Paladin oath of treachery

[JobsforFun]

I am starting a new campaign at level 4, most of the party is planned to be evil except 2 people who are going to be neutral. I wanted to have a Paladin who is oath of treachery and is the aasimar race with the fallen sub race part to get +1 in strength.

My question is how are paladins role-played exactly? I thought of having the character at some point in time have been cursed and caused him to become the oath of treachery and CE when before hand he was LG and was possibly oath of Devotion. I haven't played paladin before so I am not sure how exactly you play them over all in combat and in social situations.

(Also with oath treachery is it meant for dex or strength builds? I know there are some easy to find guides to build paladins but they don't mention the treachery oath)

[Specter]

Roleplaying has no strict rules. Treachery Paladins don't even have a code of conduct, so act in any way that is benefitial to you.

I can see them becoming treachery because they were always evil and lusted for power, or they were once good and fell.

Both str and dex work. Problem with is in multiclass (you need 13str for it).

[JobsforFun]

Roleplaying has no strict rules. Treachery Paladins don't even have a code of conduct, so act in any way that is benefitial to you.

I can see them becoming treachery because they were always evil and lusted for power, or they were once good and fell.

Both str and dex work. Problem with is in multiclass (you need 13str for it).

Well I shouldn't have a problem with ability scores. I role my ability scores which in some cases can be considered a bad way of doing it but my DM hasn't expressed anything against it (if he does I'd gladly change them) But I rolled an 18 and a 17 and aasimar giving my +2 charisma I got 20 charisma and the fallen sub race gave me +1 strength and level 4 giving you an ability score improvement put that into strength as well to get 20 strength.

Although atm I haven't planned on multi classing

[Sception]

I would play a Paladin of Treachery more or less as a Star Wars Sith - not so much the film sith, who were more lawful-evil authoritarian types, but rather the EU Sith, a martial & spiritual order dedicated to personal power and self indulgence as a rejection of the self-sacrificing-to-the-point-of-self-denying Jedi order which their founders had abandoned in forming them.

Mapping that over to a D&D game, this would explain why your paladins of treachery would share so many techniques and abilities of the more noble and disciplined paladin orders. Some Blackguards would be 'first generation' - ie, more traditional paladins who had fallen from grace. While others might never have been other types of paladins, but even so have been trained in martial and magical traditions passed down by those who had been.

The Sith/Blackguard, whether first generation or later, follow a fundamentally Chaotic Evil tradition. While a given individual Blackguard might not be Chaotic Evil, the path they follow was established specifically as a rejection of the 'lawful' and the 'good'. Blackguards are on the whole fundamentally selfish, both in the sense of being highly individualist and in the sense of putting their own interests above those of others. This doesn't mean you can't have allies or companions, even the worst monsters of humanity often have friends and family they care about, but it should be reflected in your character's attitude and behavior towards strangers and institutions. To a Blackguard, their own personal freedom is paramount. Specifically the freedom to express and follow their passions, regardless of whether those passions are beautiful or horrific, regardless of the safety or freedom of anyone they might trample in the pursuit of those passions.

To paraphrase the Sith Code, which could be treated as a sort of Blackguard's Oath:

Peace is a lie, there is only Passion
Through Passion, I draw Strength
Through Strength, I gain Power
Through Power, I claim Victory
Through Victory, my Chains are Broken


As with everything else about the Sith, their code is framed to mirror and reject the self sacrifice and self denial of the Jedi. And the implicit and explicit criticism is not entirely without merit. The pursuit of the selfless ideal involves a rejection of a lot of what makes people people, to a degree that easily becomes entirely unhealthy. The Jedi, particularly in the prequel films and much of the EU, are taught to see their own emotions and desires as a source not just of weakness, but of evil, something that must be rejected and repressed and denied. And keep in mind - they kidnap children at a very young age to raise them this way, this isn't a sacrifice made by healthy well adjusted, consenting adults who already have a wide experience of the world.

In fantasy settings, many knightly or paladin orders are like the Jedi - recruiting young children or even infants and not just training them but raising them to be self sacrificing exemplars. The 5e fluff for Aasimar is explicitly like this, with children chosen or even created by supernatural divine forces to be exemplars for their fellow mortals. They never had a choice, never had a chance to explore normal life for themselves.

Is it any wonder then that some of them eventually snap under the pressure of emotions and desires that they never learned to acknowledge, only to repress? Is it any wonder that those who do fall in this way tend not to fall subtly or by degrees, but instead dedicate themselves suddenly and whole heartedly to the rejection and defilement of all they once stood for, had been forced to stand for? That even as they realize the flaws in their previous philosophy, they still are unable to escape it? Emotionally stunted by decades of repression, first generation Sith/Blackguards lack the perspective to step out of the box they were raised in, the only thing they know how to do is invert it outright. They are intense and fanatical, like religious converts, with all the same zeal that had been drilled into them as children, but expressed as hatred and anger and fury at those who had denied them, and taught them to deny themselves.

