Paladin wants to be oathbreaker

[Cakeking]

I am running a campaign, 5th level currently, and the paladin is sick of being good.

When the party formed the alignments were across the board, but people want the group to stick together so noone is being too out there in terms of evilness...the paladin wants to join in on all the stuff they say out of game they wish they could do, if only a paladin weren't in the group.

I read the oathbreaker "class" in the DMG and it seems like a very simple switch...but it feels like a free pass, oathbreaker isn't any less strong than a paladin, so its less like "losing your powers" and more like "switching them out for new ones". Like "oh ill make a paladin and have fun, then when it suits me ill casually switch to oathbreaker when i decide its time to break bad"

my initial response is a solid NO, but i understand i am a little too strict about things which can inhibit fun.

So has anyone had a player switch before? is it fine?

[Giant2005]

Paladin's get their power from their own sense of conviction - a Paladin that loses that conviction loses the source of his power. An Oathbreaker is something different. An Oathbreaker is as convicted as ever, it is just that the realities of life have twisted their focus into something far less altruistic.
If you think about it like that, then you won't be so bothered about having a power swap rather than power loss.

[wunderkid]

A paladin also doesn't have to be good. You can gave am evil vengeance paladin quite easily. The restrictions on allignment were lifted I believe in 5e.

So you could just set up a dramatic event that shifts his focus and allignment.

At least I think im right on the whole alignment thing

[Gastronomie]

Why in the world, as the DM, are you saying no to a player's wishes when it isn't even remotely overpowered?

My personal philosophy is that as the DM, your job is to make the players' dreams come true and let them have fun. Of course, not all people agree with this, but personally I can find no reason as to why you shouldn't accept it, especially given the other players actually seem to not want the strict paladin in the group anyways.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Your player won't be too happy he switched to Oathbreaker when he has to fight some fiends or undead.....

[FaradayCage]

If he's sick of being good, then maybe his character is sick of being good.

Plenty of famous story arcs involve characters going from "good to bad" or even "good to bad to good" again.

Depending on how heavy-RP your campaign is, I would speak with the player and ask how he or she wants to make the transition. Does the paladin want a simple "this is the last time I've done good and gotten burned for it?" or maybe a a temptation of gold/power to turn him or her from the path? Consider Anakin Skywalker, Walter White, Isildur son of Elendil, The Man in Black, Dagoth Ur.

[Rhaegar14]

By RAW, Oathbreakers are no less effective against Fiends or Undead. The Oathbreaker subclass does not change how Divine Smite works at all (it's kinda dumb, but that's the RAW). In fact, they can attempt to control Undead with their Channel Divinity if memory serves.

@OP: The issue is that you're thinking of the Paladin's Oath Tenets as a balancing factor. That's not what they're there for. Paladins are not built to be more powerful than other classes because they have to maintain a certain level of morality. The Oaths are simply meant to create interesting roleplay. If the roleplay would be better served by an evil/amoral Oathbreaker, so be it. That said, Giant2005 is absolutely correct. Oathbreaker is a misleading name. An Oathbreaker is not simply an ex-Paladin, they're the Blackguards/Anti-Paladins of this edition.

[Cakeking]

Paladin's get their power from their own sense of conviction - a Paladin that loses that conviction loses the source of his power. An Oathbreaker is something different. An Oathbreaker is as convicted as ever, it is just that the realities of life have twisted their focus into something far less altruistic.
If you think about it like that, then you won't be so bothered about having a power swap rather than power loss.

This makes a lot of sense, so would you say i should tell him he needs something to dedicate himself to if he wants to change to an oathbreaker?


Why in the world, as the DM, are you saying no to a player's wishes when it isn't even remotely overpowered?

like i said im new to dm'ing, but i always thought of it as a roleplaying game, so when a player decided they no longer want to play their role and instead change their paladin from a protector of the people to someone who is getting annoyed npc's wont just do as he says at the drop of a hat...it destroys the spirit of the game for me.

let me ask you, if i had a rogue in your campaign, and 5 lvls in i tell you i want my rogue to be a fighter instead, would you let me just replace the abilities and switch my gear to something a rogue should have?

what about if i found a +3 axe, but my 5th lvl fighter uses longswords, would you transform the weapon to appease me? maybe admit your mistake, because you knew i use longswords yet you put an axe in the treasure a anyway?

or if the other fighter got a magic weapon but i didnt, i dont think it would be overpowered to give me a magic weapon too, just make the encounters more difficult?

[Rhaegar14]

like i said im new to dm'ing, but i always thought of it as a roleplaying game, so when a player decided they no longer want to play their role and instead change their paladin from a protector of the people to someone who is getting annoyed npc's wont just do as he says at the drop of a hat...it destroys the spirit of the game for me.

let me ask you, if i had a rogue in your campaign, and 5 lvls in i tell you i want my rogue to be a fighter instead, would you let me just replace the abilities and switch my gear to something a rogue should have?

what about if i found a +3 axe, but my 5th lvl fighter uses longswords, would you transform the weapon to appease me? maybe admit your mistake, because you knew i use longswords yet you put an axe in the treasure a anyway?

or if the other fighter got a magic weapon but i didnt, i dont think it would be overpowered to give me a magic weapon too, just make the encounters more difficult?

The single most important rule of D&D is the rule of fun. If the Paladin is being a Good-aligned stick in the mud and ruining (or at least diminishing) the ENTIRE PARTY'S fun, you should absolutely let him change his character. If 5 levels in you tell me you want your Rogue to be a Fighter instead because you're not having fun playing a Rogue, then yes, the answer is to let you rebuild your character (hopefully with a skillset that's at least similar), or retire them and start a new one.

Nobody here is necessarily suggesting you allow your Paladin player to retcon. You're telling a story, after all. But there's no reason you shouldn't allow him to fall from grace in-character.

[Regitnui]

What is actually the problem here? Is it the mechanical parts of the paladin's Oath restricting the player's fun, or is it the tenets? In the case of the former, breaking said oath could work, bu the latter isn't something that can be fixed by changing subclass.

Can you give us an example situation the player feels he's being shortchanged by?

[Giant2005]

This makes a lot of sense, so would you say i should tell him he needs something to dedicate himself to if he wants to change to an oathbreaker?

Unlike normal Paladins, Oathbreakers are alignment locked. They aren't just misguided Paladins - they are actively dedicated to being pricks. He shouldn't need more than that.

[Cakeking]

What is actually the problem here? Is it the mechanical parts of the paladin's Oath restricting the player's fun, or is it the tenets? In the case of the former, breaking said oath could work, bu the latter isn't something that can be fixed by changing subclass.

Can you give us an example situation the player feels he's being shortchanged by?

i can

while trying to get in to see the mayor of a town

Npc: Im sorry you arent allowed in this building without an appointment, would you like to make one?
Warlock: I am a noble, how dare you refuse me anything
Rogue(out of character):i wish we could just kill this motherf'er
Paladin(out of game): ya, hes annoying the S**t out me too i wanna bash his face in


I dont have a real problem with it necessarily, it's just his sole motivation is so murdering guards and merchants can be a solution for him. Thats all, he wants to kill people now. if he retired and made a new character, cool...had some in game reason why he is turning from good to bad, sure....but he is chaotic good and wants to just be evil now, THEN become an oathbreaker.

I will most likely let him do it, but why did i let him? the answer would have to be "how else can he justify murdering people? if i didn't he would get to do what he wants"

but...i guess there isn't a problem, i mostly just wanted other peoples opinions on the subject. I personally feel that a change like that should come with at least a hoop or 2 you need to jump through, but it appears if you want it you just get it. Maybe if they find alignment restricted items i can just let him change back

[Gastronomie]

like i said im new to dm'ing, but i always thought of it as a roleplaying game, so when a player decided they no longer want to play their role and instead change their paladin from a protector of the people to someone who is getting annoyed npc's wont just do as he says at the drop of a hat...it destroys the spirit of the game for me.I don't think TRPGs should ever be about playing a cookie-cutter "role" (that sort of thinking is bland, as well as being boring due to it being overdone). It's about playing a "human being".

Were you the same person ten years ago? At least I wasn't. People change, and so do the characters. It's perfectly logical for a paladin to become corrupted for one reason or another. In fact that's called character development, which is the very core of all role-playing systems. It's what makes stuff interesting. Your DM'ing style forbids that. It not only restricts the options, it also restricts the fun.


let me ask you, if i had a rogue in your campaign, and 5 lvls in i tell you i want my rogue to be a fighter instead, would you let me just replace the abilities and switch my gear to something a rogue should have?Yes, of course, because there's absolutely no point in forcing him to keep on using a character he's bored with. The players' fun is top priority in any given situation.


what about if i found a +3 axe, but my 5th lvl fighter uses longswords, would you transform the weapon to appease me? maybe admit your mistake, because you knew i use longswords yet you put an axe in the treasure a anyway?Why as a DM would I ever give a +3 axe to a figher who uses longswords in the first place? That's just plain DM trolling, it's not fun at all. It even irritates the players in a way that can't ever be justified. The very idea is disgusting. What sort of question is that?


or if the other fighter got a magic weapon but i didnt, i dont think it would be overpowered to give me a magic weapon too, just make the encounters more difficult?I generally believe that the number of magic weapons and other goodies the characters get should be equalized as much as possible, not because balance is a necesarrily good thing, but because most players feel better that way.

Of course, you're the DM. You're the absolute ruler of your game. And by all means, I don't have the right to force you to do something.

But, being the DM, you also have responsibility over whether the players enjoy the game or not. If the players get frustrated because of your DM'ing style and quit the game, no one in the world can ever deny that that's all your fault. So please do keep that in mind when rejecting a player's proposals.

[Cakeking]

Yes, of course, because there's absolutely no point in forcing him to keep on using a character he's bored with. The players' fun is top priority in any given situation.

you don't think making a new character would be more appropriate?



Why as a DM would I ever give a +3 axe to a figher who uses longswords in the first place? That's just plain DM trolling, it's not fun at all. It even irritates the players in a way that can't ever be justified. The very idea is disgusting. What sort of question is that?


you don't do random treasure?



I generally believe that the number of magic weapons and other goodies the characters get should be equalized as much as possible, not because balance is a necesarrily good thing, but because most players feel better that way.


In a magic light campaign, finding 4-5 magic items at a time make them not special. it makes it a NOT magic light campaign. I would need to design encounters around the fact the whole party has magic items, and soon magic items become a necessity instead of an awesome reward.

[Cakeking]

If he's sick of being good, then maybe his character is sick of being good.

Plenty of famous story arcs involve characters going from "good to bad" or even "good to bad to good" again.

Depending on how heavy-RP your campaign is, I would speak with the player and ask how he or she wants to make the transition. Does the paladin want a simple "this is the last time I've done good and gotten burned for it?" or maybe a a temptation of gold/power to turn him or her from the path? Consider Anakin Skywalker, Walter White, Isildur son of Elendil, The Man in Black, Dagoth Ur.

Im totally with you, im not unwilling to let him switch...it's just he wants it to be an overnight change, and everything inside me says he should have to pay some sort of price for the change even if that price is having a good character defining moment.

[Malifice]

i can

while trying to get in to see the mayor of a town

Npc: Im sorry you arent allowed in this building without an appointment, would you like to make one?
Warlock: I am a noble, how dare you refuse me anything
Rogue(out of character):i wish we could just kill this motherf'er
Paladin(out of game): ya, hes annoying the S**t out me too i wanna bash his face in

Dude, thats not evil. Thats just **** roleplaying.

Unless your players are making an active attempt to roleplay a party of deranged pscychopaths of course.

I would smack that kind of crap down so fast the players would be pulling rocks off those characters for weeks.

