Judge my actions based on alignment.

[Gtdead]

Wall of text inc ^^

First some background.

My character is a Lawful Good Vengeance Paladin. He dislikes killing because he was forced to kill his possessed uncle, so he always tries to arrest the enemy instead of killing him.
Now this is way harder than it usually is because the DM allows non lethal damage after a few conditions have been met. For example I can knockout those that surrender, or those that are under of effects of conditions that allow advantage on the attack roll, or are under the grappled condition and someone else knocks them out. Generally we either need to spend resources to preserve life, or try stunts that may or may not work.

One more important point is that policy in his world is EXTEMELY strict. I got arrested for proposing an illegal course of action (publically accusing a death row prisoner for something he didn't do to bait some enemies) that the lord of the city already planned to do, just because he wanted to save face. It's even worse when you are a member of the army (like my character is, paladin orders are part of the army in his world). The relationship between us and our leadership is the relationship between a guardsman and a commisar. Everyone is expendable, disobeying orders means death, even if you had positive results, just because the leadership wants to save face and do things by the book. He likes to think that in his world, Stalin meets Warhammer 40k.

--------------------

While I enjoy being good in this game, since it's such a scary thing to do, sometimes it's just impossible to keep doing it, and trying to play on the character's flaws sometimes creates some chaotic situations.

In today's session we were part of a 300 man strike force, divided in parties of ten men, and had orders to attack one of the many barricaded bridges, establish a foothold and swipe the residential buildings nearby for hostiles. Our commander ordered us to kill or burn every hostile. He even let us believe that if killing loyal citizens will move things along faster, he won't care too much. The whole point of the operation is to establish a foothold so the army has free movement in the city while suffering minimal casualties, not to gain information or help those trapped in hostile areas. The only reason we don't just burn the square down is because we will use these buildings to set up a perimeter.

So after we take back the bridge, we discuss with the group how to deal with the residential building. I'm the group's tactician (I pushed a lot for this in game, otherwise it would be impossible to stop the murderhobos from killing everything.. :p ), so I decide that our course of action will be to give the residents a chance to surrender, tell us their names, and then we would barricade friendly citizens inside their homes (mostly for their security, if they were seen outside of their homes, the guards were under orders to kill them), incapacitate and restrain anyone that doesn't comply so they can be interrogated later, and mark the doors with chalk so the rest of the guard will know who was loyal, who was hostile, their numbers and their names (so if someone manages to escape we will know who) while we secure the rest of the building.

This was a pretty liberal interpretation of the orders. I asked the commander if we were allowed to use a more "friendly" approach and his response was that "if you endager the mission in any shape or form, bad things will happen to you". There were a total of 10 appartments to secure. Some of them went without incident. The first time we had to deal with hostiles, they were 4 thugs (not the MM ones), 2 died, the other two surrendered after my numerous intimidation attempts. We restrained them and we moved on to the next.

So somehow, one of them managed to free himself after we left the room (the DM probably fudged the die to make a point) and tried to attack one of the two guardsmen we asked to guard the stairs. It was a close call and I had to use lay on hands to keep the guard alive. If he had died and the commander learned of it, it would be a first class ticket to the gillotine for all of us. The only way to avoid death in this instance would be to murder the second guard and make it look like the enemies did it which I REALLY didn't want to do but I was ready to just in case. So in every other hostile room, even if they surrendered during the battle on their own, I decided to kill them anyway but leave the youngest alive to be interrogated (and hopefully rehabilitated, I am willing to lie on his behalf to make sure that he won't get the harshest of treatments). I hated doing this for many reasons but the main one is that the party depends on me to keep them alive. Between principles and the lives of those under my command, I will choose the second most of the time.

The second bad "behavior" is when we entered the last room where the citizens greeted us and complied immediately. I got suspicious and decided to make an insight check (usually the DM depicted the law abiding citizens as scared to death, this group broke the pattern) which was right on the spot but I rolled a low number. DM said that one of them is looking suspicious, so I moved towards him. Turned out he had prepared an attack action. My character was filled with rage because he now was forced to kill again, went berserk on him, bashing his skull on the floor (asked if I can make a check to grab his head and bash it on the floor, DM said that I would have to make a STR check without proficiency against STR save and deal 1d4 dmg, no modifier). I then proceeded to kill his friends, offering no surrenders this time, while mumbling about wasted chances, despicable backstabbers that bite the hand that feeds them and that he can only forgive so much before he loses his mind.

My character is probably going to regret it when the mission is done and try to make amends. I just felt that at that time it was the right thing to do based on the concept.
I'm really trying to play to his flaws. He is young, always on the edge, he is impatient, eager, and he REALLY wants to do the right thing, even in the face of danger, but he doesn't really have the experience and some things are just too much for him to handle, pushing him beyond the line.

So what do you think. Should the guy, under these conditions, be considered for an alignment shock? Or the fear for his, and his friends" lives, is enough to justify at least a part of his actions?

[Malifice]

One more important point is that policy in his world is EXTEMELY strict. I got arrested for proposing an illegal course of action (publically accusing a death row prisoner for something he didn't do to bait some enemies) that the lord of the city already planned to do, just because he wanted to save face. It's even worse when you are a member of the army (like my character is, paladin orders are part of the army in his world). The relationship between us and our leadership is the relationship between a guardsman and a commisar. Everyone is expendable, disobeying orders means death, even if you had positive results, just because the leadership wants to save face and do things by the book. He likes to think that in his world, Stalin meets Warhammer 40k.

--------------------

While I enjoy being good in this game, since it's such a scary thing to do, sometimes it's just impossible to keep doing it, and trying to play on the character's flaws sometimes creates some chaotic situations.

In today's session we were part of a 300 man strike force, divided in parties of ten men, and had orders to attack one of the many barricaded bridges, establish a foothold and swipe the residential buildings nearby for hostiles. Our commander ordered us to kill or burn every hostile. He even let us believe that if killing loyal citizens will move things along faster, he won't care too much. The whole point of the operation is to establish a foothold so the army has free movement in the city while suffering minimal casualties, not to gain information or help those trapped in hostile areas. The only reason we don't just burn the square down is because we will use these buildings to set up a perimeter.

You're a LG Paladin serving a dystopian LE regime.

Check.


So after we take back the bridge, we discuss with the group how to deal with the residential building. I'm the group's tactician (I pushed a lot for this in game, otherwise it would be impossible to stop the murderhobos from killing everything.. :p ), so I decide that our course of action will be to give the residents a chance to surrender, tell us their names, and then we would barricade friendly citizens inside their homes (mostly for their security, if they were seen outside of their homes, the guards were under orders to kill them), incapacitate and restrain anyone that doesn't comply so they can be interrogated later, and mark the doors with chalk so the rest of the guard will know who was loyal, who was hostile, their numbers and their names (so if someone manages to escape we will know who) while we secure the rest of the building.

Following your orders in an orderly manner and doing everything possible to avoid uncessary harm, and protect innocent life.

Lawful Good so far.


This was a pretty liberal interpretation of the orders. I asked the commander if we were allowed to use a more "friendly" approach and his response was that "if you endager the mission in any shape or form, bad things will happen to you". There were a total of 10 appartments to secure. Some of them went without incident. The first time we had to deal with hostiles, they were 4 thugs (not the MM ones), 2 died, the other two surrendered after my numerous intimidation attempts. We restrained them and we moved on to the next.

