Oath of Redemption Paladin falls because he wants to fight evil more aggressively

[Vulsutyr]

A character I have is an Oath of redemption paladin, originally a pacifist. After seeing too much evenly that couldn’t be stopped without violence, he decided he was wrong and should be harsher against evil. This would cause him to fall from his oath, but he can’t take the Oathbreaker subclass because he isn’t evil, and it doesn’t fit thematically anyway. What to do?

[nickl_2000]

Talk to the DM and see if you can change your subclass to Vengeance Paladin. That seems like the best possible solution.

[Man_Over_Game]

Talk to the DM and see if you can change your subclass to Vengeance Paladin. That seems like the best possibly solution.

Another option is to shift into Oath of Conquest.

"I must resort to violence, but that does not mean I resort to murder. Perhaps there is a chance to save them, even if that means turning their Darkness against itself."

I'd say it probably goes in this order:


LIGHT
Redemption
Devotion
Ancients
Vengeance
Conquest
Oathbreaker
DARKNESS



VIOLENCE
Vengeance
Oathbreaker
Conquest
Devotion
Ancients
Redemption
NONVIOLENCE


So I'd work within those guidelines to figure out what works best for you.

[Contrast]

Wisdom
Your heart and mind must stay clear, for eventually you will be forced to admit defeat. While every creature can be redeemed, some are so far along the path of evil that you have no choice but to end their lives for the greater good. Any such action must be carefully weighted and the consequences fully understood, but once you have made the decision, follow through with it knowing your path is just.

I would contemplate this in the context of your character.


Also re nickls suggestion to swap to Vengeance - this really depends what their characters new stance on matters is. There's a lot of ground between a redemption paladin and a vengeance paladin. Devotion for one.

[nickl_2000]

Also re nickls suggestion to swap to Vengeance - this really depends what their characters new stance on matters is. There's a lot of ground between a redemption paladin and a vengeance paladin. Devotion for one.

You have a point. I guess in my mind I assumed that if someone had strong enough convictions to be a redemption Paladin to begin with and lost those convictions, they would fall hard and make a big change. Just my own head cannon, I guess.

[krugaan]

Do .... do oathbreaker paladins have to specifically be evil? I'm AFB atm.

I'm imagining a Byronic anti-hero like Guts from Berserk, who literally attracts evil (and makes it stronger, debatably) but his hatred is so strong he slays it anyway.

[nickl_2000]

Do .... do oathbreaker paladins have to specifically be evil? I'm AFB atm.

I'm imagining a Byronic anti-hero like Guts from Berserk, who literally attracts evil (and makes it stronger, debatably) but his hatred is so strong he slays it anyway.

Yes, according to the DMG

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
been extinguished. Only darkness remains.
A paladin must be evil and at least 3rd level to
become an Oathbreaker. The paladin replaces the
fearures specific to his or her Sacred Oath with
Oathbreaker features.

[Unoriginal]

A Paladin does not "fall" for this, in 5e. You can just take change to Devotion.


Though I don't see why you can't be more proactive in fighting evil while still being a Redemption Paladin.

[mAc Chaos]

That never made sense to me, since they claimed they tried to decouple Paladins from alignment and deities -- but Oathbreaker clearly sounds like your traditional anti paladin/fallen knight.

[Sigreid]

Devotion would be my recommendation for resolving the world as he wishes it was with the world he sees before him.

[krugaan]

Yes, according to the DMG

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
been extinguished. Only darkness remains.
A paladin must be evil and at least 3rd level to
become an Oathbreaker. The paladin replaces the
fearures specific to his or her Sacred Oath with
Oathbreaker features.

ah well, that's lame. I think it would be extra cool to have a oathbreaker who slayed undead and demons while buffing them at the same time.

And then, I dunno ... walking away as they explode in holy necrotic power without looking backwards or something.

Although ... you know, you could still be evil and hate demons / undead with a burning passion. Just look at the Tanarii and baatezu.

Like, a redemption paladin who turns oathbreaker after some dark atrocity seems particularly flavorful for me. Instead of saving people, watching pacifism repeatedly fail to save lives (after all, 5E kind of sucks for actually defending people), he grew to hate himself.