[Herobizkit]

If the *player* simply wants to stop being a hero and start becoming a murderhobo, that's something the DM may want to address.

If the *player* believes his *character* is tired of rich, uppity NPCs and wants to murder them, that could trigger a slide to Oathbreaker, as well as an alignment bump (if the DM cares about such things) from CG to CN. He no longer works for the greater good, indulging his selfish whims by doing whatever seems like a good idea at the time.

There's also the possibility of just shifting him to a Vengeance Paladin and have him targeting rich, uppity merchants, believing that the rich should be put down to give freedom to the serfs and poor (kind of a more aggressive Robin Hood). He *could* remain CG if he restricted his targets to specifically corrupt NPCs, and generally only if murder was the only solution.

If he wants to go all Punisher, though, Vengeance paladin makes sense to me.

Regardless, he's going to want a rebuild or a new character to indulge those fantasies. There is even precedent - in the official Adventure League games, a player may rebuild his character any way he likes up to 5th level but must keep his name, equipment and Story Origin (whatever THAT means).

[Malifice]

There's also the possibility of just shifting him to a Vengeance Paladin and have him targeting rich, uppity merchants, believing that the rich should be put down to give freedom to the serfs and poor (kind of a more aggressive Robin Hood). He *could* remain CG if he restricted his targets to specifically corrupt NPCs, and generally only if murder was the only solution.


Bahahahahahaha.

'As long as he only murders corrupt merchants and particulary uppity wealthy people, he'll remain good'.

Never change GitP. Never change.

[Cybren]

Why in the world, as the DM, are you saying no to a player's wishes when it isn't even remotely overpowered?

My personal philosophy is that as the DM, your job is to make the players' dreams come true and let them have fun. Of course, not all people agree with this, but personally I can find no reason as to why you shouldn't accept it, especially given the other players actually seem to not want the strict paladin in the group anyways.
players shouldn't get everything they want. From a mechanical and narrative sense. They should have something they're working towards. A goal. Maybe the OP can work out with the player how the paladin falls/what that means for the character, but no, it's not somethin that should just be expected to happen because the player wants it.

The OP addresses a legitimate aesthetic point that there's no real consequence to a paladin that breaks their oath, they just have a lateral power shift. "Evil Paladins" might not be something that they see as existing in their world,

A particular desire or decision needn't be overpowered for it to be disruptive to a game. It wouldn't be overpowered to say your character is named "snowjob bananamonger" and has a big blue perm with a sparrow living in it, and that is a fine and good choice for some campaigns and not that good a one for others. On top of that, evil is boring and evil PCs are rarely as interesting to be in a party with as their players think they will be.

If I were the OP I'd suss out with the player if they want to be evil or just not a paladin, if they want to be an oathbreaker or just evil in general, and if they want to see this character fall from grace or if they'd actually prefer to be a new character entirely. Depending on what you determine you can decide to give opportunities for their existing character to have moral crisis, provide a chance for that character to have a brief leave of absence so they can play a temporary jerkwad, or whatever else seems appropriate.

[Cakeking]

If the *player* simply wants to stop being a hero and start becoming a murderhobo, that's something the DM may want to address.

If the *player* believes his *character* is tired of rich, uppity NPCs and wants to murder them, that could trigger a slide to Oathbreaker, as well as an alignment bump (if the DM cares about such things) from CG to CN. He no longer works for the greater good, indulging his selfish whims by doing whatever seems like a good idea at the time.

There's also the possibility of just shifting him to a Vengeance Paladin and have him targeting rich, uppity merchants, believing that the rich should be put down to give freedom to the serfs and poor (kind of a more aggressive Robin Hood). He *could* remain CG if he restricted his targets to specifically corrupt NPCs, and generally only if murder was the only solution.

If he wants to go all Punisher, though, Vengeance paladin makes sense to me.

Regardless, he's going to want a rebuild or a new character to indulge those fantasies. There is even precedent - in the official Adventure League games, a player may rebuild his character any way he likes up to 5th level but must keep his name, equipment and Story Origin (whatever THAT means).


players shouldn't get everything they want. From a mechanical and narrative sense. They should have something they're working towards. A goal. Maybe the OP can work out with the player how the paladin falls/what that means for the character, but no, it's not somethin that should just be expected to happen because the player wants it.

The OP addresses a legitimate aesthetic point that there's no real consequence to a paladin that breaks their oath, they just have a lateral power shift. "Evil Paladins" might not be something that they see as existing in their world,

A particular desire or decision needn't be overpowered for it to be disruptive to a game. It wouldn't be overpowered to say your character is named "snowjob bananamonger" and has a big blue perm with a sparrow living in it, and that is a fine and good choice for some campaigns and not that good a one for others. On top of that, evil is boring and evil PCs are rarely as interesting to be in a party with as their players think they will be.

If I were the OP I'd suss out with the player if they want to be evil or just not a paladin, if they want to be an oathbreaker or just evil in general, and if they want to see this character fall from grace or if they'd actually prefer to be a new character entirely. Depending on what you determine you can decide to give opportunities for their existing character to have moral crisis, provide a chance for that character to have a brief leave of absence so they can play a temporary jerkwad, or whatever else seems appropriate.
these are very good suggestions, ill dig a little deeper and find out what he wants and try to compromise, i know he was down on being a paladin, but it might be because he has the code...definitely needs a conversation

[Gastronomie]

while trying to get in to see the mayor of a town

Npc: Im sorry you arent allowed in this building without an appointment, would you like to make one?
Warlock: I am a noble, how dare you refuse me anything
Rogue(out of character):i wish we could just kill this motherf'er
Paladin(out of game): ya, hes annoying the S**t out me too i wanna bash his face inEhhhhhh, this post was submitted just as I was writing my reply, so I didn't see it.

And now that I saw this post, I'm actually feeling sorry for you, because it seems it's the players that have the problem, not the DM. And it's not the "playstyle" type of problem, it's a problem pertaining to their own... you know... personalities as human beings. Unless you acted as that NPC to be a really rude person, that is.

While I said "the fun of the players is top priority", that's under the assumption is that everyone is following "table-talk manners", acting in a way that doesn't make the others frustrated or confused. The DM creates the world, but the players should try to delve into it. If all the players want to do is kill people, you should either leave the group, or adapt the campaign style/create a new campaign in which all the players do is just go slay monsters and raid evil humanoid villages. Either way, it seems the current campaign itself is unsuited for your players. And it's probably not your fault.

he wants it to be an overnight change, and everything inside me says he should have to pay some sort of price for the change even if that price is having a good character defining moment.Overnight is a problem, I agree. The player and the DM should settle on a storyline that explains "how" he gets corrupted - there's various interesting options and plots you can twist up from that. (Even in the "Rogue becomes Figher" example, I wouldn't make him change overnight.)
That or, the player should make a new character. This is actually easier. If the player says he wants to keep on using the same character, except corrupted, you should tell him to come up with a logical reason as to how the change suddenly happened (this is part of the players' job - I actually haven't participated in a table where the players were unreasonable, so this hasn't happened to me, but if the player refuses and simply keeps on whining... well... too bad, you were unfortunate with your D&D experience).


you don't think making a new character would be more appropriate?More appropriate, I agree. But since the player requested he wants to keep on using the character, even after the change in class, that probably means (and I strongly assume that) his character is something in-between Rogue and Fighter in the first place (like a Swashbuckler that could be interpreted as both a Rogue Swashbuckler or a Fighter Battle Master).
At least, if the player is a logical, nice guy who knows manners.
Of course, if the player is a terrible whiner, it may be a really illogical change. If it seems so, the DM'd have to discuss with the player over how to settle on a solution they can both agree on. That or, the whiner gets kicked out of the game. I actually think the latter is a better solution here, since gaming is about "everyone having fun", not about "just one person's fun dominating everyone else's".


you don't do random treasure?Sometimes I do, but doesn't random treasure usually state just "+2 weapon" and stuff? Just saying.
And even if the random treasure landed on something the players don't like, it should be relatively easy for the DM to change the small bits to suit the characters' needs.


In a magic light campaign, finding 4-5 magic items at a time make them not special. it makes it a NOT magic light campaign. I would need to design encounters around the fact the whole party has magic items, and soon magic items become a necessity instead of an awesome reward.They don't necesarrily need to be found at a time (though there are certain cases in which that is justified, such as when the players take control over a giant hoard), but I'd try to give bonuses to everyone in some way or another. But they don't need to be magic items, really. There are many other ways to make a character (and the player controlling him) feel special.
Perhaps, at the end of the long quest, while the party fighter gains a magical sword, the rogue might gain the favor of powerful leaders of a criminal organization (making it easier for him to get more prominent criminal contacts or collect information), the cleric might gain the blessings of her patron god, and the wizard might get hints that help him discover an original spell. These might actually be even better than magical items, since most experienced players know most of the magic items and what they do, and can be sorta "bored" with the orthodox stuff.



players shouldn't get everything they want. From a mechanical and narrative sense. Of course, I wouldn't give it to them, I'd have them earn it. I don't think there's a problem there really, though.


The OP addresses a legitimate aesthetic point that there's no real consequence to a paladin that breaks their oath, they just have a lateral power shift.If the paladin was respected by the townspeople due to his status, well, bad for him, he doesn't have that respect anymore. In fact he will need to hide the fact he's become an Oathbreaker. The Paladin Order may send paladins to hunt him down, if he becomes really evil. The list goes on. There's lots of consequences the DM can propose, and these will be interesting in how they derive from a decision the players made, not something the antagonist NPCs made. It makes the players feel that they're really part of the world, that they can greatly influence the stuff in the campaign.


Now, reading back your posts, it seems you have a really complex problem that I've never had (and truly grateful of never having so far). It's murdurhobo players. Similar to murdurhobo player characters (which can be fun if done right), but considerably different and drastically worse, because the players are not even doing the role-playing they need to do.

If the players want to kill everyone, they should do an Evil Campaign. Such things do exist. The players are a team of criminals or bandits, or if you want it to be cooler, pirates - raiding and plundering villages, fighting other criminal organizations, killing the guards that come after them. I think it will suit your players' needs better, and not get them frustrated.

Oathbreakers. Death Clerics. Theives. Assassins. Tricksters and Swashbucklers. A Fiend Warlock. A Necromancer. A bard who manipulates innocents and makse them do his work. Various ways to go with evil characters. And they are fun, as long as the DM knows how to control them.

[Regitnui]

This isn't a mechanical problem; it's a player problem. Alternatively a player-campaign mismatch. Perhaps chat to the whole group, see what sort of game they want to play. The DMG has a bit to say about player objectives; this guy sounds like he'd much rather be playing a kick-in-the-door game than a roleplay game, or even a game of League of Legends as opposed to D&D.

[Plaguescarred]

I would let a paladin switch Oath if he has become evil and the player want that. It would not be a spontaneous change overnight though. Perhaps over a couple days where his previous abilities starts to go away being unable to use them, or at least produce an effect he was familiar with, and with some time, re-focus and determined attemps, he come to master such abilities in different ways, and even finding new ones... He might also switch diety if the old one doesn't accept the evil alignment he now has. It'd be probably best explained during downtime between adventure but in the middle of an adventure, i'd have the paladin pass this ''identity crisis'' this way.

[Slipperychicken]

This isn't a mechanical problem; it's a player problem


Dude, thats not evil. Thats just **** roleplaying.

I'm with these guys. Your player is not roleplaying, and has so little respect for you, the game world, and his own character, that he is content to simply destroy any NPC who tells him no. That's the real problem here.