So somehow, one of them managed to free himself after we left the room (the DM probably fudged the die to make a point) and tried to attack one of the two guardsmen we asked to guard the stairs. It was a close call and I had to use lay on hands to keep the guard alive. If he had died and the commander learned of it, it would be a first class ticket to the gillotine for all of us.

So far so 'good'.


The only way to avoid death in this instance would be to murder the second guard and make it look like the enemies did it which I REALLY didn't want to do but I was ready to just in case. So in every other hostile room, even if they surrendered during the battle on their own, I decided to kill them anyway but leave the youngest alive to be interrogated (and hopefully rehabilitated, I am willing to lie on his behalf to make sure that he won't get the harshest of treatments).

Willingly killing helpless innocents on behalf of an evil regime?

A clear an unmitigated act of evil dude.


I hated doing this for many reasons but the main one is that the party depends on me to keep them alive. Between principles and the lives of those under my command, I will choose the second most of the time.

Sounds like youre LN so far.

You're trying to do your best (and follow the law as best as you can) however you'll stoop to killing innocents instead of standing up to the evil regime that you willingly work for.


The second bad "behavior" is when we entered the last room where the citizens greeted us and complied immediately. I got suspicious and decided to make an insight check (usually the DM depicted the law abiding citizens as scared to death, this group broke the pattern) which was right on the spot but I rolled a low number. DM said that one of them is looking suspicious, so I moved towards him. Turned out he had prepared an attack action. My character was filled with rage because he now was forced to kill again, went berserk on him, bashing his skull on the floor (in game it was a normal attack roll that left him with 1 health, so I asked if I can make a str check to grab his head and bash it on the floor, DM said that I would have to make a STR check without proficiency against STR save and deal 1d4 dmg, no modifier). I then proceeded to kill his friends, offering no surrenders this time, while mumbling about wasted chances, despicable backstabbers that bite the hand that feeds them and that he can only forgive so much before he loses his mind.

And now you're LE for reasons I dont need to explain.

You engaged in willfull murder of a whole family on the orders of an evil empire.

A good person would be defending the family from your employer (and you).

[djreynolds]

So now go ahead and read up on the Oathbreaker section of the paladin

[Gtdead]

When I say hostile room, I mean that the people in there weren't just some disgruntled good citizens that decided to attack us for no reason. Perhaps some of them weren't full fledged members of the opposing factions, but they still attacked us when we only asked for them to sit tight while we check their papers, match their names to a POI list and ask them a few questions.

I understand it's still an evil act to murder those that surrender unconditionally, but these weren't innocent. They probably were misguided though, and it's my lack of mercy for those that worries me. I know that everyone I killed wasn't a good man. They are those that completely rejected my offer for a quick and peaceful resolution.

In cases where half of them attacked while the others stood and watched, we killed only the offenders, not those that kept out of it.

[The Zoat]

You are definitely at least on oath-probation. Alignment changes would take a little while to solidify, so your reaction will most likely determine it.

[Malifice]

When I say hostile room, I mean that the people in there weren't just some disgruntled good citizens that decided to attack us for no reason. Perhaps some of them weren't full fledged members of the opposing factions, but they still attacked us when we only asked for them to sit tight while we check their papers, match their names to a POI list and ask them a few questions.

I understand it's still an evil act to murder those that surrender unconditionally, but these weren't innocent.

Can you blame them for not sitting tight? Your PC is the agent of an evil empire, who is going room to room, killing fully half of them after they surrender!

Your PC is literally a willing member of the Waffen SS arm of an uber Fascist evil government. You're going house to house and wheeling out citizens after they surrender to you, and then slaughtering them.

You tried to do the right thing at first, which rapidly deteriorated into you killing citizens who surrendered for no other reason other than to protect your own skin, before you moved on to the full fledged murder of an entire family.

I doubt you're an Oathbreaker (non of this seems to go against your Vengance oath) but you sure as hell are not LG.

LE from the sounds of it.

Why are you working for this evil tyrannical genocidal government to begin with, and not working against it?

[Gtdead]

Don't have a choice really, of the known map, 80% of the ground is covered by this empire and the city is under quarantine. We need to resolve this situation before we can leave, otherwise we would just be considered deserters. I actually tried to do something like that but the DM told me that there is no scenario where I survive. So I decided to go with it.

It's also under martial law. If we take too long to resolve it, a whole Legion is coming to burn the city and all it's inhabitants to the ground.

[djreynolds]

Well you did let the youngest live to be interrogated, lawful good!!!!

No, you are evil. You can't use, "I went berserk, and had to bash his head into a pulp" in court.

But this is great story stuff, this is where you change and make amends for your wrongdoings. This where you either fight the overlord or retreat and come back when you are stronger, rallying help, coordinating rebel assaults, aiding defectors, etc...

Sand people are still people.

[Malifice]

Don't have a choice really

Yes you do.

You're a good guy remember. Then you should be fighting against the bad guys, not fighting for them and slaughtering civilians!


of the known map, 80% of the ground is covered by this empire and the city is under quarantine. We need to resolve this situation before we can leave, otherwise we would just be considered deserters. I actually tried to do something like that but the DM told me that there is no scenario where I survive. So I decided to go with it.

Desert. Join the rebels. Stand up for your convictions. Screw the DM. Just because an action probably wil lead to your death, is not a reason to avoid doing it. The good hero stands up for whats wrong; he makes sacrifies for others, he avoids murder - he doesnt actively participate in it becuase its expidient or just to save his own skin.

If you want a good alignment, you need to do the good thing.

Or change your alignment to LE and proceed to work for the fascist empire you work for as is.


It's also under martial law. If we take too long to resolve it, a whole Legion is coming to burn the city and all it's inhabitants to the ground.

Organise a heroic resistance to this obviously evil empire you currently work for. If you die, die for something. Inspire hope in others. Show the people that they cant be intimidated or bullied by this evil empire, and that there is another way.

Has it occured to you that the rebels you're slaughtering may actually be the good guys?

[Gtdead]

Well you did let the youngest live to be interrogated, lawful good!!!!

No, you are evil. You can't use, "I went berserk, and had to bash his head into a pulp" in court.

Well, at least I take no pleasure from doing this. Plus no court is going to convict me for this in this world. If anything they are going to accuse me of being too soft and impractical ^^



But this is great story stuff, this is where you change and make amends for your wrongdoings. This where you either fight the overlord or retreat and come back when you are stronger, rallying help, coordinating rebel assaults, aiding defectors, etc...


This empire is far from the biggest threat on this universe. DM hasn't told us yet what it is, only that it's ancient and can destroy the gods (and probably the world), but I think that once we finish with the prologue, we will have a broader idea. So doing this may actually work against us. ^^

[djreynolds]

This is the big idea behind all fantasy and science fiction. Taking normal people and throwing them into a strange world, etc. Its like an experiment almost, and your campaign just happens to be some part of a crazy control group.

Your DM, is going to have change up his campaign and allow you guys some choices, like escape, this comes to mind. Otherwise its boarders on insanity.

You must escape this land, just like Drizzt does. You are in a crazy drow city, full of evil and chaos.