Soon, he grew to hate everything evil around him.

And, what he hates, he kills now. Leave the saving to the good. If fire is required to fight fire, so be it.

[Unoriginal]

That never made sense to me, since they claimed they tried to decouple Paladins from alignment and deities -- but Oathbreaker clearly sounds like your traditional anti paladin/fallen knight.

An Oathbreaker is a Paladin who deliberately broke their Oath, then kept going as far away as possible from penitence and atonement.

That kind of things has consequences.

You can be an evil Paladin. Oathbreakers are worse.



ah well, that's lame. I think it would be extra cool to have a oathbreaker who slayed undead and demons while buffing them at the same time.

And then, I dunno ... walking away as they explode in holy necrotic power without looking backwards or something.

Although ... you know, you could still be evil and hate demons / undead with a burning passion. Just look at the Tanarii and baatezu.

Like, a redemption paladin who turns oathbreaker after some dark atrocity seems particularly flavorful for me. Instead of saving people, watching pacifism repeatedly fail to save lives (after all, 5E kind of sucks for actually defending people), he grew to hate himself.

Soon, he grew to hate everything evil around him.

And, what he hates, he kills now. Leave the saving to the good. If fire is required to fight fire, so be it.


Then play a Conquest Paladin. Or a Vengeance Paladin.

[krugaan]

An Oathbreaker is a Paladin who deliberately broke their Oath, then kept going as far away as possible from penitence and atonement.

Then play a Conquest Paladin. Or a Vengeance Paladin.

Conquest Paladins want to rule. They want order. Order is for wussies

Vengeance Paladins are want to punish sin and right wrongs. Oathbreakers just want to destroy.

[Unoriginal]

Oathbreakers just want to destroy.

Then they'll enjoy their chaotic evil behavior and there's no issue. Since they are committing arbitrary violence, spurned by hatred, which is the textbook description of the behavior qualified as chaotic evil.

It's what's called a win-win.


Dunno why you called it lame then spend several paragraphs explaining it's cool.

[krugaan]

Then they'll enjoy being chaotic evil.

essentially, yes. with all the roleplaying pitfalls that entails. But that would be fairly awesome storytelling if it worked out.

edit: to be sure, I doubt it would be a long term thing, and then, if the paladin wanted to swap characters again, have the demonic BBEG capture the oathbreaker with a ominous display of power and a "see how all your feeble rage is impotent when compared with MINE!".

Much later, you see his crippled body crucified on the battle standard at the vanguard of the horde.

Alive. And still hating. (and buffing the demons)


edit2:
Since they are committing arbitrary violence, spurned by hatred, which is the textbook description of the behavior qualified as chaotic evil.

It's what's called a win-win.


Dunno why you called it lame then spend several paragraphs explaining it's cool

that was more just fitting it to the description and/or internal quibbling about the nature of chaotic evil. I disagree that it's evil, but lets not start an alignment discussion here, because that always ends in destruction, and I am not chaotic evil.

[Unoriginal]

Oathbreakers literally become Death Knights when they die, so yeah, "still hating" would be a good description even if they died in the process.

[Millstone85]

Oathbreakers just want to destroy.What an oathbreaker wants is really left up in the air. They "pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power" and can be any evil alignment. Maybe they want to watch the world burn, yeah, or maybe they just want riches and slaves, or vengeance for a personal slight, etc.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The key thing to note about Oath of Redemption is that it doesn't restrict you from using violence completely, just that you should only use it as a last resort. You're free to Smite true evil just like any other Paladin Oath.

Things like Demons, Devils and even Bandits who refuse to put down there arms and reform are all ok for you to smack around. Talk first, those who don't listen to your words get a heavier response.

[Sigreid]

I'm of the opinion that Redemption is an oath that doesn't lend itself well to most adventurer groups or campaigns.

[krugaan]

Oathbreakers literally become Death Knights when they die, so yeah, "still hating" would be a good description even if they died in the process.