[Sigreid]

I think you should get with the player and stage a dramatic breaking faith with his old ideals and turning in anger against everything he once held dear scenario. Can's save a loved one, finds a church he once respected has become corrupt, something along those lines. Let it happen, just work out with the player to have a situation to make it happen.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

There's a rule issue here as well. What happens when this Oathbreaker paladin gets to 7th level and gets Aura of Hate? The DM is going to have to alter that aura because as written the paladin is going to be buffing any fiend or undead he and the party are going up against. Pretty sure they won't like that.

[Regitnui]

There's a rule issue here as well. What happens when this Oathbreaker paladin gets to 7th level and gets Aura of Hate? The DM is going to have to alter that aura because as written the paladin is going to be buffing any fiend or undead he and the party are going up against. Pretty sure they won't like that.

And herein lies the problem. The player doesn't want to be an Oathbreaker paladin, they want to murderhobo. Our friend, the poor DM, seems to want to have a little roleplaying in the RPG. That's not something a class change is going to fix, and least not permanently. The player should actually change to being a fighter if they find Paladin too restricting.

[Cazero]

Alright, kids. Repeat after me.
Contrary to what the name implies, an oathbreaker paladin is not a paladin who broke his oath. Nothing but the name of oathbreaker has anything to do with the breaking of oaths. Oathbreakers are not paladins, they simply share the basic mechanical chassis for gameplay reasons. And there is nothing wrong with it, just like there is nothing wrong with a chaotic evil paladin of vengeance. This is 5e, alignement restrictions are a thing of the past.

[Regitnui]

Alright, kids. Repeat after me.
Contrary to what the name implies, an oathbreaker paladin is not a paladin who broke his oath.

What?

...what?

It's a subclass for the paladin class, defined as "a paladin who's broken his oath" in the DMG. It is more akin to the blackguard than a vengeance paladin who was too soft, but it's the Oathbreaker Paladin. What else is it supposed to be? A bone knight?

[Cazero]

It's a subclass for the paladin class, defined as "a paladin who's broken his oath" in the DMG.
And that definition is complete bull. Because :
It is more akin to the blackguard

Breaking your oath doesn't make you an undead lover. It makes you ruthless and unhinged, or depressed and seeking penance.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Alright, kids. Repeat after me.
Contrary to what the name implies, an oathbreaker paladin is not a paladin who broke his oath. Nothing but the name of oathbreaker has anything to do with the breaking of oaths. Oathbreakers are not paladins, they simply share the basic mechanical chassis for gameplay reasons. And there is nothing wrong with it, just like there is nothing wrong with a chaotic evil paladin of vengeance. This is 5e, alignement restrictions are a thing of the past.

You are wrong. Even in the description for Oathbreaker are instructions detailing how he could get his oaths back and become a normal paladin. If he breaks those oaths again and becomes an Oathbreaker, he cannot atone a second time.

Alignment restrictions don't officially exist, but the PHB and DMG include rules for if a paladin breaks their oaths. You really CAN'T play a chaotic evil paladin, not even a vengeance paladin, without breaking their oaths. The Vengeance Paladin oath of "restitution" couldn't possibly work with a chaotic evil character.

[Malifice]

And that definition is complete bull. Because :

Breaking your oath doesn't make you an undead lover. It makes you ruthless and unhinged, or depressed and seeking penance.

Its a prerequisite of the class. 'On oathbreaker Paladin is a paladin who breaks his sacred oath' is mentioned right on the tin. It also talks about the class features and spells replacing his old oath ones.

[Regitnui]

I think that breaking your oath to the extent that you become an oathbreaker long enough to take any significant amount of levels in the class (I.e. more or less permanently) does man you the sort of person who does look for power in undead and dark gods.

The darkest a vengeance paladin can reasonably go is NE. Chaos is strange enough among people who live to tenets that it's likely tempered by good intentions at the very least. In fact, I'd go so far as to say any chaotic alignment for a paladin needs DM approval.

[Cazero]

Allright, time for a thought experiment.
If OotS followed the 5e ruleset, would Miko become an oathbreaker upon falling? No, she wouldn't. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0419.html) The assumption that failing to uphold a high standard would instantly convert you to the diametrical opposite is absurd.
Similarly, a knight devoted to the cause of Evil and all that stuff should not be barred from the "oathbreaker" powerset for never having been a paragon of justice and virtue. That just doesn't make sense.

So whatever the designers wrote in the oathbreaker entry to justify that stupid name makes zero sense. It's a goddamn blackguard. Just name it a blackguard, put some blackguard explanation, add a paragraph about the specific subset of blackguards who used to be paladins and be done with it.

[Regitnui]

Miko was an oathbreaker. She swore the Oath of the Crown, then attacked her ruler. That's a broken oath to me. She was simply in denial up until she died (spoiler alert), so she wouldn't use oathbreaker abilities as that would merely confirm her having fallen from the gods' favour.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Allright, time for a thought experiment.
If OotS followed the 5e ruleset, would Miko become an oathbreaker upon falling? No, she wouldn't. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0419.html) The assumption that failing to uphold a high standard would instantly convert you to the diametrical opposite is absurd.
Similarly, a knight devoted to the cause of Evil and all that stuff should not be barred from the "oathbreaker" powerset for never having been a paragon of justice and virtue. That just doesn't make sense.

So whatever the designers wrote in the oathbreaker entry to justify that stupid name makes zero sense. It's a goddamn blackguard. Just name it a blackguard, put some blackguard explanation, add a paragraph about the specific subset of blackguards who used to be paladins and be done with it.

Your beef would be fine if the Oathbreaker was intended to be a class players could choose, it wasn't, it was offered up in the DMG as a "villainous option" for NPCs. Actually playing an Oathbreaker as a PC in any of the AL games or adventure books would be extraordinarily difficult from a role-play standpoint, and from a mechanics standpoint when you hit 7th level.

[Cazero]

Miko was an oathbreaker. She swore the Oath of the Crown, then attacked her ruler. That's a broken oath to me. She was simply in denial up until she died (spoiler alert), so she wouldn't use oathbreaker abilities as that would merely confirm her having fallen from the gods' favour.
So she broke her oath and loss the benefits that come with it. But she didn't get anything to make up for it. She did not gain the oathbreaker subclass to replace the one she used to have, and would never have gained it out of sheer stubborness, despite having very explicitly broken her oath. She was an oathbreaker but not an oathbreaker, just like she was a samurai but not a samurai. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)
Ergo, the oathbreaker subclass is definitely not an automatic thing.

Your beef would be fine if the Oathbreaker was intended to be a class players could choose, it wasn't, it was offered up in the DMG as a "villainous option" for NPCs. Actually playing an Oathbreaker as a PC in any of the AL games or adventure books would be extraordinarily difficult from a role-play standpoint, and from a mechanics standpoint when you hit 7th level.
I don't see how oathbreaker being designed as an NPC options changes anything. The fluff is needlessly specific and the choice of name creates an absurd expectation about what happens when a paladin breaks his oath.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I don't see how oathbreaker being designed as an NPC options changes anything. The fluff is needlessly specific and the choice of name creates an absurd expectation about what happens when a paladin breaks his oath.

In Bane voice: "for you...."

[Regitnui]

So she broke her oath and loss the benefits that come with it. But she didn't get anything to make up for it. She did not gain the oathbreaker subclass to replace the one she used to have, and would never have gained it out of sheer stubborness, despite having very explicitly broken her oath. She was an oathbreaker but not an oathbreaker, just like she was a samurai but not a samurai. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)
Ergo, the oathbreaker subclass is definitely not an automatic thing.


Firstly, arguing off Miko is obfustication on two different levels;
1: OotS is based on 3.5, not 5e. You can't make any mechanical deductions about 5e from what happens in the comic strip.
2: Miko didn't choose to take up a blackguard class. The blackguard isn't the default option for a fallen paladin in 3.5. The paladins in 5e, however, specifically gain the oathbreaker subclass for breaking their oath. Were Miko a 5e paladin, she would have become an oathbreaker by default, being an NPC.

Secondly, a player who chooses to play a paladin is assumed to be willing to play to the Oath. The Oathbreaker is not a "hey you didn't keep your oath" for players. The player is expected to either atone or multiclass after falling, not take the Oathbreaker subclass instead. NPC paladins, yes. Just like a PC cleric isn't offered the option of the Death domain.

[Regulas]

Actually playing an Oathbreaker as a PC in any of the AL games or adventure books would be extraordinarily difficult from a role-play standpoint, and from a mechanics standpoint when you hit 7th level.


No it wouldn't be. In-spite of how D&D portrays evil, when the evil character walks into a town he is not forcefully compelled to start killing everyone he can, even if he's chaotic evil. An evil character has little to no concern over moral consequences, however he will still be very concerned about material and social ones e.g: killing a general could get his entire army after you, that is a material physical consequence you may wish to avoid. Not only that but as you are evil, lying and pretending for the sake of your goals is perfectly acceptable so long as you are doing it for good reason. Also detect evil isn't a spell any more, so lvl 7 isnt notable. The only important thing is to have a goal that coincides with the party.

Evil character concepts:
* Your character is pretending to be a good guy putting on a happy face, even going far out of your way to be kind and help others, in order to move around undetected while achieving your true goals (secretly kill people in their sleep!).

* The evil the adventurers are after is a rival/threat to your master (Oathbreaker of Bane anyone?) you've been assigned to assist the adventurers in this endeavour. While you may have a hard time putting up with there nice behaviour, your conviction to your lord and cause is all that matters.

* You genuinely believe you're still good, your views are merely twisted (perhaps by a devil or a dark god). Maybe you believe that death is a mercy and seek to administer it liberally to the suffering masses... of course never in plain view. For the most part you would still seem like a perfectly normal character... except for the times you sneak out at night to grant mercy to those poor orphans..... (what's with me and suggesting killing people in their sleep)



As for how to transition, conviction is needed so either you would want to twist the paladin (like a disguised pitlord gradually corrupting your views), or the palaldin needs to face a crisis of faith, like a major betrayal and in vengance he chooses to stand with the same conviction he had in service, only now dedicated against everything you once stood for. Or maybe nihilism, you come to believe after some tragedy that everything is pointless and the best course of action is to end it all. Even

[JackPhoenix]

Miko was an oathbreaker, but not an Oathbreaker. DMG Oathbreaker isn't just any fallen paladin, but a paladin who fell so hard he came out of the deeper side of the alignment pool and realized he likes being a puppy-kicking anus.


By RAW, Oathbreakers are no less effective against Fiends or Undead. The Oathbreaker subclass does not change how Divine Smite works at all (it's kinda dumb, but that's the RAW). In fact, they can attempt to control Undead with their Channel Divinity if memory serves.

It's not about Divine Smite, it's about Aura of Hate: the bonus damage goes to any fiends or undead nearby (friend or foe) and can't be turned off


What?

...what?

It's a subclass for the paladin class, defined as "a paladin who's broken his oath" in the DMG. It is more akin to the blackguard than a vengeance paladin who was too soft, but it's the Oathbreaker Paladin. What else is it supposed to be? A bone knight?

Oathbreaker makes for a great bone knight, if you ignore the "must be evil" part and add appropriate tenets. Just sayin'

[Cazero]

Firstly, arguing off Miko is obfustication on two different levels;
1: OotS is based on 3.5, not 5e. You can't make any mechanical deductions about 5e from what happens in the comic strip.
2: Miko didn't choose to take up a blackguard class. The blackguard isn't the default option for a fallen paladin in 3.5. The paladins in 5e, however, specifically gain the oathbreaker subclass for breaking their oath. Were Miko a 5e paladin, she would have become an oathbreaker by default, being an NPC.
Counterpoint.
1: You were able to name an oath that would recreate the exact same situation in a 5e context. Paladins murders lord, oath is broken. That's the important part.
2: If oathbreaker was the default situation of a 5e paladin who breaks his oath, it would be described in the PHB. For all intent and purposes the existence of the oathbreaker subclass is a table specific houserule. Just because it's closer to core doesn't make it any more universal than an aarakocra swashbuckler.