IMO, to maintain your lawful good, you must leave. You can come back as a liberator, but later from a position of strength otherwise you'll die a martyr.

Is this campaign fun? It doesn't sound fun.

[Malifice]

Well, at least I take no pleasure from doing this.

Im sure you butchered those people with a heavy heart indeed.

Still evil.


Plus no court is going to convict me for this in this world.

Thats because you work for an evil government.

You could probably buy yourself a slave and do what you wanted with him/her.

Still evil.


If anything they are going to accuse me of being too soft and impractical ^^


Because theyre evil.


This empire is far from the biggest threat on this universe. DM hasn't told us yet what it is, only that it's ancient and can destroy the gods (and probably the world), but I think that once we finish with the prologue, we will have a broader idea. So doing this may actually work against us. ^^

Fill in the blanks:

The lesser of two evils is still ________ .

[Gtdead]

Yes you do.

You're a good guy remember. Then you should be fighting against the bad guys, not fighting for them and slaughtering civilians!



Desert. Join the rebels. Stand up for your convictions. Screw the DM. Just because an action probably wil lead to your death, is not a reason to avoid doing it. The good hero stands up for whats wrong; he makes sacrifies for others, he avoids murder - he doesnt actively participate in it becuase its expidient or just to save his own skin.

If you want a good alignment, you need to do the good thing.

Or change your alignment to LE and proceed to work for the fascist empire you work for as is.



Organise a heroic resistance to this obviously evil empire you currently work for. If you die, die for something. Inspire hope in others. Show the people that they cant be intimidated or bullied by this evil empire, and that there is another way.

Has it occured to you that the rebels you're slaughtering may actually be the good guys?

I'm guilty of metagaming a bit, but I do know that the rebels are being backed by extremely evil conspiracies because the DM spoiled it by accident. In any case, helping the resistance at this time is the worst possible decision. The city is in the middle of a huge crisis and these factions are taking advantage of the situation. I may try to be good, but I'm rational most of all. I could try and help the rebels, but I'd probably doom an entire city. Even if I organize a defense, there is no chance that a weakened and poorly armed militia defense is going to stand against a legion. Also there is a lot of propaganda. People in the empire will learn that the brave legion cleansed the plagued city, rebels would probably be known as cultists of a plague god. I don't even need to ask the DM to know this. I'm well versed in dystopia.

There are no winners by just starting a rebellion at an insignificant city, that the emperor would prefer to burn that try to save.

Also if the rebels are good guys, so are the 90% of the guard. In this world military service is mandatory. Being a guard is a honest profession, not the usual sadists from popular entertainment "dung ages" trope. Rebels are as much murderers as any other in this instance. No good guys here. Also adventurers and mercenaries aren't really a thing in this part of the world at least. The Empire controls everything. Going against it now would be completely pointless. Perhaps if we find something that can match it later it may worth the trouble.

I'm caught in this conflict and forced into service because of personal and irrelevant reasons. I need to find the captain of a ship who's last destination was that city. Everything else (the plague, the rebels, and the rest) came later, the captain was somehow connected to the whole thing and it's either serve or die. Neither the government, nor the opposing factions have given me a reason to help them. I just try to get by with the least possible casualties, but it's waaaay harder than I imagined. Thus this thread ^^

[Karion]

Malifice pretty much established that you're not LG. I'd say you seem more like a flawed LN (or even TN) rather than Evil, but that's up to interpretation.
Fortunately 5e pretty much dispenses with alignment as something tangible with in-universe description (I think there are a couple of spells, Spirit Guardians maybe, that take it into account, but even that's just fluff). More interesting is whether you've broken vengeance oaths.

Vengeance tennets:
Fight the greater evil - this is unclear, you haven't mentioned who you are fighting and why.
No mercy for the wicked - you showed mercy to the hostiles up until there was trouble with it, so you started killing people despite them surrendering.
By any means necessary - you say you'd do anything to save the lives of your people, but you did not want to kill the enemies if it could be avoided. It's on the fence, I think
Restitution - I guess saving the guard applies here?

Anyways, for a Vengeance paladin your behaviour is sort of questionable.
By the way, LG is a weird alignment for a Vengadin - By any means necessary is quite Neutral as pertaining to Law/Chaos, and denying mercy is definitely not Good. Overall I think it's interesting to play a character that tries to be the typical goody two-shoes Captain America boyscout, but constantly has to do evil/chaotic things due to living in a crapsack world.
Also, the more I write, the more I think TN actually fits you best as an alignment.

[Gtdead]

Is this campaign fun? It doesn't sound fun.

Actually it is fun. It's crazy and chaotic, everything is going to **** and we are still in the prologue.
It's different that what I'm used to. And that's why I decided to go with Lawful Good. It's an pretty difficult thing to pull off here.

What I enjoy the most is the paranoia. The encounters are tough, and we are fairly optimized.
In fact, the DM throws mostly deadly encounters at us. Today we faced 6 deadly encounters (3 2lvl characters against 700-800 xp encounters), we still have one more for the next session before we can rest, and mistakes (like the one where I used my lay on hands on the npc guard), are very costly. Also the DM uses milestones instead of kill xp, so he has a lot of control over combat.

The good thing is that he creates terrains with a lot of natural defensive positions and choke points so we can use tactics instead of resources.

[Malifice]

I may try to be good, but I'm rational most of all. I could try and help the rebels, but I'd probably doom an entire city. Even if I organize a defense, there is no chance that a weakened and poorly armed militia defense is going to stand against a legion.

Look man you started off great. A good PC working within a LE fascist dystopian empire, trying to do what he can to save people, while working from the inside.

You respect honor and tradition, but resist the evil of your dystopian overlords and refuse to follow orders that would lead you to evil, and instead try and save as many people as you can.

Lawful good at this point.

The you progressed to the fullscale slaughter of people after they surrendered becuase to do otherwise was a death sentence for yourself.

LN at best at this point.

Then you butchered a whole familiy as they begged for mercy while screaming crazy gibberish and blaming them for your actions.

I dont need to tell you this last act was clearly 100 percent totally evil do I?


Also there is a lot of propaganda. People in the empire will learn that the brave legion cleansed the plagued city, rebels would probably be known as cultists of a plague god. I don't even need to ask the DM to know this. I'm well versed in dystopia.

Great; but thats not a reason to join in on the evil though.

How on earth has your character, raised in a dystopian fascist state from birth and indocrtinated via your training in the guard wound up with a LG alignment anyway?


There are no winners by just starting a rebellion at an insignificant city, that the emperor would prefer to burn that try to save.

Organise a resistance with as many other good people as you can and stand up to this evil regime.


Also if the rebels are good guys, so are the 90% of the guard.

All other things being equal 90 percent of society would not be 'good'. Very few people lack the selflessness to self sacrifice for others, or the commitment to mercy and compassion needed for a good alignment. The majoirty of people are neutral at best, with evil and good as outliers.

If 90 percent of this guard were good aligned, the evil overlord would have a rebellion on his hands.


I'm caught in this conflict and forced into service because of personal and irrelevant reasons. I need to find the captain of a ship who's last destination was that city. Everything else (the plague, the rebels, and the rest) came later, the captain was somehow connected to the whole thing and it's either serve or die.