IMO, the biggest driving factor in a Blackguard's personality and how you play them probably comes down to whether they are one of these first generation Blackguard - ie, a paladin trained and raised in a noble order who at some point rejects that training so completely as to dedicate their lives to its very opposite - or a later generation Blackguard - ie, someone who was never another type of paladin and who instead set out to become a Blackguard from the start, someone who saw the Blackguard's power and cruelty and wanted that for themselves, someone was chosen as a protege by an existing Blackguard because the mentor saw those qualities in them.

Later generation Sith/Blackguards are likely more laid back. Less zealous. Still destructive, but less self destructive in their self indulgence. Less interested in putting their lives on the line to cast down the hypocritical champions of the light and order. Less 'selfless in their selfishness', as it were. Oh, they'd still be cruel and power hungry, sure. But they'd be the kind of evil git who, after sacking a temple of St. Cuthbert, would be more interested in taking their stolen tithe gold to the seedy end of town for some bawdy, booze-soaked celebration, rather than sticking around to painstakingly arrange the public display of the priests' desecrated corpses. The kind who would look down on and maybe even pity the forces of goodness and order for their naivety, rather than viscerally hate them for their hypocrisy.

The difference between a villain who happily does evil in the pursuit of their passions, and a villain who feels so aggrieved by the self-described forces of good that the pursuit of evil in and of itself becomes their passion.

[jaappleton]

Treachery is actually a terrible name for that Oath.

There's not treacherous, really. They're incredibly self serving and neutral. 'Me' first. Which isn't evil, it's selfish.

Evil is kicking a puppy because you want to see the puppy suffer. A selfish person kicks a puppy because it bit him and he wants satisfaction. A good person trains the puppy to not bite, unless its protecting itself or its owner.

So... You could play it as a mercenary warrior, just as you would a Fighter. Nothing says "Oh, I have to stand for ____!"

It's your character, play it how you want.

[JobsforFun]

I would play a Paladin of Treachery more or less as a Star Wars Sith - not so much the film sith, who were more lawful-evil authoritarian types, but rather the EU Sith, a martial & spiritual order dedicated to personal power and self indulgence as a rejection of the self-sacrificing-to-the-point-of-self-denying Jedi order which their founders had abandoned in forming them.

Mapping that over to a D&D game, this would explain why your paladins of treachery would share so many techniques and abilities of the more noble and disciplined paladin orders. Some Blackguards would be 'first generation' - ie, more traditional paladins who had fallen from grace. While others might never have been other types of paladins, but even so have been trained in martial and magical traditions passed down by those who had been.

The Sith/Blackguard, whether first generation or later, follow a fundamentally Chaotic Evil tradition. While a given individual Blackguard might not be Chaotic Evil, the path they follow was established specifically as a rejection of the 'lawful' and the 'good'. Blackguards are on the whole fundamentally selfish, both in the sense of being highly individualist and in the sense of putting their own interests above those of others. This doesn't mean you can't have allies or companions, even the worst monsters of humanity often have friends and family they care about, but it should be reflected in your character's attitude and behavior towards strangers and institutions. To a Blackguard, their own personal freedom is paramount. Specifically the freedom to express and follow their passions, regardless of whether those passions are beautiful or horrific, regardless of the safety or freedom of anyone they might trample in the pursuit of those passions.

To paraphrase the Sith Code, which could be treated as a sort of Blackguard's Oath:

Peace is a lie, there is only Passion
Through Passion, I draw Strength
Through Strength, I gain Power
Through Power, I claim Victory
Through Victory, my Chains are Broken


As with everything else about the Sith, their code is framed to mirror and reject the self sacrifice and self denial of the Jedi. And the implicit criticism is not without merit. The pursuit of the selfless ideal involves a rejection of a lot of what makes people people, to a degree that easily becomes entirely unhealthy. The Jedi, particularly in the prequel films and much of the EU, are taught to see their own emotions and desires as a source not just of weakness, but of evil, something that must be rejected and repressed and denied. And keep in mind - they kidnap children at a very young age to raise them this way, this isn't a sacrifice made by healthy well adjusted adults who already have a wide experience of the world.

In fantasy settings, many knightly orders are like the Jedi - recruiting young children or even infants and not just training them but raising them to be self sacrificing exemplars. The 5e fluff for Aasimar is explicitly this, children chosen or even created by supernatural divine forces to be exemplars for their fellow mortals. They never had a choice, never had a chance to explore life for themselves.

Is it any wonder then that some of them eventually snap under the pressure of emotions and desires that they never learned to acknowledge, only to repress? Is it any wonder that those who do fall in this way tend not to fall subtly or by degrees, but instead dedicate themselves whole heartedly to the rejection and defilement of all they once stood for, had been forced to stand for? That even as they realize the flaws in their previous philosophy, they still are unable to escape it? Emotionally stunted by decades of repression, they lack the perspective to escape the box they were raised in, first generation Sith/Blackguards know only how to invert it. They are intense and fanatical, like converts, with all the same zeal that had been drilled into them as children, but expressed as hatred and anger and fury at those who had denied them, and taught them to deny themselves.

