service to her and she rewards him with boons, no lore or RP problem.

I can conceive a Devotion paladin that likes smiting evil doers entering into a pact with a fiend that enjoys tormenting the souls of evil doers. Maybe the fiend tries to tempt the paladin into wickedness, but is content to give him powers as long as he is fed a stream of evil souls to torment and devour.

The GOO warlocks barely make a conscious pact at all as opposed to making contact with something beyond comprehension, and that could happen to almost anyone in a great myriad of ways, but an OoV paladin looking for more ways to pursue his vengeance is pretty easy to fit to the lore.

Obviously, everyone is free to draw their own conclusions about what works and what doesn't. There's no one true answer in this regard. Mine is just as good as yours.
However, I thought I said it clearly enough, but apparently not. I never said it's impossible to work out a reasonable explanation, I said, you should try and figure out one, instead of just stamping warlock's mechanics on top of paladin's mechanics, and handwave the rest of it. Not every combination work automatically; But some are easier to combine than others. I thought this was self-evident.

[MaxWilson]

One thing I love about Vengeance Paladins is that destroying their targets is a higher priority that protecting Innocents. They are more of a "Ends justify the Means" Paladin or "Greater Good" Paladin. They would happily burn down a village killing thousands of innocents to kill a bad guy. Which is why one of their tenets is Reparations. They fully acknowledge that in the path to Saving the World they will end up doing some morally questionable ****, so remember that after you kill an innocent little girl's Good Parent's because they got in the way of you killing their Evil Brother. You help the little girl with a foster home or something. Just remember to wipe her family's blood off your armor first.

That's not an Oath of Vengeance attitude. That's an Oathbreaker attitude. Evil.

[Talamare]

That's not an Oath of Vengeance attitude. That's an Oathbreaker attitude. Evil.

Oathbreaker is someone who has BROKEN HIS OATH

Tenets of Vengence
FIGHT THE GREATER EVIL
NO MERCY
BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY

...
restituition

[coredump]

Oathbreaker is someone who has BROKEN HIS OATH

Tenets of Vengence



No.... the tenets are not a carte blanche for mass murder just because you find it more convenient. That is a tremendously evil act.... it is even beyond many Oathbreaker Paladins.

People read the 'by any means necessary' and conveniently skip over the "my qualms" part. It is not permission for wanton murder, it means that you may need to do things like lie to a priest, or betray a friend. Maybe the direction is to capture the Greater Evil, but your only option is to kill or let him get away....so you kill him; maybe even in cold blood, as distasteful as it seems.

It means you will cut some corners....not that you turn into Chaotic Evil killing machine.

[Talamare]

No.... the tenets are not a carte blanche for mass murder just because you find it more convenient. That is a tremendously evil act.... it is even beyond many Oathbreaker Paladins.

People read the 'by any means necessary' and conveniently skip over the "my qualms" part. It is not permission for wanton murder, it means that you may need to do things like lie to a priest, or betray a friend. Maybe the direction is to capture the Greater Evil, but your only option is to kill or let him get away....so you kill him; maybe even in cold blood, as distasteful as it seems.

It means you will cut some corners....not that you turn into Chaotic Evil killing machine.

It specifically says "My Qualms... CANNOT GET IN THE WAY OF EXTERMINATING MY FOES" (I'm just loving this blood red)
It means if you have Qualms about murdering a family in cold blood, well TOUGH... THEY CAN'T GET IN THE WAY OF EXTERMINATING YOUR FOES!

To many people attempt to impose their own morals that has been shaped by modern out of game society

Lawful Good "creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society."
This means that if the societal norm is to have slaves, then you would be Lawful Good by having slaves

Chaotic Evil - "creatures act with arbitrary violence spurred by greed, hatred, or bloodlust"
Doesn't fit Vengeance Paladin, the violence is not arbitrary and it's spurred for the greater good.

Neutral Evil - "alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms"
This is where Restitution comes in. You don't stop yourself from destroying those who get in your way. However, you do make up for it after the Evil was destroyed.

