Evil Paladins?

[Firechanter]

Yesterday I talked to a former player who hadn't heard of 5E yet, and she was particularly intrigued by Paladins no longer being shoehorned into the LG corner. However, the topic of Paladins of Evil deities came up and then I was stumped. The current core options don't seem to support that, although RP-Wise there's no reason why for instance Bane shouldn't sponsor his own order of kickass knights.

The PHB Oath Tenets all are geared towards Good or at least Good-ish characters:
- Devotion: "aid others, protect the weak, do as much good as possible" etc
- Ancients: "...mercy, kindness and forgiveness..."
- Vengeance: "Fight the Greater Evil, help those harmed by my foes' misdeeds"

And Oathbreaker, of course, implies that you once swore one of those oaths and then said "Screw it".

So, what if you want to play a Paladin of Bane, and be the Iron Fist by which this tyrannic god would rule? Or some other evil deity that promotes culling the weak over protecting them? And so forth.

Keep in mind that in the D&D multiverse, alignment and morality is absolute, so Evil people are generally under no illusion that they are really the good guys - they just are convinced that Evil is _right_ and Good is _wrong_.

[Gastronomie]

Two options:
-Play as Oathbreaker
-Play as a particular Oath Paladin, except with homebrewed, new tenets (change just the tenets to something suiting the evil God, and keep most of, or all of, the other abilities as they were. Perhaps tweak the expanded spell list to fit the evil God)

The latter will require DM approval though.

[Ninja_Prawn]

"What if" indeed? My go-to answer is homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20541882&postcount=11). You wouldn't even need to put that much effort in to it; you could keep the mechanics and just change the fluff and tenets if you wanted to.

It's a silly oversight by WotC; I can't believe they couldn't have put another Oath into the PHB. Even if it meant cutting one of the full-page images.

Edit: nooooo! How could *I* have been ninja'd?! That's like, my thing!

[Dr. Cliché]

Keep in mind that in the D&D multiverse, alignment and morality is absolute, so Evil people are generally under no illusion that they are really the good guys - they just are convinced that Evil is _right_ and Good is _wrong_.

Just wanted to chime in and say that this isn't accurate. Alignment is objective, but people do not (and should not) know their own alignment. By and large *everyone* should think that they're good. Or, at the very least, that the good they're doing outweighs the bad. Everyone is the hero of their own story.

This is why I despise Dragonlance - where mages literally declare themselves evil. That sort of thing is writing at its absolute worst.

An evil paladin may have a twisted view of the world, but he shouldn't consider himself evil. He may believe that Bane alone is righteous, and that those who worship other gods deserve to die. Any god who isn't Bane is a false god and an evil god, hence anyone who worships them must also be evil.

He might be a social Darwinist, who believes that helping the weak makes society weaker. Hence, it is his moral duty to purge the weak, the sick and the helpless from society. They may not understand now, but they will thank him for it in the end.

If you go the Vengeance route, many things can be justified in the name of a vendetta (real or imagined). Moreover, as they commit evil in the name of vengeance (killing people who get in the way, torturing people to get information etc.), they're likely to fall deeper and deeper into the Sunk Cost fallacy. They've already done so much bad that they can't let it go, as it would mean that the evil they've already committed was for nothing. No, just a few more deaths and everything will work out. Justice will be done.

Hopefully you get the idea. Whatever you pick, your paladin should be just as abhorred at being called evil as any LG paladin.

[Professor Gnoll]

Just wanted to chime in and say that this isn't accurate. Alignment is objective, but people do not (and should not) know their own alignment. By and large *everyone* should think that they're good. Or, at the very least, that the good they're doing outweighs the bad. Everyone is the hero of their own story.

This is why I despise Dragonlance - where mages literally declare themselves evil. That sort of thing is writing at its absolute worst.

An evil paladin may have a twisted view of the world, but he shouldn't consider himself evil. He may believe that Bane alone is righteous, and that those who worship other gods deserve to die. Any god who isn't Bane is a false god and an evil god, hence anyone who worships them must also be evil.

He might be a social Darwinist, who believes that helping the weak makes society weaker. Hence, it is his moral duty to purge the weak, the sick and the helpless from society. They may not understand now, but they will thank him for it in the end.

If you go the Vengeance route, many things can be justified in the name of a vendetta (real or imagined). Moreover, as they commit evil in the name of vengeance (killing people who get in the way, torturing people to get information etc.), they're likely to fall deeper and deeper into the Sunk Cost fallacy. They've already done so much bad that they can't let it go, as it would mean that the evil they've already committed was for nothing. No, just a few more deaths and everything will work out. Justice will be done.

Hopefully you get the idea. Whatever you pick, your paladin should be just as abhorred at being called evil as any LG paladin.
This... isn't necessarily true. See, in the world of D&D, Good and Evil aren't just moral ideals: They're actual, primal forces, each with their own ideals and view of what is right and wrong.
So a Paladin could certainly declare themselves Evil, they just wouldn't think that's wrong, because Good and Evil are quantifiable, categorised forces- like magnetism, or gravity. It's just one of the quirks of the Alignment system.
A Paladin may know that she's Evil, she doesn't think that she's wrong. Evil is just one side of the eternal cosmic conflict, and the one that she happens to stand on, for whatever reason she may.

[Dr. Cliché]

This... isn't necessarily true. See, in the world of D&D, Good and Evil aren't just moral ideals: They're actual, primal forces, each with their own ideals and view of what is right and wrong.
So a Paladin could certainly declare themselves Evil, they just wouldn't think that's wrong, because Good and Evil are quantifiable, categorised forces- like magnetism, or gravity. It's just one of the quirks of the Alignment system.
A Paladin may know that she's Evil, she doesn't think that she's wrong. Evil is just one side of the eternal cosmic conflict, and the one that she happens to stand on, for whatever reason she may.

As I said, that just seems like really awful writing to me.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I'm with Professor Gnoll. The statement

Any god who isn't Bane is a false god and an evil god
is demonstrably false in-universe and widely accepted as such. You'd have to brainwashed or delusional to believe it or anything similar, which is an unreasonable narrowing of roleplaying options for our theoretical paladin.

[Professor Gnoll]

As I said, that just seems like really awful writing to me.
Well, the problem only really arises when the conflicting forces are called Good and Evil. You could just as easily call them Positive and Negative, Black and White, Artichoke and Gravy.
The point is that different people choose different ideologies to abide by, but in this world these ideologies shape the magic you can call upon.

[Gastronomie]

Rephrase all "Good" in the above posts with "Caring for others" and all "Evil" in the above posts with "Caring for only yourself". Or perhaps "Believing the weak must be protected" or "Believing the weak deserve to be oppressed and killed". Whatever defines those ideas. It's the same thing, except it seems better.

It's very much possible for someone to keep on commiting evil acts even though realizing it's considered "evil". It could be because he can't control his own violent impulses, or because he doesn't care about what the current society has to say to him. Either way it's possible.

But it's always up to the DM and how he wants to portray stuff. And yes, I wouldn't make most of my antagonists scream "I AM EVIL" all the time (some might, though, if he was the Joker type - just in for the trollolololz).

[kaoskonfety]

I'm with Professor Gnoll. The statement

is demonstrably false in-universe and widely accepted as such. You'd have to brainwashed or delusional to believe it or anything similar, which is an unreasonable narrowing of roleplaying options for our theoretical paladin.

There are plenty of real world examples of people who appear neither brainwashed or delusional who believe things that are clearly false and/or disprovable according to their neighbours. There are a large number of ways to get to an 'obviously' false conclusion from the evidence at hand.

For the character in question possibles include...
- the other gods clerics a charlatans and con-men, burn them for their heresy, my church is a Monotheisim.
- in a world with Magic and 'proof' to the contrary is a convincing illusion, demons in the guise of angels or similar
- he is actually suffering from a mental disorder, an honest to gods socialized serial killer type, I'm thinking Hannibal, with righteous power on his side

I'm not suggesting anyone play this type of "conspiracy theorist/killer" PC without a group and DM on board as it could easily tread into some potentially murky ground, and its not my cup of tea, but it could work.

.... edit... and now I'm writing a Vengeance Paladin who feels that "evil" is bad taste in art whose on a monster hunting vendetta (adventuring) because they desecrated a local churches 500 year old stained glass mosaics and windows and is keeping at it because goblin warrens are disgusting and orcs think red goes with everything.

[MrFahrenheit]

Let's not get what the player says his character's alignment is confused with the character actually doing the same.

I see no problem with evil Paladins. The class is bound by oath, which can be slightly tweaked in game to make space for an evil, yet still oath-bound, character.

Theoretically, an evil paladin who breaks his/her oath could become a good oath breaker then...

[Professor Gnoll]

.... edit... and now I'm writing a Vengeance Paladin who feels that "evil" is bad taste in art whose on a monster hunting vendetta (adventuring) because they desecrated a local churches 500 year old stained glass mosaics and windows and is keeping at it because goblin warrens are disgusting and orcs think red goes with everything.
The Oath of Aesthetic! Preserve everything that looks nice, punish those with poor taste.