IMO, the biggest driving factor in a Blackguard's personality and how you play them probably comes down to whether they are one of these first generation Blackguard - ie, a paladin trained and raised in a noble order who at some point rejects that training so completely as to dedicate their lives to its very opposite - or a later generation Blackguard - ie, someone who was never another type of paladin and who instead set out to become a Blackguard from the start, someone who saw their power and cruelty and wanted that for themselves, someone was chosen as a protege by an existing Blackguard because the mentor saw those qualities in them.

Later generation Sith/Blackguards are likely more laid back. Less zealous. Still destructive, but less self destructive in their self indulgence. Less interested in putting their lives on the line to cast down the hypocritical champions of the light and order. Less 'selfless in their selfishness', as it were. Oh, they'd still be cruel and power hungry, sure. Those are the traits that would lead them to seek out Blackguards as potential mentors, and lead the Blackguards in turn to view them as worthy students. But they'd be the kind of evil git who, after sacking a temple of St. Cuthbert, would be more interested in taking their stolen tithe gold to the seedy end of town for some bawdy, booze-soaked celebration, rather than sticking around to painstakingly arrange the public display of the priests' desecrated corpses.

The difference is between a villain who happily does evil in the pursuit of their passions, and a villain who feels so aggrieved by the self-described forces of good that the pursuit of evil in and of itself becomes their passion.

I sort of understand what you're saying. Should I be Lawful Evil instead of Chaotic? I wanted it to be that my paladin was previously an oath of devotion paladin but at one point in time was cursed (or something similar) and that turned him evil and caused him to break his oath (obviously there is the issue a simple 'remove curse spell' from your friendly neighbor hood cleric might solve this problem but maybe he doesn't realize at some point in time he was good or it was some sort of deeper spell that cannot be broke with a simple 'remove curse', but that all depends on the DM writing stuff in the campaign tailored for our backstories which for this DM I highly doubt.)

I think paladin might become one of my new favorite classes which is odd because whenever I play games that have things such as wizards, tanks, etc I am always the class that has tons of spells but I love how Paladins have this deep oath they follow. (right now cleric is my favorite, mainly because I am playing 2 right now because in one group we didn't have one and well, that didn't work out for our healing needs)

[Desamir]

Treachery is actually a terrible name for that Oath.

There's not treacherous, really. They're incredibly self serving and neutral. 'Me' first. Which isn't evil, it's selfish.

Evil is kicking a puppy because you want to see the puppy suffer. A selfish person kicks a puppy because it bit him and he wants satisfaction. A good person trains the puppy to not bite, unless its protecting itself or its owner.

So... You could play it as a mercenary warrior, just as you would a Fighter. Nothing says "Oh, I have to stand for ____!"

It's your character, play it how you want.

No, evil isn't just limited to sadism. Evil in D&D is also sacrificing others to achieve your goals, which is selfishness.

[jaappleton]

No, evil isn't just limited to sadism. Evil in D&D is also sacrificing others to achieve your goals, which is selfishness.

It's pretty evil of you to dictate my definition of evil :smallbiggrin:

[JobsforFun]

Treachery is actually a terrible name for that Oath.

There's not treacherous, really. They're incredibly self serving and neutral. 'Me' first. Which isn't evil, it's selfish.

Evil is kicking a puppy because you want to see the puppy suffer. A selfish person kicks a puppy because it bit him and he wants satisfaction. A good person trains the puppy to not bite, unless its protecting itself or its owner.

So... You could play it as a mercenary warrior, just as you would a Fighter. Nothing says "Oh, I have to stand for ____!"

It's your character, play it how you want.

I understand where you're coming from, and will more than likely just let this characters personality develop overtime through our campaign that sadly, wont be that long.

[JobsforFun]

No, evil isn't just limited to sadism. Evil in D&D is also sacrificing others to achieve your goals, which is selfishness.

would you count it being evil if one of my characters accidentally killed 31 innocent towns folk but thought he was helping at the time?

[Sception]

While there's no chaotic alignment requirement on treachery, it's very much the 'Chaotic Evil' paladin subclass thematically, compared to the Tyrant's "Lawful Evil" and the Oathbreaker's "Neutral Evil".

In terms of which would work best for an alignment cursed paladin, Treachery fits fine if your character was cursed to become the polar opposite of the person they once were, like some sort of personality inversion, and in terms of how it was played I would run it as I described for a '1st generation blackguard' above, just with the difference that the rejection of their prior values was the result of magical mental manipulation rather than deliberate conscious choice.

Tyranny works more for if they had been mentally dominated by some evil authority, like cursed by a devil or some such, and Oathbreaker would, IMO, be the best fit for a paladin tainted by some sort of nebulous creeping magical corruption.

[Desamir]

would you count it being evil if one of my characters accidentally killed 31 innocent towns folk but but thought he was helping at the time?

The fact that he was trying to help them says to me it might have been an awful mistake, but it wasn't necessarily evil.

Wait... this actually happened, didn't it?

[JobsforFun]

While there's no chaotic alignment requirement on treachery, it's very much the 'Chaotic Evil' paladin subclass thematically, compared to the Tyrant's "Lawful Evil" and the Oathbreaker's "Neutral Evil".