Then die. Or change your alignment. Because by serving as you are, you're not good.


Anyways, for a Vengeance paladin your behaviour is sort of questionable.
By the way, LG is a weird alignment for a Vengadin

Totes agree. Its almost impossible for a LG alignment and to uphold the Oath of the Vengance paladin.

My own Fascist tyrannical Banite Vengaladin is LE.


Also, the more I write, the more I think TN actually fits you best as an alignment.

Im not sure a TN could stare down into a helpless persons face as they plead for mercy, and then butcher them regardless 'because orders is orders'.

Repeatedly.

[djreynolds]

Actually it is fun. It's crazy and chaotic, everything is going to **** and we are still in the prologue.
It's different that what I'm used to. And that's why I decided to go with Lawful Good. It's an pretty difficult thing to pull off here.

What I enjoy the most is the paranoia. The encounters are tough, and we are fairly optimized.
In fact, the DM throws mostly deadly encounters at us. Today we faced 6 deadly encounters (3 2lvl characters against 700-800 xp encounters), we still have one more for the next session before we can rest, and mistakes (like the one where I used my lay on hands on the npc guard), are very costly. Also the DM uses milestones instead of kill xp, so he has a lot of control over combat.

The good thing is that he creates terrains with a lot of natural defensive positions and choke points so we can use tactics instead of resources.

Is there something you must do in this campaign? Is it a sandbox world? Ask him.
I would think, though not lawful, escape would be paramount. Just allowing yourself to be used like this, as a sentient being, is evil. You must escape. Or bide your time to kill the overlord. But you will be committing evil acts in the meantime.

This is why I just like good old dungeon crawls.

[Karion]

I would think, though not lawful, escape would be paramount. Just allowing yourself to be used like this, as a sentient being, is evil. You must escape. Or bide your time to kill the overlord. But you will be committing evil acts in the meantime.

This can still make a very interesting setting and campaign, full of hard choices and morally ambiguous characters. It's just that the alignment system is of no use for it. Fortunately, it's mechanically irrelevant, so you can just ignore it and judge actions on other bases.

[Kane0]

Well you're trying for the lesser of two evils, so that narrows you down to good/neutral.
You're pretty good at following the rules, so probably lawful.
That said, your alignment is largely irrelevant (DM input notwithstanding). Good thing you picked vengeance over devotion or ancients though or youd be in a much harder position to argue.
You should he fine, keep on fighting the good fight, hell even if you are forced into changing to oathbreaker that doesnt mean you can't keep trying to do the right thing in a cruel, horrible world

[djreynolds]

This can still make a very interesting setting and campaign, full of hard choices and morally ambiguous characters. It's just that the alignment system is of no use for it. Fortunately, it's mechanically irrelevant, so you can just ignore it and judge actions on other bases.


Well you're trying for the lesser of two evils, so that narrows you down to good/neutral.
You're pretty good at following the rules, so probably lawful.
That said, your alignment is largely irrelevant (DM input notwithstanding). Good thing you picked vengeance over devotion or ancients though or youd be in a much harder position to argue.
You should he fine, keep on fighting the good fight, hell even if you are forced into changing to oathbreaker that doesnt mean you can't keep trying to do the right thing in a cruel, horrible world

Correct

This is science fiction. Obviously we have things like this that do unfortunately happen. Its like sailors drawing straws at sea to see who gets cannibalized.

Just forget alignment even matters. Just maintain your oath, and seek vengeance on those who break the law of the land. And that is your loophole, if you find commanders breaking the law it gives you an out, at least to rise up versus them

[AvatarVecna]

If I was joining this kind of game, my first character would be a Lawful Good Paladin as well; somebody raised on the propaganda, who believes in their duty, in the cause, in the Empire...and then gradually, I would have the atrocities they commit in the course of their duty get to them, and eventually would either refuse to obey orders out of my dedication to my moral compass or would actively desert, joining the rebels. You may know that they're being backed by evil organizations, but your character doesn't; all he sees is scared families desperately attacking the heavily armored, dangerously armored psychopath who's slaughtering them in their homes. And once my character inevitably dies while sticking to his morals, I would roll up the Lawful Evil murderhobo the DM wants me to play, since any character not willing to have their ticket punched by the conductor is gonna get fitted for cement shoes and thrown off a bridge.

You made a pact with the universe. It wasn't on paper, it wasn't discussed, but there was a deal struck: the power you have as a paladin are the universe's reward for sticking by your morals, whatever those morals happen to be; the sheer dedication you have to your ideals gives you power...and now you're spitting on those values to save your own skin. You have ceased seeking to serve out justice for those the system refused to help; now, you have become the long arm of the law that serves as judge, jury, and executioner...the very kind of person you once swore you would capture or kill to give justice to those they had oppressed.

You are not Lawful Good.

[Gtdead]

Im not sure a TN could stare down into a helpless persons face as they plead for mercy, and then butcher them regardless 'because orders is orders'.

Repeatedly.

I still feel like I need to point out that this was a hostile group that used deception and set a trap. Their trap failed and I killed them. They were not good citizens. They were enemy faction members.
Other than me going bonkers, blaming others for my actions and not accepting the surrenders, they weren't any different from the previous hostile groups.

I didn't murder any bystander. Only those that tried to kill me.


Well you're trying for the lesser of two evils, so that narrows you down to good/neutral.
You're pretty good at following the rules, so probably lawful.
That said, your alignment is largely irrelevant (DM input notwithstanding). Good thing you picked vengeance over devotion or ancients though or youd be in a much harder position to argue.
You should he fine, keep on fighting the good fight, hell even if you are forced into changing to oathbreaker that doesnt mean you can't keep trying to do the right thing in a cruel, horrible world

Well this was pretty much my reasoning for attempting the Lawful Good alignment in this world. I can't be a hero all the time (everytime I tried it the DM literally punished me for it), but I will try to do the right thing when I can. I think it makes the alignment more powerful in such a world, even if it doesn't really match the PHB interpretation.

Also guys, I know the actions are not Lawful Good. The opinion I wanted is about the severity of my actions and the effect on my alignment relevant to the world. After all I really played on my character flaws in these encounters, making the actions more exaggerated that it should be, especially the last one. I gave LG as the alignment I picked on character creation. Today was an obviously difficult day that tested my roleplaying. That's why I created the thread. Not to ask the "Murdering the Baby daugther of BBEG doesn't make me Lawful Evil cause it's evil, right?" question.

[Cazero]

Could people please stop suggesting Oathbreaker as the standard thing that happens to paladin who break their oaths?
Oathbreaker as written focuses exclusively on being an evil not-paladin-but-mechanicaly-similar, wich is basicaly a different kind of oath and fitting for a subclass but very poorly named since nothing in it is even remotely related to breaking your oath. Why should the average paladin who wasn't competent/devoted/fanatical enough to uphold his oath ditch everything he holds dear in favor of some evil undeath powers that he didn't ask for and actively opposes on principle?

[Kane0]

Well i did say 'forced'

[Ceaon]

Why did you choose to play a Vengeance Paladin? From what you describe, you are not following a vengeance oath, like, at all. Also, I don't think Vengeance gells very well with what you want to play.
And to answer your question: your character is quite quickly slipping into neutral-evil territory, and has even started making excuses for himself. So yes, an alignment shock should not be unexpected. In fact, this might be the perfect start for your paladin's journey!

