Oathbreaker Paladin or Vengeance? Please Help. First Campaign

[JAWSinSTL]

Hi Everyone,
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. Its my first. Its long. I'm sorry.

I'm finally starting my first ever campaign. Something that I've been wanting to do for several years. I've read other posts about the questions surrounding Oathbreakers as PCs and their ability to rationalize "Neutral" or "Good" versions or even being an Oathbreaker in the first place. I wanted to get some opinions of others before I jump in and commit to anything.

Background:
I'm playing a Minotaur whose clan shifted from pillaging to mercenaries to establish a respectable place amonst the kingdoms on their continent. On a campaign, I was approached by the neighboring kingdom to bolster their ranks after the Merc contract was completed. Minotaur elders wanted this to be a bridge and first step into changing the image of the brutal past of the clan and was instructed to fight for that kingdom as if it were my own. As the success of that kingdom would have greater beneficial impacts to my people. Over the years my dedication and loyalty to the crown was unquestioned. I rose the ranks and became an officer in their army.
One day on a visit to my homecity, the prince of the kingdom mysteriously died but not from the hands by a Minotaur. Going back to the kingdom to smooth things over, I was held personally accountable and imprisoned. Only after hearing that my people were slain in an all out war did my beastial nature go unchecked and killed everyone during my escape. Everything that I had worked for and believed in was suddenly a lie. Everything I had known and loved is gone. My only focus now is to tear down everything that I once stood for.

Option 1. Oathbreaker - this is where I initially thought my story would start. I assumed that I had already taken an Oath of the Crown. I think that it would be very reasonable to be an oathbreaker not only because I broke my oath to the crown, but because there is no remorse for breaking it and future actions will be made to actively tear it down. From a roleplay standpoint, my character would be more of a lawful neutral-shaded evil as I dont believe good exists anymore but know that evil must be punished. Fire with Fire. Bad deeds for bad people. Another player in my party will be playing a Necromancer. So there could be some really awesome role play with that along with the field buffs of both being able to raise dead. Sounds really fun. Thoughts would be to summon the spirits of my people into the earthy vessels to help my quest. I would call on the spritis of my fallen family and friends depending on the type of vessel. I have a list of names and backgrounds of those who fell in the war. IDK if that fits in at all, but it sounded cool.

Option 2. Vengeance - recently I was reading more about the Vengeance mentality and realized it fit slightly better to what I initially thought I wanted. A grevious sin was commited and now they must be punished. Delivering justice through violence is right up the ally of what I envisioned. The spell list is a lot better, but obviously no Raise Undead. I'm not sure I would play the characters much differently.

I'm not super concerned with Min/Maxing my character and I'm slated to be the primary tankish character. Others in my party: Tiefling Necro. Gnome Rogue. Human monk (healing). Dwarf warlock.

Initial thoughts for fighting would be to sword and board until I get my first feat - Polearm master - which I would use to fight behind the front line of my undead friends. i wouldn't need a shield at that point.

Do you have any suggestions for or against Oathbreaker? That is where I'm leaning, but am suddenly unsure of that direction.
Do you have experience running either character or been in a party where there was an Oathbreaker and Necro? Is that broken?
Thanks for getting this far if you did. Any feedback is greatly appreciated!

[Sparky McDibben]

There are a three ways to answer your question: mechanics, thematics, and playability.

Mechanically, oathbreaker synergizes well with undead and fiends. He dishes out a ton of damage, but his aura tends to buff non-PC creatures (strict RAW). Vengeance tends to buff themselves. They are more of a loner archetype, and their aura benefits themselves.

Thematically, I don't know that oathbreaker works. Oathbreakers tend to be overwhelmingly EVIL, because who else runs around with undead and beings made of literal cosmic wickedness? Vengeance is a better thematic fit, and gives your character an arc, and a question to answer: "What will I do when I avenge my clan?"

By playability, I just mean "Will everyone else like adventuring with this guy?" In other words, can you play them at the table. I assume you've secured the DM's OK, because if you haven't, you really need to. However, you might want to talk to the other players, because people will occasionally have strong boundaries about the content an oathbreaker opens up. Is everyone OK summoning demons and undead? If not, you may want to save the oathbreaker for another day.