[smcmike]

You are wrong. Even in the description for Oathbreaker are instructions detailing how he could get his oaths back and become a normal paladin. If he breaks those oaths again and becomes an Oathbreaker, he cannot atone a second time.

Alignment restrictions don't officially exist, but the PHB and DMG include rules for if a paladin breaks their oaths. You really CAN'T play a chaotic evil paladin, not even a vengeance paladin, without breaking their oaths. The Vengeance Paladin oath of "restitution" couldn't possibly work with a chaotic evil character.

I agree about the Oathbreaker, but I think you're crazy to say a Vengeance Paladin couldn't be chaotic evil.

The chaos is easy - he's willing to break any rules it takes to have his vengeance.

The evil is ALSO easy - he's willing to murder his foes without mercy.

The fact that he also happens to do some good along the way makes him complicated, not good.

I'm not saying it's the best way to play it, but it's clearly possible.

[Regitnui]

Wait, didn't somebody say to Miko that she could have still atoned up until the point she almost blew the city in half? I guess she was just a fallen paladin up until that point, and if she'd survived, then would have been an Oathbreaker.


Oathbreaker makes for a great bone knight, if you ignore the "must be evil" part and add appropriate tenets. Just sayin'

Good point. I might use it then for the Karrnathi army commanders. As soon as I get my Skirr converted (Large, flying Undead from 3.5's Libris Mortis, if anyone's heard of it) they can ride them into battle!

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I agree about the Oathbreaker, but I think you're crazy to say a Vengeance Paladin couldn't be chaotic evil.

The chaos is easy - he's willing to break any rules it takes to have his vengeance.

The evil is ALSO easy - he's willing to murder his foes without mercy.

The fact that he also happens to do some good along the way makes him complicated, not good.

I'm not saying it's the best way to play it, but it's clearly possible.

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

No way could you play a Vengeance Paladin as evil and keep the oaths.

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

Vengeance Paladins combat evil. Evil characters ARE evil.

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

Vengeance Paladins fight the wicked, evil characters ARE the wicked.

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

Vengeance Paladins seek justice on those that have harmed others and wreaked ruin on the world, that would be evil characters doing that, by the way.

Absolutely no way you could play a Vengeance Paladin as an evil character and maintain those oaths, you would literally be suicidal.

[Sigreid]

And that definition is complete bull. Because :

Breaking your oath doesn't make you an undead lover. It makes you ruthless and unhinged, or depressed and seeking penance.

But Oathbreaker is different than just not keeping your oath. It's a willful turning against the oath.

[Regulas]

Absolutely no way you could play a Vengeance Paladin as an evil character and maintain those oaths, you would literally be suicidal.

The problem is that D&D's black and white views on evil can make for contradictions. In D&D evil is not just those dedicated to evil, it's anyone who does "evil" type things regardless of motivation.

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

If an band of evil characters surrenders to you and you force them to dig a pit and then one by one you slowly torture, dismember and kill them. By D&D universe this act is COMPLETELY EVIL. Well guess what; your Oath allows you to do this very specifically.

An evil paladin would basically be someone who fights evil but does so using evil methods, lying, cheating, torture. Maybe even he enjoys killing and feels that since he's only killing villains it's not a problem.

[Thrudd]

I am running a campaign, 5th level currently, and the paladin is sick of being good.

When the party formed the alignments were across the board, but people want the group to stick together so noone is being too out there in terms of evilness...the paladin wants to join in on all the stuff they say out of game they wish they could do, if only a paladin weren't in the group.

I read the oathbreaker "class" in the DMG and it seems like a very simple switch...but it feels like a free pass, oathbreaker isn't any less strong than a paladin, so its less like "losing your powers" and more like "switching them out for new ones". Like "oh ill make a paladin and have fun, then when it suits me ill casually switch to oathbreaker when i decide its time to break bad"

my initial response is a solid NO, but i understand i am a little too strict about things which can inhibit fun.

So has anyone had a player switch before? is it fine?

I agree with you. It shouldn't be an easy or automatic switch. The option might not be available at all, unless you have oathbreakers in your setting.
If you want to give them the chance, bring it up organically. Not only must the paladin first abandon their oath and lose their original powers, but they then must be approached by some evil power and be convinced to devote themselves to that new source of power with as much conviction as they once held for their former order. So you'd need to introduce such a source of evil, either other oathbreakers who can recruit your character and turn him to "the dark side", or a demon or devil that offers him new powers in return for a commitment to evil. oathbreaker isn't just a paladin without an oath, it is a character committed to being evil, hurting people, tyranny and fear and spreading darkness, etc. Does that fit with the rest of the party and what the campaign is like?

[Gastronomie]

Evil is a vague and biased term. It really does depend on the society we're talking about here.

If someone random kills an evil person, that's generally considered an evil act. But if an executioner kills an evil person, that's justice of the law. Torturing them has been perfectly okay as well for a majority of human history, and in fact it was more often promoted.

A Vengeance Paladin, still being a Paladin, works for the good of the world. All of his normally "evil" deeds are justified by the official authority of the Order which he belongs to.

At least, I think.

[Regulas]

Evil is a vague and biased term. It really does depend on the society we're talking about here.

If someone random kills an evil person, that's generally considered an evil act. But if an executioner kills an evil person, that's justice of the law. Torturing them has been perfectly okay as well for a majority of human history, and in fact it was more often promoted.

A Vengeance Paladin, still being a Paladin, works for the good of the world. All of his normally "evil" deeds are justified by the official authority of the Order which he belongs to.

At least, I think.


D&D however has a more precise black and white views typically. 5e really toned it down a lot, but generally speaking things are tend to be either always good or always bad. Like torture is pretty much always evil in the D&D universe specifically.

[smcmike]

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


Often. Personally I'd go for neutral or perhaps chaotic neutral. But that's not exclusive.



No way could you play a Vengeance Paladin as evil and keep the oaths.

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

Vengeance Paladins combat evil. Evil characters ARE evil.

Where is the contradiction? Evil men fight evil men all the time (for example: the entire history of the world), and this path explicitly allows the paladin to ally himself with evil to fight the greater evil.



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

Vengeance Paladins fight the wicked, evil characters ARE the wicked.


You are repeating yourself. This section of the oath explicitly states that he will have no mercy for his sworn enemies. Mercy is a Good attribute. Swearing not to have any is not evidence of good.



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

Vengeance Paladins seek justice on those that have harmed others and wreaked ruin on the world, that would be evil characters doing that, by the way.


This is the only section that actually talks about doing good deeds, and you don't really delve into it. But I'll answer the argument you should have made: yes, they swear to do some good. Lots of evil men do some good.



Absolutely no way you could play a Vengeance Paladin as an evil character and maintain those oaths, you would literally be suicidal.

Why? Which section of the oath would an evil paladin be unable to maintain? He swears to fight the GREATER evil - that means he's willing to accept the lesser evil (himself, or his evil allies) for the purposes of getting his vengeance.

Again, I'm not saying that's the only way to play it, or the best, but you didn't even actually address the oath you copied.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

D&D however has a more precise black and white views typically. 5e really toned it down a lot, but generally speaking things are tend to be either always good or always bad. Like torture is pretty much always evil in the D&D universe specifically.{scrubbed}

[Regulas]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

As opposed to medieval times not modern times xp

[Malifice]

The darkest a vengeance paladin can reasonably go is NE.

For a class that is required to act 'without mercy' and use 'any means necessary' its pretty hard to justify a good aligned Vengance paladin. Full on genocide pretty much fits within the code as written.

Lawful evil is very appropriate alignment for a Vengance paladin. NE works as well.

'By any means necessary' can work OK with CE as well. In fact, you can do some terrifying deeds as a CE Vengance paladin and stay well within your oath.

Consider a CE Half Orc Vengance Paladin of Gruumsh. Champion of a forest based community of Orcs, who raid (and are in turn raided by) a neighboring community of CG Wood Elves.


Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil. I choose the greater evil.
No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.
By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can’t get in the way of exterminating my foes.
Restitution. If my foes w reak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds.


This Paladin views Elves (and in particular the church of Corellion) to be his sworn foes. When faced with a choice of fighting another evil (defined to the Paladin as meaning 'an enemy of the Orc people or his community') or an Elf, he chooses the Elf. He gives Elves no mercy (men, women or children), slaughtering them out of hand while laughing at their misery. His qualms never get in the way of slaughtering the filthy elves, and he will use any means necessary (murder, pillage, rape, torture, poison, genocide) against his sworn enemies. He knows that if the vile Elves ever triumph and bring down the Orc people, the God Gruumsh, or his own villiage, it is because this Paladin failed to stop them. He must help other Orcs by becoming the leader of the tribe, and leading them on a bloody war of genocide against the elven scum. Any treaties the elves make with other races must be brought low. Allies of the elves, are no better than the elves themselves, and are also worthy of extermination and brutal violence.


Chaos is strange enough among people who live to tenets that it's likely tempered by good intentions at the very least.

Chaos has nothing to do with 'good' any more than Law does. There are tyrants, just like there are freedom fighters.


In fact, I'd go so far as to say any chaotic alignment for a paladin needs DM approval.

Disagree totally. In particular Ancients is built for CG (freedom and beauty). A CG Devotion paladin of Sune or Corellion (or a similar deity) is totally appropriate as well. Devoted to their deity and community, but not beholden to laws or order. Bravery, compassion, responsibility and fairness can mesh with a CG/ freedom fighter/ liberal outlook on life perfectly well.

See above for a CE Vengance paladin concept.

[Xetheral]

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

No way could you play a Vengeance Paladin as evil and keep the oaths.

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

Vengeance Paladins combat evil. Evil characters ARE evil.

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

Vengeance Paladins fight the wicked, evil characters ARE the wicked.

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

Vengeance Paladins seek justice on those that have harmed others and wreaked ruin on the world, that would be evil characters doing that, by the way.

Absolutely no way you could play a Vengeance Paladin as an evil character and maintain those oaths, you would literally be suicidal.

I disagree... if anything I think *good* Vengeance Paladins might be harder to come by than evil ones. Much of the subclass description implies that evil acts are pretty normal for vegenace paladins.

This thread makes me want to make a CE (or CG?!?) Vengeance Paladin who swears vengeance against Vengeance Paladins. Once he kills the last (other) one he intends to commit ritual suicide and purge the world of his kind's filth forever, breaking the eternal cycle of vengeance.

[Malifice]

No way could you play a Vengeance Paladin as evil and keep the oaths.

I currently play a LE Vengance Paladin (devoted to Bane). He was previously a LG Paladin of Torm.

His background is that his parents were present in Tantras during the Time of Troubles (both were Torm worshippers). Both were killed by martyring themselves to Torm so he could kill Bane. I (and my older brother) were raised in the church of Torm as 'martyrs progeny' from the age of 6 (he was 9), and inducted as Paladins of the Church.

Ive seent the chaos of the Time of Troubles and feuding Gods first hand. It cost me my parents, and the lives of hundreds of thousands more. This troubled me as a child. I had nighmares of losing my parents and witnessing the deaths of thousands to slay Bane.

Later in life during a quest for the church my brother was slain (in service to the God Torm). I was dispatched to by the church to invstigate his dissapearance, and found his killer. I broke my word and my honor, ruthlessly murdered his killer (who was unarmed) and lost my connection to Torm.