In terms of which would work best for an alignment cursed paladin, Treachery fits fine if your character was cursed to become the polar opposite of the person they once were, like some sort of personality inversion, and in terms of how it was played I would run it as I described for a '1st generation blackguard' above, just with the difference that the rejection of their prior values was the result of magical mental manipulation rather than deliberate conscious choice.

Tyranny works more for if they had been mentally dominated by some evil authority, like cursed by a devil or some such, and Oathbreaker would, IMO, be the best fit for a paladin tainted by some sort of nebulous creeping magical corruption.

I had no doubts that other oaths might work better for the character idea I am going for but I like the abilities that treachery gets overall compared to oath breaker although both are good.

[JobsforFun]

The fact that he was trying to help them says to me it might have been an awful mistake, but it wasn't necessarily evil.

Wait... this actually happened, didn't it?

Little back story:

Currently playing a Lizard Folk Druid he doesn't really have alignment just playing the character who I see fit and the DM is fine with that. Town was over thrown by werewolves and we took the remaining townspeople underground through a tunnel system and we reached the end of it and our fighter tore the grate that was blocking the exit but made a lot of noise which caused werewolves that were in the woods to become aware of our location. There was a castle on an island that could only be reached via draw bridge or through the rocky ruff water surrounding it, I proceeded to turn myself into a fish to swim to the island because I thought the castle was refusing to drop the draw bridge and thought I'd be helping by forcing them to drop it so the townsfolk could run inside to safety. After getting out of the gate keepers grapple I cut the draw bridge down successfully but in reality the castle sent knights out to help us defend the townsfolk against the werewolves but since I cut the draw bridge down the knights started heading back towards the castle to defend it against some of the werewolves that were attacking it now which in turn left my 5 friends to defend the townsfolk against the hundreds of werewolves by themselves and caused 31 townsfolk to be murdered... BUT BUT BUT a whole 6 townsfolk survived so that worked I guess???

I ended up lying my way out of it with a natural 20 deception check....

[Sception]

Treachery works fine for an alignment curse that had the effect of making the character the polar opposite of the person they once were. Passionate instead of temperate, selfish instead of self-sacrificing, cruel instead of kind, rash instead of patient, indulgent instead of austere. It's the kind of curse a daemon lord might put on the servant of a lawful good deity in order to mock and insult them, and to expose other mortals to their inherent corruption by corrupting their champion, even if that corruption itself is a lie. Perhaps the paladin might even be possessed by a demon, such that you would be playing the demon itself, while the paladin's personality constantly rages and resists at the back of your mind.

Mechanically, Treachery and Oathbreaker are both great. Tyranny isn't bad, but it certainly feels a little bit lackluster by comparison. On the other hand, the 'disadvantage on fear saves' aura synergizes fantastically with the Fallen Aasimar's daily ability, so that's something at least.

[JobsforFun]

Treachery works fine for an alignment curse that had the effect of making the character the polar opposite of the person they once were. Passionate instead of temperate, selfish instead of self-sacrificing, cruel instead of kind, rash instead of patient, indulgent instead of austere. It's the kind of curse a daemon lord might put on the servant of a lawful good deity in order to mock and insult them, and to expose other mortals to their inherent corruption by corrupting their champion, even if that corruption itself is a lie. Perhaps the paladin might even be possessed by a demon, such that you would be playing the demon itself, while the paladin's personality constantly rages and resists at the back of your mind.

Mechanically, Treachery and Oathbreaker are both great. Tyranny isn't bad, but it certainly feels a little bit lackluster by comparison. On the other hand, the 'disadvantage on fear saves' aura synergizes fantastically with the Fallen Aasimar's daily ability, so that's something at least.

that idea about being possessed is actually similar to a friend who has an idea of a LG cleric who is a pacifist and is possessed by an evil demon. Thanks for the help, love this form for people willing to give their thoughts about people's questions!

[Gawayne]

I myself interpret, and describe to my players, that Good and Evil are exactly Selflessness and Selfishness. Is much more fun to role play and easier to understand. Doing Evil for Evils sake is just plainly stupid and cartoony, the only reason to act like that is if the character is mentally ill.


Little back story:

Currently playing a Lizard Folk Druid he doesn't really have alignment just playing the character who I see fit and the DM is fine with that. Town was over thrown by werewolves and we took the remaining townspeople underground through a tunnel system and we reached the end of it and our fighter tore the grate that was blocking the exit but made a lot of noise which caused werewolves that were in the woods to become aware of our location. There was a castle on an island that could only be reached via draw bridge or through the rocky ruff water surrounding it, I proceeded to turn myself into a fish to swim to the island because I thought the castle was refusing to drop the draw bridge and thought I'd be helping by forcing them to drop it so the townsfolk could run inside to safety. After getting out of the gate keepers grapple I cut the draw bridge down successfully but in reality the castle sent knights out to help us defend the townsfolk against the werewolves but since I cut the draw bridge down the knights started heading back towards the castle to defend it against some of the werewolves that were attacking it now which in turn left my 5 friends to defend the townsfolk against the hundreds of werewolves by themselves and caused 31 townsfolk to be murdered... BUT BUT BUT a whole 6 townsfolk survived so that worked I guess???