However, there's a third option you might want to check out, and that's the Conquest Paladin in Xanathar's Guide. They are explicitly lawful neutral to evil, all about punishing bad guys with evil means, and a BLAST to play. Check out Legimus' guide to them here.

Happy gaming!

[JAWSinSTL]

There are a three ways to answer your question: mechanics, thematics, and playability.

Mechanically, oathbreaker synergizes well with undead and fiends. He dishes out a ton of damage, but his aura tends to buff non-PC creatures (strict RAW). Vengeance tends to buff themselves. They are more of a loner archetype, and their aura benefits themselves.

Thematically, I don't know that oathbreaker works. Oathbreakers tend to be overwhelmingly EVIL, because who else runs around with undead and beings made of literal cosmic wickedness? Vengeance is a better thematic fit, and gives your character an arc, and a question to answer: "What will I do when I avenge my clan?"

By playability, I just mean "Will everyone else like adventuring with this guy?" In other words, can you play them at the table. I assume you've secured the DM's OK, because if you haven't, you really need to. However, you might want to talk to the other players, because people will occasionally have strong boundaries about the content an oathbreaker opens up. Is everyone OK summoning demons and undead? If not, you may want to save the oathbreaker for another day.

However, there's a third option you might want to check out, and that's the Conquest Paladin in Xanathar's Guide. They are explicitly lawful neutral to evil, all about punishing bad guys with evil means, and a BLAST to play. Check out Legimus' guide to them here.

Happy gaming!

Thanks for the feedback!
Mechanically, putting the auras as a NPC vs. self is a good way to put it. I'll have to think about my character and how he'd act and how I'd like to interact with my environment. I like the undead interaction of the OB most and the NPC buffing would be intentional as there would be a Necro on the squad pumping in more undead allies.

Thematically, I think you are right, which is why I posted here in the first place. I'm more interested in the storytelling and getting the opportunity to tell the story of our group and journey of my character. In that sense, Vengeance definitely gives me a better platform.

Playabilitiy - We just had our first meet up and everyone seems to be on board. We generally have a "bad batch" of companions. A gnome who was banished from his home, A teifling necro, a dwarf warlock who has a dark past and a monk who thinks he might be able to save someone. So a bad character is definitely OK. One of the other posts I read that stuck with me was that Oathbreakers as a class are poorly named. IF it is explicitly required that I be univerally evil, then I think I would definitely pass.
My DM is definitely ok with an Oathbreaker, but I didn't check with him on the roleplay of what I envisioned.

I"ll check out the Conquest guide. As I'm new here, hopefully I wont spend too long looking at it. I tend to dive really deep into this kind of stuff.

[Nagog]

Oathbreaker makes sense to me, thematically and in Canon. It's difficult to make an Oathbreaker who isn't Evil, but that story makes it work.
Mechanically it synergizes well with the Necromancer, though there is some overlap. There aren't many parties that Oathbreaker fits well into, but this is one. Do it. Strike them down, and your journey to Oathbreaker will be complete.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm finally starting my first ever campaign. Then Play the Vengeance Paladin.

One of the things that seems to be hard for people on this board to remember, since we are all a little too much "into" the game, is that when starting out in D&D more complicated can make the play experience less enjoyable.

The Vengeance Paladin has the advantage of being in the PHB, it is one of the original Oaths, and it has an oath that allows you to play a bit good, a bit bad, and a bit in between.

The mechanics are useful as are the bonus spells.

So, first campaign? Play the Vengeance Paladin and don't break your oath. Learn how the game is made and played. The Oathbreaker Paladin was put in the game as an option for the DM to choose, or not, if a Paladin broke his oath.

Given how fluid and non constraining alignment generally is in this edition, you'd have to go out of your way to break your oath for Vengeance. And that's not worth doing. Not in a first campaign.

That's my suggestion. Don't make your first campaign needlessly complicated.

