Are palidans always good? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

toapat

2017-01-25, 10:57 AM

Mikey P

2017-01-25, 10:57 AM

In previous editions, they were required to be LG (unless they went bad, and became Anti-Paladins)

In 5th Edition, they have no Alignment requirements whatsoever. You just need to follow the tenets of your Oath.

MasterMercury

2017-01-25, 10:58 AM

An Oath of Devotion could be evil. They are so consumed by bringing law and light to the world that they will kill anyone that threatens or seems to threaten that goal. Lawful Evilish.

However, don't be Lawful Stupid, where you just smite everything around you hat you don't like.

Oath of the Ancients Paladins could just be otherworldly, like fey. Their motives are seem strange, even hostile to average humans.

There's always the paladin UA that came out with 2 full-blown evil Oaths, of your DM allows it.

toapat

2017-01-25, 11:02 AM

An Oath of Devotion could be evil.

your missing the third through fifth tenants of devotion there.

Hitdice

2017-01-25, 11:04 AM

In earlier editions of D&D, Paladins were required to maintain a Lawful Good alignment, but in 5e the tenets of their sacred oath is more important than individual alignment. However, it is important to remember that all the evil/unholy sacred oaths we've seen are in DM approval territory.

JobsforFun

2017-01-25, 11:04 AM

the paladin oaths are respectively designed around a primary alignment, but you dont have to be hard to that alignment. This can go so far as to play a LE OotA paladin with careful enough decisionmaking, but you cant push Devotion so far somparatively without breaking it. Two of the oaths came out this month so you wont see alot of dissertation on them.

Devotion: Lawful Good
Ancients: Chaotic Good
Vengeance: Lawful Neutral Evil
Oathbreaker: Neutral Evil
Crown: Lawful Neutral Good
Conquest: Lawful Evil
Treachery: Chaotic Evil

UA Paladin Link (http://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UAPaladin_SO_20161219_1.pdf)

I saw the oath of conquest, the spells it gets are decent but it just seems odd for some reason.

Only reason I am really asking this question is because I don't mind playing a good aligned character it is just I somewhat prefer neutral or evil characters. Mainly because in my current group of friends everyone is always neutral or some form of good alignement and I think having one evil character can add some flavor to the group

BiPolar

2017-01-25, 11:05 AM

the paladin oaths are respectively designed around a primary alignment, but you dont have to be hard to that alignment. This can go so far as to play a LE OotA paladin with careful enough decisionmaking, but you cant push Devotion so far somparatively without breaking it. Two of the oaths came out this month so you wont see alot of dissertation on them.

Devotion: Lawful Good
Ancients: Chaotic Good
Vengeance: Lawful Neutral Evil
Oathbreaker: Neutral Evil
Crown: Lawful Neutral Good
Conquest: Lawful Evil
Treachery: Chaotic Evil

UA Paladin Link (http://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UAPaladin_SO_20161219_1.pdf)

There is definitely an implication for alignments based on Oath, but by no means are those required. It'll take some creativity to make a LE Devotion paladin, but you can do it.

Willie the Duck

2017-01-25, 11:06 AM

JobsforFun

2017-01-25, 11:11 AM

In this edition, there are no alignment restrictions on classes. There are flavor issues that imply that certain paladin oaths wouldn't make sense with a non-LG, non-good, or evil character. However, it is up to player and DM to adjudicate what alignments a given paladin can be (and what 'can' means in a given scenario).

I am tempted (Depending on the DM of course) to just play my character with what I'd do during certain cituations without breaking my oath and see how he fits in. I know there are not any alignment restructions on classes although it wouldn't make sense.

In the PHB it says Oath of Devotion Palidans protect the weak and to "punish who threaten them" but Lawful Evil you "may harm the innocent"

BiPolar

2017-01-25, 11:21 AM

I am tempted (Depending on the DM of course) to just play my character with what I'd do during certain cituations without breaking my oath and see how he fits in. I know there are not any alignment restructions on classes although it wouldn't make sense.

In the PHB it says Oath of Devotion Palidans protect the weak and to "punish who threaten them" but Lawful Evil you "may harm the innocent"

It depends on your definition of weak and your definition of Lawful Evil. Just because you "may harm the innocent" (where is this from?) doesn't mean that you will always harm the innocent. What you need to do is figure out how you want to play your character and have it fit in with the Oath itself. THat's the important bit. Aligning your alignment to that can then be done. The important thing about paladins is the oath and tenets, not alignment.

JobsforFun

2017-01-25, 11:27 AM

It depends on your definition of weak and your definition of Lawful Evil. Just because you "may harm the innocent" (where is this from?) doesn't mean that you will always harm the innocent. What you need to do is figure out how you want to play your character and have it fit in with the Oath itself. THat's the important bit. Aligning your alignment to that can then be done. The important thing about paladins is the oath and tenets, not alignment.

With alignemnts I read the PHB and also use this
http://www.easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html

BiPolar

2017-01-25, 11:34 AM

With alignemnts I read the PHB and also use this
http://www.easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html

Big fan of that site to help understand alignments :) But yes, for instance Magneto is ane xample of a LE character. He does protect the weak mutants who want to follow him. He doesn't protect all the weak, just his own. A paladin could do the same (as a specific example.)

I'd make your character based on the Oath requirements and then back into what alignment(s) match.

Millstone85

2017-01-25, 12:05 PM

With alignemnts I read the PHB and also use this
http://www.easydamus.com/lawfulevil.htmlBe prepared to be told this is a new edition and only the 5e PHB's take on alignments should matter for a 5e character.

But it is interesting how they tried to depict each alignment as seen by the others.

sees >
Good
Neutral
Evil

Good
Humane
Apathetic
Ruthless

Neutral
Idealistic
Realistic
Egoistic

Evil
Self-Righteous
Irresolute
Determined

sees >
Lawful
Neutral
Chaotic

Lawful
Honorable
Unreliable
Dishonorable

Neutral
Strict
Practical
Lax

Chaotic
Dogmatic
Conformist
Independent

Ruslan

2017-01-25, 12:34 PM

There is definitely an implication for alignments based on Oath, but by no means are those required. It'll take some creativity to make a LE Devotion paladin, but you can do it.Show me. How do you make a LE Paladin while dedicated to the ideal of Compassion. I'm curious. Oh, you also have to "Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm."

KorvinStarmast

2017-01-25, 12:42 PM

There's a nice breakdown on LE paladins here (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/65813/22566).

The 5e Paladin is centered around oath with alignment being a point between DM and player in how to make it work at the table.

Alignment is in a lot of ways "clunky" if you are trying to use it as a rule set for "if / then" situations. It's a better tool (particularly in the hand of the DM) for shaping the world's various social, moral and ethical themes as frameworks against which the story is told.

BiPolar

2017-01-25, 12:47 PM

Show me. How do you make a LE Paladin while dedicated to the ideal of Compassion. I'm curious. Oh, you also have to "Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm."

okay, let's say we've got Bob. He's Lawful Evil and a Paladin of Devotion. Lawful Evil, as described by the PHB is "methodically take what they want, within the limits of tradition, loyalty, or order."

Now, Bob is Devotion Paladin.

Honesty: Don't lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
Bob's Honesty: I have no need to lie or cheat. I will take what I want through strength.

Courage: Never feat to act, though caution is wise.
Bob's Courage: I have no fear, I will assess and enter anything that gives me what I want.

Compassion: Aid Others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with Wisdom.
Bob's Compassion: To protect the weak and punish my foes I will stop at nothing. If i do not have to kill to get what I want, I see no reason to kill as long as I do get what I want. In fact, I do not even see people as weak. Everyone's strength is within themselves to take what they want. Just because you don't recognize that strenght doesn't make you weak.

Duty: Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to our care, and obey those who have just authority over you.
Bob's Duty: I always am proud and take responsibility for what I do, because what i do gives me what I want. I will follow these tenets as they help me get what I want.

Ultimately, Bob is out for himself, but he does so within the structure of Devotion. He is devoted to himself and maybe to his god(although paladins aren't tied to a god, just to their Oath), and he sees the world through that lens.

A quick and dirty, but it can be done.

Also, see above post...I wasn't sure about linking to stackexchange but found the same :)

Ruslan

2017-01-25, 12:49 PM

Ultimately, Bob is out for himself, but he does so within the structure of Devotion.No, he really does not. What Bob did was just change the dictionary definition of words. "I am required to act with compassion? Okay, I'll just do <whatever> and call it compassion."

Specter

2017-01-25, 12:50 PM

Good? Definitely, otherwise your devotion oaths can't be fulfilled. Lawful? Not so much.

It only states about lawful behavior to 'not lie or cheat', and 'respect righteous authority'. Any neutral good character can do that.

BiPolar

2017-01-25, 12:56 PM

No, he really does not. What Bob did was just change the dictionary definition of words. "I am required to act with compassion? Okay, I'll just do <whatever> and call it compassion."

Did you see the bit about how he defines weakness? He is devoted to himself and doesn't see others as weak. You are stuck with your world-view. The delightful thing about our brains is how easy it is to legitimize our beliefs and rationalize them. As long as Bob believes he is acting in accordance with the tenets, he is.

Let's say Bob does have a god associated with him. And it's an evil god (or even a devil/demon.) He is going to view who is weak, how they are weak, who needs aid, etc. very differently. Figuring out a rationale that jives with Bob's alignment isn't hard (see the stackexchange link as well.)

The only specific description provided by the PHB for LE is what I quoted to start. Nothing about "methodically taking what I want within the limits of my tradition, order, etc." precludes him from those tenets IN THIS EDITION.

edit: I am playing a lot of Devil's Advocate here. I don't think it'd be easy to be LE Devotion Paladin, but it could work based on 5e description and use of alignment. If you wanted to e LE paladin, there are much better choices than Devotion.

JobsforFun

2017-01-25, 01:11 PM

Did you see the bit about how he defines weakness? He is devoted to himself and doesn't see others as weak. You are stuck with your world-view. The delightful thing about our brains is how easy it is to legitimize our beliefs and rationalize them. As long as Bob believes he is acting in accordance with the tenets, he is.

Let's say Bob does have a god associated with him. And it's an evil god (or even a devil/demon.) He is going to view who is weak, how they are weak, who needs aid, etc. very differently. Figuring out a rationale that jives with Bob's alignment isn't hard (see the stackexchange link as well.)

The only specific description provided by the PHB for LE is what I quoted to start. Nothing about "methodically taking what I want within the limits of my tradition, order, etc." precludes him from those tenets IN THIS EDITION.

edit: I am playing a lot of Devil's Advocate here. I don't think it'd be easy to be LE Devotion Paladin, but it could work based on 5e description and use of alignment. If you wanted to e LE paladin, there are much better choices than Devotion.

I was also looking at the Oath of Vengeance but I am somewhat confused on what the oath exactly wants its paladians to do.

BiPolar

2017-01-25, 01:15 PM

I was also looking at the Oath of Vengeance but I am somewhat confused on what the oath exactly wants its paladians to do.

I'm currently playing a LN Vengeance Paladin. Simplistically, vengeance paladins are Batman. They have something/someone that they are focused on and will do pretty much anything to get them, ignoring all else.

KorvinStarmast

2017-01-25, 01:23 PM

Also, see above post...I wasn't sure about linking to stackexchange but found the same :) One of the learned lessons at rpgse was to not deal with alignment only issues. It's a good idea, since as we see here (on GITP) that alignment conversations turn into crapfests. This is too bad, since alignment well applied by a DM can really make a rich game world.

Alignment was IMO a better tool when it was Law / Chaos / Neutrality as a meta concepts that informed how a campaign's "sides" were generally in opposition to each other, aligned with each other, or were open to either side in the meta conflict at the global level. Campaigns had meta levels of play that the current Heroic Fantasy model of D&D -- since about 2e -- don't have so much of.

This puts the paladin in a funny place.

The original high Charisma fighter sub class had significantly higher loyalty scores and a better chance of getting his followers and henchmen and troops to follow him, or her, either into battle or on into an epic quest. That worked pretty good in the Law versus Chaos system.