[Joe the Rat]

Good (or Chaos) is not necessarily Right, Evil (or Law) is not necessarily Wrong... from one character's perspective.

But let's say your Paladin-to-be comes from a "angels and fluffy kittenz is the best" perspective, but is Evil. He's solid for Vengeance.

Fight the Greater Evil - You may be a vicious [versatile property], but there's far worse out there. YOU are the lesser Evil.

No mercy - Right up your alley. You are a bad person because being a bad person is necessary (in your view) to fight Evil on equal terms. Accepting surrender when you know they're lying is a sucker's game.

Restitution - Is your token good trait. This is what shows you think you are on the side of the angels, or what you hope keeps you out of the fires.
----

But for a follower of Bane... Well first, who you worship and what you Paladin for do not have to be aligned. It's your Oath that powers you, not some ephemeral ponce from the Outer Planes. If you truly wish to see these aligned, then Vengeance (Justice in the loosest sense) and Crown (with a somewhat alternative interpretation of Just Rule) are good potentials. You are punishing those who defy your particular brand of Right - meaning anarchists and dissidents as well as marauders and miscreants. And Demons - always the Demons. Man those things are nasty. Vengeance's Restitution clause becomes your Obligation - something you must do because those above you ask you to - and following orders is what you're about, right? Plus, showing the carrot to the weak as well as the whip gets them in line faster than the whip alone.

[Regitnui]

A paladin who believes the weak, beggars, other races or *insert controversial minority* are holding society back from advancing and killing them all is a mercy.

A paladin who strives for the advancement of one race (humans) above all others can be both Evil and hold themselves to the Oath of Devotion.

An Oath of the Ancients paladin is easily made Evil, as they seek to raze a city to the ground to restore the ancient well of magic below to its full potential.

The primary aspect of a 5e paladin's alignment is Lawful. You hold to your Oath no matter what. What you're willing to do in pursuit of that oath; murder hundreds of goblin children because their tribe is expanding into human lands, lynch every caster because magic use empowers a great demon, or mercilessly crush the entire royal family to ensure freedom in the kingdom; is what makes you Good, Neutral or Evil.

Spoilered for potential controversy:
Somebody in the upper ranks of the Nazis thought what they were doing what was good and necessary. The United States killed thousands of Japanese citizens with the nuclear bomb to end the war. You can't tell me a paladin can't follow a similar line of logic to the 'victors' and aggressors of World War 2. Similar examples exist today. Why couldn't ISIS, the big boogeyman of international politics, produce a paladin? Think of it that way, whether WW2 or the Middle East. A paladin takes an Oath. It says nothing about how to fufil that Oath.

[kaoskonfety]

The Oath of Aesthetic! Preserve everything that looks nice, punish those with poor taste.

*meets Asmodeous, weeps a single tear, swears fealty because the lord for the Nine Hells is FABULOUS*

[Daishain]

A paladin who believes the weak, beggars, other races or *insert controversial minority* are holding society back from advancing and killing them all is a mercy.

A paladin who strives for the advancement of one race (humans) above all others can be both Evil and hold themselves to the Oath of Devotion.

An Oath of the Ancients paladin is easily made Evil, as they seek to raze a city to the ground to restore the ancient well of magic below to its full potential.

#1 no one could consider "holding society back" a greater evil in a world where creatures exist with the sole agenda of deliberately destroying society
#2 violates the precept of Honor, do as much good as possible while causing the least harm
#3 violates multiple precepts, Ancients paladins are to act with mercy, kindness and forgiveness, defend life wherever it may be found, and act as a beacon of hope to all.Furthermore, none of their precepts indicate any duty to rekindle magic artifacts.

Vengeance paladin can become evil in their own way (start supporting devils as part of their fight against demons for an obvious example), but the other two? I can't see any scenarios that don't violate their oaths in one way or another.

If you want a corruptible oath, look at the Oath of the Crown instead. Their principle duty is to legal authority, not doing good acts or fighting against evil. Very very easy to have a Crown Paladin in the service of an absolutely evil tyrant.

Of course, there's nothing stopping people from crafting their own oaths, which certainly can be more susceptible to being evil. For example, you could take the Ancients oath and shift it so that it focuses on defending natural life (and only natural life) against all foes. Suddenly, the door is open for paladin ecoterrorists bent on burning civilization to the ground.

[Dr. Cliché]

The Oath of Aesthetic! Preserve everything that looks nice, punish those with poor taste.

If you want to be really evil about it, have him believe that modern art is the peak of aesthetics. Don't let him catch you putting effort into your art...

[GreatWyrmGold]

Just wanted to chime in and say that this isn't accurate. Alignment is objective, but people do not (and should not) know their own alignment. By and large *everyone* should think that they're good. Or, at the very least, that the good they're doing outweighs the bad. Everyone is the hero of their own story.
This is why I despise Dragonlance - where mages literally declare themselves evil. That sort of thing is writing at its absolute worst.
Even non-Dragonlance D&D has evil fiends and evil gods and their clerics, spells like unholy blight and magic circle against good, and so on. Not to mention that there are a number of acts (like creating undead and consorting with fiends and destroying the world) which, despite being clearly, unambiguously evil in the setting, people still engage in.
D&D and its morality don't work if there aren't people who consider what they do evil. They might think they're smart enough to avoid the consequences, or they might not care, or there might be a few who think their good outweighs their bad, but they must be aware of their evil. Otherwise, you have a situation where any first-level paladin can destroy any villain's worldview with their at-will ability.


There are plenty of real world examples of people who appear neither brainwashed or delusional who believe things that are clearly false and/or disprovable according to their neighbours. There are a large number of ways to get to an 'obviously' false conclusion from the evidence at hand.
At risk of being mistaken for discussing real-world religion...no real-world religion has a large number of priests who can create water from nothing, heal injuries, or detect the evil in men's hearts, let alone the large-scale divine intervention found in many D&D settings.
D&D religion and real-world religion are only related in that they have things called gods, tenets, and priests. Our religion would be vastly different if Allah directly told His followers to stop worrying about who would be the next Caliph and focus on fighting undead and fiends.

I hope this doesn't turn into an alignment thread...to help that, let's focus on the question.

What is a Paladin? What makes a Paladin different than a Cleric or Fighter, or a Cleric/Fighter? This seems to vary between editions, but the gist seems to be that a Cleric/Fighter fights for their god, while a Paladin fights for their cause/oath/etc. It's hard to think of an oath which is "evil" in the classical sense, which requires either business cards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CardCarryingVillainy) or rethinking what "Good" and "Evil" mean...and D&D isn't a good system for exploring questions like that.
TL;DR: You can create evil paladins, but doing so is hard to do in a relatively serious campaign without answering questions D&D isn't built to ask.


If you want to be really evil about it, have him believe that modern art is the peak of aesthetics. Don't let him catch you putting effort into your art...
I'm pretty sure modern artists put effort into their pieces. I don't know where it goes, but I'm sure it's there.

[Dr. Cliché]

Even non-Dragonlance D&D has evil fiends and evil gods and their clerics, spells like unholy blight and magic circle against good, and so on. Not to mention that there are a number of acts (like creating undead and consorting with fiends and destroying the world) which, despite being clearly, unambiguously evil in the setting, people still engage in.

People engage in evil acts in the real world, but they either don't consider those acts evil or else still don't consider themselves evil as a result of committing them.



I'm pretty sure modern artists put effort into their pieces. I don't know where it goes, but I'm sure it's there.

Yeah, I'm sure it takes great effort to pile some poo onto a bt of tarp, or randomly flick paint at a canvas, or paint a chair green.

[smcmike]

I'm with Dr. Cliche. Declaring oneself to be evil is not generally good storytelling.

On the other hand, there are real world examples of people who would call themselves evil, I think, at least in the context or normal, accepted morality. It might be a defiant stance, or a shameful, guilty stance, but not everyone thinks of themselves as good.

An evil Devotion Paladin might be struggling with his innate sociopathy, attempting to use the oath to conform to morality. The oath does not have to come easy.

[Naanomi]

Vengeance and Crown can be Lawful-Evil fairly easily.

Ancients is tough. Neutral sure, (even chaotic-neutral) but Evil? Maybe if you follow a particularly debaucherous heidonism/Dionysus God who leads you that way... But still a stretch

Devotion is even more challenging. One would have to be a unique mixture of stupid and naive to run around doing 'good' by the oath's standards when you are a horrible person... A twisted Don Quixote perhaps?

[Daishain]

People engage in evil acts in the real world, but they either don't consider those acts evil or else still don't consider themselves evil as a result of committing them.
This isn't the real world, and the terminology of good and evil is getting in the way here. In the setting of D&D, Evil is more than just a violation of collectively agreed upon morality. It is a force and energy of its own. Beings who espouse certain ideals are capital E Evil, know they are Evil, and are proud to be Evil, but at the same time may not consider themselves evil in the sense of actually doing something wrong.