And on an experiential note:

Friend of mine who started playing D&D with us back in the 1970s has played two Vengeance Paladins in two different campaigns that were both made at first level when we started back up again with D&D 5th edition.
He loved the paladin, I loved the paladin - heck the whole party loved the paladin. (Picking Mountain Dwarf is a suggestion I'd make ....)
The Vengeance Paladin is a nice combination of "wreck 'em and fix 'em"

Have Fun! :smallcool:

[Man_Over_Game]

I always recommend choosing mechanics over thematics. You can always adjust the thematics of your powers, but you'll almost never be able to adjust the mechanics to accommodate your theme.

Additionally, your background might be relevant 10% of the time throughout the campaign, while your powers will be relevant much more often than that. That isn't saying that your personality isn't relevant, but your personality and your background aren't the same. How you act can fit into almost any class, and how you act can fit into almost any background, but backgrounds and class flavor don't always mesh. So don't try to shoehorn them into each other.

Vengeance feels like the best opportunity here. Not only does it show off the controlled aggression your character, but it also has the least dependence on Charisma of all the Paladin subclasses (which seems apt for an exiled Minotaur).

In terms of how the mechanics of each subclass feel, in terms of gameplay:


Vengeance: Focus on Self and Damage. You only need your own conviction to succeed. You feel most natural in the thick of combat, a veteran amidst the chaos. You are more a weapon than a leader, and so don't have much dependence on Charisma.

Conquest: Fear is a tool used to cripple your foes. They will kneel before you, or they will die. You feel like a tyrant, as most of your powers are the most effective against hordes of weaker enemies that are susceptible to fear effects. Heavily dependent on Charisma, to manipulate and dominate.

Oathbreaker: Whether it's a punishment or a boon, your powers only incite more death and encourage undeath around you. Middling dependence on Charisma.



Ignoring the names or flavor of each Paladin subclass, these are what each subclass actually feels like to play and watch.

[JAWSinSTL]

Then Play the Vengeance Paladin.

One of the things that seems to be hard for people on this board to remember, since we are all a little too much "into" the game, is that when starting out in D&D more complicated can make the play experience less enjoyable.

The Vengeance Paladin has the advantage of being in the PHB, it is one of the original Oaths, and it has an oath that allows you to play a bit good, a bit bad, and a bit in between.

Thanks for the input! I've seen this pop up a few times in various threads about keeping your first campaign easier by not playing Oathbreaker. Could you expand on that and how playing this subclass is more difficult than say a Vengeance or Conquest paladin?

[KorvinStarmast]

Thanks for the input! I've seen this pop up a few times in various threads about keeping your first campaign easier by not playing Oathbreaker. Could you expand on that and how playing this subclass is more difficult than say a Vengeance or Conquest paladin?
I don't have my DMG with me, so I can't now. (ddbeyond is blocked where I am)

I think the point of Oath breaker is that it isn't actually a Paladin class: it is a DM option to apply if a PC, through play, breaks their oath and does not do some form of atonement or penance. For the first six levels, my problem with the Oath breaker is likely covered in one of our guides here at GiTP.


The point is that balance wise, the Channel Divinity option has you, rather than turn undead, to take them under your control. You become a strong warrior and a minion controller at the same time. That means you are being a greedy team mate who is stealing spotlight from the spell caster who is a perhaps controlling minions, or you are screwing with the cleric who is trying to turn undead and send them away from the party.

It's not as well balanced for play as the original three oaths, nor does it fit as well as Oath of Conquest.

From Evil Anagram's Guide: (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=18221172&postcount=4)

Oathbreaker: Terrorize the Masses
Note: This is a Villainous Class Option from the Dungeon Master's Guide and specifically requires DM approval. It is highly unlikely that a DM will allow you to start from level one with the intention of entering this class, and it's bad RPing to boot. It is an exclusively evil option.

A fallen Paladin, the Oathbreaker lives to enforce his will on the helpless. He will wreak great horrors on those who oppose his will.
Oath Spells: You're a nasty person, and you have some nasty spells. A number of them deal damage, but it's often less than a smite at that level. Certain spells inflict massive debuffs, allow fantastic control, or simply allow you to pursue options you otherwise could not.