Things begin to get weird when GG tried to show the distinctions between the C/L axis and the L/E axis in a Dragon Mag (or was it Strategic Review?) article that was subsequently codified in 1e. It was an attempt to illustrate the overlap between the Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock systems of Law Versus Chaos meta conflicts, and the conventional "good versus evil" struggle (Manichaean?) that most people were familiar with. It unfortunately turned into (in part due to alignment based bonuses and penalties in that edition) a kind of hammer in the DM's hands. Later, in the hands of rules lawyers (both DM and Player) trying to play amateur philosopher, it's shortcomings as an incomplete moral system that tried to be a game mechanic was well exposed.

No wonder it's caused us all a lot of trouble over the years.

I admire the attempt in 5e to take the edge off of that imbedded problem. It's been a sore spot ever since the campaign element of the game faded in importance. Using the Oath as an extra-personal source of power -- sorta like the Warlocks pact in 5e, but different -- was IMO a great move since it allows a potential paladin player some choices rather than a single template. But you gotta stand for something. That's always been true for that class.

(Campaign model D&D ... when you get to "name" level you begin to build a strong hold, attract henchmen, raise an army, and possibly fight battles using Chainmail rules ... which is what got the whole thing started).

Millstone85

2017-01-25, 01:29 PM

As long as Bob believes he is acting in accordance with the tenets, he is.A possibly relevant quote from the DMG:
The power of a philosophy stems from the belief that mortals invest in it. A philosophy that only one person believes in isn't strong enough to bestow magical power on that person.If a paladin's oath is a form of divine magic, it must involve something in the planes recognising the character as worthy of empowerment. It could be a pantheon as opposed to a specific deity, it could be the very essence of one of the Outer Planes, it could be the impersonal spirit of an ideal, and/or it could be collective belief as suggested in the DMG.

So, if Bob were to approach the Oath of Devotion in such a manner, he might actually get his powers from the Oath of Tyranny or such.

Ruslan

2017-01-25, 01:32 PM

As long as Bob believes he is acting in accordance with the tenets, he is. That's crazy talk. Bob can believe whatever he wants, but if he does not act in accordance to his tenets, he would fall faster than a ton of bricks. Or faster than Miko (who by the way, also believed what she's doing was right)

(see the stackexchange link as well.)Goalpost shifting detected. That link was about Vengeance Paladins (who definitely can be evil).

So, if Bob were to approach the Oath of Devotion in such a manner, he might actually get his powers from the Oath of Tyranny or such.
Now, this is an option I could get behind! Very nice.

BiPolar

2017-01-25, 01:38 PM

That's crazy talk. Bob can believe whatever he wants, but if he does not act in accordance to his tenets, he would fall faster than a ton of bricks. Or faster than Miko (who by the way, also believed what she's doing was right)
Goalpost shifting detected. That link was about Vengeance Paladins (who definitely can be evil).

As I said, I'm not disagreeing that it would be immensely difficult to do, but with the way Alignment is treated in 5e (see Korvin's post) it does make it possible. He doesn't have to help everyone in need (it doesn't say Always Aid Others All The Time) he can do it when it's in his interest. And most of the time, it'll be his interest because he'll get stuff for it. The key I'm centering on in the LE description is "...within the traditions, loyalty, or order." The limits of the order are likely defined as his Oath of Devotion. He can work within that framework, but still be the LE dude that he is.

Again, it won't be easy, but because of the way Alignment is treated, it is possible.

BiPolar

2017-01-25, 01:39 PM

A possibly relevant quote from the DMG:If a paladin's oath is a form of divine magic, it must involve something in the planes recognising the character as worthy of empowerment. It could be a pantheon as opposed to a specific deity, it could be the very essence of one of the Outer Planes, it could be the impersonal spirit of an ideal, and/or it could be collective belief as suggested in the DMG.

So, if Bob were to approach the Oath of Devotion in such a manner, he might actually get his powers from the Oath of Tyranny or such.

Bob might not be alone here. There may be lots of people/paladins like Bob. Who worship the same god and have the same philosophy. I'm doing a lot of handwaving here to make this work, but that's kind of the point with the fast and loose alignment that 5e has.

Ruslan

2017-01-25, 01:47 PM

that's kind of the point with the fast and loose alignment that 5e has.You misunderstand. It's not at all about the rigidity of alignment. It's about the rigidity of the oath. The alignment is kinda wishy-washy, but the oath says specific things.

It says:
- Compassion
- Honor
- Duty
- Do the most good and the least harm

Those are specific words, with specific dictionary meanings. Unless you want to rewrite the dictionary, this is what a Oath of Devotion Paladin must do. You can't just do <another thing> and say "Oh, I call <this thing> compassion" or "I call <that thing> honor".

Bob might not be alone here. There may be lots of people/paladins like BobIf there were, there would be an Oath for them. Oh, wait, there is. It's called Oath of Conquest. Bob believes he's acting for the greater good. Bob believes in his own twisted form of 'mercy' and 'compassion'. Bob is a tyrant.

HaltTheSlayer

2017-01-25, 01:54 PM

I think if a paladin is good or evil that his powers should reflect his alignment which is why i kind of like the idea of Blackguards from previous additions. So if a paladin is good they use powers that are probably geared more towards protecting, healing, and smiting those who would harm the innocent. Quick note when i say "smiting those who would harm the innocent" that doesn't mean try to kill every monster that comes in your path without discrimination. I have heard many stories of such paladins and they give actually sensible paladins a bad name.

Anyway back on topic i also think if you are an evil paladin, your powers should be more geared towards striking fear in your enemies, making them weaker against your attacks and spreading evil across the land with your unholy power, which is why the Blackguards exist. To me blackguards are paladins, just more evil.

Now in the case of a neutral paladin i think they can go anyway they feel like, whether their Lawful or chaotic or just True Neutral.

Millstone85

2017-01-25, 01:59 PM

Now, this is an option I could get behind! Very nice.
Bob might not be alone here. There may be lots of people/paladins like Bob. Who worship the same god and have the same philosophy.
If there were, there would be an Oath for them. Oh, wait, there is. It's called Oath of Conquest. Bob believes he's acting for the greater good. Bob believes in his own twisted form of 'mercy' and 'compassion'. Bob is a tyrant.This is how I see cosmic good and evil from the point of view of populations who do not normally travel the Outer Planes. They are still left to debate who among Tyr, Tempus and Bane has got it right.

BiPolar

2017-01-25, 02:01 PM

You misunderstand. It's not at all about the rigidity of alignment. It's about the rigidity of the oath. The alignment is kinda wishy-washy, but the oath says specific things.

It says:
- Compassion
- Honor
- Duty
- Do the most good and the least harm

Those are specific words, with specific dictionary meanings. Unless you want to rewrite the dictionary, this is what a Oath of Devotion Paladin must do. You can't just do <another thing> and say "Oh, I call <this thing> compassion" or "I call <that thing> honor".
If there were, there would be an Oath for them. Oh, wait, there is. It's called Oath of Conquest. Bob believes he's acting for the greater good. Bob believes in his own twisted form of 'mercy' and 'compassion'. Bob is a tyrant.

Very true. And I'm definitely having a hard time trying to make this work for it, but because it doesn't say "You can't be evil", it's hard for me to put that in there myself. The last bit is under Honor, and "as much as good as possible for your God" could be good inserted to make it more LE bent.

I do think we're getting away from OP, but it's an interesting discussion. I guess I'm trying to find a way for a self-centered jerk to be a Devotion Paladin. As long as they can see that by helping, they're benefitting then it can work? The LE goal is to take what they want within the limits defined. The limits are defined in the Oath of Devotion, so why can't it work?

They're much more limited in their "evil" actions, but they can still be helping with the end goal of getting what they want.

I'm clearly grasping at straws here, but again without the PHB saying you can't be an Evil Paladin of devotion (just like you can also be a LG necromancer in 5e), it seems unfair to blanket statement "NO"

Tanarii

2017-01-25, 02:56 PM

Very true. And I'm definitely having a hard time trying to make this work for it, but because it doesn't say "You can't be evil", it's hard for me to put that in there myself.No. It just says directly in the fluff part that they are paragons of law and good etc etc (paraphrased). But it doesn't say they can't be evil.

Seriously though, because of the oath strictures, any Devotion Paladin is either going to start lawful good, fail to uphold his Oath, or eventually change to being lawful good because he's constantly exhibiting typical behavior of someone that's lawful good. Similarly a Ancients Paladin is either going to start Good, fail at his Oath, or change to Good eventually because that's his behavior.

Even if it's not his professed belief or even internal thoughts in-game, it's what his attitude & typical behavior actually are. He might be constantly wanting to wreck **** and beat down the poor & weak inside, but that's not his actual behavior, because Oath. So the player should be writing on their character sheet should be written as = lawful good (devotion) or any good (Ancients), because that's what the character player is actually choosing to use as the alignment typical behavior to make in-character decisions.

(This is what I mean when I say alignments are objective and a player tool. They aren't a simulation of what the character is in-game. They are the tool the player uses to make in-character decisions, abstract & seperate from the actual reasons the character makes them or what the character's thinking is. Alignment is a meta-tool that should match at the player-thinking level, and when filtered through that player-thinking along with other personality traits, produce results at the character-acting level, not at the character-thinking level.)

JobsforFun

2017-01-25, 03:02 PM

Very true. And I'm definitely having a hard time trying to make this work for it, but because it doesn't say "You can't be evil", it's hard for me to put that in there myself. The last bit is under Honor, and "as much as good as possible for your God" could be good inserted to make it more LE bent.

I do think we're getting away from OP, but it's an interesting discussion. I guess I'm trying to find a way for a self-centered jerk to be a Devotion Paladin. As long as they can see that by helping, they're benefitting then it can work? The LE goal is to take what they want within the limits defined. The limits are defined in the Oath of Devotion, so why can't it work?

They're much more limited in their "evil" actions, but they can still be helping with the end goal of getting what they want.

I'm clearly grasping at straws here, but again without the PHB saying you can't be an Evil Paladin of devotion (just like you can also be a LG necromancer in 5e), it seems unfair to blanket statement "NO"

It can work but it'd be harder obviously because being evil is so much more fun than being good ;). Again, with the oath of vengeance those paladins would more than likely want to focus on the main villian or even the person who killed their parents for example?

I am mainly looking at the abilities each oath gets and the ones that stand out to me personally are Devotion, Conquest, Treachery, and the anti-palidan abilities seem interesting but I somewhat rather be a palidan and not a form of anti-palidan.

(I'd imagine Conquest is basically text book definition of LE)

BiPolar

2017-01-25, 03:10 PM

No. It just says directly in the fluff part that they are paragons of law and good etc etc (paraphrased). But it doesn't say they can't be evil.

Seriously though, because of the oath strictures, any Devotion Paladin is either going to start lawful good, fail to uphold his Oath, or eventually change to being lawful good because he's constantly exhibiting typical behavior of someone that's lawful good. Similarly a Ancients Paladin is either going to start Good, fail at his Oath, or change to Good eventually because that's his behavior.

Even if it's not his professed belief or even internal thoughts in-game, it's what his attitude & typical behavior actually are. He might be constantly wanting to wreck **** and beat down the poor & weak inside, but that's not his actual behavior, because Oath. So the player should be writing on their character sheet should be written as = lawful good (devotion) or any good (Ancients), because that's what the character player is actually choosing to use as the alignment typical behavior to make in-character decisions.

(This is what I mean when I say alignments are objective and a player tool. They aren't a simulation of what the character is in-game. They are the tool the player uses to make in-character decisions, abstract & seperate from the actual reasons the character makes them or what the character's thinking is. Alignment is a meta-tool that should match at the player-thinking level, and when filtered through that player-thinking along with other personality traits, produce results at the character-acting level, not at the character-thinking level.)

OK, OK. I give up :)

But anwyho, that's why it's better to come up with type of paladin you want to be and how you'll play them first :)

jas61292

2017-01-25, 03:18 PM

I think people are getting too caught up in trying to twist the oath itself towards evil, rather than creating an evil character that follows the oath. Doing some good things does not necessarily make you good.

Perhaps you are a member of some order for whom the path of devotion is their code. Yes, you will do a lot of good things. But, maybe you are only a member of this order because of the glory and rewards you get as a member. Maybe your ultimate goal is to rise up the ranks of the order, so that you can boss others around and Lord over them, and reap all the benefits of being in a position of power and adoration. Being a good guy is simply a means to an end, not something you actually care about. In any situation the oath does not cover you could be an absolutely terrible person, but if it ever does come into play, you play the nice guy, simply to further your long term selfish ends.