BTW, Just saying I'm not trying to sound antagonistic, just having fun with it

[Spiritchaser]

I couldn't make up my mind between lawful evil and lawful neutral for my vengence paladin, so I just wrote down lawful angry. So far the dm has been ok with it...

That having been said he's on a dark and tormented road. Circumstance will doubtlessly see him on his way to oathbreaker.

[coredump]

It specifically says "My Qualms... CANNOT GET IN THE WAY OF EXTERMINATING MY FOES" (I'm just loving this blood red)
It means if you have Qualms about murdering a family in cold blood, well TOUGH... THEY CAN'T GET IN THE WAY OF EXTERMINATING YOUR FOES!

Mass murder is not a 'qualm', it is an overtly EVIL act that cannot be justified by any 'tenet' you might take.

Like I said, you may betray a friend, or you may resort to bribery, or perhaps help a different (lesser) bad guy to get to the Greater Evil. Those are 'qualms'...

"Hey, I'm a Neutral Good Paladin, so I am going to slowly torture these 8 year old girls until they give me the information I need."

Yeah..... the tenet does not cover that...

[WickerNipple]

"Hey, I'm a Neutral Good Paladin, so I am going to slowly torture these 8 year old girls until they give me the information I need."

Yeah..... the tenet does not cover that...

What if they were kobold girls? :smallbiggrin:

[Talamare]

Mass murder is not a 'qualm', it is an overtly EVIL act that cannot be justified by any 'tenet' you might take.

Like I said, you may betray a friend, or you may resort to bribery, or perhaps help a different (lesser) bad guy to get to the Greater Evil. Those are 'qualms'...

"Hey, I'm a Neutral Good Paladin, so I am going to slowly torture these 8 year old girls until they give me the information I need."

Yeah..... the tenet does not cover that...

and because you didn't defeat the evil. It ended up destroying the world!
Good job, you let a few minor qualms such as mass murder end all life as we know it.

If those 8 year old girls have the information, that would save the world from being destroyed, and they are holding out on you. Absolutely, its the only good thing to do.
If they are protecting Evil, then they ARE Evil.

I do seem to have to repeat some points, but I suppose I don't mind.
Defeating a Great Evil is your number 1 priority as a VENGEANCE Paladin. You do not let anything get in your way.
You seem to be a little stuck on "Devotion Paladins", and you're absolutely right. That a Devotion Paladin cares about people, those are his tenets.
Compassion - Aid others, protect the weak, show mercy to your opponents
Honor - Treat people fairly, do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm
Duty - Be responsible for your actions and their consequences

Everything you're stating is a proper Devotion Paladin

A VENGEANCE Paladin is not about that. It's about defeating the evil no matter the costs, no matter how dirty, and bloody it gets.
It's about not letting anything get in your way, because if you fail to defeat the Evil because you let a few minor qualms get in your way. Then you have failed beyond reason.

Edit, Reading some more of the Vengeance Paladin paragraph in the book.
"is a solemn commitment to punish those who have committed a grievous sin." <-- The Oath is to Punish, not to protect or save people.
"when an entire people turns against the will of the gods" <-- Lol, they even hate atheists. Can anyone say Inquisition?
"sometimes called Avengers or DARK KNIGHTS" <-- Reminds me of Dark Knight from Final Fantasy games
"their own purity is not as important as delivering justice." <-- Really emphasizing the "win at all costs" "any means necessary"

[bid]

and because you didn't defeat the evil. It ended up destroying the world!
Good job, you let a few minor qualms such as mass murder end all life as we know it.
Slippery slope.

Murdering innocents is evil. You can be a neutral evil vengeance paladin, but don't try to justify yourself as anything else.

[MadBear]

Can we at least set some boundaries up on this conversation, because the point is being muddled beyond recognition.

scenario 1.

Evil little girl cultists knows where the cult leaders are who are about to summon Cthulu and destroy the world. You use some unspecified amount of torture up to killing her to get that info.