In this Context, Evil is more like a political stance or a banner than a morality check

[smcmike]

This isn't the real world, and the terminology of good and evil is getting in the way here. In the setting of D&D, Evil is more than just a violation of collectively agreed upon morality. It is a force and energy of its own. Beings who espouse certain ideals are capital E Evil, know they are Evil, and are proud to be Evil, but at the same time may not consider themselves evil in the sense of actually doing something wrong.

In this Context, Evil is more like a political stance or a banner than a morality check

The argument is the above Context is lame, and not the only way to describe things.

[Dr. Cliché]

In this Context, Evil is more like a political stance or a banner than a morality check

And, as I've already said, that's lazy writing.

[Daishain]

Ancients is tough. Neutral sure, (even chaotic-neutral) but Evil? Maybe if you follow a particularly debaucherous heidonism/Dionysus God who leads you that way... But still a stretch

I don't think the "delight in song and laughter" bit is hedonistic in the slightest, but interpretation could go that way so I'll let it slide. The big issue is the other tenets. If hedonism leads you far enough astray that one is committing evil acts, one has definitely stopped being a beacon of hope to others, among other things.

[GreatWyrmGold]

People engage in evil acts in the real world, but they either don't consider those acts evil or else still don't consider themselves evil as a result of committing them.
False analogy. We live in a setting without evil fiends, evil spells, evil undead, and so on. Or detect evil, for that matter.


And, as I've already said, that's lazy writing.
It can be, yes, but what else would you call followers of the gods of evil?

[Malifice]

Yesterday I talked to a former player who hadn't heard of 5E yet, and she was particularly intrigued by Paladins no longer being shoehorned into the LG corner. However, the topic of Paladins of Evil deities came up and then I was stumped. The current core options don't seem to support that, although RP-Wise there's no reason why for instance Bane shouldn't sponsor his own order of kickass knights.

The PHB Oath Tenets all are geared towards Good or at least Good-ish characters:
- Devotion: "aid others, protect the weak, do as much good as possible" etc
- Ancients: "...mercy, kindness and forgiveness..."
- Vengeance: "Fight the Greater Evil, help those harmed by my foes' misdeeds"

And Oathbreaker, of course, implies that you once swore one of those oaths and then said "Screw it".

So, what if you want to play a Paladin of Bane, and be the Iron Fist by which this tyrannic god would rule? Or some other evil deity that promotes culling the weak over protecting them? And so forth.

Keep in mind that in the D&D multiverse, alignment and morality is absolute, so Evil people are generally under no illusion that they are really the good guys - they just are convinced that Evil is _right_ and Good is _wrong_.

Im playing a LE Vengance paladin of Bane as we speak.

'Greater evil' = Torm, freedom of thought, liberty and freedom.

He's a fascist.

[Daishain]

The argument is the above Context is lame, and not the only way to describe things.


And, as I've already said, that's lazy writing.
Why? We aren't talking about a brigade of mustache twirlers here, they aren't evil for the sake of being evil. We're talking about creatures that have tapped into an energy source that grants power or aligned themselves with the same.

The terms Good and Evil in this case are arbitrary, and only there to give an immediate sense of the general differences in idealism. It could just as easily have been light vs dark, positive vs negative, or something even more ambiguous, such as yellow vs violet or preservationists vs objectarians.

[Dr. Cliché]

False analogy.

Not in the slightest. We're still playing people, not murderbots.


False analogy. We live in a setting without evil fiends

Irrelevant.


evil spells

This might shock you, but I'm guessing the Evil descriptor doesn't actually appear in spellbooks or on scrolls of those spells. It's information for the players, not the characters.

Once again, there are many things in this world that should be objectively evil - terrorism, rape, stoning people to death. People still commit those acts without ever considering themselves evil.


evil undead

Also, irrelevant.


Or detect evil, for that matter.

Detect Evil isn't cast on every child at birth. Nor is the result branded on their forehead by the gods.

You are assuming that characters are fully aware of every evil act they commit, that they accept such actions to be completely unjustifiable, and that they consider themselves evil as a result. That. Is. Nonsense.



It can be, yes, but what else would you call followers of the gods of evil?

It's not about what I - as an objective observer - call them, it's about what they call themselves.


Why? We aren't talking about a brigade of mustache twirlers here, they aren't evil for the sake of being evil.

That's exactly what we're talking about.


We're talking about creatures that have tapped into an energy source that grants power or aligned themselves with the same.

Eh?



The terms Good and Evil in this case are arbitrary, and only there to give an immediate sense of the general differences in idealism. It could just as easily have been light vs dark, positive vs negative, or something even more ambiguous, such as yellow vs violet or preservationists vs objectarians.

Except that it isn't any of those - it's very clearly good vs evil.

[kaoskonfety]

snippy....
At risk of being mistaken for discussing real-world religion... snip...

I'm not focusing on religion, real or otherwise, just some odd things people deeply believe.

Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, Lizard/alien overlords, a faked moon landing... the list goes on.

There are a large number of mental loops people fall into that make any evidence either a lie or confirmation, and I don't assume they are any less common in a fantasy setting. In a world with obvious magic this can easily be framed to be worse - any conspiracy is possible, no matter how outlandish, where your senses can be bent and the laws of physics broken.

It sets some space for someone whose world view is fundamentally (perhaps even objectively in D&D) *wrong* but believes they are upholding the Oath in their heart.

Whether this person keeps their magical oath superpowers is a matter for you and your DM. Re-framing becoming an Oath Breaker as further proof of the righteousness of your beliefs is more an exercise for the moment it happens and some follow up RP...

[mgshamster]

Remember, D&D is a world in which the planes exist - entire planes based off morality (aka alignment), elements, positive and negative energy, and more.

This is the same cosmos where the elements are defined by alchemical standards (earth, air, fire, water), not chemistry (periodic table of the elements).

Alignment and morality are real, tangible things in D&D. It's not just a matter of perspective or opinion, they are quantities that can be manipulated, harnessed, and used.

Entire campaign settings (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planescape) have been written about them.

This is not something we can easily compare to the real world, because it works completely differently.

[Oramac]

"I'm no hero. I'm just a bad guy who gets paid to **** up worse guys" -- Deadpool.


Seems like it would work pretty well for a not-so-good Vengeance Paladin. Plus you get to be the Comedic Sociopath (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComedicSociopathy).

[Dr. Cliché]

"I'm no hero. I'm just a bad guy who gets paid to **** up worse guys" -- Deadpool.


Seems like it would work pretty well for a not-so-good Vengeance Paladin. Plus you get to be the Comedic Sociopath (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComedicSociopathy).

I'd have thought Deadpool would be too chaotic for that. :smalltongue:

[Oramac]

I'd have thought Deadpool would be too chaotic for that. :smalltongue:

Possibly, but as long as we're talking about evil Paladins, it's worth noting that there's nothing stopping them from being chaotic either.

[mgshamster]

I'd have thought Deadpool would be too chaotic for that. :smalltongue:

Naw, he just pretends he doesn't have an oath, or changes the oath up.

You know, completely ignoring the oath rules. He's above them - sometimes even standing on top of them so he can look down upon them. All high and mighty.

It's what makes him such a great paladin.

[KorvinStarmast]

"I'm no hero. I'm just a bad guy who gets paid to **** up worse guys" -- Deadpool.
Seems like it would work pretty well for a not-so-good Vengeance Paladin. Plus you get to be the Comedic Sociopath (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComedicSociopathy). The 1960's and 1970's produced any number of Westerns where the "good guys" weren't good but they got things done. Quite a few of the Wild Bunch, some of the Magnificent Seven ...

[Daishain]

That's exactly what we're talking about.No, we're talking about people who are aligned with an energy type called Evil. Whether that is because they are literally made of Evil energy, that form of power suits their interests, or they hold to ideals that shift them in that direction.

It is entirely possible for an Evil energy aligned being to not be evil by the standards you're using. For instance, there are a large number of nonsapient creatures that were born of evil energy (hell hounds, mindless undead, etc). As nasty as they can be, they cannot be evil in the classic sense, but they are associated with the primal force of Evil in the same sense that a Salamander is associated with elemental fire. Most outsiders have as little choice in the matter as the nonsapients. Depending on which canon you go by, they're incapable of changing alignments, or will change species/cease to exist if they do.

Evil and evil, while related, are not the same thing, stop trying to apply the writing standards for the latter to the former. Primal Evil is a tangible force in the D&D realm, and has no real world equivalent.

[Dr. Cliché]

I give up. You want to have terribly-written characters who deliberately and knowingly declare themselves evil 'because evil', go ahead.

[Democratus]

I give up. You want to have terribly-written characters who deliberately and knowingly declare themselves evil 'because evil', go ahead.