I ended up lying my way out of it with a natural 20 deception check....

The act itself wasn't Evil, but lying out of it and not taking responsability was. Also a Good character, maybe even a Neutral one, would be devastated by the horrible consequences you described, no matter how well intended you were.

Nothing wrong on being Evil, in fact most characters are Good or Neutral only on their character sheets. Never lifting a finger without payment unless it furthers their goals or threatens them directly, stealing everything that's not bolted to the floor, lying, manipulating and coercing everyone, always dealing lethal damage, executing everyone who offends them...

[Desamir]

I myself interpret, and describe to my players, that Good and Evil are exactly Selflessness and Selfishness. Is much more fun to role play and easier to understand. Doing Evil for Evils sake is just plainly stupid and cartoony, the only reason to act like that is if the character is mentally ill.

I agree, this is the simplest and most consistent way to distinguish D&D Good from D&D Evil.

Even "evil deeds for evil's sake" is itself just another form of selfishness, by sacrificing the well-being of other creatures for one's own amusement.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

would you count it being evil if one of my characters accidentally killed 31 innocent towns folk but thought he was helping at the time?

Accidentally? No. But if they were a Paladin of Treachery, they'd be okay with sacrificing them on purpose if it profited them. If a band of brigands offered to pay the Paladin enough to let them in the side gate one night so they could kill everyone and loot the place, the Paladin of Treachery would take them up on it, unless the townsfolk could pay more. And that's why they're evil.

You're confusing 'evil' with 'malice' when you think of puppy-kicking for fun. The desire to do harm for it's own sake is a subset of evil, not the only kind. A hit man and a stereotypical serial killer are both murderers, selfishness taken far enough and sadism are both facets of evil.

[Hawkstar]

Oath of Treachery is "****, I don't really want to do this Paladin stuff - too late to back out now without gimping my build, though, so I'm gonna do what I want and be a Paladin that doesn't have to give a **** about doing any sort of Paladin things"

It's the Oath of "Screw this, I'm outa here".

[Tectorman]

I had no doubts that other oaths might work better for the character idea I am going for but I like the abilities that treachery gets overall compared to oath breaker although both are good.

The Treachery Oath has no tenets of any kind. You're not even required to be evil or treacherous at all. So you can easily just use that Oath (for its abilities) and play as a Devotion or Ancients or whatever you want. Heck, if you've wanted to play a combination of Devotion and Vengeance with some tenets from one, some from another, but not keeping all of the tenets of either one, the Treachery Oath lets you do that.

Frankly, because you never have to hold to the tenets just to avoid a multiclass or a forced Oath change, a Treachery Paladin played as a Devotion or other Paladin is IMO a truer Paladin than one with those tenets as strict requirements.

[Honest Tiefling]

Perhaps to add to the idea of the curse: Most DMs won't make a paladin (or cleric) fall because of actions taken outside of their own control. However, perhaps this 'curse' came with some temporary side effects that were actually quite beneficial. And the foolish aasimar thought to delay getting it removed to tap into this power to save people. They're an aasimar, they have the strength of will to overcome this curse, right? Surely if anyone could, it would be the character! They are more then just a normal aasimar, they are a holy servant of a god! Blessed with more power, blessed with more strength! The very symbol of the god and their will.

And it would be such a tragedy to not have that power to save people when needed, right? And there's always someone who needs saving, always someone new who needs help. Until the aasimar had been carrying the curse for quite some time, even resisting efforts from fellows to be 'cured'. They didn't NEED to be cured, they were in the right! There is no time to argue over this matter when people are dying! These other followers were fools, blinded by their jealousy. Perhaps one actually was quite jealous of the aasimar and their innate connection to the forces of good, and unmistakably so. Perhaps this person did genuine harm to either the paladin or to the faithful because of this jealousy.

So, when the foolish followers ignored the orders of the aasimar to release them from the curse, he slew them. He slew them to keep the power to protect others...Then realizing, at that moment, the powers of good weren't enough. Were never enough to do what they proposed. Their own god abandoned them for doing the right thing. Then if the god would turn their back on the most faithful of followers, then they would spit into their face. Being selfless was nothing more then a shackle to an uncaring god who watched people die when there was a way to prevent those deaths. Why follow this path of cowardice and weakness? Why not seize power to change the world as you see fit?

See, the aasimar was cursed, but the curse didn't make them slay those people trying to help him, for the curse wasn't strong enough. That action was entirely of the aasimar's doing. Removing the curse now will have no effect on the aasimar's alignment, for they have already given into the temptation of power.

[jaappleton]

Oath of Treachery is "****, I don't really want to do this Paladin stuff - too late to back out now without gimping my build, though, so I'm gonna do what I want and be a Paladin that doesn't have to give a **** about doing any sort of Paladin things"

It's the Oath of "Screw this, I'm outa here".

Precisely.