A Jack Bauer Vengeance paladin might be a fun character. He's definitely evil, but he's a fun character who fits the mold of someone going to any lengths to save the country. I don't think that's what people are talking about though, when we bring in this "torture a little girl". In that case were more talking:

scenario 2.

Rather then walk around the 5 year old girl, who accidently wandered in, and attack the bandit during a combat. You instead use your first attack to chop her head off saving you 5 ft of movement.

In that scenario you're not playing a vengeance paladin. You're playing a monster. If think you're playing a vengeance paladin you're best move would be to smite yourself, because you're the worst.



So if we're going to have this conversation we need to at least not conflate these two very different scenarios. (or if you think they're identical, you need to clarify why)

[Talamare]

Can we at least set some boundaries up on this conversation, because the point is being muddled beyond recognition.

scenario 1.

Evil little girl cultists knows where the cult leaders are who are about to summon Cthulu and destroy the world. You use some unspecified amount of torture up to killing her to get that info.

A Jack Bauer Vengeance paladin might be a fun character. He's definitely evil, but he's a fun character who fits the mold of someone going to any lengths to save the country. I don't think that's what people are talking about though, when we bring in this "torture a little girl". In that case were more talking:

scenario 2.

Rather then walk around the 5 year old girl, who accidently wandered in, and attack the bandit during a combat. You instead use your first attack to chop her head off saving you 5 ft of movement.

In that scenario you're not playing a vengeance paladin. You're playing a monster. If think you're playing a vengeance paladin you're best move would be to smite yourself, because you're the worst.



So if we're going to have this conversation we need to at least not conflate these two very different scenarios. (or if you think they're identical, you need to clarify why)

See it's that you tried to inflate it by saying "Evil" little girl cultist. Why is she "evil"? She's a little girl who knows where the cultist are. She could be good, neutral, or evil. All that matters is that is a little girl who knows where the cultist are. She's in your way to saving the world, it doesn't matter if she's good, evil, or neutral.

In scenario two, you're taking it too literal when we are saying "in your way". You're not a raging braindead barbarian. You are fully conscious, aware, and acknowledging the steps you need to take to save the world. You're just not letting things stop you. However let's ride your example, if she wandered in and trip infront of you. You should just go around her. If she ran in and grappled you to keep you from attacking the bandit who is about perform a greater evil. Then she needs to be taken out, regardless of her age.

Slippery slope.

Murdering innocents is evil. You can be a neutral evil vengeance paladin, but don't try to justify yourself as anything else.

It's probably closer to "walking the line" and I'm sure modern media has programmed most people into the whole "eye for eye, leaves the world blind" thinking
You don't randomly murder innocents, You don't walk into a bar and start slashing heads off
However, you don't let the fact that they might die because of your methods stop you from destroying the evil

I hate to pull this card but its easily the most recognizable modern example
It's a month before 9/11, You are a Vengeance Paladin, and your duty is to kill Osama Bin Laden
You discover he 100% is in a crowded bar, full of innocent people.

Your Oath literally says - Don't take any chances, use whatever method has 100% chance of taking him out
If you go in there and try to save the innocents, he might get away
If you try to follow him after hes in a more secluded area, he might get away
With the large number of people it makes it too difficult and risky to get in close without tipping him off and likely letting him get away

So you have the button on the bomb to blow up the bar
DO YOU PUSH THE BUTTON AND KILL OSAMA BIN LADEN (and about 100 innocents)
or Do you risk him getting away to commit the atrocities?

For a Vengeance Paladin there is only 1 answer
For a Devotion Paladin the answer is the opposite

[dunnetg]

A lot of people make this mistake. You lose more things than what you get, at any and all levels.

Wow, I feel so embarrassed - I totally thought I was doing it right. Maybe D&D just isn't for me. Does anyone want my books?

[Citan]

Hey guys, why don't you open a dedicated thread on this? :)
While I'm not personally bothered, this is a tad off-topic.

