Is this contradictory?

[TheManicMonocle]

So, here's the thing. My favorite character I've ever made is a 5e Tiefling Paladin/Warlock, (Vengeance/Infernal) and whenever I bring him up, it becomes slightly controversial, in the nice way. The reason is obvious: paladin warlock? Isn't that contradictory?

My argument (to my DM at the time) is that Oath of Vengeance allows you to make accord with lesser evils to fight the greater. (Note: we started at level 5 for that campaign)

In that vein, my character's backstory was that his wife was kidnapped by a local baron and he lacked the power to save her, so he made a pact in desperation.

Many have argued that that's going too far. Surely the gods of good would not countenance this. What do you guys think?

[the_brazenburn]

Ehhhh...

Normally, I'd say it's okay, but an Infernal pact seems wrong. Fey, GOO, even hexblade: fine. But selling your soul to Asmodeus doesn't seem like "fighting the greater evil". Asmodeus is always the greater evil.

[Percy_Ikana]

I'm not fond of multicasting, but, I see no reason why that isn't a good explanation. After all, paladins (especially vengance paladins) are not required to be good.

[Talamare]

1 - Evil is Relative...
"FROM MY POINT OF VIEW IT'S THE JEDI WHO ARE EVIL!"

2 - Paladin of Vengeance wants to Destroy the Greatest Evil
So an Evil entity might want to destroy a more powerful Evil-er entity, aka lesser of 2 evils
Not to mention it's relative again, so you might feel a lesser evil is actually the greatest evil

3 - Selling your soul motif is always popular

[GlenSmash!]

In 5e a Paladin is not required to be LG. in fact I would say that the Tenets of the Oath of Vengeance make it very difficult to be LG.

[KorvinStarmast]

Many have argued that that's going too far. Surely the gods of good would not countenance this. What do you guys think? I think that you should advise those who criticize your character to back off.

The Paladin of Vengeance can take a wide variety of forms and have a wide variety of motivations. If allying with a dark force is an enabler to pursuit of Vengeance, what's the problem? The problem, if there is one, is with the internal struggle that the paladin undergoes and some plot hooks that the DM can slide in thanks to this dubious alliance choice the Paladin made. Plenty of good plot lines involve people making difficult choices and the consequences of same.

Roll with it, and make the most of it. The hero with a tortured soul is a trope for a good reason.

Is it contradictory? It doesn't have to be.

[Easy_Lee]

Even if we go with the alignment system, devils are Lawful whereas demons are not. You can theoretically cut a deal with a devil and have that devil uphold his end (to the letter, be careful with the wording). With demons, all bets are off.

What you've described is a bit like Ghost Rider. Say your character is Lawful, not good. He fights the forces of chaos: lying, cheating, betrayal.

[Grod_The_Giant]

There's also always refluffing. A multiclass character doesn't have to be a mix of two radially different ideas. You're not a Paladin/Warlock, you're a "hellfire knight." Reflavor the Fiend pact as being with an archangel who gifted you with fire and wrath. Nothing says you have to slavishly adhere to WotC's ideas for what the classes mean, provided your DM is on board.

[Unoriginal]

The reason is obvious: paladin warlock? Isn't that contradictory?

It's neither obviously controversial nor contradictory.



My argument (to my DM at the time) is that Oath of Vengeance allows you to make accord with lesser evils to fight the greater. (Note: we started at level 5 for that campaign)

In that vein, my character's backstory was that his wife was kidnapped by a local baron and he lacked the power to save her, so he made a pact in desperation.

Many have argued that that's going too far. Surely the gods of good would not countenance this. What do you guys think?

5e Paladins have nothing to do with the gods of good.

Also, even the Infernal Pact doesn't involve literally selling your soul. You just get infused with some magic one time, in exchange for X thing, and then the Patron has no power over you.

Furthermore, if your PC lacked the power to save his wife, it was probably before he became Paladin, so he could have become a Paladin afterward, due to his determination to not let people like this evil baron get away freely with their crimes.