Edited to be a bit more positive...

[The Zoat]

Why did you choose to play a Vengeance Paladin? From what you describe, you are not following a vengeance oath, like, at all.
And to answer your question: your character is quite quickly slipping into neutral-evil territory, and has even started making excuses for himself. So yes, an alignment shock should not be unexpected.

I feel like you are reading a bit too much into how gtdead justifies it to us, instead of how his character justifies it.

[Karion]

Well this was pretty much my reasoning for attempting the Lawful Good alignment in this world. I can't be a hero all the time (everytime I tried it the DM literally punished me for it), but I will try to do the right thing when I can. I think it makes the alignment more powerful in such a world, even if it doesn't really match the PHB interpretation.

Also guys, I know the actions are not Lawful Good. The opinion I wanted is about the severity of my actions and the effect on my alignment relevant to the world. After all I really played on my character flaws in these encounters, making the actions more exaggerated that it should be, especially the last one. I gave LG as the alignment I picked on character creation. Today was an obviously difficult day that tested my roleplaying. That's why I created the thread. Not to ask the "Murdering the Baby daugther of BBEG doesn't make me Lawful Evil cause it's evil, right?" question.

a) Approaching these questions can make a very deep and interesting character study. I would actually advice you to take it in character - whether or not this interacts in any way with you being a paladin is irrelevant, but your character making tough choices interfering with their morals despite still very much believing in said morals should be meaningful and have in-character repercussions.
b) Alignment-wise you have 2 choices - either treat this as "I still believe in LG ideals, so I'm LG, but I can't always follow my path" or "I still believe in LG ideals, but I'm fluctuating/passing through alignments because I am a flawed person in a terrible world."
The difference between these approaches boils down to 2 words, written on your character sheet. Therefore I feel I should ask: What do you get from thinking about all this within the alignment framework?

[Gastronomie]

I really, and I mean really, hate the concept of "evil and good". Mainly because unless you're talking about a nonexistent supernatural deity or fiend, it's perfectly normal for a normally benevolent person to take actions that are deemed "malignant" by social standards, and at times, vice versa.

This is very similar to the problem of whether all the enforcers of the Nazis were "evil" or not, including those who followed instructions out of fear of getting themselves and their families killed if they disobeyed. Or, say, the American soldiers in the Vietnam War - while I doubt they were malignant people as citizens, they certainly did kill thousands of innocents without disobeying orders. Of course the same can be said with other countries (say, Japanese soldiers in WWII) - while they did commit actions that are unforgivable to some people, it's ridiculous to think all of them were of evil intentions. And the same with the nuke, and so on. No one actually has the right to deem them good or evil, because good and evil are nonexistent concepts created by humans in a vain attempt to somehow enforce law and order and maintain their fragile society (READ: If the society itself orders it, no one can judge it to be evil).

So, I will not delve into this highly controversial topic.

However, I will delve into the problem of whether a "Paladin" should do this, to which the answer is "no". Paladins don't exist in this world for a reason, and it's that following their tenets strictly will lead to inevitable demise in almost any situation in which there is warfare. They have utopian dreams which will, realistically thinking, never come true. They work in peaceful worlds of flowers and roses. Not in a world of political turmoil. Never.

The whole point of Paladins is that they must never be swayed by their own emotions. They are not only the enforcers of justice - they are also its mindless slaves, bound to good, for good. Paladins are robots, programmed under strict codes. Robots malfunction and go wrong if put in situations the programmer never assumed will happen, and when that's the case, there needs to be someone who can make the flexibile choise, that someone being you. The problem is, if you cease to be that robot, you're not a Paladin anymore.

Speaking of which, playing as a Paladin in the world you described is probably impossible. I doubt it's possible for the class to even exist.

[Gtdead]

Why did you choose to play a Vengeance Paladin? From what you describe, you are not following a vengeance oath, like, at all. Also, I don't think Vengeance gells very well with what you want to play.
And to answer your question: your character is quite quickly slipping into neutral-evil territory, and has even started making excuses for himself. So yes, an alignment shock should not be unexpected. In fact, this might be the perfect start for your paladin's journey!

Edited to be a bit more positive...

Following the tennets by letter in this instance, I just need to crack the Commander's head open and be done with it, since he is the most evil individual there. But this is pretty much impossible and it accomplishes nothing. I'm literally nobody and he is a high level npc with fighter class levels (he used Action Surge in combat) and always has many guards around him. If anything since I can't stop him, I'm trying to at least make sure that innocents don't die to his zeal. (Restitution?)

But my sworn enemies aren't a part of what is happening in this city. I'm just stuck in this situation and I can't really leave. I still need to complete my personal quest, which the oath is part of. If anything, this is the "by any means necessary" part. If I just desert, best case scenario is I will have to solo a whole cult and die in the process, worst case is that I will be arrested and hang for being a deserter.

[Arkhios]

Could people please stop suggesting Oathbreaker as the standard thing that happens to paladin who break their oaths?
Oathbreaker as written focuses exclusively on being an evil not-paladin-but-mechanicaly-similar, wich is basicaly a different kind of oath and fitting for a subclass but very poorly named since nothing in it is even remotely related to breaking your oath. Why should the average paladin who wasn't competent/devoted/fanatical enough to uphold his oath ditch everything he holds dear in favor of some evil undeath powers that he didn't ask for and actively opposes on principle?

Agreed, Oathbreaker is both a badly named Villainous archetype and badly designed from the "oath breaking" point-of-view.
As written now, it should be called Blackguard at the very least. At least that one would have some precedent in the game's history.
Oathbreaker in context should refer to what a "Fallen Paladin" (referred to in Player's Handbook, when a paladin fails his oath) would be like.

Oathbreaker isn't something you instantly stamp on a paladin of the three four other oaths after a transgression against the tenets. Becoming an Oathbreaker (as written now) takes commitment as much as being a Paladin of Vengeance.

As to the OP's case, definitely he would be subject to probation, but he has done nothing that would be irreversible in the sense that he would have to become an Oathbreaker. Atonement should be enough.

[Gtdead]

However, I will delve into the problem of whether a "Paladin" should do this, to which the answer is "no". Paladins don't exist in this world for a reason, and it's that following their tenets strictly will lead to inevitable demise in almost any situation in which there is warfare. They have utopian dreams which will, realistically thinking, never come true. They work in peaceful worlds of flowers and roses. Not in a world of political turmoil. Never.

The whole point of Paladins is that they must never be swayed by their own emotions. They are not only the enforcers of justice - they are also its mindless slaves, bound to good, for good. Paladins are robots, programmed under strict codes. Robots malfunction and go wrong if put in situations the programmer never assumed will happen, and when that's the case, there needs to be someone who can make the flexibile choise, that someone being you. The problem is, if you cease to be that robot, you're not a Paladin anymore.

Speaking of which, playing as a Paladin in the world you described is probably impossible. I doubt it's possible for the class to even exist.