Channel Divinity: Control Undead allows you to turn a threat into an ally under your control with a single save, while Dreadful Aspect is essentially a Dragon's Frightful Presence.
Forcing your enemies to have disadvantage while you hack away at them is an excellent ability.

Aura of Hate: Adding Charisma to damage is amazing so long as you're not fighting fiends or undead.

Supernatural Resistance: The only problem with this is that by the time you get it, most of the damage you'll be worrying about will come from magical sources.

Dread Lord: This is a perfect example of why this class was originally intended for boss level villains. This is ridiculously OP. If the rest of your party is a mix of neutral or good, Oathbreaker is, Role Playing Wise, and poor choice in terms of not fitting into the team. It has a significant potential to put you into conflict with other PCs. You don't want that for your first game.

I am not sure what you mean by "more difficult" so I'll just leave it at that.

An Oath of Vengeance Paladin is a great first character to play.
It can fit into any team.
If this is your first D&D game, remember that this is not a video game where you control one alt and can solo the game.
D&D 5e is built as a team game where each unique PC offers their various skills and talents to overcome a myriad of challenges and adventures.
From Evil Anagram's Guide:

Oath of Vengeance: Avenge the Helpless
Those who swear the Oath of Vengeance will find themselves empowered to take the lives of their enemies. They will dole out punishment swiftly and relentlessly.
Oath Spells: If your job is to hunt down evildoers, these spells accomplish that. Bane is a nasty debuff, Hunter's Mark piles on more damage, Banishment removes an enemy from your plane of existence, Protection from Energy gives you a nice resistance, and all the other spells make it easier for you to keep your foe from escaping.

Channel Divinity: Abjure Enemy keeps it from escaping, and Vow of Enmity makes it easier to kill. Again, great for a dedicated damage dealer.

Relentless Avenger: Keep your enemy from escaping your wrath.

Soul of Vengeance: Again, pile on that damage.

Avenging Angel: Sprout wings, terrify your enemies, and kill them with advantage. Because Good is Not Nice.

[djreynolds]

Fights in 5E can start and finish quickly.

The ability to mark the big bad evil guy on the battleground with vow of enmity as a BA is huge.

Sacred weapons potential with GWM is great... But it's an action.

OoV has awesome spells and vow of enmity. It's such an awesome archetype.

Having channel divinity ready to go is a reason to short rest.

[Corran]

I think that something little is missing from your background. Your character spent some years of his life in that human kingdom. There is little that represents that. What about a few trusted friends (possibly former now comrades in arms) or perhaps a love interest you left behind as you were escaping? Perhaps someone helped you escape. Or perhaps they just didn't try to stop you during your escape. Was that friendship or romance a lie, like everything else?

So the idea is to create one or a few more characters that might be played by the DM at some point. Before I go into the why, a piece of advice. First, ask your DM's input about everything in your background, especially when it comes to NPCs. That is so that you don't take for granted stuff that are incompatible with the world and plot points that the DM has in his mind. Secondly, and I think this is important, don't go into the campaign expecting everything, or anything from your background to appear ''on screen''. No matter how awesome your background is, not everyone else at the table gathered there to see your character's background unfold. Nor should they. The interesting part instead is what the characters will be doing from now on, so expect the focus to be there. So why would I advise to add a little extra to your character's background since it's not supposed to be the main focus? Mainly so that it is more realistic. Secondarily, because there may come a moment later in the campaign, where you or the DM might need such an NPC from your background. The DM might need an antagonist or a group of antagonists with some connection to one of the PC's. Or you may want to change your character's rp, and using such an NPC could facilitate that. Perhaps at some point you decide that you want your character to get some kind of redemption, or perhaps you'll want your character to go full evil. Facing someone from your past could be the ideal way to set this up. I am rambling. The short of it is that your DM might be able to make use of NPCs you set up in your background. Though the important thing, at last to me, is that this way the background and thus the character himself appears more realistic.

As for which oath, eh, both would work fine. I'd go oathbreaker because I don't often get the chance to play one, and because you can wrap vengeance around so many character concepts, while oathbreaker is harder to fit to a party generally. So get it under your belt while you have the chance.