[Ewhit]

Oath of conquest is listed as a lawful evil type. A good example stanis game of thrones. All about his law. You saved me onion but I have to cut your fingers off because ur a smuggler
I have to sacrifice my daughter to win
Oath treachery chaotic evil. Best example the firstcdeath knight. Paladin killed his family and cursed and demogorgon turned him.
However remember rules are whoever is strongest makes the rules. Chaotic doesn't mean you run around crazy and chaotic. You will agree to rules and betray those rules friends etc whenever you want.

[Spellbreaker26]

Stannis isn't Lawful Evil, he's Lawful Neutral, and if anything a flat out Oath of the Crown Paladin.

[Malifice]

I would play a Paladin of Treachery more or less as a Star Wars Sith - not so much the film sith, who were more lawful-evil authoritarian types, but rather the EU Sith, a martial & spiritual order dedicated to personal power and self indulgence as a rejection of the self-sacrificing-to-the-point-of-self-denying Jedi order which their founders had abandoned in forming them.

Mapping that over to a D&D game, this would explain why your paladins of treachery would share so many techniques and abilities of the more noble and disciplined paladin orders. Some Blackguards would be 'first generation' - ie, more traditional paladins who had fallen from grace. While others might never have been other types of paladins, but even so have been trained in martial and magical traditions passed down by those who had been.

The Sith/Blackguard, whether first generation or later, follow a fundamentally Chaotic Evil tradition. While a given individual Blackguard might not be Chaotic Evil, the path they follow was established specifically as a rejection of the 'lawful' and the 'good'. Blackguards are on the whole fundamentally selfish, both in the sense of being highly individualist and in the sense of putting their own interests above those of others. This doesn't mean you can't have allies or companions, even the worst monsters of humanity often have friends and family they care about, but it should be reflected in your character's attitude and behavior towards strangers and institutions. To a Blackguard, their own personal freedom is paramount. Specifically the freedom to express and follow their passions, regardless of whether those passions are beautiful or horrific, regardless of the safety or freedom of anyone they might trample in the pursuit of those passions.

To paraphrase the Sith Code, which could be treated as a sort of Blackguard's Oath:

Peace is a lie, there is only Passion
Through Passion, I draw Strength
Through Strength, I gain Power
Through Power, I claim Victory
Through Victory, my Chains are Broken


As with everything else about the Sith, their code is framed to mirror and reject the self sacrifice and self denial of the Jedi. And the implicit and explicit criticism is not entirely without merit. The pursuit of the selfless ideal involves a rejection of a lot of what makes people people, to a degree that easily becomes entirely unhealthy. The Jedi, particularly in the prequel films and much of the EU, are taught to see their own emotions and desires as a source not just of weakness, but of evil, something that must be rejected and repressed and denied. And keep in mind - they kidnap children at a very young age to raise them this way, this isn't a sacrifice made by healthy well adjusted, consenting adults who already have a wide experience of the world.

In fantasy settings, many knightly or paladin orders are like the Jedi - recruiting young children or even infants and not just training them but raising them to be self sacrificing exemplars. The 5e fluff for Aasimar is explicitly like this, with children chosen or even created by supernatural divine forces to be exemplars for their fellow mortals. They never had a choice, never had a chance to explore normal life for themselves.

Is it any wonder then that some of them eventually snap under the pressure of emotions and desires that they never learned to acknowledge, only to repress? Is it any wonder that those who do fall in this way tend not to fall subtly or by degrees, but instead dedicate themselves suddenly and whole heartedly to the rejection and defilement of all they once stood for, had been forced to stand for? That even as they realize the flaws in their previous philosophy, they still are unable to escape it? Emotionally stunted by decades of repression, first generation Sith/Blackguards lack the perspective to step out of the box they were raised in, the only thing they know how to do is invert it outright. They are intense and fanatical, like religious converts, with all the same zeal that had been drilled into them as children, but expressed as hatred and anger and fury at those who had denied them, and taught them to deny themselves.

IMO, the biggest driving factor in a Blackguard's personality and how you play them probably comes down to whether they are one of these first generation Blackguard - ie, a paladin trained and raised in a noble order who at some point rejects that training so completely as to dedicate their lives to its very opposite - or a later generation Blackguard - ie, someone who was never another type of paladin and who instead set out to become a Blackguard from the start, someone who saw the Blackguard's power and cruelty and wanted that for themselves, someone was chosen as a protege by an existing Blackguard because the mentor saw those qualities in them.

Later generation Sith/Blackguards are likely more laid back. Less zealous. Still destructive, but less self destructive in their self indulgence. Less interested in putting their lives on the line to cast down the hypocritical champions of the light and order. Less 'selfless in their selfishness', as it were. Oh, they'd still be cruel and power hungry, sure. But they'd be the kind of evil git who, after sacking a temple of St. Cuthbert, would be more interested in taking their stolen tithe gold to the seedy end of town for some bawdy, booze-soaked celebration, rather than sticking around to painstakingly arrange the public display of the priests' desecrated corpses. The kind who would look down on and maybe even pity the forces of goodness and order for their naivety, rather than viscerally hate them for their hypocrisy.