Well inevitably, the Paladin class needs to be altered to resemble something fundamentally similar, with different restrictions.
For example, in WH40k, that the DM has taken a lot of inspiration from, an Inquisitor could potentially be a Paladin class. The good thing is that the DM doesn't enforce any alignment rules. He actually urges me to kill more cause he is bored of naming the characters that I keep alive. (yea, that's the extend of the respect my DM has for npc life ^^)

I literally quit trying playing a typical DnD Paladin when my Persuasion attempt (roll: 24), landed me in jail because no matter what I roll, my "climb the high horse and demand stuff" approach doesn't fly.

[Segev]

You're rapidly sliding towards LE. As you TRIED to start by liberally interpreting orders to be merciful, that was LG, but each time your convictions were tested between the LE orders you were given and the LG desires you had, you chose L over G. If you're not LN yet, you will be soon, and under 3e rules, you've willingly performed Evil acts. As a DM, I'd still give you a chance to atone, given the circumstances, but a very RAW-strict DM could deny you even that. In 5e... look to the tenets of your Oath; I don't think you've necessarily violated it yet, though I am not intimately familiar with the Oath of Vengeance. Alignment-wise, though... you've slipped from LG, and are in grave danger of becoming firmly LE. You can argue you're not there yet, and that's a bit subjective, but unless you RAPIDLY change this pattern of behavior, you will be soon.

[JohnDoe]

Wall of text inc ^^

First some background.

My character is a Lawful Good Vengeance Paladin. He dislikes killing because he was forced to kill his possessed uncle,

Red Flag.

That's the only reason he dislikes killing...? The only people who don't dislike killing are sadistic psychopathic killers.

Most people have an innate capacity for empathy, and social emotions. They do bad they feel bad. They also have a code of ethics. They don't kill someone, and then decide they dislike killing.

If his uncle's death was the result of a justified use of deadly force (self defense, no other option) that would have no impact on his philosophy or ideas regarding right and wrong. He may have a guilty conscience, or be saddened, but that doesn't mean he did something unjustified.

That doesn't sound like a very 'lawful' reason to dislike killing.



so he always tries to arrest the enemy instead of killing him.


...Arresting someone is lawful. Using deadly force when it's not completely necessary, (for example against someone who isn't trying to kill you, and you have no choice) would be an unjustified use of deadly force, unlawful. (Neutral-Chaotic evil).



Now this is way harder than it usually is because the DM allows non lethal damage after a few conditions have been met. For example I can knockout those that surrender, or those that are under of effects of conditions that allow advantage on the attack roll, or are under the grappled condition and someone else knocks them out. Generally we either need to spend resources to preserve life, or try stunts that may or may not work.


It's also easier to shoot people than to arrest them... So you'd rather kill someone because it's easier?



One more important point is that policy in his world is EXTEMELY strict. I got arrested for proposing an illegal course of action (publically accusing a death row prisoner for something he didn't do to bait some enemies) that the lord of the city already planned to do, just because he wanted to save face. It's even worse when you are a member of the army (like my character is, paladin orders are part of the army in his world). The relationship between us and our leadership is the relationship between a guardsman and a commisar. Everyone is expendable, disobeying orders means death, even if you had positive results, just because the leadership wants to save face and do things by the book. He likes to think that in his world, Stalin meets Warhammer 40k.

--------------------




So you scapegoated someone for something they didn't do... Because it would be useful...

You've broken the law.

That's evil. Chaotic evil.



While I enjoy being good in this game, since it's such a scary thing to do, sometimes it's just impossible to keep doing it, and trying to play on the character's flaws sometimes creates some chaotic situations.

In today's session we were part of a 300 man strike force, divided in parties of ten men, and had orders to attack one of the many barricaded bridges, establish a foothold and swipe the residential buildings nearby for hostiles. Our commander ordered us to kill or burn every hostile. He even let us believe that if killing loyal citizens will move things along faster, he won't care too much. The whole point of the operation is to establish a foothold so the army has free movement in the city while suffering minimal casualties, not to gain information or help those trapped in hostile areas. The only reason we don't just burn the square down is because we will use these buildings to set up a perimeter.

So after we take back the bridge, we discuss with the group how to deal with the residential building. I'm the group's tactician (I pushed a lot for this in game, otherwise it would be impossible to stop the murderhobos from killing everything.. :p ), so I decide that our course of action will be to give the residents a chance to surrender, tell us their names, and then we would barricade friendly citizens inside their homes (mostly for their security, if they were seen outside of their homes, the guards were under orders to kill them), incapacitate and restrain anyone that doesn't comply so they can be interrogated later, and mark the doors with chalk so the rest of the guard will know who was loyal, who was hostile, their numbers and their names (so if someone manages to escape we will know who) while we secure the rest of the building.

This was a pretty liberal interpretation of the orders. I asked the commander if we were allowed to use a more "friendly" approach and his response was that "if you endager the mission in any shape or form, bad things will happen to you". There were a total of 10 appartments to secure. Some of them went without incident. The first time we had to deal with hostiles, they were 4 thugs (not the MM ones), 2 died, the other two surrendered after my numerous intimidation attempts. We restrained them and we moved on to the next.

So somehow, one of them managed to free himself after we left the room (the DM probably fudged the die to make a point) and tried to attack one of the two guardsmen we asked to guard the stairs. It was a close call and I had to use lay on hands to keep the guard alive. If he had died and the commander learned of it, it would be a first class ticket to the gillotine for all of us. The only way to avoid death in this instance would be to murder the second guard and make it look like the enemies did it which I REALLY didn't want to do but I was ready to just in case. So in every other hostile room, even if they surrendered during the battle on their own, I decided to kill them anyway but leave the youngest alive to be interrogated (and hopefully rehabilitated, I am willing to lie on his behalf to make sure that he won't get the harshest of treatments). I hated doing this for many reasons but the main one is that the party depends on me to keep them alive. Between principles and the lives of those under my command, I will choose the second most of the time.


Pre-mediated murder... And mass murder...

Breaking the law because you don't want to own up to the death of a guard?

Chaotic Evil



The second bad "behavior" is when we entered the last room where the citizens greeted us and complied immediately. I got suspicious and decided to make an insight check (usually the DM depicted the law abiding citizens as scared to death, this group broke the pattern) which was right on the spot but I rolled a low number. DM said that one of them is looking suspicious, so I moved towards him. Turned out he had prepared an attack action. My character was filled with rage because he now was forced to kill again, went berserk on him, bashing his skull on the floor (asked if I can make a check to grab his head and bash it on the floor, DM said that I would have to make a STR check without proficiency against STR save and deal 1d4 dmg, no modifier). I then proceeded to kill his friends, offering no surrenders this time, while mumbling about wasted chances, despicable backstabbers that bite the hand that feeds them and that he can only forgive so much before he loses his mind.


lol what?!

If someone is going to attack you just restrain them! Don't go berserk and kill everyone.

More mass murder.

Chaotic-Evil



My character is probably going to regret it when the mission is done and try to make amends. I just felt that at that time it was the right thing to do based on the concept.
I'm really trying to play to his flaws. He is young, always on the edge, he is impatient, eager, and he REALLY wants to do the right thing, even in the face of danger, but he doesn't really have the experience and some things are just too much for him to handle, pushing him beyond the line.

So what do you think. Should the guy, under these conditions, be considered for an alignment shock? Or the fear for his, and his friends" lives, is enough to justify at least a part of his actions?