It was at this moment my character realised the 'truth'. 'Torm the true' was a lie. His church was a lie. The 'false' god had taken my parents from me, now my brother from me, and stripped me of my powers for doing 'the right thing'. I swore to enact vengance on the Church of Torm and their apostates, to bring the false god and his deluded followers low, and when the time was right, to slay the God Torm personally. Any enemy of Torm was my friend, and I knew who Torms greatest enemy was. A God who sought only to eradicate chaos from Faerun and to establish one kingdom, one people, one race - united under the one True God. A God who sought unity through might. Who nearly defeated Torm in single combat until the false God Torm betrayed his own followers and killed them just to overcome him.

Bane.

According to the Church of Banes tenents (and my own background) I view the 'evil' Church of Torm (and other deluded worshippers of so called 'good' churches) and the Church of Cyric to be the greatest evil facing Faerun. I seek to bring about a theocratic fascist one world government (akin to the Nazis), to outlaw all other religions, and to unite the people of Faerun under the rule of Bane. Only by doing this, will the world know peace.

My tools include genocide, pogroms and holy wars. Torture is a valid tool. You cant achieve a greater good without breaking a few eggs. My only qualm is that I dont kill children, and I take pity on orphans (being an orphan myself). After I ride into a villiage, I give the adults a choice. Convert to Bane or die. Those that dont convert, are tossed in the pyre or sold into slavery. I dont harm the children though. Im not a monster after all.

How I interpret my tenents:

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

When faced with fighting the Church of Torm over any other deluded and evil do-gooder (such as so called 'good' aligned paladins or members of the so called 'good' aligned churches) I choose to fight the Tormites. While the so called 'good' aligned churches think they're good, I know theyre not. I fight for the greater good (a unified monotheistic theocratic realm, united under the rule of Bane). I see the truth now. I do whatever needs to be done to advance that greater good.

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

Goes without saying. No mercy for adult Tormites. They are put to the sword or tossed in the pyre or crucified as a message to others.

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

Children of Tormites are the ones harmed by Torms misdeeds and deceptions. They're given a chance to see the light and convert to Bane in their own time. This is the best way to help them. I know - converting to Bane helped me.

Any other villiage touched by my sworn foes (so called good aligned churches or deluded Tormites in particular) must be helped to see the light. Apostates will be given a chance to convert (or die). If I fail in my task, the world will not be unified under the glorious might of Bane and chaos like the Time of Troubles will happen again. I kill tens of thousands to save the lives of millions and establish a lasting peace. One god, One kingdom, One race.

Hail Bane!

[Lollerabe]

I secretly resent you for having made that char before me Malifice.. I was going for black dragonborn / half Orc vengeance pala of bane, my char (well backup char) was born into the bane church, but all the rest - yup, more or less the same.

Anyway sounds like an awesome char to play, I'd imagine a bit frightening at times as well. To rp a truely convicted fascist gotta be intense for both you and your table.

[Malifice]

I secretly resent you for having made that char before me Malifice.. I was going for black dragonborn / half Orc vengeance pala of bane, my char (well backup char) was born into the bane church, but all the rest - yup, more or less the same.

Anyway sounds like an awesome char to play, I'd imagine a bit frightening at times as well. To rp a truely convicted fascist gotta be intense for both you and your table.

A bit too intense at times Im afraid. I tend to overplay the 'Fear Bane, but make others fear him more than you do' bit of his dogma. He also doesnt suffer fools lightly.

He is loyal though. And honorable (sticks to his word). And not a 'moustache twirler'. He's a three dimensional villian. He still thinks hes a good man, and only doing what needs to be done (and bringing vengance for his family against an 'evil' deity).

He's actually quite a tragic character - his parents were loyal followers of Torm, and (volunatarily) gave their lives so Torm would have the power to defeat Bane during the time of Troubles. His brother also devoted his life and died in service to Torm. He was raised in the temple of Torm in Tantras, and trained as a Paladin of Torm his whole life. He was once LG.

From where he sits, Torm killed his parents. Torm failed his brother and led him to his death. Torm turned his back on him, and stripped him of his powers after he and his whole family gave everything they could give in Torms service. To him its (objectively LG) Torm who is evil. If Bane had have won, his parents and brother would still be alive. If his parents and brother had've been stronger, then they wouldnt have died.

Its not just tragic that he now fights for what his parents died trying to stop; he also uses his very parents deaths as his motivation to continue a cause that they would have opposed with their lives if need be. Hes a twisted and bitter man. And at times, deeply conflicted. He wants vengance on Torm personally. First by bringing his church low and making his followers suffer, and then by travelling to the outer planes and slaying the 'false' god personally.

He refers to Torm as the False (a play on Torms nickname as 'the True'). He's convinced that Torm is evil and decietfull (along with the other deities of Faerun), and Bane is the only true God. Might makes right. And he is convinced in the righteousness of that doctrine. He is going to make things right. By killing hundreds of thousands and engaging in flat out genocide, deicide and worse. He's gone full circle to LE.

Its a scary headspace to crawl into, and I do have to be careful to reign it in at times.

[Lollerabe]

I can only imagine, however there are quiet a few RL villains one could read about as inspiration for that state of mind. Conviction in ones cause is a very real and very very frightening thing.

[Malifice]

I can only imagine, however there are quiet a few RL villains one could read about as inspiration for that state of mind. Conviction in ones cause is a very real and very very frightening thing.

Its a different mindset to what the OP is experiencing. They just want to engage in murderhobism.

As a DM I'd come down on that hard with a very clear 'pull your head in'. Its just awful roleplaying.

[JackPhoenix]

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

No way could you play a Vengeance Paladin as evil and keep the oaths.

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

Vengeance Paladins combat evil. Evil characters ARE evil.

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

Vengeance Paladins fight the wicked, evil characters ARE the wicked.

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

Vengeance Paladins seek justice on those that have harmed others and wreaked ruin on the world, that would be evil characters doing that, by the way.

Absolutely no way you could play a Vengeance Paladin as an evil character and maintain those oaths, you would literally be suicidal.

Nowhere does it says the greater evil means Evil alignment. Asmodeans consider chaos evil. Orcs consider elves and humans evil (they kicked them out of the nice living places, after all!). Blood of Vol considers gods of the Sovereign Host evil (or huge richards at best). Notice how No Mercy for the Wicked, despite it's name, mentions sworn enemies, not just any evil enemy.

Restitution is more problematic, but still viable to evil characters: Asmodeans will help others sharing their faith after a demon attack. Orcs will share the loot and land with their tribes. BoV cares about their communities. That doesn't make them necessarily not evil.

Being evil doesn't mean "must be always evil, all the time, can't ever do anything not evil". Professional assassin can still care about his friends and family. Doesn't make him any less evil, just more realistic character.

Edit: note to self: stop responding to posts in the middle of thread instead of reading the whole thing, you won't be ninja'd that much.

[Socratov]

You know, for a message board that loathes extra rigid sticks in the mud as much as we do, we are sure trying to make things black and white. Just a bit of irony I appreciated reading this thread.

First: the point of wish-fullfilment of players.

both proponents and opponents of wishfulfillment ake IMO a very black and white vieuw, though some have touched on what I would consider the ultimate truth:


We play this game to have fun. Nothing more, nothing less.

through this tenet I propose that through discussion a balance can be struck around the subject of gratification: every time this point comes up: ask yourself, is the change proposed reasonable to happen on short term, and if not, is it reasonable on long term? To assess the reasonability of a change one will need to go through the following steps:


asses the number of changes triggering from this change. This step means that if the party had some fun combo's or synergystic moves, that those features could be changed as well to reflect the ability of the party to continue working together as they did in the story before the change. Nor would it be fair to change things and not allow someone who made a choice based on the situation before, depending on another person's feature, to deny that person to make a change as well.
discuss with everyone present both the reasons behind the changes and the consequentions of the changes. Nothing exists in a vacuüm, and least of all party members, both in a literal sense and figurative sense.
Determine wether or not the total fun had at the table increases. This will be discussed later*
In the case of an increase of fun, deem the change reasonable, if not, unreasonable.


*This is the hardest thing to do. Changes will often mean more work. Extra work sounds like not fun at all. However, if a little work yields a great increase in fun, for example a spell did not work as interpreted and switching it out makes the player feel more useful/effective/engaged, then said change increases teh fun at the table. The Dm might need to incorporate this change into his plans for future encounters, but ultimately the players will have a more fun and engaging game. And while my DM experience is non-existent, I am willing to bet that engaged and invested players make for a better DM experience. A great help in determining how people get their fun is this article (http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/), or maybe this one... (http://angrydm.com/2014/02/gaming-for-fun-part-2-getting-engaged/)

On the subject of paladins, I'll adovacte the quick and easy solution: the psychotic break (and the depressive aftermath) as an option.

The (or at least it's mine) problem with paladins is the fact that they are a very mch black and white character. Maybe not as much as in 3.5, but still not accustomed to shades of greay by a long shot (that is, until 3.5 introduced the grey guard). With paladins we are, even moreso then clerics, dealing with a true bleiver who beleives so much that this blind faith in being right fuels the abilities. It's like a house made from glass: it can do its job very well, but once you break it, it completely falls apart. Luckily we have today's psychology, hwo have seen after WW1 that there is such a thing as a broke mind can after some time we call this PTSD: bend someone's mind into extremes often enough and it breaks. Test someone's faith often enough and it falls apart. If the palyer can roleplay that he's had it with these uppity authority figures waylaying him for the umpteenth time he might have enough to break down, or experience what was described in Exalted as a limit break. He's finally had enough and goes bonkers. conclusion: the paladin falls (i.e. is no longer following his oath) and will either try to redeem himself to pick up his oath again (the reforging option), or he will change to another oath (the renewing option). The only third option available is retirement. the first two options will require soem time and investment in sotry. can't just go around and change vows as easily as you can change clothes. That breaks the character storywise and breaks immersion for the other players. Definitely not fun.

In this very case of a player wanting to kill an NPC without caring about the consequences I think option B could apply, but ultimately won't fix the problem and one could describe the preferred change to be unreasonable. maybe, to try and salvage teh character and game, ask him what he would consider the consequences to his actions, and I don't mean "are you sure you want to do that", but sit down with him and ask him what he thinks of his current character and what he would think if the roles were reversed.

On eh other hand, if 2 players show this kind of behaviour, maybe it's time to re-evaluate everyone's priorities and expectations of the game. If your palyers want a hack and slash slaughterfest, then maybe that will imprive the game (assuming you are willing to indulge them in this regard). if your players like this fine, but lack the social skills IRL to overcome the obtacles in game, then maybe they need a little help fulfilling objectives. Remember Hanlon's Razor:


Don't mistake for malice what can be explained by incompetence or stupidity.

I have a nagging feeling that you haven't arrived at the core problem and that his behaviour, though stupid as it is, is a symptom and not a cause.

[RickAllison]

I secretly resent you for having made that char before me Malifice.. I was going for black dragonborn / half Orc vengeance pala of bane, my char (well backup char) was born into the bane church, but all the rest - yup, more or less the same.

Anyway sounds like an awesome char to play, I'd imagine a bit frightening at times as well. To rp a truely convicted fascist gotta be intense for both you and your table.

I would love to see the RP between these VPs and CG cleric PCs. Both see the other as misguided with the chance to reform, and both are actively seeking to convert the other. It would make for great IC discussions!

[Regulas]

You know, for a message board that loathes extra rigid sticks in the mud as much as we do, we are sure trying to make things black and white. Just a bit of irony I appreciated reading this thread.


It's because (in every previous edition at least) D&D itself has traditionally been extremely clear and specific as to what is evil and not. To such an extent that when they went and made non-evil classes that do evil-like things for the sake of good (like Malconvoker), they actually had to make "not being evil" a specific class feature as the rules would have otherwise made them evil by default, just because things like summoning and dealing with demons is automatically evil.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Every time paladin discussions come up, I can always count on Malifice and his Vengeance Paladin of Bane to come up... makes me smile.