But if you want a justification from the books themselves: your character wanted power, so he went in the shaddiest part of town and met with a Xvart who was rumored to have magic powers. As it turns out, he was indeed a Warlock, and seeing your character's distress (and after being payed a relatively large sum), he told your PC to make an offering to Raxivort, giving up something very valuable (both to him and objectively). Raxivort was interested enough to show up and agree to make your PC a Warlock, at the condition he'd be given a magic item the baron had. The deal was made, and with his new powers your character defeated the baron and did his end of the pact.

[Quoxis]

I played a similar character, just that it was a life cleric/fiend warlock.
The backstory was something about him being a poor farmer who couldn't pay the vast taxes of his landlord, so that dude sent some of his men to burn the farm and break my character's legs (yeah, the dark ages are called that for a reason). In his helplessness he cried out for anyone or anything to help him - a not further described devil/demon saw their chance, made a pact, gave him new vigor to fight despite his broken limbs, and the magic to back it up. But killing the underlings wasn't enough - with his new found powers he attacked the manor of the landlord, setting it aflame,
and only after this rush of bloodlust he realized that thanks to him, many innocents, even women and children,
were burned alive.
Seeking atonement he turned himself towards the gods, mainly the god of suffering and martyrdom, Ilmater. He's living with constant pain in his accursed legs, and he took on the role of a protector and helper, leaving his one weak day behind, but without ever forgetting his guilt.
The DM loved the idea of a conflicted hero seeking atunement. Now, with Xanathar's guide out, a paladin of redemption would be the ideal fit, but that's just one of many possibilities.

As has been said: your paladin wants revenge, he wants to slay the greater evil in his opinion. Your BBEG might, according to him, be worse than the fiend he made a pact with, for a variety of reasons:
- it's a minor devil, bound to hell without a direct way to interfere with the world, and there's no way your character would work in its will (or is there?), while the BBEG has rugs made out of baby skin.
- the pact itself was written in a way that made it seem like a good deal without downsides for the world itself - that's what devils' pacts are known for, after all - as in the order of the stick comic, for example.
- okay, i don't know more than those two, but it's a start.

Also: there are clerics to evil deities, so why not paladins?

edit: ninja'd

[JNAProductions]

Agreed on refluffing and this being not an overly controversial or contradictory backstory.

Regardless, are you having fun? Are the other people at your table having fun? If the answer to both of those is yes, then just keep gaming. Have a good time.

[DarkKnightJin]

Padlock isn't inherently contradictory. Warlocks aren't inherently evil. And Paladin, especially Vengeance, aren't necessarily Good.

And a Fiend pact doesn't mean they sold their soul.
Hell, being a Tiefling, it could literally be like their grandpa in the 9 Hells funneling his grandchild some power to help keep them safe.

I hate how everybody always goes to 'sold your soul' when warlock, and especially Fiend, is brought up.

It could be they found a text that let them contact their Patron, it could be they are siphoning off a minute fraction of the Patron's power and the Patron doesn't kniw and/or care.

It's all about how you fluff it for that character.

If you're enjoying the character, and the rest of the table has no issue with it.. Don't worry about it, and just keep enjoying yourself.

[Tanarii]

In 5e a Paladin is not required to be LG. in fact I would say that the Tenets of the Oath of Vengeance make it very difficult to be LG.It would also run pretty decently at LE IMO.
I've had someone choose CG to go with it before. That bent my mind a little bit. I didn't get to see the character in play long enough to see how it panned out.


Asmodeus is always the greater evil.Make a pact with a lesser Devil then. :smallamused:

[DKing9114]

It would also run pretty decently at LE IMO.
I've had someone choose CG to go with it before. That bent my mind a little bit. I didn't get to see the character in play long enough to see how it panned out.


Depends on exactly how you run Chaotic vs Lawful. I played a Chaotic Neutral Vengeance Paladin/Assassin for several sessions, with the reasoning that he had no real use for law, order, or society. Kill the ruler of the Evil Empire; also, kill pretty much everyone who works with or for him. Up until joining the party, he had never given any thought to what would come afterwards, or what sort of power vacuum his success might create.

[Malifice]

So, here's the thing. My favorite character I've ever made is a 5e Tiefling Paladin/Warlock, (Vengeance/Infernal) and whenever I bring him up, it becomes slightly controversial, in the nice way. The reason is obvious: paladin warlock? Isn't that contradictory?