Iago's motives are to seek revenge on Othello and Cassio both. Iago has these motives because the Moor has overlooked him for the lieutenant position and on Cassio because he was awarded the title. Iago also enjoys evil for evil's sake. He is one of the most villainous villains in all of Shakespeare.

Yeah. Shakespeare was a total hack. :smalltongue:

[mgshamster]

I give up. You want to have terribly-written characters who deliberately and knowingly declare themselves evil 'because evil', go ahead.

It's a bit easier to do the "I'm good in my eyes, but evil by your standards" trope in this edition compared to previous editions.

Detect evil no longer works for normal people with class levels. Compare to PF (maybe also 3.0/3.0?), where all you had to be was a certain level with an evil alignment and you detected as evil. That pretty much took away any ambiguity.

Regardless, it's difficult to get around the con pet when the upper and lower planes literally exist and can be tapped upon.

The law/chaos balance makes it easier to have an enemy who isn't "evil" but still a bad guy in your eyes. The anarchist who wants to tear down the whole city to free everyone from what he perceives as oppression (he's doing it for the greater good) or the upstanding citizen who just wants to eliminate freedom and choice so everyone can be protected and safe (he's doing it for the greater good). Both can be excellent bad guys who aren't evil. Both could also be evil - but what makes them "bad guys" is that they insist that everyone else *must* abide by their extreme views. They do not allow for others to have thier own opinions.

What could make them good or evil is how willing they are to sacrifice other people to accomplish their goals. Or how willing they are to cheat, to lie, or any other number of traits that are associated with the good-evil axis.

Regardless, if your D&D world has the planes existing, then it's difficult to get around the idea of objective moralism. To get to the subjective moralism ideas, I think you need to get rid of the concept of the planes from the PHB. I think. Willing to be wrong. :)

[smcmike]

Quote Originally Posted by The Motivations of Iago
Iago's motives are to seek revenge on Othello and Cassio both. Iago has these motives because the Moor has overlooked him for the lieutenant position and on Cassio because he was awarded the title. Iago also enjoys evil for evil's sake. He is one of the most villainous villains in all of Shakespeare.

Yeah. Shakespeare was a total hack. Yeah. Shakespeare was a total hack. :smalltongue:

Iago is Shakespeare's ultimate villain. He is quite definitely evil.

He also never declares himself to be evil, though, and most certainly doesn't go around with a big TEAM EVIL logo on his chest. Outwardly he is extremely honest and honorable, which is what makes him so nasty.

No one is arguing that there is no such thing as an evil character or someone who enjoys doing evil acts.


As for the existence of elemental evil, that can be integrated into complex characters - the PCs are mortals with free will, not angels or demons, and can wield powers from the evil planes without being evil themselves.

[mgshamster]

As for the existence of elemental evil, that can be integrated into complex characters - the PCs are mortals with free will, not angels or demons, and can wield powers from the evil planes without being evil themselves.

Ooo, I like that idea.

[Gastronomie]

Has anyone here ever read the manga "Majin Tantei Nougami Neuro"? Because the final boss in that series, "Six" (or "Sicks"), was basically built of evil -he was a man of evil, of the evil, and for the evil. And he looks like Jesus Christ

Perhaps "malignant" would fit more. He has this long story of an ancestry dedicated to crafting the most malignant human being possible, he's feared by even his minions as the "ultimate evil", and he takes pride in his abhorrent malice. He makes people kill their own children and friends or commit suicide for no real reason besides random amusement. He makes this absurd terrorist attack that submerges an entire district of Tokyo. He violently slaughters a lot - a LOT - of main characters in terrible ways. He makes the reader feel "sick".

And he was a wonderful antagonist. When crafted right, it's possible to make an antagonist who claims himself to be evil to be a really memorable and interesting character.

[Democratus]

Iago is Shakespeare's ultimate villain. He is quite definitely evil.

He also never declares himself to be evil, though, and most certainly doesn't go around with a big TEAM EVIL logo on his chest. Outwardly he is extremely honest and honorable, which is what makes him so nasty.

Oh, he very much does! In Act I, Right after Roderigo says to him: "Thou told'st me thou didst hold him in thy hate." He explains his hatred and bile for Othello and that he will play the part of the obsequious servant until such time as he can destroy him.

Very much a declaration of evil!

The point I'm making is that a blanket statement like, "Evil characters are bad writing" is erroneous. Dr. Cliche may not like such characters, but his preferences are not the ultimate arbiter of whether writing is good or bad.

It's essentially declaring something 'badwrongwriting'.

[KorvinStarmast]

Evil Paladins?
Sure, why not. Some interesting replies to related questions include:

Are there Lawful Evil Paladins? (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/65813/22566).
Are Paladin tenets subjective? (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/53206/22566)
Can you follow an Evil God but not be evil? (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/67557/22566) (Which should be a slam dunk, since you can follow a good god and fail at being good ...)
Do the 5e rules specify alignments for player character classes? (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/67184/22566)

D&D 5e allows a lot of room to work with alignment.

Insofar as the moral framework of our real world (primary world) and the various fantasy worlds we play D&D in (secondary worlds) the two sets intersect somewhat, but they do not have a one to one correspondence. Put another way, their overlap is partial at best. This is due to a lot of factors to include the reality of planes, magic, vampires are real, and of course so are gods/deities.

Since the Player Characters often perform in the role of vigilantes or teams of PI's with permission to kill, any overlap with the real world is tenuous at best because the Dm and the players are writing a story: it's fiction. Fiction has a variety of different rules from the real world.

[Oramac]

"Evil characters are bad writing"

If evil characters are bad writing, that basically means that all fictional writing is bad (and most non-fiction, for that matter).

Everything from Darth Vader to Voldemort is bad. President Snow is bad. The aforementioned Shakespearean characters are bad.

[Temperjoke]

I thought it might be about time for another objective morality thread to pop up. :smallannoyed:


I think it's harder to be evil (note, I'm speaking from a standard perspective of evil based from a society viewpoint that killing children, for example, is considered evil, your mileage may vary) for a paladin than some of the other classes, since their powers are based upon their oaths instead of a deity. Vengeance paladin probably has the most wiggle-room for interpretation, but overall I think it'd be hard to provide justification for evil actions without sounding like you're just making excuses. But that's just my opinion. It'd be different if the paladin was based on a specific deity, like clerics are.

[smcmike]

Oh, he very much does! In Act I, Right after Roderigo says to him: "Thou told'st me thou didst hold him in thy hate." He explains his hatred and bile for Othello and that he will play the part of the obsequious servant until such time as he can destroy him.

Very much a declaration of evil!

The point I'm making is that a blanket statement like, "Evil characters are bad writing" is erroneous. Dr. Cliche may not like such characters, but his preferences are not the ultimate arbiter of whether writing is good or bad.

It's essentially declaring something 'badwrongwriting'.

Sure, evil characters sometimes declare their evil intentions. But he's not wearing a cape with a capital E on it.

Again, my objection isn't to evil characters. It's to the idea that good and evil are just team names, and people go around doing evil things because they wish to further the cause of Evil. They may wish to further an evil cause, but that is something completely different.

[KorvinStarmast]

Vengeance paladin probably has the most wiggle-room for interpretation, but overall I think it'd be hard to provide justification for evil actions without sounding like you're just making excuses. But that's just my opinion. It'd be different if the paladin was based on a specific deity, like clerics are.
The new (SCAG) Oath of the Crown I think has some room for a Lawful Evil paladin in service of a king, wizard, realm, etc.

[Democratus]

Again, my objection isn't to evil characters. It's to the idea that good and evil are just team names, and people go around doing evil things because they wish to further the cause of Evil. They may wish to further an evil cause, but that is something completely different.

Someone who is morally bankrupt would think exactly that: good and evil are just team names.

If their selfish purpose was better served by putting on the jersey of team Evil then they would do so in a heartbeat.

That can be the actions of a very well written character. It's all up to the writer of a story (or the participants in a game).

[Temperjoke]

The new (SCAG) Oath of the Crown I think has some room for a Lawful Evil paladin in service of a king, wizard, realm, etc.

That's true, I had forgotten about that one. Of course, it still requires that the person/place you're sworn to tolerates evil actions. Although, on second thought, you could be the guardian that they don't want, but in your opinion they need. Someone willing to do the dark deeds that need to be done to keep the peace. I guess it could work, but I don't know how well a character like that would fit in with a group.

[Democratus]

Indeed.


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Even a good kingdom needs people willing to do horrible things in order to keep the hands of the king clean. The King must never know of this service because his heart is pure and such knowledge would corrupt him.

So we take the darkness upon ourselves so that he may rule in light.

[smcmike]

Someone who is morally bankrupt would think exactly that: good and evil are just team names.

If their selfish purpose was better served by putting on the jersey of team Evil then they would do so in a heartbeat.

That can be the actions of a very well written character. It's all up to the writer of a story (or the participants in a game).