I've already found out that having the same argument over and over doesn't get anyone anywhere... so I'll stay out of the paladin/alignment discusion.

To the OP as several have already stated...
This is a game we play for fun. You as the DM are the arbiter, but it is best to consult your potential players and come up with a concept of play that everyone can agree on. If someone isn't having fun, discuss why and try to correct it. This doesn't mean break the rules or anything. But if they want a different class... then give the group some down time and work with/ask the character in question to come up with some new concept... backed by maybe some 1 on 1 side gaming for backstory and roleplay to become that new character.

If instead they are bored with the direction things are going, maybe it's time to change that. If they are crybabies that just want to "win" easily all the time, then you might want to find some new players. Maybe a one shot where they get to be evil would be a good change of pace for a bit.

[Saeviomage]

It could be that they're just not interested in role playing their part in a bureaucracy. Instead of roleplaying out the encounter, you could have gone with "Ok, you go to see the mayor and he's busy, so you make an appointment for later in the day. What do you do now?"

I guess it also probably flows on from how the NPCs in general have been treating them: if they've been repeatedly saving a town from evil and the guards are still being obstructive when they want to talk to the mayor, maybe you should consider rewarding them with some respect?


Also, as a side note:
What happens to a vengeance paladin who repeatedly violates his oath by not being ruthless enough? Does he suddenly become an evil oathbringer?

[JackPhoenix]

Also, as a side note:
What happens to a vengeance paladin who repeatedly violates his oath by not being ruthless enough? Does he suddenly become an evil oathbringer?

I'm not sure what do you mean by "not ruthless enough", but if he breaks the tenes of his oath, he can atone, he can adapt other oath, if his current doesn't fit him, or he falls. Depending on the actions leading to the fall, he may keep his alignment, but he's still fallen. If he falls through commiting evil acts against the oath (so no "not ruthless enough", isn't repentant and fully embrace evil... then he can become an Oathbreaker.

[Regulas]

I'm not sure what do you mean by "not ruthless enough", but if he breaks the tenes of his oath, he can atone, he can adapt other oath, if his current doesn't fit him, or he falls. Depending on the actions leading to the fall, he may keep his alignment, but he's still fallen. If he falls through commiting evil acts against the oath (so no "not ruthless enough", isn't repentant and fully embrace evil... then he can become an Oathbreaker.

He means I think if you show your sworn enemy mercy, since your oath specifically requires that you don't.

[Sigreid]

Also, as a side note:
What happens to a vengeance paladin who repeatedly violates his oath by not being ruthless enough? Does he suddenly become an evil oathbringer?

I would expect a vengeance paladin to fall to oath breaker when he becomes so consumed with "making people pay" that he no longer gives any thought or action to protecting the innocent that might be harmed by his prey, or his pursuit of his prey. Since shielding the innocent from the consequences of his wrath when possible, or making it right afterwords when it is not is a key part of the oath. In that case I would expect him to still be out seeking vengeance against those he perceives as a blight on the world us his new dark powers, but never giving a thought to the price others pay for his actions. He might not even realize he's an oath breaker and may believe that he's simply unlocked powers that better enable him to inflict his particularly brutal form of vengeance.

[Regitnui]

The vengeance paladin who goes soft can easily transition to Oath of Devotion. Going from "They must be stopped" to "it must never happen again".

[Arkhios]

TL;DR (all of it)

To answer the OP: Oathbreaker is a subclass for Paladin, not a class by its own right, so if a Paladin player wants to be an Oathbreaker, I would just let them. (Although, I might change few things to match the subclass' theme better, such as Divine Smite/Improved Divine Smite dealing necrotic damage instead of radiant).

[KorvinStarmast]

I am running a campaign, 5th level currently, and the paladin is sick of being good.

When the party formed the alignments were across the board, but people want the group to stick together so noone is being too out there in terms of evilness...the paladin wants to join in on all the stuff they say out of game they wish they could do, if only a paladin weren't in the group. Looks to me like the person playing the Paladin is being bullied/peer pressured OOC by the rest of the players.

What kind of paladin is this PC: Vengeance, Ancients, Crown, or Devotion?

It's OK to say no to the PC -- unlike some of the advice you got here -- but it's also good to really know the rules and the character classes. Take a good hard look at Oathbreaker and discuss with your paladin how the transition could be played out. Make THAT the focus of a raid or adventure. Or, you can allow him to wander off and create another character, at 5th level, Who Fits Into The Rest of The Group Better.

That said, the group has other issues, or so it seems from your description.

[Kish]

Also, as a side note:
What happens to a vengeance paladin who repeatedly violates his oath by not being ruthless enough? Does he suddenly become an evil [oathbreaker]?
As overtly absurd as that looks, I could see it.

"Yes, I swore to wipe out the , but he'd surrendered! And then my superior yelled at me and lectured me on the number of innocent people he'd killed and raped and tortured after I let him go, like I was supposed to kill him in cold blood when he was unarmed and on his knees in front of me! Hmph! Clearly my church's claims to the moral high ground were lies all along; I will stop following them and start helping the [previous monstrously evil group]!"

If you narrow the question enough that it becomes more unambigiously "does this good character become evil for refusing to do something evil," I'd respond with a question: Why was this ever a vengeance paladin to begin with? Good-aligned vengeance paladins should [I]very rarely, if ever, have anyone who isn't total scum as their 'sworn enemies'; was this character designed to fall, in a reverse version of the "DM who tries to make every paladin fall" routine?

[Saeviomage]

The vengeance paladin who goes soft can easily transition to Oath of Devotion. Going from "They must be stopped" to "it must never happen again".

Well, except Oath of Devotion has some OTHER unassociated baggage (such as never lying) that comes with it.



If you narrow the question enough that it becomes more unambiguously "does this good character become evil for refusing to do something evil," I'd respond with a question: Why was this ever a vengeance paladin to begin with? Good-aligned vengeance paladins should very rarely, if ever, have anyone who isn't total scum as their 'sworn enemies'; was this character designed to fall, in a reverse version of the "DM who tries to make every paladin fall" routine?

In character? This could be a paladin who did not start out good, and has shifted that way. Or a paladin who made an oath that was too broad: "I swear to destroy all that march under the banner of hell", which could feasibly include forces which are compelled. Or even an oath to destroy demons, at which point he meets a reformed demon. A paladin who gains a phobia that prevents him from confronting the greater evil? All are fairly common tropes.

Out of character: I don't know the path that the DM has designed for his adventures. I can't possibly make a PC which swears an oath and guarantee it will never be broken. In addition to that, if I DO choose to make such a PC, I don't actually want my DM to change things so that my oath will never be broken: the oath is a part of the character I choose to play, warts and all. Such things make story.

My point is that the Oathbreaker is unfortunately filling a very wide niche with an extremely limited concept that focuses on a wilful change to the dark side. The game gives very little advice for a DM of a Paladin who suffers a genuine crisis of his vows.

[Regitnui]

I can see paladins as one of, if not the only, class where the subclasses can be switched. An Eldritch Knight isn't going to lose his magic and gain martial arts (battle master) that they haven't been practicing, but I can see a Vengeance paladin sliding towards Devotion over time, and eventually finding that his powers don't work the same as they used to. The cleric is the only other class I can see that working with; changing between deities/domains of their deity.

[Sigreid]

Why? Which section of the oath would an evil paladin be unable to maintain? He swears to fight the GREATER evil - that means he's willing to accept the lesser evil (himself, or his evil allies) for the purposes of getting his vengeance.

Again, I'm not saying that's the only way to play it, or the best, but you didn't even actually address the oath you copied.

If you've seen the Firefly movie, a character there puts it pretty beautifully. He described himself as a monster fighting for a world he would have no place in.

[leugren]

I'm with these guys. Your player is not roleplaying, and has so little respect for you, the game world, and his own character, that he is content to simply destroy any NPC who tells him no. That's the real problem here.
Personally, I agree with this. Bringing down the full weight of the law when characters kill NPCs with impunity should make him glad to serve as the moral compass for this party of murder-hobos.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Personally, I agree with this. Bringing down the full weight of the law when characters kill NPCs with impunity should make him glad to serve as the moral compass for this party of murder-hobos.

Yep, and it's really not hard to do as a DM. Overwhelm the party with the City Guard complete with the city's Cowled Wizard contingent or Cloaks or whatever and the party will learn the consequences of their actions.

[Regitnui]

Yep, and it's really not hard to do as a DM. Overwhelm the party with the City Guard complete with the city's Cowled Wizard contingent or Cloaks or whatever and the party will learn the consequences of their actions.

"roll Constitution checks."

"Why?"

"Just roll. Well, you all failed and got hit by a hold person spell each. The local guard now comes to carry you off to the local jail, stripping you of your possessions and placing you in separate cells; the casters in oubliettes. They promise you a lawyer to determine whether you're really guilty of having murdered (insert victims here)."

[RickAllison]

"roll Constitution checks."

"Why?"

"Just roll. Well, you all failed and got hit by a hold person spell each. The local guard now comes to carry you off to the local jail, stripping you of your possessions and placing you in separate cells; the casters in oubliettes. They promise you a lawyer to determine whether you're really guilty of having murdered (insert victims here)."

1) That's a Wisdom save, not a Con check.

2) They get to re-save every six seconds.

3) It lasts a maximum of 1 minute.

So they have a really decent chance to get out of that.

[Wymmerdann]

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents on the basis that I've just finished a half-dozen session arc with an Oathbreaker Paladin and therefore might have some experience to share.


Mechanically, the Channel Divinity are crazy strong, but perhaps balanced out by the less than stellar domain list [especially compared with the Vengeance Pally]. The Level 7 feature should be changed to affect only friendlies, for both PC and NPC Oathbreakers, but consider how this will affect a fiendish steed from the Find Steed spell.

RP wise, I played as an extremely corrupt knight retained by the local noble house. He was also quite evangelical in his new faith, to Hextor, based on what he perceived to be the naivete, delusion and essentially suicidal nature of lighter powers. In a weirdly non-religious setting, he preached a return to the godly powers in general as a means of fighting supernatural savagery and protecting civilisation, and the veneration of Hextor in particular, as the most fitting god to bring about that societal strength. He was something of a demagogue, and willing to play by societies rules to the extent that he could manipulate them to his own advantage [like most knights, historically].

His backstory involved being a Devotion Paladin and heir to a noble house, who was denied his lawful inheritance based on his half-brothers' bigotry for his mixed blood [being a half elf]. When his father's folk sided with the then-paladin, and were murdered by his brother's sellswords, the fratricidal conflict that followed completely hollowed out the Knight's hope that the cause he had served was remotely worthwhile [since simple bigotry was enough to turn all of his social peers against the cause he thought to be right and just, and he ended up the last man standing in his father's keep, having smashed in his younger brother's skull with an ancient mace]. His new perspective held that the Gods and Forces of Good and Evil, reflected different perspectives of the same world, and that the forces of good were hopelessly naive. In contrast, a god of strife reflected his experiences of needing strength to impose one's will, regardless of one's motivations.

I had a great deal of fun playing a strategically evil character, who ruthlessly pursued his objectives of personal power and prestige. When push comes to shove, it's not particularly difficult to play a thoroughly evil character and maintain the social expectations of a feudal gentleman, especially with the charisma of a half elf paladin.

Yes his arc ended in inter-party conflict, but that more reflected the fact that he was being influenced by a demonic sword and tried to exaggerate its influence over him as functional possession so that his party would help him break free of it. He overplayed his hand and got a rapier to the throat for his trouble.

It was probably the most satisfying narrative experience I've ever had with a character, and while flummoxed at times, the other players at the table were able to engage constructively with the experience in a way that we all enjoyed.