My argument (to my DM at the time) is that Oath of Vengeance allows you to make accord with lesser evils to fight the greater. (Note: we started at level 5 for that campaign)

You can be a CE Vengance Paladin if you want.

In fact most of them are Neutral or Evil.

The tenents of the Oath condone genocide, torture and murder. By any means and all that.

[LeonBH]

Mechanically, there's no contradiction. You can multiclass them without issue.

Fluff-wise, as the others have said, there's no need to be Good as a Paladin or Evil as a Warlock. There's nothing stopping you from making an Oath to and a Pact with the same entity, who is perfectly willing to have multiple avenues of controlling you. Heck, they could have even made you swear the Oath first and bound you with words, but then made you enter a Pact as well and bound you with ink.

Alternatively, you could straight up play a Jekyll and Hyde scenario where your personality switches from one turn to another, allowing to have two alignments at the same time (if your DM agrees and you can pull off the RP well).

If you have a good god whom you made an Oath to, but then also swore a Pact with an evil fiend, the above suggestion works. As for why the good-aligned gods and the evil-aligned fiends are okay with it... well, what can they do? Look around you and see human suffering everywhere that the good-aligned gods could prevent with their godly powers but don't. Maybe you're just a speck to them just like everybody else, and their true intentions are unknowable.

Or perhaps they want you to have both the Oath and the Pact because if they disallowed it, they would be akin to taking away your free will, and that would be an evil act that a good god cannot do. After all, an imperfect tiefling can commit mistakes and do an evil act every now and then, but a good god can never do one themselves.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

On top of the various sensible things that have already been said, remember that Warlock Pacts don't necessarily come from your classic Faustian bargain. The PHB gives several examples of being beholden to a Pact involuntarily, accidentally, or even without knowing it.

[Unoriginal]

Paladins don't make an Oath to a god. They make an Oath to themselves.

Paladins swing around divine powers for two levels by sheer force of will, before making their Oath.

[LeonBH]

Paladins can swear Oaths to anyone, including themselves and gods, especially since we're talking about refluffing things. Besides, they're divine casters. People commonly play them as followers of gods.

[Rogerdodger557]

Not at all. There are a couple Paladin/Warlock Multiclass option that make sense thematically. In the fluff for Oath of Conquest, they straight up talk about how some go to far and become hell knights, and could easily be represented by multiclassing Fiendlock. Oath of Ancients/Archfey or Oath of Redemption/Celestial, and depending of the location of your campaign, more might make sense. In FR, Oath of Crown/Undying would be from Thay, and Oath of Crown/Hexblade would be reasonable for a servant of the Raven Queen. In the fluff for Oath of Conquest, they straight up talk about how some go to far and become hell knights, and could easily be represented by multiclassing Fiendlock.

[Glorthindel]

It probably falls afoul of my multiclassing restrictions in that it clearly smells of "trying to find an explanation to justify the multiclass after the fact" rather than the multiclass organically suiting the character.

Also, I am a firm believer that the most interesting parts of a characters life should occur at the table, whereas the background here sounds like the character has already gone though a full plot arc already. I am not opposed to a Paladin character stretching his vows, and plumbing every depth to complete his vengeance, but I would want to see that played out at the table.

Where you say "my character's backstory was that his wife was kidnapped by a local baron and he lacked the power to save her, so he made a pact in desperation", that skips over the Oath - surely the Oath (being one of vengeance) would have been the thing taken after her kidnap, and the pact be a later thing once the oath proved to not be enough. Which takes me back to the fact this stuff should be occuring at the table: the attempt at vengeance, the faliure, the search for an even greater power, the swearing of the pact, and the eventual successful revenge should be the characters arc at the table, not the history brought to it.

[Naanomi]

Even if you did a full ‘sell your soul for power’ deal; selling yourself ultimately to save others from a more immediate threat seems like a very Oath or Vengeance thing to do

[Strifer]

How about a pala/lock who is lawfull neutral and all about eradication chaos and those who break the law? I could see this being awesome if the party/story alows for it :)

[Joe the Rat]

It can be contradictory, but that does not make it unplayable.

Let's assume organic multiclassing (i.e. you play the build as he levels).