You will often see discussion about good characters doing evil things for the greater good. There is only so far you can go without being evil yourself, but it certainly is possible. This character would be the opposite. An evil guy doing good for the greater (or at least longer term) evil.

JobsforFun

2017-01-25, 03:22 PM

Tanarii

2017-01-25, 03:28 PM

OK, OK. I give up :) Hahaha that's exactly the reaction I had after trying (and failing) to find a reasonable way to make it work, within the context of what 5e alignments mean.

Ruslan

2017-01-25, 03:29 PM

I think people are getting too caught up in trying to twist the oath itself towards evil, rather than creating an evil character that follows the oath. Doing some good things does not necessarily make you good.

It's a nice twist, but, again, I don't see it. The oath does not say "you do some good things", it says you are dedicated to the ideals of Duty, Honor, and Compassion. Dedicated to them. Not just do them once in a while.

JobsforFun

2017-01-25, 03:33 PM

It's a nice twist, but, again, I don't see it. The oath does not say "you do some good things", it says you are dedicated to the ideals of Duty, Honor, and Compassion. Dedicated to them. Not just do them once in a while.

Well Lawful Evil and Lawful Good are not that much different besides that obvious GOOD and EVIL tags. Lawful Evil has some Honor and both alignments you're not supposed to lie it could work.

Ruslan

2017-01-25, 03:36 PM

Well Lawful Evil and Lawful Good are not that much different besides that obvious GOOD and EVIL tags. Lawful Evil has some Honor and both alignments you're not supposed to lie it could work.Well, if you see Evil being dedicated to the ideal of Compassion, sure, go for it.

BiPolar

2017-01-25, 03:45 PM

Out of curiosity, what's the backstory of the Paladin you're trying to build? Why does it need to be LE?

jas61292

2017-01-25, 03:49 PM

It's a nice twist, but, again, I don't see it. The oath does not say "you do some good things", it says you are dedicated to the ideals of Duty, Honor, and Compassion. Dedicated to them. Not just do them once in a while.

But this character is dedicated to them. Just not necessarily because he thinks they are good things in thier own right. Duty and honor are most certainly not traits specific to good people. And while compassion definitely leans more that way, that doesn't mean he can't be dedicated towards it anyways. He is dedicated because it is an important and necessary part of his long term goals.

Millstone85

2017-01-25, 03:55 PM

This is what I mean when I say alignments are objective and a player tool. They aren't a simulation of what the character is in-game. They are the tool the player uses to make in-character decisions, abstract & seperate from the actual reasons the character makes them or what the character's thinking is. Alignment is a meta-tool that should match at the player-thinking level, and when filtered through that player-thinking along with other personality traits, produce results at the character-acting level, not at the character-thinking level.Or as I like to put it, it is the player's judgment of their character's morality and relationship to society, as they want to play them. It can be distinct from the character's own self-appraisal, or from what NPCs think of the character.

Where this somewhat falls apart is when the DM introduces celestial NPCs, or a magic item that requires a specific alignment, or some other thing that brings that "meta-tool" fully into the narrative. Now you have the DM saying "Well, you might have written CG on your sheet, but I see your character as LN, so now this happens".

And a problem with the paladin class is that it has that turn of events practically built into it.

hamishspence

2017-01-25, 04:00 PM

But this character is dedicated to them. Just not necessarily because he thinks they are good things in thier own right. Duty and honor are most certainly not traits specific to good people. And while compassion definitely leans more that way, that doesn't mean he can't be dedicated towards it anyways. He is dedicated because it is an important and necessary part of his long term goals.

Character also might have a "compassion only for those that deserve compassion" attitude - compassionate behaviour to "ordinary" NPCs - out-and-out cruelty toward villains.

Yagyujubei

2017-01-25, 04:20 PM

yes. paladins are always good. always have one in your party because they kick ass. alignment-wise a paladin can be whatever you want it to be in 5e, you just have to RP in a way that kinda coincides with the tenants of the oath you choose...well you dont have to, but its no fun if you dont

Ruslan

2017-01-25, 04:31 PM

Character also might have a "compassion only for those that deserve compassion" attitude - compassionate behaviour to "ordinary" NPCs - out-and-out cruelty toward villains.
Sure, if you wantonly and deliberately choose not to read the Tenets of Devotion, you could misinterpret them that way.

hamishspence

2017-01-25, 04:35 PM

It's not that implausible for a character to believe that this is how compassion should work, and think their "devotion to compassion" is sufficient if it's for "everyone but villains".

Ruslan

2017-01-25, 04:38 PM

It's not that implausible for a character to believe that this is how compassion should work, and think their "devotion to compassion" is sufficient if it's for "everyone but villains".
We're doing BiPolar round 2, I see. I will pass. This was already covered. If your character doesn't want to neither READ nor FOLLOW the tenets of his oath, that's fine. I'm not your DM, so don't seek approval from me.

hamishspence

2017-01-25, 04:46 PM

It's not a case of "reinterpreting the meaning" of the word compassion - but of "it doesn't apply to everybody the paladin deals with"

In older editions, paladins were all about treating "the innocent" very very well - risking their lives to protect them, and so forth. "The guilty" on the other hand, not so much.

Similar logic could apply to the 5e paladin.

It might conflict a little with "Show mercy to your foes but temper it with wisdom",

but they might say "I am being merciful - my Evil foes deserve vastly more cruelty than I am actually dishing out".

The "temper it with wisdom" could become "show vastly more mercy to Neutral foes than Evil foes".

JackPhoenix

2017-01-25, 04:51 PM

LE Devotion paladin isn't that hard.

LE characters methodically take what they want, within the limits of tradition, loyalty, or order.

Tenets of Devotion

Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.

Honesty: Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
Courage: Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
Compassion: Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.
Honor: Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.
Duty: Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.

So, LE characters take what they want: first, what does the character want? Maybe he wants to become the head of his order, well, there's nothing in the tenets that prevents that. Maybe it means leaving his superior to die in battle to take his place, or he may work to overthrow a weak or evil ruler to take his place for the greater good (and actually means it, even though his primary motivation is becoming a king himself). Perhaps he wants wealth... again, nothing in the tenets against it... if the laws permit him to take the possesions of executed criminals or monsters, he may attack "evil" humanoids to take their stuff, or execute caught criminals... swift and painless death may be a mercy, depending on the other possible punishments. If he wants fame, well, he does what any other paladin would, though his motivation isn't actually helping others, but letting the world know he's doing that and praise him for it.

I could also see the mercy as offering his foes a chance to surrender, but only once: if they ignore the offer and attack you, they don't deserve any mercy and it is wiser to do whatever it takes to neutralise them. Or the foe is pure evil: if a lich or a demon pleads for it's (un)life when you've beaten it, only a naive fool would agree and let it go. Fiends don't know mercy and don't deserve any.

jas61292

2017-01-25, 04:55 PM

We're doing BiPolar round 2, I see. I will pass. This was already covered. If your character doesn't want to neither READ nor FOLLOW the tenets of his oath, that's fine. I'm not your DM, so don't seek approval from me.

I don't think this point of view contradicts the oath. It says: "Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom." You are only required to protect those who are weak, and you are explicitly required to punish people as part of the oath. If we assume villains are those who are threatening the weak, then punishing them is an integral part of the oath. Compassion as a word by itself may have no qualifiers, but the tenet itself is specific in who you are helping, and it is not the bad guys.

The second sentence is actually where it gets a bit tricky. What exactly does it mean to show mercy to your foes? Some might see that as sparing their lives when possible and giving them a chance to redeem themselves. Others might view it completely differently. You could very easily believe that those who do certain kinds of evil deserve death, no questions asked. For such a character, mercy could be exemplified in a belief that making anyone suffer is wrong, and as such, the death of these evildoers should be made as quick and painless as possible.

And then there is the part about tempering mercy with wisdom, which is basically saying that, yeah, while this is something you should do, you should not do it at the expense of your other oaths. This essentially opens you up to forgoing mercy in certain situations, or at least mercy to its fullest extent.

Ruslan

2017-01-25, 05:07 PM

Guys, just stop. This is getting embarrassing. What you're describing in a classic Paladin of Vengeance, and for some reason insist to file the serial numbers off and call him Paladin of Devotion.

Sigreid

2017-01-25, 05:10 PM

Simple answer is not any more, but they have to follow their oath, and some oaths play into certain alignments more easily than others.

hamishspence

2017-01-25, 05:14 PM

Guys, just stop. This is getting embarrassing. What you're describing in a classic Paladin of Vengeance, and for some reason insist to file the serial numbers off and call him Paladin of Devotion.

Sure, they'd be better suited to that role - but for some reason they swore the other oath (perhaps there was only one Order in their home town) - so, their personality and their oath end up combining and interacting in an unusual way.

Ruslan

2017-01-25, 05:18 PM

And they end up falling and adopting the path of Vengeance instead, because their god is not a fool and will not fall for "I have to do X? That's okay, I'll just do Y and call it X! Or do X, but only when I choose to, and when I choose not to do X, I'll just do Y".

The second sentence is actually where it gets a bit tricky. What exactly does it mean to show mercy to your foes? Some might see that as sparing their lives when possible and giving them a chance to redeem themselves. Others might view it completely differently. You could very easily believe that those who do certain kinds of evil deserve death, no questions asked. For such a character, mercy could be exemplified in a belief that making anyone suffer is wrong, and as such, the death of these evildoers should be made as quick and painless as possible.
That's not evil though. You tried to prove it's possible to maintain the tenets of Devotion WHILE BEING EVIL, remember? You're still not there. "Believing that some deserve death" is not evil by itself. Good PCs kill enemies all the time.

It's actually kind of amusing. You pull a little bit too far to one side - you break the tenets of Devotion. You pull a bit too far to the other side - oops, you're no longer evil. :smallsmile:

jas61292

2017-01-25, 05:19 PM

Guys, just stop. This is getting embarrassing. What you're describing in a classic Paladin of Vengeance, and for some reason insist to file the serial numbers off and call him Paladin of Devotion.

That is simply not true. This kind of character doesn't need to have any interest in the vengeance oaths. In fact, I can outright reject all of them, like this, for example:

Fight the Greater Evil: Evil is evil. Who am I to judge if it is greater or lesser? I work first towards the goals that are most easily achievable, not the ones that are necessarily most important.

No Mercy for the Wicked: Well, we literally have just been talking about how I do have mercy, even for the wicked. So, this one is pretty simple. My oath of devotion is in fact the opposite of the oath of vengeance in this regard.

By Any Means Necessary: Once again, directly contrary to the oath I am actually upholding. I don't lie, I don't subvert the authority over me, and I don't take the cowards way out, even if it is the most effective way of doing things.

Restitution: If bad people do bad things, that is on them, not me. I work to stop it, sure, but I don't hold this vengeance oath notion that it is somehow my fault for failing to stop them. Once I stop a bad person, I go looking for other bad people to stop. I don't take time to fix what they did wrong. Yes, I have compassion for those who are harmed, but my duties require that I help them by stopping the evil doer. Not rebuilding the house that he burnt down. The money I take off the bad guy can go towards that cause, but I'm not going to be a part of it myself.

Honestly, if anything this character is the opposite of a vengeance paladin. Just because the oath of vengeance can represent the classic rule-breaking but dedicated anti-hero does not mean that every paladin who is not an obvious good guy fits within its scope.

hamishspence

2017-01-25, 05:21 PM

I thought Falling was extremely difficult in 5e, since like in 4e, gods have less control over paladin status?

JackPhoenix

2017-01-25, 05:26 PM

I thought Falling was extremely difficult in 5e, since like in 4e, gods have less control over paladin status?

Falling has nothing to do with gods, but deliberately and knowingly failing to follow the tenets of your oath. Vengeance paladin who shows mercy to his sworn foe falls just like a devotion paladin going on a (not mind-controlled) murder spree.