The difference between a villain who happily does evil in the pursuit of their passions, and a villain who feels so aggrieved by the self-described forces of good that the pursuit of evil in and of itself becomes their passion.

The Sith are CE.

[Cluedrew]

The Paladin Oath of WHAT!?! Yeah, I missed this one previously.

[Sception]

The Sith are CE.

EU sith, yeah. Film sith, not so much. Sidious, Tyrannus, and Vader were all very much lawful characters, while Maul wasn't really enough of a character to ascribe any particular alignment to.

But in the EU sources that describe th Sith, they're usually very much Chaotic Evil, in a way that I find to be an ideal template for Paladins of Treachery, should you want to portray them as a kind of discrete tradition rather than exclusively one off individuals.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

EU sith, yeah. Film sith, not so much. Sidious, Tyrannus, and Vader were all very much lawful characters, while Maul wasn't really enough of a character to ascribe any particular alignment to.

Tyrranus and Vader were lawful characters, I have grave doubts about Sidious/Palpatine. Just because he took over the government by manipulating the law doesn't make him lawful. Vader was the one always talking about bringing order to the galaxy, Palpatine just wanted to be able to do whatever he wanted and enjoy people suffering.

[JobsforFun]

Perhaps to add to the idea of the curse: Most DMs won't make a paladin (or cleric) fall because of actions taken outside of their own control. However, perhaps this 'curse' came with some temporary side effects that were actually quite beneficial. And the foolish aasimar thought to delay getting it removed to tap into this power to save people. They're an aasimar, they have the strength of will to overcome this curse, right? Surely if anyone could, it would be the character! They are more then just a normal aasimar, they are a holy servant of a god! Blessed with more power, blessed with more strength! The very symbol of the god and their will.

And it would be such a tragedy to not have that power to save people when needed, right? And there's always someone who needs saving, always someone new who needs help. Until the aasimar had been carrying the curse for quite some time, even resisting efforts from fellows to be 'cured'. They didn't NEED to be cured, they were in the right! There is no time to argue over this matter when people are dying! These other followers were fools, blinded by their jealousy. Perhaps one actually was quite jealous of the aasimar and their innate connection to the forces of good, and unmistakably so. Perhaps this person did genuine harm to either the paladin or to the faithful because of this jealousy.

So, when the foolish followers ignored the orders of the aasimar to release them from the curse, he slew them. He slew them to keep the power to protect others...Then realizing, at that moment, the powers of good weren't enough. Were never enough to do what they proposed. Their own god abandoned them for doing the right thing. Then if the god would turn their back on the most faithful of followers, then they would spit into their face. Being selfless was nothing more then a shackle to an uncaring god who watched people die when there was a way to prevent those deaths. Why follow this path of cowardice and weakness? Why not seize power to change the world as you see fit?

See, the aasimar was cursed, but the curse didn't make them slay those people trying to help him, for the curse wasn't strong enough. That action was entirely of the aasimar's doing. Removing the curse now will have no effect on the aasimar's alignment, for they have already given into the temptation of power.

I sort of understand what you're working towards, I like it because it dives deeper into the curse aspect.

[JobsforFun]

EU sith, yeah. Film sith, not so much. Sidious, Tyrannus, and Vader were all very much lawful characters, while Maul wasn't really enough of a character to ascribe any particular alignment to.

But in the EU sources that describe th Sith, they're usually very much Chaotic Evil, in a way that I find to be an ideal template for Paladins of Treachery, should you want to portray them as a kind of discrete tradition rather than exclusively one off individuals.

agreed, the sith have a code to follow.

[Sception]

Tyrranus and Vader were lawful characters, I have grave doubts about Sidious/Palpatine. Just because he took over the government by manipulating the law doesn't make him lawful. Vader was the one always talking about bringing order to the galaxy, Palpatine just wanted to be able to do whatever he wanted and enjoy people suffering.

Sidious takes over the galaxy using the law, but then what does he do? Does he disassemble it? Ignore it? No, he expands and entrenches it. The key to a lawful evil character isn't that they follow the law or have faith in the law, it's that they see laws and social structures as the primary means of consolidating and enhancing their power. More rules more hooks to ensnare their enemies. They see anarchy and individualism as inherently contrary to their interest, they conflate those things with freedom, the way chaotic good characters do.

Sidious's actions really put him more on the lawful end, here. Maybe one could call him neutral, if you add in some of his behavior and dialog from the Clone Wars show, but certainly not chaotic.

Of course, film characters, as with real people, rarely conform to a paricular space on a rigid alignment grid.


EU sith, though, while they have a code and at times used an army, are very much bound up in individualism, their entire code is about it, though it wasn't until Darth Bane that their actual organization and tradition really reflected their ideology.

[Malifice]

EU sith, yeah. Film sith, not so much. Sidious, Tyrannus, and Vader were all very much lawful characters, while Maul wasn't really enough of a character to ascribe any particular alignment to.

But in the EU sources that describe th Sith, they're usually very much Chaotic Evil, in a way that I find to be an ideal template for Paladins of Treachery, should you want to portray them as a kind of discrete tradition rather than exclusively one off individuals.

Vader was lawful? In what possible way?