Don't worry about aura of hate being op when combined with lots of undead. It's not. Miniomancy is op. Aura of protection is strong (extra points if you have friendly zombies around). Worth keeping in mind that the usefulness of animate dead has an expiry date. Aura of hate is nothing. I mean, it's a boost, but a small one, don't worry about it. The channel divinity dreadful aspect is probably stronger than it should be (btw, yes, control undead can potentially be very powerful, but if the DM is picking the monsters, there is nothing to worry about), but after conquest being published I wouldn't feel terribly guilty about using it from level 3. At most I'd replace it with the CD from the conquest oath till level 5 or 6 (when I would revert back to dreadful aspect), but then again, with conquest as an option, no biggie if you use it from the get go.

[BullyWog]

I am playing a Minotaur Oath of Vengeance Paladin and it's a blast. My "ranged" attack is dash 60 ft and hit them with my horns. Oath of Vengeance seems to me about dealing damage, so GWF is great.With Oath of Enmity you don't hit reliably with GEM.

[Tawmis]

Thematically, I don't know that oathbreaker works. Oathbreakers tend to be overwhelmingly EVIL, because who else runs around with undead and beings made of literal cosmic wickedness?


I could see an Oathbreaker, based on his background, so if he - during the time his people were more raiders - could have been a Paladin of some evil god. His people changed, and so did he, so he broke his Oath to his god, effectively making him an Oathbreaker, no?

[Sception]

In terms of ease of play - vengeance & oathbreaker are both pretty easy to play and to optimize. Vengeance's signature ability is the 3rd level vow of emnity for advantage. By default it synergizes with divine smite - twice the attack rolls more hits for more damage and more chance to crit for double smite damage.

Optimizing involves improving your damage on a hit (eg great weapon master, with advantage from VoE offsetting GWM's hit penalty), and further increasing your chance to smite with bonus action attacks (GWM helps there too, but you might consider pairing it with polearm master if your DM is the sort to hand out the particular magic weapons you need instead of letting random tables decide your loot), and especially with increased crit range, for examplw by multiclassing hexblade warlock or champion fighter. Fighter in particular feels thematically fitting for a minotaur mercenary.

The subclass isn't any more charisma dependant than paladin is by default, which means you can make do with a +2 or +3 bonus, which is important given that minotaur doesn't come with a bonus to charisma. The oath spell list is also decent. Misty step in particular is nice for paladins, who xan otherwise be lacking in mobility.

So, yeah, I'd lean towards a vengeance paladin, with a three level dip into champion fighter starting as early as level 1, though you might want to wait until after level 6 to make sure you aren't delaying your first ASI, extra attack, or aura of protection. I'd personally go fighter 1 for theme & narrative, vengeance paladin 1-6 for access to those features without too much delay, picking up Great Weapon Master in the process, then back to champion fighter 2-4 for action surge, expanded crit range, and to avoid further delays to your ASI schedule, grabbing +2 strength, and capping your strength at 20 whenever you get your next asi after that.

From there, you could go any direction you like. Sorcerer is a popular multiclass for paladin for good reason. As is warlock - I'm sure you could find a fiendish patron happy to help you down your path of vengeance. Sure hexblade is the hot stuff these days, but you wouldn't gain much from it, while fiendlocks temp hp for killing your enemies would be right up your alley.

But you could just go back to and stick with paladin. Improved divine smite certainly wouldn't go to waste on this sort of character. There's lots of good options for the back 10 levels of this build, and not a lot of ways to mess up the solid foundation it already has. Plus, most campaigns tend to wrap up around level 10, so not much sense worrying about it before you get there.

Gear wise, wear the biggest heaviest armor you can find and wield the biggest heaviest magic weapon the loot tables drop. Tactics-wise, charge into combat and smash some heads, throwing in a divine smite whenever you crit for devastating damage. Against particularly tough foes, or those especially deserving of vengeance, open with vow of emnity, pop off your action surge, and trade accuracy for damage via great weapon master to absolutely demolish your chosen victem.