Ruslan

2017-01-25, 05:30 PM

I thought Falling was extremely difficult in 5e, since like in 4e, gods have less control over paladin status?
Other than the fact the Paladin casts Divine spells, and has class features named Divine Sense, Divine Smite, and Channel Divinity? Not much :smallwink:

On a more serious note, falling is as easy (or as difficult) as violating the tenets of your oath. If the DM believes your character does not follow the tenets, it is his right (duty, in fact) to have your Paladin either fall, or enforce an oath switch. Fluff can be tailored to fit.

jas61292

2017-01-25, 05:36 PM

Other than the fact the Paladin casts Divine spells, and has class features named Divine Sense, Divine Smite, and Channel Divinity? Not much :smallwink:

While Divine Sense, Divine Smite and Channel Divinity are totally a thing, the paladin does not cast Divine Spells any more than a Wizard. The idea of Arcane vs Divine spells is something from old editions which has no basis in the rules of 5e. Spells are just spells. If you want to keep the classic fluff of arcane and divine, that's cool. In my world, I have completely different fluff, where paladin spells are most similar to sorcerer spells, rather than cleric. But regardless of how you fluff it, categorization of spells like this is not actually a part of this edition.

That said... yeah, there totally is a divine leaning to this class.

Millstone85

2017-01-25, 05:57 PM

I thought Falling was extremely difficult in 5e, since like in 4e, gods have less control over paladin status?4e and 5e have two very different conceptions of what a paladin is.

The 4e paladin is a deity's champion and must simply reconcile their alignment with that of their deity (exact same alignment). Failing to do so, or otherwise angering the deity, doesn't make the paladin's powers disappear, but more faithful paladins will be sent after them.

The 5e paladin is sworn to a sacred oath. It is possible the oath was sworn to a deity, or to the fey and the spirits of nature, or on the grave of a loved one, or before the king and the queen, or something else. Failing to stay true to the oath is implied to result in a loss or change of powers.

While Divine Sense, Divine Smite and Channel Divinity are totally a thing, the paladin does not cast Divine Spells any more than a Wizard. The idea of Arcane vs Divine spells is something from old editions which has no basis in the rules of 5e. Spells are just spells.While that's true in the sense that, for example, hold person is both a cleric and a wizard spell, the distinction between arcane and divine magic is a thing that is defined in the 5e PHB.
The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding--learned or intuitive--of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect. Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic. The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters' access to the Weave is mediated by divine power--gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin's oath.

Addaran

2017-01-25, 06:01 PM

You misunderstand. It's not at all about the rigidity of alignment. It's about the rigidity of the oath. The alignment is kinda wishy-washy, but the oath says specific things.

It says:
- Compassion
- Honor
- Duty
- Do the most good and the least harm

It's almost do-able, if you cross the last part about least harm and depending on your view about about intent vs action. Someone that's evil because he enjoys the rush of killing people. But he lives in a super lawful place and understands that killers usually have lots of obstacles in life. So instead, he joins an order of paladin and do the "right thing" always, because he knows he'll face enemies he can kill. In the end, he always act with compassion (with the innocents obviously, but even his enemy, by killing them quickly), honor (easy to do) and follow his duty. Because not doing so would remove his licence to kill (the bad guys). And in the end, he'll have done the most good, since he's only removed evil doers and irredeemable evils. But that depends if the gods and higher powers put more importance in the intent (killing stuff) or the result (him acting like a paladin and doing good).

Or someone evil because he only care about himself and what he wants. Turns out what he wants his a girl he fell in love with. The girl is very LG and got a paladin-fetish, so the only way to actually win her love, is becoming a paladin. So he acts LG but just to stay in the girl's bed/heart. If she dies a few years later, he'll stop being a paladin, cause he's lost his motivation. And if the next girl he fall for is a priestess of Lolth, he'll start acting like a blackguard. In that story, the Oath is respected (at least until years later) but the character is evil cause he's only after he wants, which have nothing to do with good.

You could also have a case where the person is evil but too scared of the stick. In a religion like Christianity, good = paradise and evil = hell. I'm sure some acts good, perfect LG behavior, just because they want brownie points with God and end up in paradise. And if hypothetically God (or his representative: the priests) gives him an hall-pass, but with promise he'll still go to paradise, in that case he'd do evil stuff he always wanted to do.

I thought Falling was extremely difficult in 5e, since like in 4e, gods have less control over paladin status?

Falling is extremely difficult in 5e because it's an out-game decision by the devs. There's no hard rules for falling, even if you forsake your Oaths, they are optional rules. Because most players didn't like the possibility to lose their abilities or didn't like to be told how to play.

In-game, it should be as easy as before to fall for paladins, clerics and the likes.

Tanarii

2017-01-25, 06:03 PM

It's actually kind of amusing. You pull a little bit too far to one side - you break the tenets of Devotion. You pull a bit too far to the other side - oops, you're no longer evil. :smallsmile:That's what I ran across trying to do this mental exercise.

It might be possible to run a Lawful Neutral paladin. From an in-character perspective for the character's behavior, he might be Compassionate "aid others & protect the weak" only because of his Oath, so that's "Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes." It doesn't necessarily hold up to a player meta-perspective of the character of course, because acting compassionately in a continuous fashion will rapidly start to look like the behavior "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society". So it depends on how exactly you view Alignment.

As far as Evil characters who are compassionate towards the weak and helpless ... Raistlin. However, he most definitely did not aid others as a general rule.

Edit:

The idea of Arcane vs Divine spells is something from old editions which has no basis in the rules of 5e. Spells are just spells.
That's not correct. Spells are Arcane vs Divine. Chapter 10 Sidebar "The Weave of Magic"
All magic depends on the Weave, though different kinds of magic access it in a variety of ways. The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding—learned or intuitive—of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect. Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic. The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters’ access to the Weave is mediated by divine power—gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin’s oath

lol Ninja'd

Sigreid

2017-01-25, 06:05 PM

Well, if you see Evil being dedicated to the ideal of Compassion, sure, go for it.

Someone who believes in mercy killings?

Millstone85

2017-01-25, 06:19 PM

Someone who believes in mercy killings?If you see that as evil, then maybe.

Sigreid

2017-01-25, 06:21 PM

If you see that as evil, then maybe.

I think the core of that is who considers it a mercy. If the paladin is deciding for himself when it's a mercy killing, yeah, that could easily be evil.

Millstone85

2017-01-25, 06:24 PM

I think the core of that is who considers it a mercy. If the paladin is deciding for himself when it's a mercy killing, yeah, that could easily be evil.But then would you, the player, consider your character to be compassionate? And would you want a holy power to sanction them as such?

toapat

2017-01-25, 06:28 PM

Someone who believes in mercy killings?

Paladins cant believe in Mercy killings if they can get a long rest before the person dies or still have LoH available

Sigreid

2017-01-25, 06:28 PM

But then would you, the player, consider your character to be compassionate? And would you want a holy power to sanction them as such?

Irrelevant. The paladins draw their power from their oath and not a divine power. The question is does the paladin believe he is being compassionate. And there have been real life cases of people killing others because they couldn't stand to watch their suffering continue. Personally I don't think that a mercy killing is right unless the killed is on board but I can't argue that the act was done from a place of misguided compassion.

Sigreid

2017-01-25, 06:30 PM

Paladins cant believe in Mercy killings if they can get a long rest before the person dies or still have LoH available

Curses, amputees, mental deficient to a severe degree. I'm not saying I think these people should be killed, but some might.

toapat

2017-01-25, 06:33 PM

Curses, amputees, mental deficient to a severe degree. I'm not saying I think these people should be killed, but some might.

If it wont kill them in 4/8 hours, Devotion, Ancients, and Crown dont get to make that call

Millstone85

2017-01-25, 06:33 PM

Irrelevant. The paladins draw their power from their oath and not a divine power.I have already expressed my position on that, with quotes from the PHB and DMG. The sacred oath is a divine power, and it is not one the paladin can will into existence all by themselves.

Tanarii

2017-01-25, 06:35 PM

I have already expressed my position on that, with quotes from the PHB and DMG. The sacred oath is a divine power, and it is not one the paladin can will into existence all by themselves.
Quotes from the PHB back him up on not coming from a divine power. A Paladins spells can come from "the sacred weight of a paladin’s oath" ... they don't need to come from a divine power. (ie a specific divine being.)

Edit: that said, nothing backs up his assertion that it's merely the Paladin's belief that he is obeying the Oath that is sufficient. The implications are that the Oath is an objective thing. The Paladin must actually obey it, they can't just believe they are.

(In fact, believing you're doing something 'Good' and actually not doing something 'Good' is a classic way for paladin-esque narrative characters to fall from grace.)

Sigreid

2017-01-25, 06:37 PM

I have already expressed my position on that, with quotes from the PHB and DMG. The sacred oath is a divine power, and it is not one the paladin can will into existence all by themselves.

Meh, that's really a table thing anyway. In general I think the oaths certainly drive paladins to be good in the iconic hero sense. But if someone wants to rationalize an evil one, I'll play the game for fun.

toapat

2017-01-25, 06:44 PM

Edit: that said, nothing backs up his assertion that it's merely the Paladin's belief that he is obeying the Oath that is sufficient. The implications are that the Oath is an objective thing. The Paladin must actually obey it, they can't just believe they are.

i think oathbreaker is where its defined best, the Oath is a literal cosmic contract that the paladin's powers are defined by

Millstone85

2017-01-25, 06:49 PM

Quotes from the PHB back him up on not coming from a divine power. A Paladins spells can come from "the sacred weight of a paladin’s oath" ... they don't need to come from a divine power. (ie a specific divine being.)i.e. schm-i.e.

The concept of divine power in 5e is larger than that. In fact, the cleric is the only divine spellcaster that is expected to serve a specific deity. So again, "the sacred weight of a paladin’s oath" is a divine power.

that said, nothing backs up his assertion that it's merely the Paladin's belief that he is obeying the Oath that is sufficient. The implications are that the Oath is an objective thing. The Paladin must actually obey it, they can't just believe they are.Exactly.

Edit: Repeating the PHB quote for emphasis.
These spellcasters' access to the Weave is mediated by divine power--gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin's oath.

Vogonjeltz

2017-01-25, 07:09 PM

I have personally never palyed a paladian and never really had one in any of my groups but from what I read the only oaths that would be somewhat more evil/neutral would be the oath of Vengence and oath breaker (obviously).

I wanted to try a Palidan with Oath of Devotion but my question is are palidans with this oath always good (manily Lawful Good)?

(I know most people hate threads that have to do with alignment but I have never played a Palidan and the next campaign I play I want to try one)

Paladins aren't required to be good, but traditionally they would be Lawful Good.

And, although alignment isn't a delineated requirement, it's pretty much impossible to play a Chaotic anything Paladin because they literally have sworn to live their life by an oath, a code of conduct. That pretty much rules out anything but Lawful X because when push comes to shove if they don't choose the oath, they lose their paladinhood. (PHB 86)

The question of morality is different, there's no particular reason you can't be a Lawful Evil Paladin of Devotion or Vengeance, but I would imagine anyone who is Lawful Evil would tend to self-select away from becoming a Paladin, and instead just being a Knight or whatever.

Oath of the Ancients in particular pretty much has to be Good because of the actual requirement to do good (PHB 86-87), which is curiously lacking from the tenets of the oaths for Devotion (PHB 86), Vengeance (PHB 88), and the Crown (SCAG).

As a particular case study, although Devotion allegedly emphasizes the white knight and such virtues, the actual tenets could easily be fulfilled by a Lawful Evil character.
Vengeances emphasis on ignoring minor evils to deal with bigger ones is the picture of a compromised anti-hero, something like the Punisher. Yes, they want to fight evil, but they're not good.

So, do they have to be always Lawful Good? No, but it raises the question that if you weren't, why would you seek to become a Paladin in the first place? The class really does self-select for characters who want to fulfill the role.

The concept is so antithetical to the class that it'd be like a Druid or Ranger who doesn't care for the great outdoors or a Wizard who doesn't like reading.

toapat

2017-01-25, 07:22 PM

Paladins aren't required to be good, but traditionally they would be Lawful Good.

we already dealt with this by Mid page 2: your opinion doesnt actually matter and where you start doesnt really matter. if you are Following the oath properly, your alignment will become the respective "base" alignment for any Non-Oathbreaker/Treachery paladin. Theres just parts you cant get away from from each.

So:
Devotion: LG
Ancients: CG
Vengeance: LA (likely towards evil)
Crown: LG-LN
Conquest: LE

Ruslan

2017-01-25, 07:25 PM

While Divine Sense, Divine Smite and Channel Divinity are totally a thing, the paladin does not cast Divine Spells any more than a Wizard.
Sigh. Read the blessed PHB before making such embarrassing statements.

By 2nd level, you have learned to draw on divine magic

The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic.