But, more often than not, their selfish purpose would be better served by keeping on that Good jersey, and assigning the Evil jersey to someone else, rendering the whole jersey system ridiculous.

There is no "evil" team. There are evil teams, sure, and teams that purposeful project an evil image, but evil is an awfully weak grand unifier.

[smcmike]

Personally, I like character arcs. I like the idea of a Vengeance Paladin who is lawful good by nature, but has taken a terrible oath that is dragging him toward evil deeds.

[Democratus]

But, more often than not, their selfish purpose would be better served by keeping on that Good jersey

Not at all. It's all up to the structure of the story and the nature of the villain.

Evil is a great unifier in many well-written classic fantasy stories, including Tolkien.

[Daishain]

But, more often than not, their selfish purpose would be better served by keeping on that Good jersey, and assigning the Evil jersey to someone else, rendering the whole jersey system ridiculous.

There is no "evil" team. There are evil teams, sure, and teams that purposeful project an evil image, but evil is an awfully weak grand unifier.
Except that in this case, the "Evil jersey" isn't just a label, but a detectable force. You can try to fool others in regards to your allegiances, but can easily be found out.

[smcmike]

Except that in this case, the "Evil jersey" isn't just a label, but a detectable force. You can try to fool others in regards to your allegiances, but can easily be found out.

How, exactly?

[Democratus]

How, exactly?

One sure way would be to kill them and then find out to which plane their soul went.

[smcmike]

One sure way would be to kill them and then find out to which plane their soul went.

Kill them all and let the gods sort them out, eh?

I mean, ok, but that isn't exactly easy, and isn't exactly a solution to the problem of figuring out whether someone is good or evil, any more than it is in the real world.

[NorthernPhoenix]

You can easily have Evil Paladins, especially the way 5E presents the concept. However, i think it's a mistake to try to fit Evil Paladins into one of the 4 regular paladin oaths that clearly weren't designed with that in mind. It's easy enough to just copy the mechanics of one of the four, or Oathbreaker, and invent a different Oath that is more suitable and ultimately less limiting.

And regarding the general good/evil debate, i think it's important when discussing the default settings of DnD (as we clearly are, otherwise there would be no issue) to recognize that Good and Evil are separate concepts from Right and Wrong. A (non-exemplar) Evil character might not call themselves "evil", but they definitely wouldn't call themselves "good" either. What they are certain of is that they are Right, and that the heroes, whatever their alignment, are wrong.

[Regitnui]

I'm going to point out that a lot of the detect spells are no longer divided in 5e; it's detect evil and good nad protection from evil and good. So it's actually more plausible that an evil paladin could go undetected.

[smcmike]

And regarding the general good/evil debate, i think it's important when discussing the default settings of DnD (as we clearly are, otherwise there would be no issue) to recognize that Good and Evil are separate concepts from Right and Wrong. A (non-exemplar) Evil character might not call themselves "evil", but they definitely wouldn't call themselves "good" either. What they are certain of is that they are Right, and that the heroes, whatever their alignment, are wrong.

This doesn't clarify things for me. Why would an Evil character necessarily think that they are right or that others are wrong?

[smcmike]

I'm going to point out that a lot of the detect spells are no longer divided in 5e; it's detect evil and good nad protection from evil and good. So it's actually more plausible that an evil paladin could go undetected.

They also don't detect human paladins, regardless of alignment.

[Regitnui]

They also don't detect human paladins, regardless of alignment.

Doubly so. How do you know that the Inquisition Officer (Paladin Oath of Devotion 4) your character is dealing with is Good or Evil? He's most likely Lawful, but which Lawful?

[NorthernPhoenix]

This doesn't clarify things for me. Why would an Evil character necessarily think that they are right or that others are wrong?

Well, if they didn't think whatever they were doing that makes them evil from an OOC perspective was right, why would they do it, in universe? I's reckon the vast majority of characters in fiction or people in real life responsible for atrocities don't actually believe they are "Good" as defined by DnD, but they certainly believe they are justified in their actions, or "in the Right". As such, anyone who attempts to sabotage them (typically the heroes) would be "wrong".

Nihilist characters like Seymour from Final Fantasy are typically this way. They see themselves as above Good and Evil the concepts, and don't feel the need to fit their worldview into those frames to be Right in their actions.

[smcmike]

Well, if they didn't think whatever they were doing that makes them evil from an OOC perspective was right, why would they do it, in universe? I's reckon the vast majority of characters in fiction or people in real life responsible for atrocities don't actually believe they are "Good" as defined by DnD, but they certainly believe they are justified in their actions, or "in the Right". As such, anyone who attempts to sabotage them (typically the heroes) would be "wrong".

Nihilist characters like Seymour from Final Fantasy are typically this way. They see themselves as above Good and Evil the concepts, and don't feel the need to fit their worldview into those frames to be Right in their actions.

Some may think they are right.

Some may know they are doing evil, but not see any way around it - they may feel forced by circumstance, or may know in the back of their head that this is a rationalization, but lack the moral character to make the hard choice.

Some may be driven by internal forces that they cannot control, even as they recognize that their acts are evil.

Some may see themselves as beyond good and evil and deny that there even is a Right or Wrong, any more than there is a Good and Evil.

[JoeJ]

Kill them all and let the gods sort them out, eh?

I mean, ok, but that isn't exactly easy, and isn't exactly a solution to the problem of figuring out whether someone is good or evil, any more than it is in the real world.

In the real world it doesn't work because there's no way to know where their soul went unless you die yourself and follow them. In D&D that's not a problem. Kill them and use Commune or Contact Other Plane to find out where they went. If they went to a good plane, just cast Raise Dead.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Some may think they are right.

Some may know they are doing evil, but not see any way around it - they may feel forced by circumstance, or may know in the back of their head that this is a rationalization, but lack the moral character to make the hard choice.

Some may be driven by internal forces that they cannot control, even as they recognize that their acts are evil.

Some may see themselves as beyond good and evil and deny that there even is a Right or Wrong, any more than there is a Good and Evil.

There are definitely many right answers, but i don't think "Evil character who does Evil and believes himself to be Good" is one of them.
In addition to separating Good and Evil from Right and Wrong (or Justified and Unjustified), it's also important to separate the fact that people can claim to be anything they like, while objectively, being something else, even if they don't know it.

[smcmike]

There are definitely many right answers, but i don't think "Evil character who does Evil and believes himself to be Good" is one of them.
In addition to separating Good and Evil from Right and Wrong (or Justified and Unjustified), it's also important to separate the fact that people can claim to be anything they like, while objectively, being something else, even if they don't know it.

Again, I'm not sure I understand. Why can't an evil character believe himself to be good?

[Regitnui]

In the real world it doesn't work because there's no way to know where their soul went unless you die yourself and follow them. In D&D that's not a problem. Kill them and use Commune or Contact Other Plane to find out where they went. If they went to a good plane, just cast Raise Dead.

And the paladin, and his order, is not in the least inclined to help you anymore. In fact, you have earned his lasting enmity and will do all he can to subvert your no doubt Evil goals.

[smcmike]

In the real world it doesn't work because there's no way to know where their soul went unless you die yourself and follow them. In D&D that's not a problem. Kill them and use Commune or Contact Other Plane to find out where they went. If they went to a good plane, just cast Raise Dead.

This is a fun story element about some sort of insane cult, but in practical terms is definitely not "easy."

[Democratus]

I would highly recommend the movie "Falling Down".

It's an interesting study of someone who sees themselves as the good guy sliding over the edge.

There are a near infinite variety of people and personalities in the world (real and fictional). Just based on numbers, you will run into someone who fits just about every story.

You can have someone who puts on the Evil Jersey just because they like the idea of Evil and what it will get them.
You can have someone who starts off good but keeps compromising their beliefs until they can't tell what is good or evil any more.
You can have someone who thinks they are saving the world by being a lesser evil.

Theres's space for all of them in the millions of table tops around the world.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Again, I'm not sure I understand. Why can't an evil character believe himself to be good?

You could try but they would be (A) Wrong and (B) Deluded. Good and Evil are objective, so it couldn't really apply to a character with any level of intelligence. An intelligent character would quickly realize what they were doing was "Evil" but not care since they are still "Right", which is all that matters.

[JoeJ]

And the paladin, and his order, is not in the least inclined to help you anymore. In fact, you have earned his lasting enmity and will do all he can to subvert your no doubt Evil goals.

Why wouldn't the paladin help me? I'm ridding the world of evil. Surely that justifies the minor inconvenience of being dead for a short time.

[smcmike]

You could try but they would be (A) Wrong and (B) Deluded. Good and Evil are objective, so it couldn't really apply to a character with any level of intelligence. An intelligent character would quickly realize what they were doing was "Evil" but not care since they are still "Right", which is all that matters.

Of course they would be wrong and deluded. When you look around at real people, do you really struggle to find error and self-delusion?

What is the line you are drawing between Right and Good anyways?