I sort of meant he was mounted on a pole with arms and legs broken. And then, as the denouemont of the fight, the demon rips him from his crucifix, flings him to the ground, and in a last act of desecration, plunges his unholy sword into the oathbreaker and says "your hatred is far too undirected to be of use, insect. I shall FOCUS IT.. And then a brand new death knight reaches up to the sword out of his chest.


What an oathbreaker wants is really left up in the air. They "pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power" and can be any evil alignment. Maybe they want to watch the world burn, yeah, or maybe they just want riches and slaves, or vengeance for a personal slight, etc.

yep

[Temperjoke]

I feel things have gotten a bit off track. I blame the fact that Paladins are presented as all or nothing types, meaning if you fail or waver in your oaths at all, that's it you're now evil. Oathbreakers aren't even a proper player class, they're in the DMG as an evil npc class, like Death clerics are.

Back on the original topic, this sounds like the start to a great personal arc! Obviously you'll want to talk to your DM, but what I would do is have you lose powers that are specific to your character's oath, but not to the paladin class. This would symbolize that you're wavering, but haven't turned to evil. Then, maybe some npc can step in, like a mentor who can help your character find a new path, such as a new oath like devotion. Perhaps a retired paladin who's been there?

[Bjarkmundur]

Go big, man.

You give up as a paladin, transform into a fighter with the same character level, until you resolve this internal struggle.

Breaking an oath is not just something that affects your relationship with the divine power, but also yourself. Everything you fought for, what you believed ther world to be, turns out to be horsecrap. I can fully understand that a paladin might take a break and figure things out.

Just like a person might take a break after quitting a job, to figure out what's next in life.

[Millstone85]

I blame the fact that Paladins are presented as all or nothing types, meaning if you fail or waver in your oaths at all, that's it you're now evil.Well, they are not presented this way in the PHB.


A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a paladin to transgress his or her oath.

A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.

If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM's discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master's Guide.First, if you waver or fail in your oath, you can restore it through penance.

Secondly, you can break your oath without becoming an oathbreaker. Alright, that sounds dumb. The point is that a fallen paladin doesn't have to become an antipaladin. They can instead become a good-aligned fighter or such.

[Man_Over_Game]

Well, they are not presented this way in the PHB.

First, if you waver or fail in your oath, you can restore it through penance.

Secondly, you can break your oath without becoming an oathbreaker. Alright, that sounds dumb. The point is that a fallen paladin doesn't have to become an antipaladin. They can instead become a good-aligned fighter or such.

I'd probably break it down into three tiers of severity:

"I can't be a [Oath] Paladin anymore"- Change Paladin subclass.
"I can't be a Paladin anymore"- Change Paladin levels into something comparable.
"I can't be a Good Person anymore"- Change into Oathbreaker subclass.


I know that changing your subclass isn't listed as an option in the PHB, but that seems more reasonable than having to choose between going pure evil with the Oathbreaker or choosing to lose all of your Paladin training.

[Millstone85]

I know that changing your subclass isn't listed as an option in the PHB, but that seems more reasonable than having to choose between going pure evil with the Oathbreaker or choosing to lose all of your Paladin training.Frankly, even for going to the dark side, I would recommend shifting to Vengeance, Conquest, or some other oath that is compatible with evil characters, rather than the non-oath of the DMG.

[Citan]

Another option is to shift into Oath of Conquest.

"I must resort to violence, but that does not mean I resort to murder. Perhaps there is a chance to save them, even if that means turning their Darkness against itself."

I'd say it probably goes in this order:


LIGHT
Redemption
Devotion
Ancients
Vengeance
Conquest
Oathbreaker
DARKNESS



VIOLENCE
Vengeance
Oathbreaker
Devotion
Conquest
Ancients
Redemption
NONVIOLENCE


So I'd work within those guidelines to figure out what works best for you.
Hmm you put Redemption "above" Devotion? Interesting. (ok, after rereading tenets, you're right without doubt).