Millstone85

2017-01-25, 07:30 PM

Ancients: CGI would say NG. It is the oath that "emphasizes the principles of good above any concerns of law or chaos".

Tanarii

2017-01-25, 07:37 PM

Ancients: CG
Vengeance: LA (likely towards evil)Those are wrong.

For Ancients, if you're really Chaotic, you will constantly be tempted to break your oath. Any time there is a conflict between an Oath and something you think you need to do by your conscience.
Far more importantly, the description specifically says it holds good above concerns of law or chaos. In other words, it can work for any from LG to CG, but NG is the assumed basis for the Oath.

Vengeance specifically calls out that they're most commonly LN or N (ie true neutral).

toapat

2017-01-25, 08:02 PM

I would say NG. It is the oath that "emphasizes the principles of good above any concerns of law or chaos".

Those are wrong.

For Ancients, if you're really Chaotic, you will constantly be tempted to break your oath. Any time there is a conflict between an Oath and something you think you need to do by your conscience.
Far more importantly, the description specifically says it holds good above concerns of law or chaos. In other words, it can work for any from LG to CG, but NG is the assumed basis for the Oath.

Vengeance specifically calls out that they're most commonly LN or N (ie true neutral).

youre both actually using a much more severe definition of Chaotic than DnD defines. even with the oath being some external contract, that doesnt mean the paladin actually knows the oath is something not their own. The only oath with a Hardline bend to its alignment where you wont be fine one step away with tenants is Conquest, but lets review OotA since you seem to be missing that its supposed to be CG.

"Kindle the Light" Be a good person
"Shelter the Light" Protect Good, Beauty, Love, and Laughter. OotA doesnt just protect People, it protects Art, culture, and the will to create.
"Preserve your own Light": Take part in the culture you protect and create.
"Be the Light" Be a glorious beacon of hope.

to compare: LG vs NG vs CG:

LG: Do right by Society
NG: Do your best to do right as according to the needs of the person.
CG: Do right because it feels right.

LG doesnt work with Shelter + Protect, NG doesnt work with Be and Shelter. but CG works for all 4 tenants when pulling them straight from the PHB.

Also: LA meant Lawful Any

Tanarii

2017-01-25, 09:27 PM

youre both actually using a much more severe definition of Chaotic than DnD defines.

(Snip)

CG: Do right because it feels right.No I'm not. I'm using the 5e Alignment. Which you are not. And Chaotic Good says you will do as you conscience directs. So if you conscience ever comes into conflict with your oath, one has to give way. Eventually your alignment will shift, or you will break you oath.

That's as said, the oath tenets are one that a chaotic good character shouldn't run into conflicts with their conscience very often.

But the relevant part is the Oath description itself literally tells you the oath is about good, without regard to chaos or law. That means the default baseline is NG. Not CG. That doesn't mean you have to be NG. Just that it's the baseline. It literally says so. I'm not using literally incorrectly either, it literally says so.

Also: LA meant Lawful AnyAnd again, the Vegeance oath literally says that it's baseline is LN or N. Not Lawful (any).

toapat

2017-01-26, 02:15 AM

*snip*

1: Oaths need to be Adhered to but they arent Binary states like in 3.5. an Ancients paladin can decide to goto sleep without being a Hedonist for the night because they are in the kind of bad mood where talking to people would just make them angrier, and they are supposed to make up for that later.

2: the Oath's Tenants are much more relevant to determining alignment than the world/player guideline. OotA is NG and will if it eventually happens (but how many Nazi Germany's happen in DnD) push you into CG. Vengeance's 4th Tenant of Restitution should technically keep the oath at LG/LN but actually fails to define what it means to help people wronged by your Enmity.

Arkhios

2017-01-26, 02:33 AM

*sigh* Yet again a discussion derailed into an argument whether or not it's plausible to twist meanings behind words so that players can get their mechanical satisfaction and play whatever they want to, disregarding the actual meaning of written text.

Ever thought of what that tells about you, as a person? Wanting to get an inherently lawful good oath's class mechanics, and doing anything to get it, despite the act itself being against the intended direction. It's make believe that it works, while truly, honestly, it's a fraud.

To me, the person who's trying to twist the meaning behind words has very twisted world view as a whole.

The fact that you believe something is OK doesn't make it so.

PS. Tenets. Not Tenants. Tenants are people. Tenets are ideals.

Logosloki

2017-01-26, 05:52 AM

Paladins are not always good, sometimes they are neutral. Generally they are lawful, but in this edition it looks like they can be neutral on that axis as well. I'd ask a players motivations if they were starting with a XE or CX Paladin. I can see plenty of good stories that can come from the conflict between someone who by their nature wishes to put themselves first.

Spellbreaker26

2017-01-26, 06:43 AM

I think that a good rule of thumb is that you can be one step away from the alignment most representative of the Tenet.

For example, Oath of Devotion is primarily LG, so LG, LN, and NG could all probably serve it without breaking the Tenets.

The exception are the evil tenets. Oathbreaker I struggle to see as any non-evil alignment. Treachery could conceivably be TN or CN, and Conquest maybe LN if you're being flexible, but I don't see many of either.

Arkhios

2017-01-26, 06:52 AM

Oathbreaker I struggle to see as any non-evil alignment.

That would be odd anyway, because an Oathbreaker is described as purely evil paladin. How blind and/or self-delusional you have to be if the Oathbreaker's description itself reads:

PALADIN: OATHBREAKER
An Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin's heart has been extinguished. Only darkness remains.
A paladin must be evil and at least 3rd level to become an Oathbreaker. The paladin replaces the features specific to his or her Sacred Oath with Oathbreaker features.

Seriously, those of you who think it would be plausible to have a non-evil oathbreaker: Learn to read, or get better glasses.

Spellbreaker26

2017-01-26, 06:55 AM

Seriously guys. Learn to read, or get better glasses.

Some of us don't have the DMG. I didn't know that it was specifically described as evil, especially since alignments are very rarely outright mentioned in this edition.

JobsforFun

2017-01-26, 09:19 AM

Out of curiosity, what's the backstory of the Paladin you're trying to build? Why does it need to be LE?

I don't have anything made up yet, he doesn't have to be LE I just wanted to know/see if it would be possible to have an evil palidan without breaking an oath.

Tanarii

2017-01-26, 09:26 AM

Some of us don't have the DMG. I didn't know that it was specifically described as evil, especially since alignments are very rarely outright mentioned in this edition.
That's fair.

The main problem with Oathbreaker is in general, folks seem to want to treat it like it's a player class. It's not, it's a NPC Villian class that the DMG says may be optionally allowed as a player class, at his discretion. That's a huge difference.

JobsforFun

2017-01-26, 09:38 AM

Would anyone mind helping me figure out the Oath of conquest? Would that palidan want to be the leader of the group? Unless someone within the group challenged them for leadership?

Millstone85

2017-01-26, 10:43 AM

1: Oaths need to be Adhered to but they arent Binary states like in 3.5. an Ancients paladin can decide to goto sleep without being a Hedonist for the night because they are in the kind of bad mood where talking to people would just make them angrier, and they are supposed to make up for that later.I don't know much about 3.5 (played 4e and 5e, now learning some 2e for Baldur's Gate) but that seems like the right way to play a paladin, yes. Also, I have this idea for an OotA paladin who suffered a great tragedy and has to live with his grief without falling.

2: the Oath's Tenants are much more relevant to determining alignment than the world/player guideline. OotA is NG and will if it eventually happens (but how many Nazi Germany's happen in DnD) push you into CG.The description of the oath before its tenets is not such a secondary thing. At the very least, it gives context. And I still don't see what's so chaotic about the tenets of the Ancients.

The main problem with Oathbreaker is in general, folks seem to want to treat it like it's a player class. It's not, it's a NPC Villian class that the DMG says may be optionally allowed as a player class, at his discretion. That's a huge difference.It is such a weird design, though. Who needs or wants an NPC class? Why keep villainous options out of the PHB, but not really because necromancer and warlock? How is it a good idea to have such a big F-you to the "main setting" grim reaper and his clerics?

Would anyone mind helping me figure out the Oath of conquest? Would that palidan want to be the leader of the group? Unless someone within the group challenged them for leadership?The last tenet of the Oath of Conquest is a big mistake for a subclass designed with a LE mindset."You shall rule until a stronger one arises. Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin." No, no, no! You shall rule until a stronger one arises. Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or bend the knee before your better. How else is the whole hell knight deal supposed to work? And as written, the paladin would become the leader of the adventuring party or die trying.

Spellbreaker26

2017-01-26, 11:53 AM

Would anyone mind helping me figure out the Oath of conquest? Would that palidan want to be the leader of the group? Unless someone within the group challenged them for leadership?

The paladin would want to be, but wouldn't have to be. They might have ulterior motives or objectives that they are adventuring for, and can stand not being in charge of the party itself. Being Lawful Evil is as much about knowing your own place as it is reminding everyone else of theirs.

toapat

2017-01-26, 11:55 AM

I don't know much about 3.5 (played 4e and 5e, now learning some 2e for Baldur's Gate) but that seems like the right way to play a paladin, yes. Also, I have this idea for an OotA paladin who suffered a great tragedy and has to live with his grief without falling.

The description of the oath before its tenets is not such a secondary thing. At the very least, it gives context. And I still don't see what's so chaotic about the tenets of the Ancients.

1: in 3rd ed, Paladins were lockstepped to their code. create Any infraction and you lose your entire class. The oath is at absolute worst a slap on the wrist.

2: Tenets of the oath should matter more towards how an oath is considered for alignment then the little blurb asto normal alignments Unless like oathbreaker theres a specific limitation where you Must be a certain step on an axis. if you assign an alignment to each tenet of an oath, you do get a range of where its going to end up centered on. Devotion has 5 tenets, 4 of which are lawful, 2 are good. Acients 4 tenets, 3 good, 2 chaotic. Vengeance has 4 tenets which are 3 lawful and 1 Not-Evil. Conquest has 3 tenants, 2 of which are evil, 3 of which are lawful.

but the Tenets of OotA that are Chaotic, Dont force the Paladin to be hardline chaotic. How many DMs field a Pope Pious IX to destroy Artwork but still be "Good" people. If someone is destroying Culture, its typically only one mark on a long list of evil act.

Millstone85

2017-01-26, 12:02 PM

Acients 4 tenets, 3 good, 2 chaotic.Again, what's so chaotic about the tenets of the Ancients? Any of them.

Tanarii

2017-01-26, 12:05 PM

1: in 3rd ed, Paladins were lockstepped to their code. create Any infraction and you lose your entire class. The oath is at absolute worst a slap on the wrist.What makes you think this is different in 5e? I'm not at my book, so if there's a PHB statement, please quote it. But my impression has always been that you absolutely pay the price if you violate your oath. For any reason. ("the price" isn't very definite as to the how it works, but it definitely includes losing your class if you don't atone.)

jas61292

2017-01-26, 12:25 PM

What makes you think this is different in 5e? I'm not at my book, so if there's a PHB statement, please quote it. But my impression has always been that you absolutely pay the price if you violate your oath. For any reason. ("the price" isn't very definite as to the how it works, but it definitely includes losing your class if you don't atone.)

Yeah, while it is not add clear about it, I don't think anything in 5e gives you more leeway to break your oath. The big difference is that no longer is any oath tied to an alignment. A 3e Paladin who does evil broke his oath regardless of what he did, because evil itself is against the oath. That is not the case in 5e. Tenets are alignment independent, and paladins therefore have more freedom in some ways. Though as the tenets are more specific than the 3e oath they do have less freedom in other ways.

JackPhoenix

2017-01-26, 12:26 PM

What makes you think this is different in 5e? I'm not at my book, so if there's a PHB statement, please quote it. But my impression has always been that you absolutely pay the price if you violate your oath. For any reason. ("the price" isn't very definite as to the how it works, but it definitely includes losing your class if you don't atone.)

In 3.5, you lose pretty much everything. In 5e, you lose only subclass, you keep basic class abilities, including spellcasting, Divine Smite, Aura, etc. It isn't that hars, but it's no a slap on the wrist either and you can either atone or accept new oath. Or become Oathbreaker.