Should you let your player do it? It depends on the game you're playing, and what your player wants to do with the character, more than any of the powers or fluff attached to the class. I honestly feel that your decision should be based on a player being appropriately mature and able to position themselves emotionally distant from their character. In this case, that requires pursuing a fitting narrative rather than the escapism of a murderhobo gaming experience. You might even sacrifice a bit of the mystery and spontaneity of play by having a detailed chat with your player about the story you both want to tell at the table.

Cheers.

[GorogIrongut]

If I were the DM in this situation, I would:
1. Change the character so that they had 2 levels in Oathbreaker (at that point they're still not fully committed to their new 'cause'). I wouldn't allow him to take a 3rd level until he did something significant to show his devotion to following the Oathbreaker path. In this instance I'm envisioning something like what happened with Anakin in Star Wars... To me, that scene where he killed all the infant jedi cemented his path to the darkside.
2. Any remaining levels that the player had previously had would be swapped over into fighter levels. I don't personally know the player, nor do I know how many levels we're speaking of... So I can't say if I'd allow the level 3 fighter specialization... Perhaps I would restrict things like Eldritch Knight... Perhaps I would choose the fighter specialization for him. But fighter gives a different set of abilities that should give the player a new lease on his character's life... while letting him begin to sort out the new direction he wants to take his character down.
3. I would add a variant to the story that gives the party a chance to go really really dark if they want to. Maybe up until now they've been a bunch of whiney do gooders. Sticking by the morals of society but secretly hating the rulers of the land. Suddenly there's a plot against the throne and they get embroiled in it... They then have to choose whether or not to report it. Get stuck in to it. If so are they doing it as double agents? Are they truly converted to the darkside of the plot? They could choose to play along not truly know which side they were fighting for until the very last second... when they finally realize what they want out of this game and roll the dice.

By doing this you give them the chance to unleash their inner murderhobo. Some will do it the maintain cover... while still enjoying it. Others will just do it for doing it sake. My hope is that by following this path you can help the players truly identify their desires from the game and hopefully grow a bit as people. And if the true murderhobos annoy you too much, coups are very dangerous things. Let them be captured and truly tortured for a bit before the rest of the party has a chance to save them. Or just let them die and roll up a new character to fill out the story line.

[RickAllison]

If I were the DM in this situation, I would:
1. Change the character so that they had 2 levels in Oathbreaker (at that point they're still not fully committed to their new 'cause'). I wouldn't allow him to take a 3rd level until he did something significant to show his devotion to following the Oathbreaker path. In this instance I'm envisioning something like what happened with Anakin in Star Wars... To me, that scene where he killed all the infant jedi cemented his path to the darkside.
2. Any remaining levels that the player had previously had would be swapped over into fighter levels. I don't personally know the player, nor do I know how many levels we're speaking of... So I can't say if I'd allow the level 3 fighter specialization... Perhaps I would restrict things like Eldritch Knight... Perhaps I would choose the fighter specialization for him. But fighter gives a different set of abilities that should give the player a new lease on his character's life... while letting him begin to sort out the new direction he wants to take his character down.
3. I would add a variant to the story that gives the party a chance to go really really dark if they want to. Maybe up until now they've been a bunch of whiney do gooders. Sticking by the morals of society but secretly hating the rulers of the land. Suddenly there's a plot against the throne and they get embroiled in it... They then have to choose whether or not to report it. Get stuck in to it. If so are they doing it as double agents? Are they truly converted to the darkside of the plot? They could choose to play along not truly know which side they were fighting for until the very last second... when they finally realize what they want out of this game and roll the dice.

By doing this you give them the chance to unleash their inner murderhobo. Some will do it the maintain cover... while still enjoying it. Others will just do it for doing it sake. My hope is that by following this path you can help the players truly identify their desires from the game and hopefully grow a bit as people. And if the true murderhobos annoy you too much, coups are very dangerous things. Let them be captured and truly tortured for a bit before the rest of the party has a chance to save them. Or just let them die and roll up a new character to fill out the story line.

So you will rip his character out of his hands and make choices for him that are inconsistent with the character's history. That's being a duck and a bad DM.

If they break their oaths, they are still a paladin, just one that is lost in the world. I would think they retain all paladin abilities that aren't dependent on an oath. They have the same force of will and know how to channel it, but they don't know where to channel it to. That leaves Divine Sense, Lay On Hands, spellcasting (without Oath spells), Divine Smite, Aura of Protection and Courage, etc. He would lose Oath spells, channel divinity, and any oath-specific abilities. He can find a new cause to champion, or turn into an Oathbreaker. Heck, he could choose to champion himself and just not have an oath (unoptimized as it would be).

[Wymmerdann]

1. Change the character so that they had 2 levels in Oathbreaker (at that point they're still not fully committed to their new 'cause'). I wouldn't allow him to take a 3rd level until he did something significant to show his devotion to following the Oathbreaker path. In this instance I'm envisioning something like what happened with Anakin in Star Wars... To me, that scene where he killed all the infant jedi cemented his path to the darkside.
2. Any remaining levels that the player had previously had would be swapped over into fighter levels. I don't personally know the player, nor do I know how many levels we're speaking of... So I can't say if I'd allow the level 3 fighter specialization... Perhaps I would restrict things like Eldritch Knight... Perhaps I would choose the fighter specialization for him. But fighter gives a different set of abilities that should give the player a new lease on his character's life... while letting him begin to sort out the new direction he wants to take his character down.

I probably couldn't disagree with these suggestions more than I do.

A level 1 or 2 Paladin is not necessarily less committed to their ideals than a level 20 Paladin. Limiting level advancement based on your arbitrary RP requirements seems like a really demoralising principle for your players. Levels are a terrible way to measure the devotion of a character, or to reflect it. I could tentatively get behind Richallison's suggestions, since they don't require the DM effectively taking over the character creation process for their player in the way that these do.

Fighter Levels are not "Fallen Paladin" levels. The character classes are quite different, and trying to get past this by limiting or excluding archetypes is further punishing a player without good cause, while at the same time saying that other class features will give the character "a new lease on life". If a Paladin falls and dedicates their life to a new dark master, they aren't suddenly going to be excellent at performing combat maneuvers, or performing the feats associated with Action Surge and Second Wind. It's a terrible way to emulate that transition, and would be likely to drive players away from your table given the degree of DM tyranny involved.

Frankly it reads like you're trying to apply the design philosophy behind 2e Fallen paladins to 5e, which ignores the radical changes that have been made to classes generally, in rebalancing the Paladin and Fighter, and multiclassing specifically, which is such a niche option that it should NEVER be forced on a player in this edition. At low levels, the transition would possibly steal feats from the player, while at higher levels it would provide them without explanation.

I support tinkering, not this. Never this.

[Thrudd]

So you will rip his character out of his hands and make choices for him that are inconsistent with the character's history. That's being a duck and a bad DM.

If they break their oaths, they are still a paladin, just one that is lost in the world. I would think they retain all paladin abilities that aren't dependent on an oath. They have the same force of will and know how to channel it, but they don't know where to channel it to. That leaves Divine Sense, Lay On Hands, spellcasting (without Oath spells), Divine Smite, Aura of Protection and Courage, etc. He would lose Oath spells, channel divinity, and any oath-specific abilities. He can find a new cause to champion, or turn into an Oathbreaker. Heck, he could choose to champion himself and just not have an oath (unoptimized as it would be).

I would say all paladin abilities are dependent on an oath. An oath is what a paladin is. When a paladin abandons their oath, they aren't a paladin and lose all class abilities that are in any way magical, divine or otherwise supernatural. Yes, this means a paladin that abandons their oath has very little left, worse than a normal fighter for sure. That's why there isn't an oathless paladin subclass option. Not a good move from an optimization standpoint, but maybe dramatic to role play.

The forces of darkness seducing a paladin to give up their oath and granting them new, evil powers in return for promising to further the cause of making the world a more evil place is a different thing. That's what the "oathbreaker" class is really describing. Not just a paladin that doesn't want to have an oath anymore (which is nothing), but a paladin that has fallen to the "dark side".

[GorogIrongut]

I knew my suggestions were confrontational, but hey, that's the way life is.

I'm with Thrudd on this. Sans Oath you have no abilities and are a pathetic version of a fighter. Until someone commits to a new oath... which in the case of this particular character, would take some doing that he doesn't really seem ready for, the player is left with a very suboptimal build. Sure you could use that as a stick to keep the player in line and following his oath, but that doesn't send very fun for the DM or the players.

Yes my changes were radical... but they were also fun compared to the logical alternatives. And if the player really did commit to the Oathbreaker path, I would be happy to convert however many levels he had as a fighter back over to his newly chosen path as an Oathbreaker. None of this is by the rules. But I consider it to be the best option available. And in no way am I seizing control of the character from it's player. He chose this path. I'm just trying to help him decide what he wants without crippling his character in the process.

I'm reminded of the quote in the PHB:
Sacred Oath
When you reach 3rd level, you swear the oath that binds you as a paladin forever. Up to this time you have been in a preparatory stage, committed to the path but not yet sworn to it.

While this text does apply specifically to the original 3 oaths, to me it would be logical to use it with someone trying to decide whether or not to become an Oathbreaker. Once they make a suitably impactful decision to go oathbreaker, I see no need for keeping paladin at level 2.

[Saeviomage]

I would say all paladin abilities are dependent on an oath. An oath is what a paladin is. When a paladin abandons their oath, they aren't a paladin and lose all class abilities that are in any way magical, divine or otherwise supernatural.

A level 2 paladin has lay on hands, divine sense, spellcasting, smiting and his fighting style, all without ever having sworn an oath.

[Arkhios]

A level 2 paladin has lay on hands, divine sense, spellcasting, smiting and his fighting style, all without ever having sworn an oath.

I'm actually with him.

What a paladin without an oath doesn't have is only this: 10 extra spells known, 2 options for 1 channel divinity/short rest, a 7th level feature, a 15th level feature and a 20th level feature. Everything else they would have.

Not having an oath isn't going to make you much worse as a paladin (as you will still have Divine Health, Aura of Protection, Aura of Courage, Improved Divine Smite, Cleansing touch, and increased aura range along with all 5 levels of spells, excluding Oath spells), but enough so that it makes you reconsider whether you want to atone or turn to something else. Paladin's powers come from personal conviction. Swearing an oath gives them purpose.

I wouldn't change their paladin levels to anything else than a paladin, because a paladin can get by without the Oath features a long while. It's completely up to the player whether he wants to commit himself to a cause or not. Not committing means you have lesser tricks up your sleeves. However, all that can be changed, if you're willing to commit yourself to roleplay in addition to rollplay. (That is not to say a DM should allow a player not choose an oath when they get to 3rd level. Losing that oath afterwards is entirely a different matter.)

[Regitnui]

That is not to say a DM should allow a player not choose an oath when they get to 3rd level. Losing that oath afterwards is entirely a different matter.

That's probably the easiest way to represent a fallen paladin as opposed to an intentional Oathbreaker. An atonement quest done without the benefit of Oath abilities may be just the thing to drive the lesson home, for player and character.

[Arkhios]

That's probably the easiest way to represent a fallen paladin as opposed to an intentional Oathbreaker. An atonement quest done without the benefit of Oath abilities may be just the thing to drive the lesson home, for player and character.

Exactly. It's a valuable lesson, because if you choose to become a paladin, you have to understand that there is a catch to all those powers you get.

[RickAllison]

That's probably the easiest way to represent a fallen paladin as opposed to an intentional Oathbreaker. An atonement quest done without the benefit of Oath abilities may be just the thing to drive the lesson home, for player and character.

Exactly. An Oathbreaker is someone who has devoted themselves to a darker path, not someone who is cast adrift upon the world. Let me make an example of three samurai (with non-asiatic names to be multi-cultural!) who took Paladin levels:

Absook, Beha-ir, Careshep, and Denahir all swore the oath of the crown for their lord, enforcing his will, but all found themselves adrift when a mission resulted in dishonor to their lord.