Pretty straight forward to build and to play, but still quite fun & engaging, with a handful of interesting interlocking pieces, spell slot resources to manage, and tons of damage output.

...

Alternatively, oathbreaker is a bit more cha dependant. It doesnt need max cha to work like conquest does, hence why I wouldn't recommend conquest for a minotaur, but it does want it. The key feature here is the level 7 aura, a flat boost to weapon damage, so optimization strategy involves building up your weapon attack & charisma stats to maximize the damage per hit, and making as many attacks as possible.

Polearm master is the more important feat here to grab with your first asi, with its all the time bonus action attack and more easily triggered opportunity attacks. Fighter is again an attractive multiclass thanks to action surge. Warlock is also still worth considering, though hexblade becomes much more advisable in order to make weapon attack stat and cha the same stat.

Maybe something like paladin 1-8, picking up polearm master and +2 cha with your asis, hexblade bladelock 1-4 for hex warrior, hexblade's curse, improved pact weapon so you aren't dependant on fickle loot drops for a +1 spear or halberd, and a couple 2nd level smites that come back on a short rest, plus some more cha (keep adding cha till you max it out, it'll probably eat your remaining asis), then maybe 2 to 4 levels of fighter for action surge, probably battlemaster or eldritch knight instead of champuon if you take more than 2 levels since hexblade already gives you improved crit range when you need it.

That already takes you to level 14 or 16. Fill out the rest with sorcerer, warlock, or paladin. Again, if you even get that far. Gear & tactics wise is pretty similar to the first guy, only keeping your allies in range of your auras us a higher priority. Still a lot of damage output, though not quite as explosive due to lacking great weapon master for most of your career (if you favor halberd over spear & shield you might pick up GWM towards the end of your progression), and there's a bit of a slump in your damage curve from around level 8 to 16ish while you wait for your charisma to catch up to and surpass your strength. You'll still be doing good damage, mind, and you will grow past it if the game lasts long enough, but there is a sacrifice there in pushing a cha primary build on a non-cha-boosting race.

The only reason I'd consider the oathbreaker is the necromancer in the party. I did hear right that there's a necromancer in the party, right? If not, ignore all of this and stick to vengeance, it's a much more natural fit for your racial traits and background story.

Anyway oathbreaker + necromancer isn't as great a combo as it first appears, given that the oathbreaker aura only buffs melee attacks and necro wizards tend to favor skeletal archers, but it's still a very nice boost, especially when the wizard starts creating ghouls and wights. Those higher level undead aren't normally as good as skeletons were when the wizard could first animate them (and arguably aren't as good as skeletal archers at all under normal circumstances), but aura of hate really helps them out quite a bit, so having an oathbreaker in the party can do a lot to help a party necromancer age more gracefully into the mid levels and beyond. Furthermore, a big party of allied minions magnifies the benefits of extra cha investment for paladins of all oaths, as there are more allies to benefit from your aura of protection.

...

Regardless of oath, if you are sure you're going to make it into the highest levels, then the expanded aura range at paladin 18 and capstone feature at paladin 20 make single classed paladin a stronger alternative to multiclassing. Also, multiclassing is technically optional & some games just don't allow it. Plus it does make your character a bit more complicated, which can be an issue for your first game.

If you want to stick to a single class, you can still make an effective character. Just grab your most relevant feat at level 4 (GWM for vengeance, PAM for oathbreaker), then focus on stats with your remaining ASIs. Vengeance should max strength to 20 then raise cha. Oathbreaker with a necromancer ally should alternate between boosting strength and cha to avoid letting either fall too far behind.

Your burst damage potential won't be as high without expanded crit range, action surge, & so on, but you will gain quicker access to higher level paladin features like improved divine smite, improved find steed (a minotaur riding a griffon sounds pretty cool to me), level 15 oath features, expanded aura range, and capstones. Paladin optimization guides tend to push multiclassing, and I like it just for the fun of fitting different pieces together, but single classed pally works just fine.

[Biggstick]

Crawl before you walk. Walk before you run.

Vengeance Paladins are easier to play for new Players, and would be my recommendation for your character.