Millstone85

2017-01-26, 12:42 PM

In 3.5, you lose pretty much everything. In 5e, you lose only subclass, you keep basic class abilities, including spellcasting, Divine Smite, Aura, etc. It isn't that hars, but it's no a slap on the wrist either and you can either atone or accept new oath. Or become Oathbreaker.The PHB doesn't really explain what happens to your powers while you go through atonement. And if you truly turn away from your oath, the PHB talks about either going oathbreaker or abandoning the class entirely.

toapat

2017-01-26, 12:54 PM

Again, what's so chaotic about the tenets of the Ancients? Any of them.

1 Tenet forces them to protect People and Culture above law, one tenant forces them to be a Hedonist. They are chaotic aligned but its not likely going to push you into it outside of the most ludicrously complexly detailed campaign

What makes you think this is different in 5e? I'm not at my book, so if there's a PHB statement, please quote it. But my impression has always been that you absolutely pay the price if you violate your oath. For any reason. ("the price" isn't very definite as to the how it works, but it definitely includes losing your class if you don't atone.)

reading over p86 about 8 times, you can break your Vows/Tenets (it looks like Oaths were Refluffed slightly kinda late), or you can break the oath as a whole. You also dont lose Paladin, you lose the subclass features while you have a broken oath. Where as breaking Vows requires releevant attonement, breaking the oath requires complete rededication.

Edit: on P85 it does state that while you dont have the oath Pre Lvl 3, the class is considered to be in training for the oath until lvl 3

Arkhios

2017-01-26, 01:27 PM

1 Tenet forces them to protect People and Culture above law, one tenant forces them to be a Hedonist. They are chaotic aligned but its not likely going to push you into it outside of the most ludicrously complexly detailed campaign

Lawful doesn't refer to law any more than chaotic refers to opposing law.

Both are only certain states of mind.

To protect people and culture first doesn't mean you'd be chaotic or that you'd oppose the law, or that you couldn't have a sense of honor or even a personal code of conduct. It's just that you value different things over others.

Spellbreaker26

2017-01-26, 01:55 PM

1 Tenet forces them to protect People and Culture above law, one tenant forces them to be a Hedonist. They are chaotic aligned but its not likely going to push you into it outside of the most ludicrously complexly detailed campaign

Druids and monks are neutral aligned; I think Ancients is designed the same way. Whereas Law requires imposing an order on the world, and chaotic implies imposing your own will, neutral is much more of a go-with-the-flow kind of deal, which is what I think was intended for the oath.

toapat

2017-01-26, 02:16 PM

Druids and monks are neutral aligned; I think Ancients is designed the same way. Whereas Law requires imposing an order on the world, and chaotic implies imposing your own will, neutral is much more of a go-with-the-flow kind of deal, which is what I think was intended for the oath.

thing is though, the Paladin oaths are more along a Reactive to Proactive scale based on their Goodness to Evilness. if you leave a Devotion paladin and an Ancients paladin in a Demiplane enclosed city with generally good Humanoid rights, the Devotion paladin kinda only gets to go be a politician andd vote on laws while the Ancients paladin goes and becomes some form of Artist.

Comparatively lock a Conquest and a Treachery paladin in the Evilberg mirror of where we left the Devotion and Ancients paladin, and the Conquest paladin has to plan and systemically conquer the city, while the Treachery paladin goes and becomes a Thrillkill assassin. or a bard. Because they dont have any rules anyway

TheTeaMustFlow

2017-01-26, 03:08 PM

Millstone85

2017-01-26, 03:45 PM

1 Tenet forces them to protect People and Culture above law, one tenant forces them to be a Hedonist.Firstly, prioritizing being good over being lawful is something shared by CG, NG and even some LG characters. Probably most of them too. Secondly, there is no mention of law in any of the tenets.

As for hedonism, which might be an exaggeration depending on your use of the word, it is not particularly chaotic either.

toapat

2017-01-26, 05:14 PM

One of the concepts I've vaguely thought about is a classically Lawful Evil character of the 'Noble Demon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NobleDemon)' type (i.e. total bastard but has a code of honour) who ends up having to swear an oath of devotion due to circumstances (e.g. is given a choice of avoiding the order or being executed for his crimes) and, based on a sense of professional standards, fully intends to keep it despite actually agreeing with it, and as such ends up being Lawful Good in deed, but not in thought. Of course, whether such a character would Fall and whether their alignment would still be Lawful Evil is debatable, but I would suggest such a circumstance as a possible example of an evil Devotion Paladin.

Sadly, in 5e Fiends getting burdened with Devotion Paladin dont have nearly as hilarious of a complete rules ****up as in 3.5. Theree was a Succubus Paladin NPC who specifically was vulnerable to all 5 variants of Divine Word because of the [Chaotic] [Evil] tags and the Lawful Good alignment, and then theres the TN version.

in 5th? we have a title for a long standing Devil with the Oath of Devotion: God.

Firstly, prioritizing being good over being lawful is something shared by CG, NG and even some LG characters. Probably most of them too. Secondly, there is no mention of law in any of the tenets.

As for hedonism, which might be an exaggeration depending on your use of the word, it is not particularly chaotic either.

Oath of the Crown is Lawful before good even though its pretty squarely LG, i dont have the SCAG so i cant review exact Tenets, but im pretty sure it actually has more heavily good tenets than devotion and still requires you to be Lawful Stupid.

I like that Hedonism in 5th isnt tied to CE anymore but it is a very straightforward instance of the difference between Lawful and Chaos, that is the will to contribute to organization, or to do as you please or benefit from said organization without giving back.

Sigreid

2017-01-26, 05:29 PM

toapat

2017-01-26, 05:42 PM

Fun as all this discussion is, there's nothing in the rules that stops a player from making a CE paladin. If one of my players said they wanted to make a CE Devotion paladin, I'd let them know they do have to follow their oath to keep their powers, there's no guarantee you'll be an oath breaker if you fall, and that I'm interested in seeing how they think they can make this work.

Tanarii covered that on Page 2, theres no real difference between the paladin's longterm alignment and their oath's' alignment since you will end up working so much within that alignment If you dont break your oath, you become that alignment. Sure you start CE, but you become LG eventually

Sigreid

2017-01-26, 05:43 PM

jas61292

2017-01-26, 05:51 PM

Tanarii

2017-01-26, 06:11 PM

Tanarii covered that on Page 2, theres no real difference between the paladin's longterm alignment and their oath's' alignment since you will end up working so much within that alignment If you dont break your oath, you become that alignment. Sure you start CE, but you become LG eventuallyTruth. It's just a matter of arguing about where you'll probably end up.

To be fair, I think fairly easily you could map them as likely to end up within one step of the PHB fluffy descriptions of the oaths. ie:
Devotion - LN-LG-NG
Ancients - LG-NG-CG
Vengeance - LE-LN-N (I don't think Vengeance could maintain Good for long because it's strongly implied they can't)

You're really missing the point. It would be highly entertaining to me watching them try to make it work. :smallbiggrin:For real. :smallbiggrin:

Personally, I just disagree with the notion that the oaths have alignments. Furthermore, there is more to a character than their oath. One can stay within the bounds of an oath, and yet act contrary to expectations in situations that the oath has nothing to say about.They don't. But some of the Oaths will cause inner conflict if someone is a different Alignment pretty fast. So either you'll end up breaking the Oath or start behaving regularly as a different alignment from your current alignment. If you subscribe to the idea that Alignments are both Objective and Player-how-they-play-the-PC-oriented (instead of PC's-thinking-oriented), then the player has chosen to have the PC shift Alignment at that point.

Millstone85

2017-01-26, 06:50 PM

Oath of the Crown is Lawful before good even though its pretty squarely LG, i dont have the SCAG so i cant review exact Tenets, but im pretty sure it actually has more heavily good tenets than devotion and still requires you to be Lawful Stupid.Reading the SCAG, I do not see a single tenet in the Oath of the Crown that would suggest goodness, only lawfulness. As for the oath's description, the only thing in it that sounds good is its mention of "just laws". So I wouldn't say it brings you to play Lawful Stupid, just Lawful Neutral or Lawful Goodish.

But where it gets screwy is with SCAG's description of a common set of virtues that all paladins, regardless of oath, must abide by. That might be why you remember heavily good tenets. Heavily lawful ones too.

I like that Hedonism in 5th isnt tied to CE anymore but it is a very straightforward instance of the difference between Lawful and Chaos, that is the will to contribute to organization, or to do as you please or benefit from said organization without giving back.While the pursuit of happiness and pleasure might distract someone from contributing to the system, it might as well be their motivation for being an active agent of it. So no, hedonism is a terrible example of the difference between lawful and chaotic.

And consider how the OotA paladin's hedonism is meant to allow them to lead by example, to bring joy to others by being joyful. It may or may not serve an organization but it certainly serves their fellow man.

TheTeaMustFlow

2017-01-26, 08:02 PM

Sadly, in 5e Fiends getting burdened with Devotion Paladin dont have nearly as hilarious of a complete rules ****up as in 3.5. Theree was a Succubus Paladin NPC who specifically was vulnerable to all 5 variants of Divine Word because of the [Chaotic] [Evil] tags and the Lawful Good alignment, and then theres the TN version.

in 5th? we have a title for a long standing Devil with the Oath of Devotion: God.

I don't mean an actual fiend, purely a metaphorical one. A perfectly mortal bastard stuck obeying an Oath he's not well suited for.

toapat

2017-01-26, 08:32 PM

Truth. It's just a matter of arguing about where you'll probably end up.

To be fair, I think fairly easily you could map them as likely to end up within one step of the PHB fluffy descriptions of the oaths. ie:
Devotion - LN-LG-NG
Ancients - LG-NG-CG
Vengeance - LE-LN-N (I don't think Vengeance could maintain Good for long because it's strongly implied they can't)

Vengeance really wouldnt be able to maintain True Neutral either, their Enmity is much more about keeping on the hunt. id probably say they end up being like, 10% LG, 60% LN, and 30% LE. Pushing into actual good territory with that first Tenet is really hard.

Ancients having any LG seems highly unlikely, Id fully well play an entire campaign as one where my offtime is spent trying to get such a roaring block party going it burns down the city block its on, at which point i have to rebuild basically the city district

Newtonsolo313

2017-01-26, 09:49 PM

wait why are vengence paladins lawful that seems weird because they've got the By Any Means Necessary tenant which is basically saying the person won't let anything stop them from getting vengeance that's pretty goddamn chaotic or at least neutral to me unless i'm missing something

Kish

2017-01-26, 09:52 PM

Miffles

2017-01-26, 10:23 PM

I feel that paladins are crappy fighter/cleric mixes

Tanarii

2017-01-26, 10:26 PM

But where it gets screwy is with SCAG's description of a common set of virtues that all paladins, regardless of oath, must abide by. That might be why you remember heavily good tenets. Heavily lawful ones too.
Yeah, since apparently ALL forgotten realms Paladins follow those additional tenets to one degree or another, they all look Lawful Good to me. It'd be hard for a Vengeance a Paladin to maintain those additional oaths IMO.

Newtonsolo313

2017-01-26, 10:52 PM

That sounds like you're getting aspects of Evil mixed in with your concept of Chaotic.

Unwaveringly, which can include ruthlessly, pursuing a goal is Lawful. Being willing to reconsider or lose interest in your goals is Chaotic. Being willing to do evil things in pursuit of your goals isn't Lawful or Chaotic, it's just Evil. Chaotic Good is fully as Good as Lawful Good and Lawful Evil is fully as Evil as Chaotic Evil.

...no I was not
What I meant was that characters that are willing to break the rules of society is a chaotic act in my opinion and yeah I can see your point but this is where the system breaks down.
Let's say bob is told he can't kill Alice despite the fact bob has swore vengeance on Alice for killing his family because it's illegal to kill Alice for some reason
In universe a he gives up and goes home
In universe b he slaughters Alice and the guards
Under your logic in universe a he is chaotic and in b he is lawful. Under my logic he is lawful in a and chaotic in b.

toapat

2017-01-26, 11:38 PM

What I meant was that characters that are willing to break the rules of society is a chaotic act

the Rules of society have nothing to do with Law vs Chaos, it depends on if you follow some form of code of conduct and how rigid that code is. a Lawful Good paladin is held to the standards of Honor and the Civalric ideal, a CG Ancients paladin is expected to accept party invitations to Kegger nights and required be a big damn hero like their conscience already tells them to be.