This guy is so evil it's hilarious.

He's not even lawful! He's broken the law, or planned on it numerous times.

Who EVER said your character was lawful good???

[Finlam]

@OP

It sounds like you're playing a lawful good character in a campaign that isn't conducive to playing a lawful good character. Your DM has made it clear that taking the most righteous path or really any good path will lead to certain death for not only you, but the party as well.

Rather than inconvenience the other players and derail the campaign in a futile and puerile dedication to your character's intended alignment, you chose to downplay the "good" part of your character concept and instead show how the constant pressure to commit evil acts and the ubiquitous evil of the empire is wearing on him and in a severe lapse of judgement he gave into the pressure and perpetuated the evil that he he should oppose.

I think you, the player, made the the right choice by choosing to downplay the "good" part of your character concept in order to avoid inconveniencing the party by potentially getting their characters killed and forcing a restart of the campaign. That would not have been fun for anyone, and D&D is a social game first and foremost; you did well to not diminish the fun of the table by obstinately sticking to your alignment.

It seems like you're in a campaign where playing a lawful good character or at least playing a lawful good Paladin is simply not in the cards right now and might not ever be without risking destroying the fun at the table and derailing the campaign. Some campaigns are like that. I'd recommend brooding and agonizing over the lapse in judgement for a bit and then either leaping at the first chance for atonement or deciding that you're actually OK becoming oathbreaker or just settle for being mostly lawful neutral with good leanings.

Either way, I think you know the answer to your question, and I think you, the player, made the right choice to keep the game fun for the people at the table.

[Vogonjeltz]

Not made clear in the OP...what is the oath of vengeance actually against?

[Gtdead]

The oath is against an enemy that has nothing to do with the current situation. I came to this city for information, but I'm stuck here due to the quarantine. Helping the authorities on this matter is beneficial to my cause. Even if I escape the city, I won't know where to go next.

The lord of the city sounded like he knew about the npc I'm after, (at least that's what the insight check showed). He asked for assistance on the current matter in exchange for information about my quest, and when I proposed to use the death row prisoner to bait the real enemies instead of running like headless chickens all around the city, he arrested me to save face and forced me to enlist or die.

[Vogonjeltz]

The oath is against an enemy that has nothing to do with the current situation. I came to this city for information, but I'm stuck here due to the quarantine. Helping the authorities on this matter is beneficial to my cause. Even if I escape the city, I won't know where to go next.

The lord of the city sounded like he knew about the npc I'm after, (at least that's what the insight check showed). He asked for assistance on the current matter in exchange for information about my quest, and when I proposed to use the death row prisoner to bait the real enemies instead of running like headless chickens all around the city, he arrested me to save face and forced me to enlist or die.

By the guidelines of vengeance I wouldn't waste any time that isn't absolutely necessary, and I would work to leave (lawfully or not) at the earliest opportunity.

[Gtdead]

If during these events, someone that isn't a great evil, offers information that is definitive, then I won't have any more reason to stay here and I will try to find the most efficient non-evil way to follow my next clue. I doubt that the DM will make it easy for me to find an alternative way though and I'm under a lot of constraints currently. I can't follow my oath if I'm dead.

Also my oath is against a religious cult that searches for ancient knowledge in order to ascent to higher forms, probably divinity (not sure how it works in DMs world, and he is tight lipped on this matter, probably because he isn't sure himself). They are not necessary bend on world domination or destruction. They are ruthless and caused me great personal grief, but I'm not even sure if they are the greater evil right now.

The tenet is a bit ambiguous in this regard. It says that a vengeance paladin always goes after the greater evil. It doesn't say that he believes the greater evil is this sworn enemy, and it probably isn't.

[Malifice]

If during these events, someone that isn't a great evil, offers information that is definitive, then I won't have any more reason to stay here and I will try to find the most efficient non-evil way to follow my next clue. I doubt that the DM will make it easy for me to find an alternative way though and I'm under a lot of constraints currently. I can't follow my oath if I'm dead.

Oaths and alignments are different things. You could switch alignment to CE and not break your oath. You could break your oath and remain LG (in fact, as a vengance paladin, the latter is quite possible).

[Gtdead]

Red Flag.

That's the only reason he dislikes killing...? The only people who don't dislike killing are sadistic psychopathic killers.

Most people have an innate capacity for empathy, and social emotions. They do bad they feel bad. They also have a code of ethics. They don't kill someone, and then decide they dislike killing.

If his uncle's death was the result of a justified use of deadly force (self defense, no other option) that would have no impact on his philosophy or ideas regarding right and wrong. He may have a guilty conscience, or be saddened, but that doesn't mean he did something unjustified.

That doesn't sound like a very 'lawful' reason to dislike killing.


...Arresting someone is lawful. Using deadly force when it's not completely necessary, (for example against someone who isn't trying to kill you, and you have no choice) would be an unjustified use of deadly force, unlawful. (Neutral-Chaotic evil).



It's also easier to shoot people than to arrest them... So you'd rather kill someone because it's easier?



The point I'm trying to make here is that even in self defense, he tries to restrain and arrest. We got attacked by a group of assassins higher level than us, we almost died, and instead of using resources to heal and prepare for our next certain fight, I decided to use my resources to keep my enemies alive. I had no reason to do this, I was not a cop or a member of the guard.

It's easy to arrest when the DM throws 2 commoners at you and you can call for non lethal damage whenever you feel like. It's not easy when you are level 1 and get attacked by 3 CR2 humanoids.
If that's not enough to show that my character values life, then I don't know what it is. I don't think I can do anything different in that regard.



So you scapegoated someone for something they didn't do... Because it would be useful...

You've broken the law.

That's evil. Chaotic evil.

It's what now? Breaking local law doesn't make me chaotic. Lawful is about my principles, not about following local law. Scapegoating a murderous psychopath in order to avoid a city wide raid doesn't make me evil. It's not a good act, but it's not like I made him more dead. He was about to die anyway. The whole reason this whole story happened is because the lord didn't want to break the law.

The result was that overzealous guards started killing everyone, law abiding or not, because their commander was ok with it. The suggestion was both to protect life and a way to get back to chasing leads for my oath. Sure, by itself it's not lawful good, but considering what happened, it was the sanest thing I could think at the moment.

Sure I could say that "I want no part of this", and not even try to stop the lord from sending his guard to raid the city. Is that the lawful good thing to do?


I mostly agree with the rest, although I'm not sure why you think that breaking local law makes me chaotic.

[Tanarii]

Lawful good in 5e means your typical, but not consistent not perfect, behavior is that you: can be counted on to do the right thing, as expected by society

No less, no more.

Furthermore, Alignment isn't determined by actions. The above sentence, along with the rest of your personality traits (Personality, Ideal, Bond, Flaw) are there to help you get in character, and assist you in making in-character decisions. They neither determine your actions, nor are derived from your actions.

Instead of worrying about having your actions judged by your alignment, worry about using the one sentence about alignment above, along with your personality traits, to get in character. Then make decisions as the game progresses. Then see the consequences that flow from those decisions. That's the intended use of alignment in 5e.