[RedMage125]

Yesterday I talked to a former player who hadn't heard of 5E yet, and she was particularly intrigued by Paladins no longer being shoehorned into the LG corner. However, the topic of Paladins of Evil deities came up and then I was stumped. The current core options don't seem to support that, although RP-Wise there's no reason why for instance Bane shouldn't sponsor his own order of kickass knights.

The PHB Oath Tenets all are geared towards Good or at least Good-ish characters:
- Devotion: "aid others, protect the weak, do as much good as possible" etc
- Ancients: "...mercy, kindness and forgiveness..."
- Vengeance: "Fight the Greater Evil, help those harmed by my foes' misdeeds"

And Oathbreaker, of course, implies that you once swore one of those oaths and then said "Screw it".

So, what if you want to play a Paladin of Bane, and be the Iron Fist by which this tyrannic god would rule? Or some other evil deity that promotes culling the weak over protecting them? And so forth.

Keep in mind that in the D&D multiverse, alignment and morality is absolute, so Evil people are generally under no illusion that they are really the good guys - they just are convinced that Evil is _right_ and Good is _wrong_.

The only issue I take with this is the supposition that a paladin "must" be sponsored by a deity.

In EVERY earlier edition of D&D except 4th, paladins were LG-only, but not necessarily tied to religions or deities. Even in 3.xe, when people really started associating them with various deities and churches, the PHB says "devotion to righteousness is enough". This is why in 3e discussions when someone asks "why don't evil deities have paladins?" The correct answer is "because people who devote themselves wholly to righteousness don't often worship evil deities". This all stems from the fact that the dictiionary definition of "paladin" was "noble or righteous warrior" or "protector of a noble cause", and NOT "knight of a specific faith or deity". Personally, I blame the 3.x iconic paladin Alhandra and her tattoo of Heironious, and more specifically, the 3.0 supplement Defenders of the Faith, which lumped paladins and clerics together. Ever since then, people started viewing paladins as like clerics, only more focused on combat than spellcasting.

4th edition changed that. In 4e, WotC redefined "paladin" (within the context of D&D) to mean "knight of x deity or faith". With that definition, paladins of Evil deities made sense. Unlike Clerics, 4e Paladins had to match their deity's alignment exactly. And yet, like Clerics, their powers came from the rituals that invested them as paladins, and thus they could not "fall" and lose their powers.

5e tried to make more people happy. We have a return to Paladins that are not necessarily tied to deities or faiths. A Devotion Paladin could be party of a secular order of knights, just like paladins of older editions. An Ancients Paladin could have connections to a druid circle, or the fey, or any other number of natural forces (could even be a guardian of the Elven way of life). A Vengeance Paladin could have sworn his/her Oath personally, and have trained diligently to hone their prowess, to better fulfill this deeply personal vendetta.

That's not to say that paladins who are part of a church or faith are wrong, those fit in perfectly well, too. I just think it's important to remember that a paladin does not NEED to be shoehorned into that mold. Forgotten Realms always presents a unique case, because the involvement of deities is so prevalent in that setting. EVERYONE in FR must have a patron deity, so all paladin orders in FR are tied to deities (hell, even DRUIDS have to worship Nature deities instead of worshiping Nature itself).

Oathbreaker fits in perfectly as an Evil Paladin. The flavor of a paladin who has violated his or her oath before taking Oathbreaker need not be adhered to. Re: the OP's initial query, a Paladin of Bane might use the Oathbreaker class as a chassis, but have actual tenets of an Oath that he or she swore to Bane. Tenets like "The Strong Rule the Weak: Powerful authority should be respected and feared. When leaders show themselves to be weak, they must be cast aside, by force if necessary." Things like that. Such an Oath added to the Oathbreaker class would not require any mechanical changes. Bane is a deity of tyranny, strife and fear. The oathbreaker class has an AoE fear effect, as well as the ability to control and dominate undead. These fit in well with Bane's ethos.

[Trampaige]

on second thought, you could be the guardian that they don't want, but in your opinion they need. Someone willing to do the dark deeds that need to be done to keep the peace. I guess it could work, but I don't know how well a character like that would fit in with a group.

Batman. Particularly the movies.

[Firechanter]

Just a quick reply, didn't expect the thread to explode like this.


The only issue I take with this is the supposition that a paladin "must" be sponsored by a deity.


Thank you, that's correct. Kinda slipped my mind, even though I never really touched 4E.
The PHB says "a paladin's power comes as much from a committment to justice itself as it does from a god", which is kinda ambiguous.

However, the PHB _also_ says that ALL Paladins, by definition, "stand against the forces of evil". That also had slipped my mind. Except Oathbreakers of course, also by definition.
So, unless of course we refluff, there can be no "Paladin of Evil"; it would be a contradiction in terms. Of we could always do that: copy-paste the Paladin class features, call them Blackguards and write up a couple of new oaths.

However, while there can be no Oathbound Paladin of an Evil cause by PHB definition, that of course doesn't mean there can't be Evil Paladins -- it just means that this sort still pursues the goals of Good, but has no trouble using Evil methods in their exploits.

On a side tangent, in our game, the DM has declared that exclusively LG Devotion Pallies are actually identified and recognized as "Paladins" in the game world. Everybody else may be recognized as "Crusader" or "Guardian" or whatever strikes your fancy, and nothing changes mechanically, so it's a purely fluff thing because we play in the Realms of AD&D vintage. (I'm not sure if the old racial "Human Only" restriction is also in place; that never came up.)

[Regitnui]

Why wouldn't the paladin help me? I'm ridding the world of evil. Surely that justifies the minor inconvenience of being dead for a short time.

I'm not going to say anything. Just apply that to a normal policeman who can't afford or lives in a world without raise dead and see where it gets you.

[Democratus]

I'm not going to say anything. Just apply that to a normal policeman who can't afford or lives in a world without raise dead and see where it gets you.

But the game doesn't take place in a world without Raise Dead. So applying that won't work.

This is a world where the afterlife is real, people can be brought back from the dead, castles fly, and demons infest the Underdark.

[Firechanter]

This is also a world where >95% of people couldn't save up 500GP - the money required for a Raise Dead - in a lifetime.

[Fighting_Ferret]

I was going to point out what Firechanter pointed out... the Paladin class is still defined as good, they just stretched it across the entire spectrum of good.

[Oramac]

This is also a world where >95% of people couldn't save up 500GP - the money required for a Raise Dead - in a lifetime.

But we are not 95% of people. We can save up that money.

(just playing devil's advocate here, I don't really care either way)

[mgshamster]

This is also a world where >95% of people couldn't save up 500GP - the money required for a Raise Dead - in a lifetime.

Come now - if they're an untrained hireling, they're racking in a mighty 2 sp per day. All they have to do is live in a squalid lifestyle (1 sp/day), save up every copper, and they'll have enough to cast raise dead in a mere 13-14 years. Clearly an achievable goal.

[Drackolus]

This is precisely why my group no longer aknowledges the alignment system. Pointless and limiting, not because I think it's arbitrary and objective, but because it removes a sizeable chunk of charactarization. Sorta limits you to 1 of 9 characters, to a small extent.
Also, to say that people don't declare themselves evil is quite a naive statement. I have met a great many people who have done that exact thing, and followed through with that "ideology." Have you ever met a Luciferian? Not a Satanist, they're an alright bunch. I'm talking literal murder sacrifice of children. Real evil exists. Maybe not to the extent that D&D cults exist in - but if they had a more provable and rewarding patron, who's to say they wouldn't?

[Temperjoke]

To be honest, I think the terms Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral, Good, and Evil should just be used from a mechanics and OoC perspective. Like "sure he's evil, but he doesn't see himself that way, but for the purpose of using this item without damage, yes he's evil" or to help define their motivations "He's an upstanding citizen who firmly believes in following all the rules, while she's a rebel who uses the rulebook for toilet paper in the outhouse." It's easier to sum things up from an outside perspective with a solid term.

Metagame purposes, in other words.

[Naanomi]

Sprites (including chainlock familiars) can detect alignment, for what it matters

[JoeJ]

This is also a world where >95% of people couldn't save up 500GP - the money required for a Raise Dead - in a lifetime.

No one's asking them to pay for it themselves.

[Rhaegar]

This is also a world where >95% of people couldn't save up 500GP - the money required for a Raise Dead - in a lifetime.

Most people should be able to raise 500gp in a lifetime. 1g/day is considered a standard living wage. 2g/day for skilled labor

at 1g/day 5days/week 52weeks/year, that's 260gp/yeah. If you save 10% of that, you'll have 500gp saved up in 20years. I could easily see a raise dead spell as part of many premium life insurance policies.

[Fighting_Ferret]

You know you are supposed to be the good guys in D&D... just saying.


pg 77 in the PHB "As guardians against the forces of wickedness, paladins are rarely of any evil alignment. Most of them walk the paths of charity and justice.

pg 116 in the PHB "Generally, evil alignments are for villains and monsters."