He was the epitome of CE. He acted however his anger, hatred and fear dictated.

He betrayed the Jedi, Obi-Wan, the Sith, the Emperor, the Empire, Lando Calrissian, Boba Fett, his wife, daughter, apprentice and others. He lived and operated outside of the law and the imperial hierarchy, and did what he wanted (subject to the Emperor, who he only followed out of fear).

Is summary murder of Imperial officers the law? What code did he have? Did he keep his word ever? He acted outside the law and hierarchy of the Empire and was renowned for lashing out in anger and hatred. Bad mouth him and he murders you. Fail him and he murders you. His word means nothing. There is nothing lawful about him.

The Sith have one rule (the rule of 2) and be broke that by training a secret apprentice. Whom he also betrayed.

Look up the definition of CE. He was that to a tee.

He was CG as a Jedi. As a Sith he was clearly CE. Seriously what was his code? The Sith code is the definition of a CE code: act as your hatred and fear dictate.

Don't mistake his devotion to the force as making him lawful. He betrayed and destroyed everything and every one he knew and loved.

[Malifice]

Sidious takes over the galaxy using the law, but then what does he do? Does he disassemble it? Ignore it? No, he expands and entrenches it. The key to a lawful evil character isn't that they follow the law or have faith in the law, it's that they see laws and social structures as the primary means of consolidating and enhancing their power. More rules more hooks to ensnare their enemies. They see anarchy and individualism as inherently contrary to their interest, they conflate those things with freedom, the way chaotic good characters do.

Sidious's actions really put him more on the lawful end, here. Maybe one could call him neutral, if you add in some of his behavior and dialog from the Clone Wars show, but certainly not chaotic.

Of course, film characters, as with real people, rarely conform to a paricular space on a rigid alignment grid.


EU sith, though, while they have a code and at times used an army, are very much bound up in individualism, their entire code is about it, though it wasn't until Darth Bane that their actual organization and tradition really reflected their ideology.

I'm happy to have the Emperor as LE - he uses and subverts the law to his own ends and hides behind it as it suits him. The Empire is LE as a society also.

But vader was as CE as it gets.

[Malifice]

"A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse."

Darth vader. Hatred incarnate. He is hot tempered and arbitrarily violent. He breaks his word when it suits him, follows rules only when convenient (indeed he's famed for doing his own thing and acting independently). He betrays the Republic, Empire, Jedi and Sith. His own wife and best friend. An audience with him is as likely to end in your death as it is with his favor.

The only person he followed was the Emperor and that was only out of fear... and he actively sought to overthrow him in any event before pegging him down a shaft at the moment of the Emperors final triumph.

"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion."

What was Vaders 'code of conduct'? Keep his word? Nope. No killing kids? Nope. Don't strike down a defenceless person? They're the best kind. What tradition did he care about? The Jedi? The Sith? The Republic? The Empire? He destroyed all of them one at a time. Who was ever loyal to? He only followed the Emperor out of fear and actively tried to supplant him.

The dude was clearly CE. He was just the principal agent for a LE regime.

Which is exactly why the regime crumbled. His independence and unpredictability was the downfall of the Empire.

As a Jedi he was unorthodox, uncontrollable and unpredictable. He worked outside of normal rules and conventions. But he was a good if flawed man. As a Sith he was identical- just his moral compass was reversed. He was just as uncontrollable and unpredictable, only he was consumed by hatred and evil.

[Sception]

Yeah, alright, I was wrong there, Vader falls more into the chaotic side.

Though a lot of the referenced behavior comes from the prequels (where he's essentially an entirely different character), and EU stuff, where again, EU sith in general are much more chaotic in their behavior than film sith. Including Sidious, who hovers between lawful and neutral evil on the big screen, and between neutral and chaotic evil in a lot of his book and television portrayals.

Selecting an apprentice isn't really a violation of the rule of 2, though, that's generally the motivating factor that pushes the apprentice into challenging their master, where as the master is outright supposed to select and start training a second apprentice to pit against the first if it looks like the first is becoming entrenched and unambitious like Vader did.

But a lot of EU stuff either abandons the rule of two, or only pays lip service to it, because frankly it's kind of dumb and based on one of the dumber concepts out of the pile of dumb concepts introduced in the prequels.

Frankly, I'm kind of glad the new films seem to be abandoning the Sith altogether, so as to ditch that unfortunate baggage.

[Honest Tiefling]

Frankly, I'm kind of glad the new films seem to be abandoning the Sith altogether, so as to ditch that unfortunate baggage.

You and me both. Through most of the EU portrayals I've seen were SWTOR, where it seemed like the Derp Side of the force was battling the Other Derp Side over the galaxy. I'm going to assume that the rest of the EU stuff was more...Coherent.

BTW, do not use SWTOR (The MMO) stuff for this character, from what I have seen it's pretty lolzy.

[Sception]

Some is better, some worse. The Darth Bane books were pretty good. Did about the best job trying to justify the 'rule of two' and describe it as a potentially functional thing that I think is really possible. But they're still books trying to do something good with an idea that wasn't very good to start.