Where did you start?
As a Paladin: You are going down the road of the Righteous Warrior (and your Oath isn't until level 3). Push comes to shove, you make the interesting choice of cutting a deal for an immediate gain (Warlock levels), putting your overall arc on one of spiraling bad choices in the name of good ends, or a lovely redemption arc. Alternatively, you can take a "Hellsworn Lite" approach to the Oath, being anchored strongly in the Lawful-to-Cuthbertian range (you know, the yutzes with high standards and low resistance to being dragged the wrong direction). The fiend can be a matter of playing the Malconvoker - Using evil to fight evil.

As a Warlock: Your pact is in backstory (for whatever reasons), and pursuing the Oath is your attempt at redeeming yourself / thwarting your patron. As others have said, your deal may not have literal soul-selling - you may be given a set of tasks to perform or have performed, and you are free to spend the rest of your time as you like, as there was no "conflict of interests" clause.


And don't forget, your relationship with your Patron can take a lot of forms - including stolen power, formal and businesslike, enemy of my enemy (Devils as Patrons are great in highly Demonic campaigns), adversarial, ...romantic...
Or It's Grazzz't, and he's doing it for giggles.

One I always like to pitch to folks with interesting bloodlines is the idea of Patronage being a bit more... Paternal. This isn't about a deal, this is heritage.

[CantigThimble]

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

So, vengeance paladins are dedicated to the annihilation of their sworn enemies, and allowing other evil to exist is permissable in pursuit of that. So, what is this character's sworn enemy? That one nobleman? Corrupt nobility in general? The kingdom that allowed that nobleman to exist?

What twisted logic lets him consider that sworn enemy to be a greater evil than the powers of hell? Does he just not think the powers of hell are a direct enough threat to worry about while the corrupt nobility exists and is directly harming people?

[Tanarii]

Even if you did a full ‘sell your soul for power’ deal; selling yourself ultimately to save others from a more immediate threat seems like a very Oath or Vengeance thing to do
Yup. Ancients / Fey, Vengeance / Anything and now Devotion or Redemption / Celestial, and Conquest / Infernal, all make good "sense" within the existing archetype for Paladin/Warlock combinations. They work well, thematically

Although a properly edgy, but not outright evil, Vengeance Pally, Hexblade is probably better than Infernal. :smallbiggrin:



What twisted logic lets him consider that sworn enemy to be a greater evil than the powers of hell? Does he just not think the powers of hell are a direct enough threat to worry about while the corrupt nobility exists and is directly harming people?
Hell isn't some monolithic evil. There are greater and lesser evils within it.

Also, to answer your first question, possible greater evils than the powers of hell, in terms of total consequence to the world, or actual power:
- Demonic invasions.
- Far Realms incursions
- Humanoid hoards (or alien-like insectoids) sweeping across the land like locusts, eradicating civilization entirely.
- a Kingpriest
- Baernoloths
- Evil Gods

[Naanomi]

“Greater Evil” doesn’t even have to be cosmologically Greater... Asmodeus getting one more soul is a drop in the bucket of infinite Evil... using the power he grants you to save the continent from a hoard of rampaging orcs united under their new warlord could easily be a ‘greater evil’ position

[CantigThimble]

Hell isn't some monolithic evil. There are greater and lesser evils within it.

Also, to answer your first question, possible greater evils than the powers of hell, in terms of total consequence to the world, or actual power:
- Demonic invasions.
- Far Realms incursions
- Humanoid hoards (or alien-like insectoids) sweeping across the land like locusts, eradicating civilization entirely.
- a Kingpriest
- Baernoloths
- Evil Gods

Sure, I wasn't trying to suggest that there are no reasonable answers to the question I posed, but you really can't justify making a pact with hell on any basis other than consequentialist ethics. Since the principle of 'evil' can pretty much be defined as 'how similar is this thing to a lord of hell?'.

You need to be thinking of the idea of 'greater evil' in terms of 'how much harm will this cause?' rather than 'how intrinsically evil is it?' in order to consider working with demons.

Of course, the whole 'I'm just stealing power and there are no significant costs' angle avoids this problem, but I think that approach is boring.