Also, other people may be interested in this alignement/Oath debate but not on the initial build question, so there is a fair chance they will miss this.

Otherwise, carry on. ^^ I unfortunately have nothing useful to contribute but I enjoy reading constructive arguments.

[djreynolds]

Oathbreaker is someone who has BROKEN HIS OATH

Tenets of Vengence
FIGHT THE GREATER EVIL
NO MERCY
BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY

...
restituition

Johnny, Oath of the Kobra Ki, put him in a bodybag Johnny

[MadBear]

See it's that you tried to inflate it by saying "Evil" little girl cultist. Why is she "evil"? She's a little girl who knows where the cultist are. She could be good, neutral, or evil. All that matters is that is a little girl who knows where the cultist are. She's in your way to saving the world, it doesn't matter if she's good, evil, or neutral.

In scenario two, you're taking it too literal when we are saying "in your way". You're not a raging braindead barbarian. You are fully conscious, aware, and acknowledging the steps you need to take to save the world. You're just not letting things stop you. However let's ride your example, if she wandered in and trip infront of you. You should just go around her. If she ran in and grappled you to keep you from attacking the bandit who is about perform a greater evil. Then she needs to be taken out, regardless of her age.


It's probably closer to "walking the line" and I'm sure modern media has programmed most people into the whole "eye for eye, leaves the world blind" thinking
You don't randomly murder innocents, You don't walk into a bar and start slashing heads off
However, you don't let the fact that they might die because of your methods stop you from destroying the evil

I hate to pull this card but its easily the most recognizable modern example
It's a month before 9/11, You are a Vengeance Paladin, and your duty is to kill Osama Bin Laden
You discover he 100% is in a crowded bar, full of innocent people.

Your Oath literally says - Don't take any chances, use whatever method has 100% chance of taking him out
If you go in there and try to save the innocents, he might get away
If you try to follow him after hes in a more secluded area, he might get away
With the large number of people it makes it too difficult and risky to get in close without tipping him off and likely letting him get away

So you have the button on the bomb to blow up the bar
DO YOU PUSH THE BUTTON AND KILL OSAMA BIN LADEN (and about 100 innocents)
or Do you risk him getting away to commit the atrocities?

For a Vengeance Paladin there is only 1 answer
For a Devotion Paladin the answer is the opposite

1. you're missing the point entirely with my 2 scenario's. My point in the 2 scenario's was to show how you are talking past others in what you're both saying/meaning. I was highlighting the difference there. That is why I stated that you have the "evil" little girl compared to the innocent little girl. But sure, if you had a "good" little girl, then your extremely evil VP might in fact torture her to get the info. They would probably be better off making a persuasion check in this instance, but sure that's a thing you could technically do.

2. Even if a small child tried grappling, killing her is not even remotely close the only option (or best option) for the Vengeance Paladin (VP). The VP could shove her and then make his move instead, they could deal Non-lethal damage, you could even ask the DM to just sever her arms. All of those would accomplish the same task but without murdering a little girl.

Again, I'm not saying that you can't play a viciously evil paladin, but you are mistaken if you think that they must be played that way at all.

3. As too the Osama Bin Laden question, it'll depend. It's definitely not required that the VP nuke the bar. You may in fact make that choice, but that's different from saying that it's the VP's only choice.

The fact that the VP has to make restitution to the people harmed by the bad guy, could pretty much mean that you turn yourself in and go to jail for the rest of your life after having committed the deed.

[MaxWilson]

The Oath of Vengeance states that you will not let your qualms get in the way of your mission, that you will show mercy to lesser foes but not to true evil, and that you will work to undo the evil done by your enemies (restitution) because you take responsibility for not stopping them sooner. That's not the attitude of a soldier, it's the attitude of a spook: "If I have to lie to my wife or comrades to keep security intact, that's what the mission requires and I'll do it. If I have to seduce an enemy agent, I'll do that too. Whatever it takes." (Think Captain America (soldier) vs. Natasha Romanova (spook). "Agent Romanov is comfortable with everything.")