Absook sought to atone for his failure, offering to commit seppuku for his lord, but instead being set on a quest to show his devotion.

Beha-ir found himself questioning his lord, as his travels saw the cruelties his former master inflicted on the world. When he saw one too many travesties, he swore to avenge those his master had harmed, accepting the oath of vengeance.

Careshep took a different path, seeing himself as already lost and so gives in to all his temptations and desires. This dark oh frees him as he feels new power bubbling up from within. He has not just broken his oaths, he has denounced them and become an Oathbreaker.

Denahir saw his former friends and what they became, and he became quiet, withdrawn. He had seen the cruelties of his lord, but also his kindness. He could neither stand with the crown or fight against it. He knew that he could redeem himself another way, and so wouldn't give in to the hate of Careshep. He went forth, as ronin, seeking to find a new path as an oath-less.

[Socratov]

I personally believe a paladin is fueled by his faith or belief. I'll come out and say it: the dnd Paladin is Dombo and his oath is his feather. The oath is paramount to his functioning since it is the basis for what he believes in.

That said, all the paladin needs is to make a new oath: or in this example, get a new feather.

In this edition paladins have stopped working like they used to and become not goody two-shoes but the striking sword of divine justice. Can they be wrong? sure, will they get properly and thoroughly run through with the metaphorical 'Richard' by their deity? Most certainly. Do they get some cool casting, smiting and otherwise asskicking for it in return? Most definitely.

And as long as their foundation of faith is unshaken they can do all those things. The second they lose their conviction of being Right(tm), they will find out that their spells don't work as well as they did. That their smites are less potent, in short, that everything is missing a bit of heart.

That said, the moment they renew their conviction they get all the goods back, with maybe (depending on the roleplaying) a bit of interest.

[Xetheral]

if you choose to become a paladin, you have to understand that there is a catch to all those powers you get.


Can they be wrong? sure, will they get properly and thoroughly run through with the metaphorical 'Richard' by their deity? Most certainly. Do they get some cool casting, smiting and otherwise asskicking for it in return? Most definitely.

I completely disagree. If the player wants to explore these thematic limitations of the Paladin class, then fantastic! But there is no inherent reason a DM needs to impose RP limitations on a player who doesn't want them. If such a player isn't adhering to the listed tenets of their oath, then that player will have more fun if you simply change the tenets (i.e. refluff the class) to match the way the player wants to play the character.

If changing the class that way would violate lore in your game world (e.g. all paladins are part of particular, well-established orders) then change the name of the class to something else that won't produce a conflict. I find that letting a player play the character they want to (both mechanically and thematically) leads to happier players than trying to shoehorn characters into the DM's (or the book's!) conception of each class and then punishing them if they stray.

[Socratov]

I completely disagree. If the player wants to explore these thematic limitations of the Paladin class, then fantastic! But there is no inherent reason a DM needs to impose RP limitations on a player who doesn't want them. If such a player isn't adhering to the listed tenets of their oath, then that player will have more fun if you simply change the tenets (i.e. refluff the class) to match the way the player wants to play the character.

If changing the class that way would violate lore in your game world (e.g. all paladins are part of particular, well-established orders) then change the name of the class to something else that won't produce a conflict. I find that letting a player play the character they want to (both mechanically and thematically) leads to happier players than trying to shoehorn characters into the DM's (or the book's!) conception of each class and then punishing them if they stray.

It's one thing to change the fluff, but quite another to crown a murderhobo paladin, if only for what the class offers and allowing him to murderhobo. if the player wants to murderhobo, let him play something else. A Wizard won't suddnely become a barbarian, a rogue not suddenly a paladin. I think that while refluffing is ok, it would be nonsensical to deviate too much from what the class is supposed to be about: a holy warrior on a divine mission from [deity]. Take that away, what do you have left?

And I think that expecting some RP from a player when he chooses a particular character class is fair.

[Xetheral]

It's one thing to change the fluff, but quite another to crown a murderhobo paladin, if only for what the class offers and allowing him to murderhobo. if the player wants to murderhobo, let him play something else. A Wizard won't suddnely become a barbarian, a rogue not suddenly a paladin. I think that while refluffing is ok, it would be nonsensical to deviate too much from what the class is supposed to be about: a holy warrior on a divine mission from [deity]. Take that away, what do you have left?

And I think that expecting some RP from a player when he chooses a particular character class is fair.

(Emphasis added.) Why is what the class offers relevant?

Whether or not you want/permit your players to play murderhobo characters strikes me as more of a campaign style choice than a question of class selection. If murderhobos are fine in your campaign, then a murderhobo paladin doesn't seem to me to be any more problematic than a murderhobo fighter. Similarly, both are equally troublesome if a player tries to bring such a character to a game where such behavior isn't welcome.

Edit for Addition:


I think that while refluffing is ok, it would be nonsensical to deviate too much from what the class is supposed to be about: a holy warrior on a divine mission from [deity]. Take that away, what do you have left?

And I think that expecting some RP from a player when he chooses a particular character class is fair.

If you take away the built-in RP, you have a (ostensibly) balanced package of mechanical abilities suitable for use with a wide variety of alternative flavors. But if you prefer (and it sounds like you do) to stick to the default themes for each class, then yes, discussing RP expectations for that class with the players ahead of time is perfectly fair. But if an (accidental) conflict later emerges, I wouldn't punish the player in a way they wouldn't enjoy, I'd instead work to adapt the character to match the concept they're actually playing. (If what they're playing is otherwise problematic for the game, of course, then a different conversation with the player needs to be held OOC.)

[Socratov]

(Emphasis added.) Why is what the class offers relevant?

Whether or not you want/permit your players to play murderhobo characters strikes me as more of a campaign style choice than a question of class selection. If murderhobos are fine in your campaign, then a murderhobo paladin doesn't seem to me to be any more problematic than a murderhobo fighter. Similarly, both are equally troublesome if a player tries to bring such a character to a game where such behavior isn't welcome.

Edit for Addition:



If you take away the built-in RP, you have a (ostensibly) balanced package of mechanical abilities suitable for use with a wide variety of alternative flavors. But if you prefer (and it sounds like you do) to stick to the default themes for each class, then yes, discussing RP expectations for that class with the players ahead of time is perfectly fair. But if an (accidental) conflict later emerges, I wouldn't punish the player in a way they wouldn't enjoy, I'd instead work to adapt the character to match the concept they're actually playing. (If what they're playing is otherwise problematic for the game, of course, then a different conversation with the player needs to be held OOC.)

Well, yes I would restrict the RP when the player in question wants to eat his cake and have it as well.

Wanna be a paladin, all honourable and respected because of your divine vow, but want to murder in broad daylight because you feel like it? Well, sorry to say, but you can't have it both ways. Not counting extenuating circumstances.

Now, if, say, you'd approach me as saying " I want to play a paladin, but not the conventional kind, but one who allows and actively encourages mercy killings both to strengthen the herd by culling the weak and by making sure the better parts of the herd survive" now that would make for an interesting dynamic. If the concept was to be the Punisher, killing included, then sure, that might sound like a decent example of a paladin of vengeance. if you want to be the knight in shining armour kind of paladin and go murderhobo-ing, sorry, but maybe videogames like GTA are more your speed. Either that, or expect for the church to hunt you down as the persona-non-grata you will soon find yourself to be.

[Xetheral]

Well, yes I would restrict the RP when the player in question wants to eat his cake and have it as well.

Wanna be a paladin, all honourable and respected because of your divine vow, but want to murder in broad daylight because you feel like it? Well, sorry to say, but you can't have it both ways. Not counting extenuating circumstances.

I agree: I wouldn't allow a player to make a character who openly acts dishonorably but is somehow nevertheless perceived as honorable. But I wouldn't have a problem with either an honorable or a dishonorable character being represented by the Paladin class. And if someone took a particular oath and then ended up playing differently, I'd change their oath tenets to match their behavior unless they were interesting in RPing the conflict.

[Socratov]

I agree: I wouldn't allow a player to make a character who openly acts dishonorably but is somehow nevertheless perceived as honorable. But I wouldn't have a problem with either an honorable or a dishonorable character being represented by the Paladin class. And if someone took a particular oath and then ended up playing differently, I'd change their oath tenets to match their behavior unless they were interesting in RPing the conflict.

And this is exactly the point of the whole problem: The players acts like he's an honourable paladin and all, but he actually likes to be more of a murderhobo because said NPC annoyed him.

So that woudl make for (for lack fo a better name) Oath of the Murderhobo:

I will get rich
I will amass power
I will look out only for myself and only for others when it directly benefits me
I will kill and loot everything if I like to.

[Addaran]

I think that while refluffing is ok, it would be nonsensical to deviate too much from what the class is supposed to be about: a holy warrior on a divine mission from [deity]. Take that away, what do you have left?


What if the deity is Bane or Hextor? In that case, the "paladin" is in it's rightfull place to smite the annoying NPC that refuse to let an Hero, Savior of the city speak with the mayor for important business.

If we ignore the OP, where it's pretty clear it's just lousy RPing from the player, the class can be made for whatever fluff you like. It's (theorically) balanced with all the other classes, so there doesn't need to be an Oath to balance it out. You can just forget the old paladin=good part and make the paladin some kind of templar of his deity, between fighter and full cleric. In that sense, a lot of deities could have dishonnorable/evil templars. Or the player just like the smiting mechanic and you fluff it as an Eldritch Knight.

[Regitnui]

The paladin is not "holy warrior" in this edition. Oath of the Crown is entirely secular, focused on devotion to a state or ruler. Oath of the Ancients is druidic, which isn't deity-focused at all. "Holy Warrior" is filled by the Cleric. What the paladin is is a "Oathbound Warrior". He is committed to an ideal. I just finished reading the first Raven's Shadow book, Blood Song, and the main character of that could be a paladin of Devotion with the Acolyte background fairly easily. Here's the thing; he's agnostic. The Faith he follows is actively antitheist. He follows tenets and swore an oath, but believes gods are a lie. A grewt example of a non-holy paladin.

[Fighting_Ferret]

5E doesn't really know what it wants paladins to be... there is still the case of the "holy warrior" as the words holy, sacred, and angel all appear in their class descriptions. They even say that their powers come as much from the oaths as from the gods they serve, and then go on to show that you don't need a god at all. There is also the whole champion of good and justice, charitable, and guardians against wickedness and evil , but then there is a sentence saying that rarely are paladins of evil alignment... leaving that option open (without oathbreaker).

So you have a group of law abiding, good knights, that can ignore the law and aren't answerable to any higher power. They can go against their oaths and still maintain their powers because they don't serve a god.

But their oath is what makes them a paladin you say! What oath... they don't get it until level 3, and even though is says you should try to uphold the tenants of your oath before that, they begin giving you access to your abilities at level 2.

As the DM you have to determine where a character's power comes from... if the character does something to upset that power, then warn them somehow in game. If they do it again... they can lose their powers, as they are no longer abiding by the in universe rules governing the granting of that power. This could be by questing for atonement(with or without powers). I hate the name of the oath-breaker archetype, because it rewards someone who breaks a sacred oath... breaking the bond that grants you power shouldn't enable you to be just as powerful. You may reward a paladin who breaks their oath and is corrupted that archetype, but it is still more of a NPC villain role than a PC role.

Something just came to mind... oaths taken on the oathrod (aka "binder") in Wheel of Time. The person who swore the oath was unable to break their oath, being bound to do so by the very power they were granted. If the magic granted to paladins isn't special by either being granted by a divine source, or a case of greater power to a cause, then they are not as interesting.