[the_brazenburn]

Also, to answer your first question, possible greater evils than the powers of hell, in terms of total consequence to the world, or actual power:
- Demonic invasions.
- Far Realms incursions
- Humanoid hoards (or alien-like insectoids) sweeping across the land like locusts, eradicating civilization entirely.
- a Kingpriest
- Baernoloths
- Evil Gods

1. Demons aren't as dangerous as devils because they aren't organized. They just raid here and there, but they don't have long-term plans to destroy all the other planes like Asmodeus and Co.
2. Okay, yes. Far Realm is bad, but it completely defies the alignment system altogether. They aren't evil, they're simply alien.
3. Oh, come on. Devils don't just want to destroy civilization, they want to kill every single living being so they can collect and torment their souls. Nothing mortal comes even close to that.
4 & 5. I could probably come up with some infallible logic to prove these irrelevant... if I had the slightest idea what they were.
6. Brazenburn's First Law: Gods do not directly interfere with the mortal world.

I'm sticking to my "devils are the greatest evil" opinion.

[Malifice]

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

So, vengeance paladins are dedicated to the annihilation of their sworn enemies, and allowing other evil to exist is permissable in pursuit of that. So, what is this character's sworn enemy? That one nobleman? Corrupt nobility in general? The kingdom that allowed that nobleman to exist?

What twisted logic lets him consider that sworn enemy to be a greater evil than the powers of hell? Does he just not think the powers of hell are a direct enough threat to worry about while the corrupt nobility exists and is directly harming people?

Lol.

My vengeance Paladin is sworn to the forces of Hell. He worships Bane and is LE.

His sworn enemies are (LG) Torm and his deluded followers.

[Tanarii]

Sure, I wasn't trying to suggest that there are no reasonable answers to the question I posed, but you really can't justify making a pact with hell on any basis other than consequentialist ethics. Since the principle of 'evil' can pretty much be defined as 'how similar is this thing to a lord of hell?'.

You need to be thinking of the idea of 'greater evil' in terms of 'how much harm will this cause?' rather than 'how intrinsically evil is it?' in order to consider working with demons.
Oh for sure. The Vengeance pact is all about consequentialist ethics! IMO that's exactly how "for the greater evil" is intended to work.

That's why I threw in rampage hordes. Even on a somewhat local scale, this is certainly a greater evil than making a minor pact with a lowly devil.

[CantigThimble]

Lol.

My vengeance Paladin is sworn to the forces of Hell. He worships Bane and is LE.

His sworn enemies are (LG) Torm and his deluded followers.

Do you change these two tenents for that character:

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

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

Or use the 'from my point of view the jedi are evil' angle on that character? I have a hard time seeing vengeance paladins as utterly evil because of those tenents, I'd use Oath of Conquest for something like that, personally.

[Tanarii]

I have a hard time seeing vengeance paladins as utterly evil because of those tenents, I'd use Oath of Conquest for something like that, personally.
There's no problem with vengeance pallies being evil and those tenets. They just need to be classic PC Evil: murderhobo evil, but not villian evil. Bad guys can work with the good guys to fight to villians too.

But yeah, pledging to a evil power to seek vengeance on the followers of a good power, assuming said followers aren't perverting their gods teachings or otherwise acting evil, absolutely would result in a vengeance paladin losing their powers in short order.

[Phoenix042]

Asmodeus is always the greater evil.

In my games, evil has good reasons too, and no one in the universe is more convinced of their right to vengeance than Asmodeus himself. He'd be a GREAT patron for a Vengeance Paladin / Fiend Warlock.

You just have too get creative in your explanations.

Or else ignore what the book tells you your character must be like, and invent your own explanations for their powers. This is my prefered method.



I tend to see class features, racial features, feats, and just about everything else in the players handbook as a set of tools for me to use to build a character, not as a list of personality restrictions and assertions I must factor into that character. The characters story is mine to write, not the player's handbook's.

[Naanomi]

I'm sticking to my "devils are the greatest evil" opinion.
Baernoloth are also big schemers, on a scale (both in impact and over time) that put Devils to shame

And while Devils seem like the stronger force at the moment, never forget that it was a demon, the Queen of Chaos, who led the forces of Chaos that got close to unmaking reality in ancient planar history... Devils want to maximally exploit the current system; Demons (those who plan at all) want to prevert or destroy the entire thing.