Contrast that though with this attitude:


One thing I love about Vengeance Paladins is that destroying their targets is a higher priority that protecting Innocents. They are more of a "Ends justify the Means" Paladin or "Greater Good" Paladin. They would happily burn down a village killing thousands of innocents to kill a bad guy. Which is why one of their tenets is Reparations. They fully acknowledge that in the path to Saving the World they will end up doing some morally questionable ****, so remember that after you kill an innocent little girl's Good Parent's because they got in the way of you killing their Evil Brother. You help the little girl with a foster home or something. Just remember to wipe her family's blood off your armor first.

Not only does this misunderstand the Oath of Vengeance's Reparations tenet (seriously, re-read it, it has nothing to do with atoning for your own "necessary" evils), but more importantly this is not someone who is grimly overcoming his qualms in order to complete the mission. The PC described here has no qualms about killing innocents in the first place. If you will "happily" murder thousands of innocents, if you murder the girl's parents and shrug it off ("eh, whatever, let me wipe off this blood and put her in an orphanage or something and then we're good"), you're not a Paladin of Vengeance, you're a psychopath or an Oathbreaker or both.

[Talamare]

The Oath of Vengeance states that you will not let your qualms get in the way of your mission, that you will show mercy to lesser foes but not to true evil, and that you will work to undo the evil done by your enemies (restitution) because you take responsibility for not stopping them sooner. That's not the attitude of a soldier, it's the attitude of a spook: "If I have to lie to my wife or comrades to keep security intact, that's what the mission requires and I'll do it. If I have to seduce an enemy agent, I'll do that too. Whatever it takes." (Think Captain America (soldier) vs. Natasha Romanova (spook). "Agent Romanov is comfortable with everything.")

Contrast that though with this attitude:



Not only does this misunderstand the Oath of Vengeance's Reparations tenet (seriously, re-read it, it has nothing to do with atoning for your own "necessary" evils), but more importantly this is not someone who is grimly overcoming his qualms in order to complete the mission. The PC described here has no qualms about killing innocents in the first place. If you will "happily" murder thousands of innocents, if you murder the girl's parents and shrug it off ("eh, whatever, let me wipe off this blood and put her in an orphanage or something and then we're good"), you're not a Paladin of Vengeance, you're a psychopath or an Oathbreaker or both.

You got me there, I phrased it that way for the shock value but if I had hindsight I would have phrased it as.
"You wouldn't let a few thousand innocent deaths [caused by you] stop you from defeating an evil who would have done even more damage.

If you want to make it comparable to Marvel heroes, Captain America would be a Devotion Paladin. The innocents are always #1 priority, would have qualms about killing a fly.
While a Vengeance Paladin would be Nick Fury. Who constantly insults Cap on his weak, inefficient, or ineffective methods. Who understands stopping big picture evil is the most important thing.


If you want to bring it to DC, that makes Batman a Devotion Paladin, who refuses to kill.
While Deathstroke is a Vengeance Paladin, he's willing to kill badguys and doesn't let a few innocents get in his way
And before Deathstroke gets called "Evil", He's really Lawful Neutral. He's a contract based mercenary. Ironically, Batman is probably Chaotic Good

While we are at it, both C.America and Nick Fury are Lawful Good

[MaxWilson]

You got me there, I phrased it that way for the shock value but if I had hindsight I would have phrased it as.
"You wouldn't let a few thousand innocent deaths [caused by you] stop you from defeating an evil who would have done even more damage.

All right, I agree with this.

(BTW this is also why I would not want to play a Vengeance Paladin. An Oath of Vengeance Paladin is like a Paladin of Devotion who's lost his faith in everything but himself.)

[Spiritchaser]

(BTW this is also why I would not want to play a Vengeance Paladin. An Oath of Vengeance Paladin is like a Paladin of Devotion who's lost his faith in everything but himself.)