[KorvinStarmast]

Most people should be able to raise 500gp in a lifetime. 1g/day is considered a standard living wage. 2g/day for skilled labor

at 1g/day 5days/week 52weeks/year, that's 260gp/yeah. If you save 10% of that, you'll have 500gp saved up in 20years. I could easily see a raise dead spell as part of many premium life insurance policies.

You sure that isn't for a skilled craftsman? For some reason, I thought 1 sp per day was the standard wage. Eh, depends on who's doing what, I suppose.

(This might be me confusing one silver drachma as the daily wage of an oarsman on a galley in ancient Greece ... )

[Regitnui]

"Heroes of the land, I need your help for a vital quest."

"Can we trust him?"

"I dunno. Kill him and we'll check what plane his soul goes to."

*dead* *commune* *raised*

"Why in the name of the gods did you kill me?"



Of course, you could always go.with a.cosmology where there is only one plane of the dead; Eberron, Greek, Egyptian... Then the murderhobo solution doesn't work anymore.

[Rhaegar]

You sure that isn't for a skilled craftsman? For some reason, I thought 1 sp per day was the standard wage. Eh, depends on who's doing what, I suppose.

(This might be me confusing one silver drachma as the daily wage of an oarsman on a galley in ancient Greece ... )

Hireling
Skilled 2 gp per day
Untrained 2 sp per day
Messenger 2 cp per mile

Table: Lifestyle Expenses Lifestyle Price/Day
Wretched —
Squalid 1 sp
Poor 2 sp
Modest 1 gp
Comfortable 2 gp
Wealthy 4 gp
Aristocratic 10 gp minimum

So Modest-comfortable 1-2g is your middle class, your poor/poverty class won't make anywhere near that.

[Oramac]

"Heroes of the land, I need your help for a vital quest."

"Can we trust him?"

"I dunno. Kill him and we'll check what plane his soul goes to."

*dead* *commune* *raised*

"Why in the name of the gods did you kill me?"


I lol'd. :D

[EvilAnagram]

Hireling
Skilled 2 gp per day
Untrained 2 sp per day
Messenger 2 cp per mile

Table: Lifestyle Expenses Lifestyle Price/Day
Wretched —
Squalid 1 sp
Poor 2 sp
Modest 1 gp
Comfortable 2 gp
Wealthy 4 gp
Aristocratic 10 gp minimum

So Modest-comfortable 1-2g is your middle class, your poor/poverty class won't make anywhere near that.

So skilled craftsmen would have to make more than 2gp a day to maintain their lifestyle.

[Democratus]

"Heroes of the land, I need your help for a vital quest."

"Can we trust him?"

"I dunno. Kill him and we'll check what plane his soul goes to."

*dead* *commune* *raised*

"Why in the name of the gods did you kill me?"




Sounds like the start of a very interesting story. In fact, I could see a campaign that starts with all the PCs being slain and brought back as an initiation rite by a cabal of Lawful Good clerics.

[uraniumrooster]

It doesn't seem like there's much support in this edition for the notion that morality is objective and absolute. The spells and abilities that operated on that assumption in older editions no longer function the same way. Detect Evil and Good, Protection from Evil and Good, Divine Sense, etc, don't function based on a creature's alignment, but based on the creature types most commonly associated with coming from the outer planes (including elementals, which are of neutral alignment). In fact, apart from alignment itself, I can't think of any game mechanics that actually use alignment (although I'm AFB, so feel free to correct me on that point). It seems like a holdover from previous editions that, in game terms, is akin to traits, ideals, bonds and flaws in that it is more an indicator of a character's personality and general tendencies, rather than their actual alignment with outer-planes fores of good or evil. Which is a good thing, if you ask me... absolute alignment always seemed silly, and many of the mechanics tied to a creature's alignment were totally absurd (remember alignment languages?).

Paladins no longer being tied to the lawful good alignment seems like further evidence that the designers were trying to distance themselves from an absolute morality in 5th edition. They still must obey oaths that strongly favor justice and righteousness, but there's more room for each paladin to interpret those oaths according to their own belief system (personality, alignment, background, deity, etc). I could pretty easily imagine a Lawful Evil paladin who pays lip-service to their oath because it provides them with a position of privilege and respect within society, though they personally believe the oath to be nonsense.

Of course, in the lore of the FR, there's plenty of reason to argue that paladins just can't be evil because it simply doesn't work. Paladins are warriors committed to the ideals of justice and righteousness, protectors of the innocent, and so on. They draw their strength from their belief in those ideals, and without the full force of their unwavering commitment, their powers fade and they fall, essentially becoming fighters.

Although he's referencing older editions, this is still fairly related to the topic at hand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_olkV4g75c

[Daishain]

Of course, you could always go.with a.cosmology where there is only one plane of the dead; Eberron, Greek, Egyptian... Then the murderhobo solution doesn't work anymore.
Nah, it still works, you just use the "speak with dead" spell on the corpse instead of checking up on his soul

[KorvinStarmast]

@uraniumrooster:

The young man in that video gives himself too much credit for coming up with the idea. It takes him about half way through his rant/drivel to confess that "anti paladin" was invented before he was born. It is sorta neat that he has the Dragon 39 article printed out.
Overall, his presentation is, per the usual youtube problem, overly verbose and about twice as long as it needs to be for the material. His enthusiasm for his topic, is, however, much appreciated! (Calling himself old was a stretch. Old? Heh, he ain't old yet!)

The opposite of a paladin isn't any fighter. It's either a priest, an assassin or some evil spell caster. Not only alignment is opposite, but style and class is opposite.

For example, the Opposite of Conan was Thoth Amon, the evil magician/priest, per the R.E. Howard books.

[smcmike]

Nah, it still works, you just use the "speak with dead" spell on the corpse instead of checking up on his soul

First question - Were you good or evil?
Answer - What does it matter now, murderer!
Second question - I only killed you to find out if you were good or evil, so which was it?
Answer - WTF man! Not cool!
Third question - Just tell me and I'll raise you from the dead.
Answer - I don't think that was a question.
Fourth question - Do you want to live again?
Answer - Um, yeah.
Fifth question - Then tell me that you were good!
Answer - Yeah, I was totally good! Capital G and everything!

[KorvinStarmast]

First question - Were you good or evil?
Answer - What does it matter now, murderer!
Second question - I only killed you to find out if you were good or evil, so which was it?
Answer - WTF man! Not cool!
Third question - Just tell me and I'll raise you from the dead.
Answer - I don't think that was a question.
Fourth question - Do you want to live again?
Answer - Um, yeah.
Fifth question - Then tell me that you were good!
Answer - Yeah, I was totally good! Capital G and everything!
Sixth question**: Liar, Liar! (sets corpse on fire). :smallbiggrin: :belkar:


** not actually a question

[Specter]

By RAW, a pally can start evil and then take Oathbreaker at 3rd level. The book itself says that pallys only go 'serious business' at 3rd level. And the 1 and 2nd level abilities make sense regardless of alignment.

[Daishain]

First question - Were you good or evil?
Answer - What does it matter now, murderer!
Second question - I only killed you to find out if you were good or evil, so which was it?
Answer - WTF man! Not cool!
Third question - Just tell me and I'll raise you from the dead.
Answer - I don't think that was a question.
Fourth question - Do you want to live again?
Answer - Um, yeah.
Fifth question - Then tell me that you were good!
Answer - Yeah, I was totally good! Capital G and everything!
Huh, they took out the part where the subject couldn't knowingly lie...

[uraniumrooster]

@uraniumrooster:

The young man in that video gives himself too much credit for coming up with the idea. It takes him about half way through his rant/drivel to confess that "anti paladin" was invented before he was born. It is sorta neat that he has the Dragon 39 article printed out.
Overall, his presentation is, per the usual youtube problem, overly verbose and about twice as long as it needs to be for the material. His enthusiasm for his topic, is, however, much appreciated! (Calling himself old was a stretch. Old? Heh, he ain't old yet!)

The opposite of a paladin isn't any fighter. It's either a priest, an assassin or some evil spell caster. Not only alignment is opposite, but style and class is opposite.

For example, the Opposite of Conan was Thoth Amon, the evil magician/priest, per the R.E. Howard books.

Yeah, I don't agree with a lot of what he says, although I do also appreciate his enthusiasm. He seems to generally support the idea that Paladins must be warriors for good, relying on the strict rules of morality from past editions, for instance, while I actually like the flexibility and distance from hard and fast alignments in this edition (and when I played older editions I always hand-waved alignment restrictions or home-ruled alignment out of the game entirely).

The video popped up on my youtube feed though, and as it is pretty well grounded in "historical" D&D and FR lore, I thought I'd share it.

[Naanomi]

In fact, apart from alignment itself, I can't think of any game mechanics that actually use alignment (although I'm AFB, so feel free to correct me on that point).
As mentioned before, Sprites can detect alignment. A chainlock/paladin eh?