You as a Player have no idea what it's like to actually try and stick to a Paladin's Oath. It's a tough thing to do if the DM presses you on it. Even though Vengeance is the easiest of the typically non-evil Oaths to not break, you can still be tested as a Player. Your Paladin Oath is going to be tested as a Player, and that's some of the best parts of playing a Paladin. Staying true to your character's Oath, or learning to bend with it. The possibility of an Oath being broken over some big event during session can be one of the biggest moments in a campaign.

But it seems like you'd like to completely skip over that and go straight to being an Oathbreaker Paladin. You don't even know the relevance of the Oath you've broken.

My advice would be to play the Vengeance Paladin. Your character was in training to be a knight within an order. I'm sure not every knight within said order was an Oath of the Crown Paladin; some were surely Devotion or Vengeance Paladins. As such, they don't necessarily have to have "sworn their Oath" so to speak, and can still be up in the air when their terrible event occurs. It's at that point that they swear an Oath of Vengeance against some terrible enemy. This Oath is what gives them the ability to overlook perhaps the atrocities committed by a Necromancer because they're focused on fighting the greater evil. In their pursuit of their enemy, the Minotaur might be presented with an opportunity that tests their tenets of both no mercy for the wicked and by any means necessary. The acts committed following these tenets might be seen as atrocious by onlookers, but your character has a redeeming characteristic. You're willing to provide restitutions to those harmed by your greater enemy. You're willing to help those who have been hurt by this enemy.

Or you know, you could just go straight for the edginess of the Oathbreaker. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you can raise the dead. Play an Eldritch Knight Fighter (5 levels) that multiclasses with Wizard (5 levels) if that's what you're wanting to do. You'll get more magical options for said character as well as have your own niche within the party.

My own personal opinions aside, both archetypes are quite powerful, and seem like they'll fit within the party described. Hopefully you can find the answers you're looking for.

[Addaran]

I could see an Oathbreaker, based on his background, so if he - during the time his people were more raiders - could have been a Paladin of some evil god. His people changed, and so did he, so he broke his Oath to his god, effectively making him an Oathbreaker, no?




You as a Player have no idea what it's like to actually try and stick to a Paladin's Oath. It's a tough thing to do if the DM presses you on it. Even though Vengeance is the easiest of the typically non-evil Oaths to not break, you can still be tested as a Player. Your Paladin Oath is going to be tested as a Player, and that's some of the best parts of playing a Paladin. Staying true to your character's Oath, or learning to bend with it. The possibility of an Oath being broken over some big event during session can be one of the biggest moments in a campaign.

But it seems like you'd like to completely skip over that and go straight to being an Oathbreaker Paladin. You don't even know the relevance of the Oath you've broken.

I feel the Oathbreaker Paladin was named extremely wrong. It's a blackguard, an evil paladin that use dark magic. There's not reason for him to have to start good and break an oath when he could have been worshipping Bane/Cyric from the start ( In FR pretty much all paladin are religious).

Also, it doesn't make sense that a paladin breaking his Oath automatically becomes super evil and dabbling in necromancy. The paladin who kill an unarmed tyrant to save innocent civilians doesn't just become a murderhobo for no reason. A paladin who breaks his evil oath to redeem himself and do good won't become an Oathbreaker (the subclass), it's the exact opposite of what breaking his oath was about.

[JAWSinSTL]

I think that something little is missing from your background. Your character spent some years of his life in that human kingdom. There is little that represents that. What about a few trusted friends (possibly former now comrades in arms) or perhaps a love interest you left behind as you were escaping? Perhaps someone helped you escape. Or perhaps they just didn't try to stop you during your escape. Was that friendship or romance a lie, like everything else?

Ah yes! I definitely need to build out the backstory. What I have written above was the initial start to my character. I do tend to dive really deep and plan to really hash out some usable plot devices by the DM. I really like your suggestions here to bring in names, relationships ect. That type of stuff provides me a better platform to RP my character. You gave me some really interesting things to think about. I'll post here again when I get to do some more writing. Thanks for being an inspriation!