Think of it as anger management

Relax... Visualize your anger as a sword... Then jam your character's sword through your sworn enemy's rib cage... Savoring the grating of steel on bone...

[MaxWilson]

Think of it as anger management

Relax... Visualize your anger as a sword... Then jam your character's sword through your sworn enemy's rib cage... Savoring the grating of steel on bone...

That doesn't actually make me like Oath of Vengeance any better. It seems so shortsighted.

Paladin of Devotion understands that the only thing that really, truly matters is your moral character: who you are inside. The whole purpose of life is to be a good person and to help other people as much as possible so that they have the freedom to choose who they will be too. Paladin of Vengeance gets caught up in seeing the trees and not the forest: as if it were more important to keep someone physically alive than spiritually alive. The greater tragedy is for someone to sacrifice their soul--not in a technical religious sense of "soul", but the sense of "the core of who you are." If I sacrifice my soul, and therefore much of my power to influence other people's souls, in order to prolong the mere duration of my own or someone else's physical existence, then I have spent something of great value to achieve something of little value.

So, Paladins of Vengeance look to me as if they are too focused on a lesser evil. There's nothing a lich or an archdemon can do which actually matters in the long run, really, and certainly nothing which matters enough for me (or anyone else) to lie or steal or break my word in order to prevent it. Only the soul matters, in the end. Mine and everyone else's.

Continued on this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?478286-Paladin-of-Devotion-vs-Vengeance-What-really-matters&p=20414274#post20414274).

[Talamare]

That doesn't actually make me like Oath of Vengeance any better. It seems so shortsighted.

Paladin of Devotion understands that the only thing that really, truly matters is your moral character: who you are inside. The whole purpose of life is to be a good person and to help other people as much as possible so that they have the freedom to choose who they will be too. Paladin of Vengeance gets caught up in seeing the trees and not the forest: as if it were more important to keep someone physically alive than spiritually alive. The greater tragedy is for someone to sacrifice their soul--not in a technical religious sense of "soul", but the sense of "the core of who you are." If I sacrifice my soul, and therefore much of my power to influence other people's souls, in order to prolong the mere duration of my own or someone else's physical existence, then I have spent something of great value to achieve something of little value.

So, Paladins of Vengeance look to me as if they are too focused on a lesser evil. There's nothing a lich or an archdemon can do in the long wrong which actually matters, really, and certainly nothing which matters enough for me (or anyone else) to lie or steal or break my word in order to prevent it. Only the soul matters, in the end. Mine and everyone else's.

Interesting perspective. You value individual salvation of yourself and those you can influence above all else. I definitely see the light of an amazing Devotion Paladin, but then aren't you the one focused on the trees? While the Vengeance, is willing to sacrifice everything, including himself to stop the Greater Demons and Liches (Lichi?), because he realizes that they would end up destroying everyone's Trees. So isn't it the Vengeance that is looking at the forest.

I do respect your view that your moral fiber is your most important aspect, but I'm sure that if those Lichi and Archdemons aren't defeated they will cause problems for a LOT of people's souls.

Well, this discussion was a lot of fun! Thanks for all the replies ^^

[MaxWilson]

Interesting perspective. You value individual salvation of yourself and those you can influence above all else. I definitely see the light of an amazing Devotion Paladin, but then aren't you the one focused on the trees? While the Vengeance, is willing to sacrifice everything, including himself to stop the Greater Demons and Liches (Lichi?), because he realizes that they would end up destroying everyone's Trees. So isn't it the Vengeance that is looking at the forest.

I do respect your view that your moral fiber is your most important aspect, but I'm sure that if those Lichi and Archdemons aren't defeated they will cause problems for a LOT of people's souls.

Well, this discussion was a lot of fun! Thanks for all the replies ^^

I'd like to discuss this further with you--could you please post this reply in the thread I just created here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?478286-Paladin-of-Devotion-vs-Vengeance-What-really-matters&p=20414274#post20414274) and I'll respond to it there?