Kish

2017-01-27, 12:42 AM

...no I was not
What I meant was that characters that are willing to break the rules of society is a chaotic act in my opinion and yeah I can see your point but this is where the system breaks down.
Let's say bob is told he can't kill Alice despite the fact bob has swore vengeance on Alice for killing his family because it's illegal to kill Alice for some reason
In universe a he gives up and goes home
In universe b he slaughters Alice and the guards
Under your logic in universe a he is chaotic and in b he is lawful. Under my logic he is lawful in a and chaotic in b.
I would venture that an interpretation that doesn't have the system breaking down is, definitionally, more functional than one that does.

Arkhios

2017-01-27, 12:58 AM

I would venture that an interpretation that doesn't have the system breaking down is, definitionally, more functional than one that does.

+1 to this.

I've been toying around with a campaign concept without using alignment at all, basically because of the incoherent debate about what is considered lawful (disciplined in my book) and what chaotic (undisciplined, respectively).

Now I'm wondering how much would it actually affect "normal" campaign if LAW/CHAOS axis simply didn't exist.

Since there are spells that specifically speak of Evil and Good (Detect and Protection from), but no spells regarding Lawful or Chaotic, my assumption is that no one would notice a thing.

Vogonjeltz

2017-01-27, 02:49 AM

It is such a weird design, though. Who needs or wants an NPC class? Why keep villainous options out of the PHB, but not really because necromancer and warlock? How is it a good idea to have such a big F-you to the "main setting" grim reaper and his clerics?

DMs might want to be able to create NPCs with increasing levels of power as repeat villains, but also not want the PCs to have a real handle on what's going on.

Also, Death Domain is appropriate for a Cleric of Kelemvor. So that's one option for a non-evil death domain Cleric.

I would advise if you DM (or to have your DM) swap out Animate Dead from the spell list however, as undeath is something Kelemvor explicitly hates.
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/701883962319249413

we already dealt with this by Mid page 2: your opinion doesnt actually matter and where you start doesnt really matter. if you are Following the oath properly, your alignment will become the respective "base" alignment for any Non-Oathbreaker/Treachery paladin. Theres just parts you cant get away from from each.

So:
Devotion: LG
Ancients: CG
Vengeance: LA (likely towards evil)
Crown: LG-LN
Conquest: LE

Are those just based on your opinion which, as you noted, "doesnt actually matter" [sic] or did you pluck them from actual game text? If the latter where? I'd be curious to know.

And, for clarity, I did not express an opinion in the quoted text, only true statements of fact.
1) There's no requirement to be good.
2) Traditionally Paladins are Lawful Good.

But the relevant part is the Oath description itself literally tells you the oath is about good, without regard to chaos or law. That means the default baseline is NG. Not CG. That doesn't mean you have to be NG. Just that it's the baseline. It literally says so. I'm not using literally incorrectly either, it literally says so.

This is literally true.

And again, the Vegeance oath literally says that it's baseline is LN or N. Not Lawful (any).

Minor quibble, it says "so the paladins are often neutral or lawful neutral in alignment."

So there's no baseline per se, just a vague tendency. Like, they don't have to start there (which is what baseline suggests to me).

For example, Oath of Devotion is primarily LG, so LG, LN, and NG could all probably serve it without breaking the Tenets.

A Lawful Evil character is totally capable of fulfilling the Oath of Devotion because pretty much the whole thing describes Lawful and the bits that don't can be justified by the character adhering to an oath (a system) because it benefits them.

i.e.
Honesty - Lawful
Courage - Neutral
Compassion - Allows the Paladin to punish others and though it asks them to show mercy it gives them latitude to decide if mercy is a bad idea; A Lawful Evil Paladin would just say it was basically never a good idea to show mercy unless it made them look good to do so (i.e. for selfish reasons)
Honor - Lawful and Selfish in that it's self-aggrandizing to be known for honor
Duty - Lawful, focus on obeying laws

Yes, the LE Paladin might be doing good, but as long as their reasons are basically selfish they can fulfill the oath and retain their alignment along the way.

1: in 3rd ed, Paladins were lockstepped to their code. create Any infraction and you lose your entire class. The oath is at absolute worst a slap on the wrist.

Well that's a falsehood due to gross hyperbole.

Losing class abilities in 3.5 required an alignment change (that's an extremely difficult thing), a willfully committed evil act, or a "gross" violation of the code.

Like, not a minor violation, not an unintentionally evil act, not the occasional out of alignment activity. Justifying a change in alignment required constant and repeated out of alignment behavior, a deliberately evil act is obviously out of character, and a gross violation is just that...extreme.

Minor and unintentional things had no effect at all.

Logosloki

2017-01-27, 02:53 AM

...no I was not
What I meant was that characters that are willing to break the rules of society is a chaotic act in my opinion and yeah I can see your point but this is where the system breaks down.
Let's say bob is told he can't kill Alice despite the fact bob has swore vengeance on Alice for killing his family because it's illegal to kill Alice for some reason
In universe a he gives up and goes home
In universe b he slaughters Alice and the guards
Under your logic in universe a he is chaotic and in b he is lawful. Under my logic he is lawful in a and chaotic in b.

A Paladin's Oath is her law. Societies laws are rulings, not necessarily law as in the sense of the alignment. Otherwise the Drow would be the most lawful society on the material plane.

toapat

2017-01-27, 03:03 AM

Are those just based on your opinion which, as you noted, "doesnt actually matter" [sic] or did you pluck them from actual game text? If the latter where? I'd be curious to know.

And, for clarity, I did not express an opinion in the quoted text, only true statements of fact.
1) There's no requirement to be good.
2) Traditionally Paladins are Lawful Good.

Well that's a falsehood due to gross hyperbole.

its based on what the tenets of each oath aligns to. You went to explain later how you can run a LE Devotion paladin, except you completely failed to read the 3rd tenet. Compassion explicitly forces evil out of the oath while requiring good

Theres no difference between the Oath and the alignment of the character, because if you dont break the oath, youre serving the oath. Actions matter more than intentions ever will in 5th ed.
Only Devotion and Crown paladins in 5th are capable of Typically being Lawful Good. the other 5 oaths are not.

No, its not. in 3/3.5 the punishment for the smallest mistake is total classfeature loss for paladin. for being the same code of conduct, Oath of Devotion is barely prohibitive compared to the Lawful Stupid Mandatory 3rd ed Code, expecially since you can Violate part of the oath and atone for your mistakes in 5th without breaking the class. The class couldnt do what Roy does with Belkar without Falling by default interpretation

Newtonsolo313

2017-01-27, 06:23 AM

A Paladin's Oath is her law. Societies laws are rulings, not necessarily law as in the sense of the alignment. Otherwise the Drow would be the most lawful society on the material plane but by that logic all paladins are lawful even oath of treachery ones

I would venture that an interpretation that doesn't have the system breaking down is, definitionally, more functional than one that does. the system breaks down because of competing ideas neither my or your idea breaks the system

the Rules of society have nothing to do with Law vs Chaos, it depends on if you follow some form of code of conduct and how rigid that code is. a Lawful Good paladin is held to the standards of Honor and the Civalric ideal, a CG Ancients paladin is expected to accept party invitations to Kegger nights and required be a big damn hero like their conscience already tells them to be.
But the vengeance paladin just has to kill one dude or failing that play cleanup crew that's not very rigid
Plus he was gonna kill that dude anyways the oath is probably just for power

Tanarii

2017-01-27, 08:12 AM

This is literally true.I figuratively can't believe that someone is arguing against what's literally spelled out. :smallbiggrin:

Minor quibble, it says "so the paladins are often neutral or lawful neutral in alignment."

So there's no baseline per se, just a vague tendency. Like, they don't have to start there (which is what baseline suggests to me).Fair. I was using it as short-hand for "most common" or "generally" but it's really too strong a word for

its based on what the tenets of each oath aligns to.Thats just, like, your opinion, man.

But for real, if your opinion isn't born out by what the book tells you each oath most often aligns to, then you're probably making a mistaken assumption somewhere.

For example, from what I can tell, you've made some weird assumption that it's Chaotic "Preserve your own Light. Delight in song and laughter, in beauty and art. If you allow the light to die in your own hear, you can't preserve he world." I have no idea why you view that as a naturally Chaotic thing or something someone that is Lawful could not do ... that seems like a personal problem. :smallyuk:

Millstone85

2017-01-27, 09:15 AM

Yeah, since apparently ALL forgotten realms Paladins follow those additional tenets to one degree or another, they all look Lawful Good to me. It'd be hard for a Vengeance a Paladin to maintain those additional oaths IMO.SCAG also has all paladins receive their powers from the gods. I understand this is how campaign settings work, but wow does it feel restrictive compared to the PHB.

Ancients having any LG seems highly unlikely, Id fully well play an entire campaign as one where my offtime is spent trying to get such a roaring block party going it burns down the city block its on, at which point i have to rebuild basically the city district
a CG Ancients paladin is expected to accept party invitations to Kegger nights
For example, from what I can tell, you've made some weird assumption that it's Chaotic "Preserve your own Light. Delight in song and laughter, in beauty and art. If you allow the light to die in your own hear, you can't preserve he world." I have no idea why you view that as a naturally Chaotic thing or something someone that is Lawful could not do ... that seems like a personal problem. :smallyuk:It seems toapat reads the tenet as "Party hard and trash the neighborhood". An interesting take for sure.

Tanarii

2017-01-27, 09:43 AM

Arkhios

2017-01-27, 11:15 AM

It seems toapat reads the tenet as "Party hard and trash the neighborhood". An interesting take for sure.

Sounds like my college days. They were pretty Chaotic Neutral. Especially the nights I can't remember.

I literally, honestly, laughed out loud when I read these, and now people around me are looking at me like I was some kind of freak. (Which I suppose I am, in manner of speaking).

But yes, I'll have to agree I've read Toapat's posts with trying not to frown. Those are quite extreme opinions there.

Kish

2017-01-27, 11:22 AM

the system breaks down because of competing ideas neither my or your idea breaks the system
Oh? So, bearing in mind that you're arguing that Lawful means "obeys the law," that your example is that a Lawful character would give up a search for vengeance and let a murderer get away with the murders rather than break the law, and correspondingly Chaotic means "doesn't obey the law."

How do your logical, workable, non-contradictory Chaotic characters decide which laws to obey? If they compulsively try to murder everyone in places where murder is illegal, Chaotic is synonymous with Really Low-Functioning Chaotic Evil. If they obey the laws sometimes, how do you distinguish them from your Neutrals?

If you get past that, take this hypothetical. Your group--which includes a nonzero number of Lawfuls (possibly after they all realized that the Chaotic alignment wasn't going to work)--enters a swamp to kill the evil orc chief who rules it. The orc chief is, in fact, guilty of myriad crimes by the standards of most of the world, and is unambiguously evil and a danger to every settlement anywhere near the swamp.

Suppose that the orc chief, whose rule over the swamp is uncontested, has declared that Killing Him Is Illegal, for some obscure reason.

Do your Lawfuls kill him, in violation of the clear and unambiguous laws of the swamp's autocratic government? Or do they turn themselves in for planning to assassinate the local ruler? If they kill him, are they still Lawful? If so, why?

KorvinStarmast

2017-01-27, 11:49 AM

Now I'm wondering how much would it actually affect "normal" campaign if LAW/CHAOS axis simply didn't exist.

Since there are spells that specifically speak of Evil and Good (Detect and Protection from), but no spells regarding Lawful or Chaotic, my assumption is that no one would notice a thing. The Law/Chaos axis, by itself, works fine. Worked nicely in OD&D. (See my previous post in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21637990&postcount=24)). The mind bending began with the two axis/nine combinations model Gygax came up with; to put it succinctly, it was a nice attempt that didn't do much more than make things a bit more complex for not a lot of value. The whole alignment thing works better as a mega concept than for a raw mechanic.

If you just went straight Good/Evil axis I think you'd get a similar result to the original; less complexity, and a more meta framework to work within as a DM and as a player.

Kish

2017-01-27, 12:02 PM

The Law/Chaos axis "worked" in OD&D because, being based on Gary Gygax's utter failure to understand that Michael Moorcock didn't mean his viewpoint characters to be right about everything, it was entirely alternate names for Good/Evil. And it saddled future generations of D&D players with having to have the same "Lawful is/is not closer to Good than Chaotic is; Chaotic Good does/does not mean 'dirty good' or 'evil protagonist'" argument for as long as the game exists.