[Tanarii]

In my games, evil has good reasons too, and no one in the universe is more convinced of their right to vengeance than Asmodeus himself. He'd be a GREAT patron for a Vengeance Paladin / Fiend Warlock. But not against a good-lined group. The Tenets will prevent that from working. Especially the fight the greater evil one.


Or else ignore what the book tells you your character must be like, and invent your own explanations for their powers. This is my prefered method.

I tend to see class features, racial features, feats, and just about everything else in the players handbook as a set of tools for me to use to build a character, not as a list of personality restrictions and assertions I must factor into that character. The characters story is mine to write, not the player's handbook's.Tenets are a game rule though. If you ignore those, you're house-ruling the class.

Technically so are personality traits. But they're set by the player, so they're much more flexible. And they don't have any negative impact, only positive, so they're rather easy for players to ignore. That's kinda sad, but only because they're so useful.

[Demonslayer666]

So, here's the thing. My favorite character I've ever made is a 5e Tiefling Paladin/Warlock, (Vengeance/Infernal) and whenever I bring him up, it becomes slightly controversial, in the nice way. The reason is obvious: paladin warlock? Isn't that contradictory?

My argument (to my DM at the time) is that Oath of Vengeance allows you to make accord with lesser evils to fight the greater. (Note: we started at level 5 for that campaign)

In that vein, my character's backstory was that his wife was kidnapped by a local baron and he lacked the power to save her, so he made a pact in desperation.

Many have argued that that's going too far. Surely the gods of good would not countenance this. What do you guys think?

Expect to get guff from people when they hear that this is what you are playing. Most people think "good" when they hear paladin, and think "evil" when they hear warlock. Despite that being the cliche, it is allowed in 5e (as long as multiclassing is allowed).

My great old one warlock was constantly referred to as evil, despite me trying like crazy to put a "foreign/alien" spin on it, and ignoring the fact that he was not evil (CN)! People just have preconceived notions about things. Just have your story ready to go.

I really like Grod_The_Giant's idea of renaming it to something like Hellfire knight, then you have to explain it and let them figure out you are a paladin/warlock without saying it.

[Naanomi]

But not against a good-lined group. The Tenets will prevent that from working. Especially the fight the greater evil one.
Greater Evil (at least from my perspective) is pretty subjective in terms of the Oath... it isn’t about taking out the Evil-ometer and seeing who is the most cosmologically Evil force, which is hard to measure in current rules anyways

Your ‘greater evil’ could be the biggest immediate threat (the Necromancer dominating your Prime), and great threat that isn’t technically Evil (resisting the whims of a Slaad Lord); or even based on false beliefs (an inquisitor dedicated to overcome revealing a secretive Cthulhu cult to the world when the cult mostly died out and is used as a ‘boogyman’ of the church to justify oppression)

[Unoriginal]

1. Demons aren't as dangerous as devils because they aren't organized. They just raid here and there, but they don't have long-term plans to destroy all the other planes like Asmodeus and Co.

That's fundamentally wrong and I'd like it if people stopped trying to spread that.

Demons are just as competent schemers than the Devils. They're not as organized, but they dont *need* the organisation.

Just take a look at the Monster Manual. Over a dozen monsters who are major threats to everyone were created by the Demon Princes. Gnolls, Minotaurs and many others, even most Liches are here thanks to the Demons.

Demons can trick you into falling into evil.

Demons can pull out complexe plans without an hitch.

Demons can have long-term objectives like conquering a realm over several generations and not sabotage themselves during it.

Demons are just as competent, and just as much of a threat as Devils. Being told "there is a demonic invasion" is the stuff of nightmare, and if it's not dealt very quickly, the world will bear scars for decades.

[Tanarii]

Greater Evil (at least from my perspective) is pretty subjective in terms of the Oath... it isn’t about taking out the Evil-ometer and seeing who is the most cosmologically Evil force, which is hard to measure in current rules anyways
Yes but explicitly serving a great evil to get revenge on a good aligned group is stretching it beyond 'subjective'.

I mean, it's all IMO on that. But I feel very strongly about that particular opinion, if that helps explain my (totally normal for Mel) tone of certainty. :smallbiggrin: But it'd be up to any given player and DM to work out the parameters of any of the Tenets, obviously.