[Grek]

A few things to remember:
-Arrests are not inherently Lawful or inherently Good. You can make an illegal arrest, and you can arrest people for wicked reasons.
-Paladins in 5e have no alignment requirements and do not Fall because of alignment changes! This is particularly true for a Vengeance paladin.
-Taking actions that lead to an alignment change aren't always the wrong action. Often its just the in-character thing to do.

Your character is almost certainly not Lawful. He's committed at least two felonies (conspiracy to commit perjury; premeditated murder) and probably more. He also struggles to justify violating the spirit of lawful orders while remaining barely within the letter, as to avoid punishment. I imagine your character has little respect for the legitimacy of the government and is motivated to obey orders primarily by the threat of execution. He's also willing to put practical necessities before moral principles. All of those are very un-Lawful. I wouldn't necessarily say Chaotic, but definitely Neutral at the very least.

Your character is probably not Good either. He murdered an ally. He crushed someone's skull open. He works as a footsoldier for a dystopian government. He's executed innocent people for the crime of being found in the same room with an enemy. The fact that he tries to be a good person could justify Neutral, but realistically he's probably just Evil.

As far as paladin oaths go, you have the Vengeance Oath which is very much focused around your character's "sworn enemy". You must use any means necessary, offer no mercy and always stand against your sworn foe while setting right what your sworn foe does wrong. Without knowing what your sworn enemy is, there's no real way of saying whether you're meeting that standard or not. Who is your sworn enemy?

Mostly I would say not to worry about it. Your character is doing things that make sense for your character to do. He wants to make a stand against injustice, but he also wants to not die.

[Trampaige]

You aren't a paladin of vengeance yet, you take the oath at lvl3.

Kinda a missed role-playing opportunity there.

Or maybe you realize that the cult is far less dangerous than the empire and swear an oath against them.

[Gtdead]

Mostly I would say not to worry about it. Your character is doing things that make sense for your character to do. He wants to make a stand against injustice, but he also wants to not die.

This is pretty much the reason I created this thread. It just sounds funny to my ears that a person that tries to make a stand but wants to survive too would be considered Neutral Evil.
The inbook description of a neutral evil is someone that does whatever he can get away with without compassion and qualms. I have both. Going berserk in the last room made sense because my efforts to minimize casualties were for nothing when those that I tried to protect tried to backstab me.

As for my sworn enemies,

"The oath is against an enemy that has nothing to do with the current situation. I came to this city for information, but I'm stuck here due to the quarantine. Helping the authorities on this matter is beneficial to my cause. Even if I escape the city, I won't know where to go next.

The lord of the city sounded like he knew about the npc I'm after, (at least that's what the insight check showed). He asked for assistance on the current matter in exchange for information about my quest, and when I proposed to use the death row prisoner to bait the real enemies instead of running like headless chickens all around the city, he arrested me to save face and forced me to enlist or die. "

[Tanarii]

-Taking actions that lead to an alignment change aren't always the wrong action. Often its just the in-character thing to do.5e doesn't have alignment change. It doesn't even make sense in context for what Alignment is in 5e. It's there for the player, and the player alone.

It doesn't come from actions, and it doesn't dictate actions. It's a two word description of the PC's moral and social attitudes, along with broad and loose commonly associated behaviors, used purely as an RP tool. It's part of the personality descriptions, the motivations you use as a player to get in character, and assist you in making in-character decisions.

[napoleon_in_rag]

Don't have a choice really, of the known map, 80% of the ground is covered by this empire and the city is under quarantine. We need to resolve this situation before we can leave, otherwise we would just be considered deserters. I actually tried to do something like that but the DM told me that there is no scenario where I survive. So I decided to go with it.

It's also under martial law. If we take too long to resolve it, a whole Legion is coming to burn the city and all it's inhabitants to the ground.


It sounds like you are playing for a railroading DM, who will kill your character if you don't follow his pre-designed set of encounters and make the choices he wants you to. My condolences.

The way you've described it is that he is intentionally making it harder for you to be LG Paladin. Like he wants your character to fail. That sucks. Did he not want you to go Paladin but you did anyway?

I think you need to talk to the DM about whether your character is feasible in this world.

[Grek]

This is pretty much the reason I created this thread. It just sounds funny to my ears that a person that tries to make a stand but wants to survive too would be considered Neutral Evil.
The inbook description of a neutral evil is someone that does whatever he can get away with without compassion and qualms. I have both. Going berserk in the last room made sense because my efforts to minimize casualties were for nothing when those that I tried to protect tried to backstab me.

Agreed. What will ultimately distinguish whether your character is Neutral Evil or not is whether they feel regret for what they did and what (if anything) they do to make restitution for all of those deaths.

[Tanarii]

Agreed. What will ultimately distinguish whether your character is Neutral Evil or not is whether they feel regret for what they did and what (if anything) they do to make restitution for all of those deaths.What ultimate distinguishes Neutral Evil is they typically, but not perfectly nor consistently, do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.

That's it. Anything else you derive from that in terms of making in-character decisions is your personal interpretation as a player for your specific Neutral Evil character.

Nor does behaving in such a way mean you are Neutral evil. Behavior doesn't determine alignment. Alignment assists the player in choosing how they might want to behave, given they chose a specific alignment for their character.

[Thrudd]

If your character continues to strive to do good, to minimize death and violence, and treat others fairly, then he is still good aligned. Being conflicted about practicality, risk, and what is right, and slipping up sometimes doesn't make them evil. if your character makes a decision that being pragmatic is more important than doing what is right most of the time, then he is being neutral instead of good. Being in a situation where "what is right" is hard to determine and there seem to be no easy answers, does not mean the character isn't good. Doing everything you can to do the least harm and the most good is still good, even if there are bad things happening that you can't prevent or change.
A good character should be conflicted about what he is being asked to do, in your situation, as yours was, and try to give everyone a chance to avoid violence. A neutral character would not go out of their way to try to help anyone when their orders were to not do so. An evil person would not hesitate to kill everyone in their way, especially when their orders gave them clearance to do so. Your character slipped up and got emotional and carried away at the end. That could be a turning point for him: if he feels remorse and is determined to hold himself to a higher standard in the future, then he is good. If this broke him and he now is more skeptical and willing to compromise, he might become neutral, or even evil if he gives in to the easy path of using violence as a first resort to getting things done.

The bigger question to me is if your character is really lawful, in this world. It seems, so far, that your character will be liberal in interpreting orders and even use dishonesty to achieve his ends, that sounds more neutral or even chaotic. Using whatever means necessary to help others and do good, even when it might be dishonest or breaking the law, is pretty much the definition of chaotic good. Since your character does have respect for authority and wants to follow orders, but finds that he is often in conflict with them because of his morals, might make him more neutral good. It depends on how lawful and chaotic are defined for you and in this world, however. Someone who steadfastly follows his own code of conduct is what some people call lawful, however I feel that to be considered lawful, this code must be very strict indeed; more than just "no killing". Generally, what is lawful and chaotic must be defined somewhat by the expectations of the world and society they live in. A lawful person must respect and uphold the laws and code of some group or force outside themselves. A religious order, a government or ruler, an oath with a specific set of rules and restrictions. If it is just the character following their own internal moral compass which tells them it is wrong to kill and to help people, that is good but not lawful. The oath of vengeance isn't enough by itself to make a character lawful, otherwise all paladins would need to be lawful as a requirement, which is not the case anymore.