I'm more hesitant on the Vengeance/Conquest position. I guess it's a matter of personal "taste" and values. ^^

On the Violence list however, I'd really put Conquest above Vengeance, unless you count only physical violence. Conquest seem to have an ambition of larger "scales", both in terms of people targeted and means used to subjugate and dominate them. That can be considered more violent than simply hurting/killing them. ^^

@OP by the way, I agree with the suggestions of switching to Conquest or Vengeance. Seems the best fit for you. :)

[Man_Over_Game]

Hmm you put Redemption "above" Devotion? Interesting. (ok, after rereading tenets, you're right without doubt).

I'm more hesitant on the Vengeance/Conquest position. I guess it's a matter of personal "taste" and values. ^^

On the Violence list however, I'd really put Conquest above Vengeance, unless you count only physical violence. Conquest seem to have an ambition of larger "scales", both in terms of people targeted and means used to subjugate and dominate them. That can be considered more violent than simply hurting/killing them. ^^

@OP by the way, I agree with the suggestions of switching to Conquest or Vengeance. Seems the best fit for you. :)

I based it mostly off of the class abilities. Ignoring tenets completely, just focusing on HOW the player is going to play these characters with their abilities, it reflects that Redemption does better at avoiding combat, and Devotion is actually pretty much a 100% combat based Paladin. All things considered, the Devotion should be one to jump into combat, when you take a look at all of their abilities. The only non-combat effects they get are from their spell list, and most people I know never actually see Paladins cast spells.

Vengeance's abilities all revolve around chasing an opponent down and killing them. They are better at killing enemies, gain benefits when they attack enemies with Opportunity Attacks, have Hunter's Mark, need I say more? A Conquest Paladin's big ability is being able to prevent enemies from running away while they're afraid of him. I did put the Conquest Paladin as "Darker" because it does attempt to subjugate others using Fear, but it's definitely less violent than the Vengeance Paladin.

Rather, the Vengeance Paladin solves problems with ONE thing (Violence), and the Conquest Paladin has at least two (Fear AND Violence).

[KorvinStarmast]

A character I have is an Oath of redemption paladin, originally a pacifist.
After seeing too much evenly that couldn’t be stopped without violence, he decided he was wrong and should be harsher against evil.
This would cause him to fall from his oath,
No, it wouldn't. There is no Paladin in D&D 5e who is a pure pacifist. This is a self inflicted wound.
I'll ask you a question: who is claiming that this would cause a fall (which isn't a mechanic in D&D 5e PHB) - you or the DM?
Let's look at some of the text ...

The Oath of Redemption sets a Paladin on a difficult path, one that requires a holy warrior to use violence only as a last resort.
Hey look you can use violence!

While redeemers are idealists, they are no fools. Redeemers know that Undead, Demons, devils, and other supernatural threats can be inherently evil. Against such foes, paladins who swear this oath bring the full wrath of their Weapons and Spells to bear. Yet the redeemers still pray that, one day, even creatures of wickedness will invite their own redemption. Hey, look, you can use violence and wrath!

Tenets of Redemption
The tenets of the Oath of Redemption hold a Paladin to a high standard of peace and justice.
Peace. Violence is a weapon of last resort. Diplomacy and understanding are the paths to long-lasting peace.
Hey, look, you can use violence! (But you prefer the peaceful approach, and tend to lead with that, Which Is Totally Cool!


Innocence. All people begin life in an innocent state, and it is their Environment or the influence of dark forces that drives them to evil. By Setting the proper example, and working to heal the wounds of a deeply flawed world, you can set anyone on a righteous path.
You'd rather not use violence if you can avoid it: which is totally cool.

Patience. Change takes time. Those who have walked the path of the wicked must be given reminders to keep them honest and true. Once you have planted the seed of righteousness in a creature, you must work day after day to allow that seed to survive and flourish.
Wisdom. Your heart and mind must stay clear, for eventually you will be forced to admit defeat. While every creature can be redeemed, some are so far along the path of evil that you have no choice but to end their lives for the greater good. Any such action must be carefully weighed and the consequences fully understood, but once you have made the decision, follow through with it knowing your path is just.