Newtonsolo313

2017-01-27, 01:23 PM

Oh? So, bearing in mind that you're arguing that Lawful means "obeys the law," that your example is that a Lawful character would give up a search for vengeance and let a murderer get away with the murders rather than break the law, and correspondingly Chaotic means "doesn't obey the law." sorta i was more arguing that openminded doesn't mean chaotic and stubborn isn't lawful

How do your logical, workable, non-contradictory Chaotic characters decide which laws to obey? If they compulsively try to murder everyone in places where murder is illegal, Chaotic is synonymous with Really Low-Functioning Chaotic Evil. If they obey the laws sometimes, how do you distinguish them from your Neutrals?
Chaotic people don't neccessarily break laws on princple, but they might not break the law because it would be wrong(good) or bad for them in the long term(neutral) or just pointless(neutral) but not because its the law. Examples of chaotic characters could be vigilantes(good) professional criminals(neutral sometimes) or murder everything players(evil)

If you get past that, take this hypothetical. Your group--which includes a nonzero number of Lawfuls (possibly after they all realized that the Chaotic alignment wasn't going to work)--enters a swamp to kill the evil orc chief who rules it. The orc chief is, in fact, guilty of myriad crimes by the standards of most of the world, and is unambiguously evil and a danger to every settlement anywhere near the swamp.

Suppose that the orc chief, whose rule over the swamp is uncontested, has declared that Killing Him Is Illegal, for some obscure reason.

Do your Lawfuls kill him, in violation of the clear and unambiguous laws of the swamp's autocratic government? Or do they turn themselves in for planning to assassinate the local ruler? If they kill him, are they still Lawful? If so, why?
they may kill him or not. If a character is ultra lawful yes, but most people would distinguish laws of others then their own. its not an absolutely lawful act but it isn't really chaotic. it is a good act. alignments aren't prisons, people can act in opposition to there alignment. they just usually do act that way.

basically the system is this "you need to break the law get what you want. how much do you need to want it to break the law"(assuming a set amount of illegalness) the more it would take the more lawful a character is, the less it would take the more chaotic is

Tanarii

2017-01-27, 01:28 PM

Suppose that the orc chief, whose rule over the swamp is uncontested, has declared that Killing Him Is Illegal, for some obscure reason.Sounds like a totally normal thing for an Orc Chief to declare to me. :smallamused: Of course, I tend to run slightly more tongue-in-cheek games, especially when it comes to humanoids.

Kish

2017-01-27, 01:32 PM

sorta i was more arguing that openminded doesn't mean chaotic and stubborn isn't lawful
Okay, at this point, you don't seem to be arguing for anything, just against. Get back to me when your Lawful and Chaotic have definitions unto themselves.

Newtonsolo313

2017-01-27, 01:38 PM

Okay, at this point, you don't seem to be arguing for anything, just against. Get back to me when your Lawful and Chaotic have definitions unto themselves.
:smallsigh:

basically the system is this "you need to break the law get what you wan't how much do you need to want it to break the law"(assuming a set amount of illegalness) the more it would take the more lawful a character is the less it would take the more chaotic is
Done:smallbiggrin:

Arkhios

2017-01-27, 02:12 PM

You know, it would be leagues easier to grasp what was your point, IF you used punctuation marks, or at least try to separate individual contents somehow.

Marcelinari

2017-01-27, 02:14 PM

Apologies to OP, but I'm curious if an Evil Devotion paladin could be accomplished by positioning him as a mafia don?

Let's assume the PalaDon follows the Code of Omerta, refusing to cooperate with the authorities under any circumstance and willing to be convicted by his own lack of testimony for a crime he did not commit. To everyone else, he is honest and truthful, and never breaks his bond, even if he is menacing and threatening while doing so. This would appear to satisfy the Honesty tenet.

The PalaDon should have no problem with Courage as a tenet - he need not engage his foes directly, constantly, or immediately, but he will refuse to back down unless mutually beneficial, and he will take the field himself when the situation calls for it.

The PalaDon should also satisfy the Compassion tenet as well, though it is the trickiest. To those who pay their protection money, he protects without hesitation. To those who come seeking aid, he aids happily, with the understanding that they are now in his debt. He crushes utterly those who threaten his goons, or his protectees, or uninvolved innocents, though any who plead mercy will merely be banished, rendered incapable of action, or given over to the wronged party for retribution. Very Cosa Nostra. Flowers to your loved ones, too.

Honor might also be tricky. The PalaDon would try and avoid favouritism, would accept surrenders in good faith, and would try to assimilate opposing groups rather than destroy them. He would leave children and spouses out of the line of fire until they brought themselves into it - he would take care of the families of his soldiers. No collateral damage, no unnecessary escalation of hostilities.

Duty is one of the easiest. The PalaDon would naturally protect those entrusted to his care, would own his actions, and would obey the direct commands of 'just authority' - though he may not consider the civil powers to have authority over him at all.

What do you think? A plausible NPC?

Kish

2017-01-27, 02:17 PM

I think you're stretching the definition of "compassion" further than it'll stretch there.

Newtonsolo313

2017-01-27, 02:33 PM

You know, it would be leagues easier to grasp what was your point, IF you used punctuation marks, or at least try to separate individual contents somehow.

Sorry i've changed it now

Marcelinari

2017-01-27, 02:46 PM

I think you're stretching the definition of "compassion" further than it'll stretch there.

I'd argue that compassion should not necessarily conflict with self-interest, and the code itself advises that any mercy shown to foes should be 'tempered by wisdom' - the Paladin will kill and loot, why not the PalaDon?

Newtonsolo313

2017-01-27, 02:54 PM

I'd argue that compassion should not necessarily conflict with self-interest, and the code itself advises that any mercy shown to foes should be 'tempered by wisdom' - the Paladin will kill and loot, why not the PalaDon?
"tempered by wisdom"- wisdom is a paladin dump stat:smallamused:

toapat

2017-01-27, 02:56 PM

It seems toapat reads the tenet as "Party hard and trash the neighborhood". An interesting take for sure.

no, the "Party so hard the neighborhood is gone" only came up after this thread. "Kindle your own Light" does actually require the Ancients paladin to "Party Hard" (But this is not the only interpretation/way to fulfill it) this idea is for this specific Ancients Paladin to take the oath as "Party Too Hard"

Newtonsolo313

2017-01-27, 04:48 PM

no, the "Party so hard the neighborhood is gone" only came up after this thread. "Kindle your own Light" does actually require the Ancients paladin to "Party Hard" (But this is not the only interpretation/way to fulfill it) this idea is for this specific Ancients Paladin to take the oath as "Party Too Hard"
Based of ancient code. parties hard.
I hearby deem this Paladin example Fratadin

Arkhios

2017-01-27, 06:42 PM

I see "Kindle your own Light" as a metaphor. What is "Your own Light?"

In the light of the other tenets, I think it means that you shouldn't let the darkness of evil deeds cast a shadow over you and end up brooding over with negative thoughts, and instead remind yourself of all the positive things that you fight for. Be it your loved ones, the joy of life triumphing over death, or simply the Light triumphing over Darkness.
That there is still Good left in this world however dark and Evil it might seem at times.

Your Light might also refer to your divinely Blessed Soul that shines bright in the Darkness, as a beacon for those in need of guidance. You must keep that Light bright so that those who have lost their ways, might find them again.

I see it as an encouragement to enjoy your life, and let others enjoy it with you. Sure, you could throw a party for your friends, but that's not the only way to enjoy what you have. Just being generally positive in the face of adversities can do wonders to people around you. It can bring hope that all is going to be well, once again.

I see Oath of the Ancients paladins as the Ultimate Optimists.

What's more, nothing of the above suggests a chaotic personality.

Vogonjeltz

2017-01-27, 07:55 PM

its based on what the tenets of each oath aligns to. You went to explain later how you can run a LE Devotion paladin, except you completely failed to read the 3rd tenet. Compassion explicitly forces evil out of the oath while requiring good

Theres no difference between the Oath and the alignment of the character, because if you dont break the oath, youre serving the oath. Actions matter more than intentions ever will in 5th ed.
Only Devotion and Crown paladins in 5th are capable of Typically being Lawful Good. the other 5 oaths are not.

No, its not. in 3/3.5 the punishment for the smallest mistake is total classfeature loss for paladin. for being the same code of conduct, Oath of Devotion is barely prohibitive compared to the Lawful Stupid Mandatory 3rd ed Code, expecially since you can Violate part of the oath and atone for your mistakes in 5th without breaking the class. The class couldnt do what Roy does with Belkar without Falling by default interpretation

I literally addressed the 3rd tenet head on:

Compassion - Allows the Paladin to punish others and though it asks them to show mercy it gives them latitude to decide if mercy is a bad idea; A Lawful Evil Paladin would just say it was basically never a good idea to show mercy unless it made them look good to do so (i.e. for selfish reasons)

The tenet actually caveats itself saying show compassion except when it's a bad idea. Congrats, now anyone who thinks it's a bad idea to show compassion is adhering to the tenet entirely.

There's no basis in fact for your later statements. Nothing in the PHB mandates or prohibits any alignment for any Oath. Indeed, an Oath of Vengeance could easily be Lawful Good, intent on bringing the perpetrators of some wrongdoing to justice, someone who transgressed against the good people of blahditty blah. Voila, Lawful Good Oath of Vengeance.

I was quoting the 3.5 Paladin code and rules for loss of features. Small mistakes have exactly zero impact on the Paladin, it has to be a deliberate evil act, a change of alignment (which typically would require many evil acts), or a gross violation (gross means, not the smallest mistake; indeed the exact opposite of that, it would mean the worst possible violations) of the code.

I figuratively can't believe that someone is arguing against what's literally spelled out.

Fair. I was using it as short-hand for "most common" or "generally" but it's really too strong a word for

Thats just, like, your opinion, man.

But for real, if your opinion isn't born out by what the book tells you each oath most often aligns to, then you're probably making a mistaken assumption somewhere.

For example, from what I can tell, you've made some weird assumption that it's Chaotic "Preserve your own Light. Delight in song and laughter, in beauty and art. If you allow the light to die in your own hear, you can't preserve he world." I have no idea why you view that as a naturally Chaotic thing or something someone that is Lawful could not do ... that seems like a personal problem.

I can't figure it myself sometimes Dude. My only worry was that people tend not to go back to primary sources, so when meaning gets changes in conversation we end up with a game of telephone where what people believe is true actually deviates substantially from the original.

toapat

2017-01-27, 08:24 PM

The tenet actually caveats itself saying show compassion except when it's a bad idea.

There's no basis in fact for your later statements. Nothing in the PHB mandates or prohibits any alignment for any Oath. Indeed, an Oath of Vengeance could easily be Lawful Good, intent on bringing the perpetrators of some wrongdoing to justice, someone who transgressed against the good people of blahditty blah. Voila, Lawful Good Oath of Vengeance.

I was quoting the 3.5 Paladin code and rules for loss of features. Small mistakes have exactly zero impact on the Paladin, it has to be a deliberate evil act, a change of alignment (which typically would require many evil acts), or a gross violation (gross means, not the smallest mistake; indeed the exact opposite of that, it would mean the worst possible violations) of the code.

as based on what will fundamentally be a dumpstat. If you just never show mercy, then you are breaking the tenet.

the Oaths themselves prohibit anything but the Alignment its based on (again, tanarii said it P2). the PHB doesnt have do, because the class is already doing a framework. Vengeance Paladin's first Tenet is Evil because it Orders you ignore something that isnt your Emnity.

3/.5 never defines what "gross Violation" is, after stating that you lose all classfeatures for committing an evil act.

Vogonjeltz

2017-01-27, 09:31 PM

as based on what will fundamentally be a dumpstat. If you just never show mercy, then you are breaking the tenet.

the Oaths themselves prohibit anything but the Alignment its based on (again, tanarii said it P2). the PHB doesnt have do, because the class is already doing a framework. Vengeance Paladin's first Tenet is Evil because it Orders you ignore something that isnt your Emnity.

3/.5 never defines what "gross Violation" is, after stating that you lose all classfeatures for committing an evil act.

And? If the paladin just always determines its unwise, while leaving open the possibility they're complying with the letter and intent. They can't help it that mercy might always be foolish.

Vengeance merely prioritizes. If you have to pick one, you pick the bigger one. It's not ignoring, it's triage.

3.5 doesn't have to. The code is specified and gross violation literally speaks for itself.