[kaoskonfety]

As mentioned before, Sprites can detect alignment. A chainlock/paladin eh?

Possibly relevant, definitely funny.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html

[NorthernPhoenix]

Of course they would be wrong and deluded. When you look around at real people, do you really struggle to find error and self-delusion?

What is the line you are drawing between Right and Good anyways?

In this context, a character who believes they are "Right" believes that their actions are justified, no matter the cosmic alignment or subjective morality of said actions. A character who believes themselves to be "Good" is one who genuinely believes their actions fall within the confines of cosmic "Good" as defined by the general belief structure of the setting.

[smcmike]

In this context, a character who believes they are "Right" believes that their actions are justified, no matter the cosmic alignment or subjective morality of said actions. A character who believes themselves to be "Good" is one who genuinely believes their actions fall within the confines of cosmic "Good" as defined by the general belief structure of the setting.

If I believe my actions are justified, wouldn't I think they are good, on balance?

Subjective or objective morality?

Belief structure? Whose belief structure? I thought we were dealing with Gods and concepts that objectively exist, not beliefs.

[NorthernPhoenix]

If I believe my actions are justified, wouldn't I think they are good, on balance?

Subjective or objective morality?

Belief structure? Whose belief structure? I thought we were dealing with Gods and concepts that objectively exist, not beliefs.

You can believe your actions are justified while knowing they are "Evil". "For the greater good" being used as a turn of phrase rather than genuine belief. Most Liches probably know they are "Evil" but wouldn't lower themselves (in their minds) to using that description.
The stuff about belief structure just references the fact that within the canon DnD universes (Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Ebberon, Dragonlance, etc), what is considered "Evil" is going to vary.

[Naanomi]

In some ways the verifiable existence of 'big E Evil' might make it *easier* to be evil. Afterall, your business donates to churches that oppose the Baneites, and you killed that Demon when it was summoned in town; clearly your questionable business practices don't equate to *that* kind of Evil!

[Malifice]

In the real world it doesn't work because there's no way to know where their soul went unless you die yourself and follow them. In D&D that's not a problem. Kill them and use Commune or Contact Other Plane to find out where they went. If they went to a good plane, just cast Raise Dead.

Conveniently ignores the pain and suffering caused along the way.

Getting stabbed to death isnt fun.

[GAZ]

Good = In agreement with upper-planar beings about altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
Evil = In agreement with lower-planar beings about hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Right = Correct/Proper
Wrong = Incorrect/Improper

Paladin of Hextor: "You are absolutely Right, my hideous, gray skinned master. The world is a harsh and unforgiving place. I will totally be Evil and use cruelty and mercilessness to forge order from chaos as you have taught me. That loser Heironeous and his Good-guys are so Wrong about all their justice and mercy crap. Too bad the upper planes have such efficient PR, tricking all the gullible idiots into thinking that Good is the same thing as Right. I'm glad I know better, as my Evil master has taught me true Right."

[kaoskonfety]

In some ways the verifiable existence of 'big E Evil' might make it *easier* to be evil. Afterall, your business donates to churches that oppose the Baneites, and you killed that Demon when it was summoned in town; clearly your questionable business practices don't equate to *that* kind of Evil!

"I'm just a nasty, murderous, brute who'd sell my mother if I thought it would give me an edge in a fight. That guy over there? Hes going to prison for trying to summon Orcus in a pact that would drive all within 100 miles mad with despair and drag all the dead from all the ages of the kingdom up from their graves to eat us alive before seeking to set the world ablaze. That guy is evil and worships Evil, I'm just an ass with poor impulse control." He draws his sword and sets it alight with Holy Fire. "There will be no prison for the wicked today" he charges the prisoners guards intent on death...

This image is both hilarious and speaks to a dreadful grim dark setting - I can see worlds it works in - a Paladin in Ravenloft where their every step brings them closer do death, or discovering that now they are the biggest villain feels really GOOD setting and horror wise...

[Regitnui]

The thing is, the objective morality of D&D applies less to the mortal races than a lot of people think in this edition. You can't use detect evil and good to check if the shopkeeper's charging you too much or the cardinal really has the best interests of the church at heart. The whole issue of morality has been intentionally made a lot fuzzier. Yes, absolute Evil and absolute Good exist, along with Absolute Law and absolute Chaos. Devils, demons, celestials, modrons and slaadi all exist. But player races aren't as simple as an alignment. You can't reduce a personality into the two axes in the game anymore. You can have a Lawful Evil person who values her community and a Chaotic Good who gambles his savings away.

Can you have an Evil paladin holding to the tenets of their oath? Yes. It's just a matter of doing their duty out of obligation to buttress their own standing in the community as they try to discredit their superiors and ruin their lessers' chance of achieving their (metaphorical) level. They help the poor so that the poor will praise them. They show devotion because their devotion gives them greater power (higher levels). They're in it for themselves, not the organization or the upliftment of the poor. Why help the poor to raise themselves into the middle class when feeding them at clinics makes them more reliant on you? Offer them education so they can work in shops set up by your church. Help them raise children so you have another generation indebted to you. That's a Lawful Evil Devotion Paladin.

[Dimcair]

The Oath of Aesthetic! Preserve everything that looks nice, punish those with poor taste.

Give him the profession skill (writing) and he is a critique.

Class ability? The holy review of damnation.

Passive bonus? You always get the best food in any establishment, for free.

[Fighting_Ferret]

The oath defines the paladin's commitment to righteousness and justice... a moral standard to which they hold themselves to... paying it lip service wouldn't be enough to maintain the powers of the class.

[KorvinStarmast]

Possibly relevant, definitely funny.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html As soon as lawyer becomes a player class in D&D, I will most likely play assassins exclusively, or rangers with a special foe ... but that was a funny strip. :smallbiggrin:


Conveniently ignores the pain and suffering caused along the way. Getting stabbed to death isnt fun.
Neither is inserting lawyers and legalism into D&D. This isn't benign, like mixing peanut butter and chocolate together ...

[Aasimar]

Paladins aren't shoehorned into LG anymore.

Most of them 'should' be at least neutral, or keeping their oaths will be a continual struggle.

But you can have a CE paladin of Devotion if you want, if he had a good enough reason to want to uphold these tenets. Family honor, competition with someone else, a desire to be a better person than he knows himself to be, whatever.

He'd be at constant risk of falling of course, but the rules don't forbid him from trying.

[Democratus]

Interesting.

I would be funny to have a CE character who was keeping is Vow out of spite.

He knows someone goody-two-shoes who is keeping a Vow and he'll be damned if that punk is going to out-Vow him!

[Knaight]

#1 no one could consider "holding society back" a greater evil in a world where creatures exist with the sole agenda of deliberately destroying society
#2 violates the precept of Honor, do as much good as possible while causing the least harm
#3 violates multiple precepts, Ancients paladins are to act with mercy, kindness and forgiveness, defend life wherever it may be found, and act as a beacon of hope to all.Furthermore, none of their precepts indicate any duty to rekindle magic artifacts.

I'm not sure where you're getting any of this. It's downright easy to consider "holding society back" a greater evil when it's at more risk, and it's not like the presence of nasty external threats has stopped it in the real world. There are plenty of genocidal conflicts in areas also ravaged by disease, to use just one example. That's also a rather unique definition of honor, particularly given that there's a great deal of harm attached to the concept. Just take the entire concept of an honor killing, or the history of brutality from warrior classes with honor codes, or any number of other things. Those examples work.

Of the paladin oaths, vengeance lends itself best to evil paladins by a large margin. Well intentioned extremists can be very, very dangerous and do terrible things.

[smcmike]

Yeah, Honor is a funny concept, and is often a driving force for evil men. You can use it, for instance, as a theory for understand the culture of the antebellum Southern gentleman. I don't think the blurb the PHB gives for "honor" is very good - there is simply no way that utilitarianism = honor.

I'd actually like to see a paladin oath focused on Honor, and imagine it as much more morally flexible than other oaths. Honor is all about appearances.

[EvilAnagram]

If you remember T.H. White's The Once and Future King, Lancelot first came to England calling himself le Chevalier Mal Fet - the Ill-made Knight. He called himself this for several reasons: he was ugly, he was unsure of himself, it was a pun that sounded like "the ill-fated knight." But he also called himself the ill-made knight because deep down he knew he had a wicked heart.


But the curious thing was that under the king-post of keeping faith with himself and with others, he had a contradictory nature which was far from holy. His Word was valuable to him not only because he was good, but also because he was bad. It is the bad people who need to have principles to restrain them. For one thing, he liked to hurt people. It was for the strange reason that he was cruel, that the poor fellow never killed a man who asked for mercy, or committed a cruel action which he could have prevented.

And yet, this man afflicted both by cruelty and by principles, who loved his dear friend's wife, who abandoned his child, who slew his friends in melee, whose behavior destroyed the peace of England... this man was able to perform miracles.