Oath of Redemption Features (see below)
Oath Spells :
Paladin Level Spells
3rd Sanctuary, sleep
5th Calm Emotions, Hold Person
9th Counterspell, Hypnotic Pattern
13th Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, Stoneskin
17th Hold Monster, Wall of Force

But wait: all of the other Paladin spells are available to you, and you are still allowed to use Divine Smite, which is serious radiant violence used to Smite the Wicked who will not engage with your peaceful approach and appeal.

Your Are Allowed To Use Violence!

Granted, a lot of your features are not violent, even though you have:

Martial Weapons Proficiency <- VIOLENCE
All Armor Proficiency as a Paladin.

OK, you have a lot of less violent bits that are neat features.

Emissary of Peace. You can use your Channel Divinity to augment your presence with divine power. As a Bonus Action, you grant yourself a +5 bonus to Charisma (Persuasion) checks for the next 10 minutes.
[QUOTE]Rebuke the Violent. You can use your Channel Divinity to rebuke those who use violence. Immediately after an attacker within 30 feet of you deals damage with an Attack against a creature other than you, you can use your Reaction to force the attacker to make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the attacker takes radiant damage equal to the damage it just dealt. On a successful save, it takes half as much damage.
One of your channel Divinity options uses violence! :smalleek:

Aura of the Guardian
(no violence)
Protective Spirit
No violence.

Emissary of Redemption
At 20th level, you become an avatar of peace, which gives you two benefits:
You have Resistance to all damage dealt by other creatures (their attacks, Spells, and other effects).
Whenever a creature hits you with an Attack, it takes radiant damage equal to half the damage you take from the Attack.
If you Attack a creature, Cast a Spell on it, or deal damage to it by any means but this feature, neither benefit works against that creature until you finish a Long

Hey, look, your capstone feature does violence!

Anyway, work it out with your DM, there are some great suggestions up there about shifting your oath.

[Man_Over_Game]

No, it wouldn't. There is no Paladin in D&D 5e who is a pure pacifist. This is a self inflicted wound.

I'll ask you a question:
who is claiming that this would cause a fall (which isn't a mechanic in D&D 5e PHB) - you or the DM?

To add to this, having the experience needed to be proficient in shields, heavy armor, and every weapon in the world would imply that you should be needing to use those things. While the concept of a Redemption Paladin has it use less violence than most, the tenets and abilities reflect that it should be willing to resort to violence as a last resort. Note how your combat-oriented Channel Divinity is designed to deal damage back upon the aggressor.

I'd say that there is no such thing as a real "pacifist" build. Likely, the closest you'd be able to get is something like a Divine Soul Sorcerer focused on buffs, or a Mastermind Rogue that Helps 2x a turn, but even then those classes are not being fulfilled to the best of their abilities. I'd say Paladins are as playable as a pacifist as much as Warlocks are. I can, at the very least, get Guidance and Spare the Dying as a Warlock, which is more than I could say about the Paladin.

[Edit] Looks like KorvinStarmast edited in most of the things I mentioned, although with considerably more snark.

[KorvinStarmast]

To add to this, having the experience needed to be proficient in shields, heavy armor, and every weapon in the world would imply that you should be needing to use those things. While the concept of a Redemption Paladin has it use less violence than most, the tenets and abilities reflect that it should be willing to resort to violence as a last resort. Note how your combat-oriented Channel Divinity is designed to deal damage back upon the aggressor.

I'd say that there is no such thing as a real "pacifist" build. Likely, the closest you'd be able to get is something like a Divine Soul Sorcerer focused on buffs, or a Mastermind Rogue that Helps 2x a turn, but even then those classes are not being fulfilled to the best of their abilities. I'd say Paladins are as playable as a pacifist as much as Warlocks are. I can, at the very least, get Guidance and Spare the Dying as a Warlock, which is more than I could say about the Paladin.

[Edit] Looks like KorvinStarmast edited in most of the things I mentioned, although with considerably more snark.
Well, yeah, playing a pacifist in D&D in any edition is kinda tricky, regardless of class. It's a great role to play when played well, but this particular class has ample room in the template for using violence when the peaceful approach either fails, or simply will not fit.

I admit that I find the "your paladin falls!" habit (particularly from the 3e era, but it was plenty present in AD&D 1e Gotcha Games) to be a horribly worn out trope. I am so glad 5e has greater flex and room to move ...

I particularly liked your continuum post. *tips cap*

[Unoriginal]

Also, any situation where you have to start with violence to save someone rather than talk due to urgency is still under "last resort".

[krugaan]

Rather, the Vengeance Paladin solves problems with ONE thing (Violence), and the Conquest Paladin has at least two (Fear AND Violence).

"When your only tool is a smite nova, all your problems begin to look like BBEGs."

[Lord Raziere]

The key thing to note about Oath of Redemption is that it doesn't restrict you from using violence completely, just that you should only use it as a last resort. You're free to Smite true evil just like any other Paladin Oath.

Things like Demons, Devils and even Bandits who refuse to put down there arms and reform are all ok for you to smack around. Talk first, those who don't listen to your words get a heavier response.

Yeah, how to play that sort of character: "hey stop being a violent idiot please!"
"No!" *attacks*
"Okay, your hole to dig." *combat*

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yeah, how to play that sort of character: "hey stop being a violent idiot please!"
"No!" *attacks*
"Okay, your hole to dig." *combat*

I wouldn't give up that easily, knocking them unconscious rather than killing them is step 2.

This is definitely the simplest version of it though, you don't really just walk away from a fight because the guys trying to kill you didn't stop after you asked them nicely. That's pretty far into lawful stupid territory and you want to stay away from that. The subclass has pacifist tendencies but it really doesn't work as a true pacifist class. The UA did that better and it's also a pretty handy example of the hoops you have to go through to enable that sort of playstyle, it was ridiculous.

Try to talk them down, if that fails, knock some sense into them (preferably without killing them) and if they still don't listen gauge the situation you're in on whether keeping them alive is going to cause more harm than good. Always aim to do the most good, it's not a good use of your time trying to talk down an army of bandits when they're already razing the village. Clean it up, and catch the stragglers later.

[Nhorianscum]

Worth noting that the redemption oath has no restriction for the party. The player can just declare non-lethal damage on their mele attacks and actively focus on the BC/Diplomancer aspects of the class when appropriate.

[patchyman]

To add to this, having the experience needed to be proficient in shields, heavy armor, and every weapon in the world would imply that you should be needing to use those things. While the concept of a Redemption Paladin has it use less violence than most, the tenets and abilities reflect that it should be willing to resort to violence as a last resort.

I agree with you, but as a counterpoint, I note that Clerics of Ilmater, god of Pacifism, are all proficient in heavy armor, so YMMV.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I agree with you, but as a counterpoint, I note that Clerics of Ilmater, god of Pacifism, are all proficient in heavy armor, so YMMV.

Ilmater isn't called "The God of Pacifism" in this edition, but "The God of Endurance".

From what I can find referencing Ilmater, past and present, is that he isn't necessarily a pacifist so much as a martyr, his celestial realm is even named Martyrdom. If the source I found is at all accurate (I assume it is, the FR wiki references several published books from Ed Greenwood, TSR and WoTC) then he also is prone to great rage and is very willing to commit violent acts against those who would cause great suffering in children or young creatures.

So I would say that Heavy Armor is pretty appropriate for a follower of Ilmater, whether they're using it purely for defense or to enable them to be more aggressive when the last straw has been had.

[Vulsutyr]

KorvinStarmast is correct, my character was not a total pacifist. He would smite when necessary. In my mind, his philosophy change was from sadness at evil and a desire for the evildoer to repent to anger at evil and a desire to see the evildoer suffer. This happened after seeing a lot of messed up stuff he could have prevented by smiting first and asking questions later. I think the oath of vengeance is a good choice or maybe crown if I decide not to be so dark. Protection fits the character about as well as vengeance.

RAW paladin is the only class with a mechanic for switching subclasses. You can fall to Oathbreaker then atone and pick a new oath and god, doesn’t have to be your old one. Obviously this is not RAF, but it is interesting.

[Constructman]

A Redemption Paladin would be a pretty good fit as an agent of the Church of Ilmater. If the Order of the Golden Cup still exists, that could be an origin point for a Redemption Paladin character.