Descent into Avernus: which deity for my Paladin? Bane or Helm?

[Sir-Carlos]

(NO SPOILERS PLEASE) :-)
I wanted to play a Paladin of Bane for Descent into Avernus, but my DM warned me that this might have repercussions for my character. I asked him what kind of repercussions, but he refused to elaborate. So, to get a third opinion: Should I go with Bane, or should I do a complete 180 and take Helm instead? Will playing the Cleric of an evil god be as bad a she says? Which deity will be more interesting? Or doesn't it make a difference?

note: I don't want to know about plot points or something like that. I just want to know if this module will really punish me for playing an evil character, or if my DM is just overreacting. :-)

[stoutstien]

A paladin of bane would just be incompatible with that modular.

[Burley]

Just because your god is evil, your character doesn't have to be. Where Gruumsh is the chaotic evil god of Destruction, Bane is the lawful evil god of conquest.

Is war good? No. So, gods of war aren't good. But, Bane Paladins could be more like Alexander the Great. Bane doesn't favor those with bloodlust, he favors those with military skill.

I think that your DM just wanted you to know that, if you're playing an evil character, there may be consequences. So, don't be evil. You may have to do some unsavory things, like intimidation, but who says you can't tie already dead bodies to posts to scare villagers?

Edit: I haven't read/played that module, so, if Stoutstein says to avoid it, you prolly should.

[Mastikator]

Okay without spoilers let me ask you this: Bane is the lawful evil god of tyranny, your character will descend into Avernus (I hope that's not a spoiler, it's in the name), the lawful evil plane of tyranny- literally hell. Do you want to descend into Avernus as an evil paladin committed to tyranny?

It won't directly punish you for playing an evil character, but it does require some party cohesion and an evil character among good characters will present extra problems. This is not a campaign where both good and evil characters can win, this is about good vs evil.

[Rad]

I agree that a paladin of Bane is not a viable option. Helm would be a perfect fit instead.
It is a "good" adventure. Embrace it or leave it.

[Sir-Carlos]

Okay guys, thanks so much for your quick replies! I will go with Helm then. Seems like this isn't the right campaign for Bane 👍

[Grim Portent]

I mean... the module could work for an evil character/party, it's not as if you can't choose to side with the devils in the major conflicts of the module, or be evil and still choose the intended course of actions, though it would mean the DM would have improvise new resolutions for a lot of the obstacles and encounters.

[stoutstien]

I agree that a paladin of Bane is not a viable option. Helm would be a perfect fit instead.
It is a "good" adventure. Embrace it or leave it.

You can play the "grey" fairly well. Anyone involved in the balance is a good fit for the blood war.

[Sir-Carlos]

You can play the "grey" fairly well. Anyone involved in the balance is a good fit for the blood war.

So, if I lean more on the Lawful, than the evil side, could it work?

[stoutstien]

So, if I lean more on the Lawful, than the evil side, could it work?

Without giving away too much it's probably the best published modular to date for having meaningful party dynamics like this *if* the rest of the table is on board with it. Baldur's gate is just that kind of place even before you factor in anything else. It really drives home the difference between motivations and means to that end.

[Unoriginal]

So, if I lean more on the Lawful, than the evil side, could it work?

Your DM's objection isn't about playing an evil character, it's about playing a servant of Bane.

Without spoilers, Bane is a member of the Dead Three (alongside Bhaal and Myrkhul), and the Dead Three have specific business in Baldur's Gate that makes playing their servants incompatible with Descent into Avernus.

If you want an evil entity for your PC to serve, there are plenty that are compatible with the module.

[Zevox]

Yeah, a Banite trying to play through Descent into Avernus is going to run into issues quickly. Especially if the rest of the party is more goodly, but even with an evil group, there's reasons why Bane specifically as your patron deity will cause problems.

Though I suppose there could be kind of a way to have your cake and eat it too in this regard, though it's a bit out there, if the issue of playing an evil character in general isn't a sticking point with the group. Instead of Bane, go with Iyachtu Xvim (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Iyachtu_Xvim?so=search), Bane's son. Xvim basically took over as the new god of tyranny during the period where Bane himself was dead, trying to take his father's place. Now, he is dead canonically, having been killed when Bane resurrected (literally re-emerged from inside Xvim as if his son had been a seed), so you'd either need the DM to agree to change that, or to agree to allow you to play a Paladin who follows a dead god but still gets powers. Most of Xvim's followers converted back to Bane's faith when Bane returned, but if you were one who hadn't for whatever reason, that could allow you to play a Paladin following a God of Tyranny functionally in Descent into Avernus.

Again, all assuming that just being an evil character isn't an issue with the group - if it is, yeah, bad idea, go for Helm.

[Evaar]

Okay, if you’re just playing a bog standard Paladin of Bane maybe it won’t really work. I’m not intimately familiar with the campaign, so I’ll accept that as a given.

However, there’s no rule that says everyone’s interpretation of Bane is the same. These days the gods of Faerun are more remote than they have been before. So perhaps your view of Bane is borderline heretical to other Bane-worshippers. Perhaps it’s more about having the will to power for self-actualization as well as the necessary determination to do what needs to be done for the greater good. Like this: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?451475-My-pantheon-s-take-on-Hextor

If you really had your heart set on Bane, I’ll bet there are ways to make it work.

[Sigreid]

I'd bet your DM is more concerned with the idea of Bane's little god boy trespassing on Asmodeus and the Arch Devil's turf.

[Unoriginal]

These days the gods of Faerun are more remote than they have been before.

This isn't true for Bane or the rest of the Dead Three.



If you really had your heart set on Bane, I’ll bet there are ways to make it work.

There is, but it requires the DM to remove the Dead Three's business in Baldur's Gate and switch them for other evil entities.

[Sception]

Yeah, cult of the Dead Three feature early in the campaign in a way that a follower of one of the Dead Three is a bit awkward to make fit. Not impossible, but as a DM I wouldn't want to bother with that either.

If you want to play a lawful neutral / lawful evil character with a war/tyranny/conquest bent, and your DM is ok with the alignment & attitude so long as it doesn't conflict with the plot's early set up, then I recommend being a follower of Tiamat or the former archfiend of Avernus, Bel. Neither should be too disruptive to the early setup adventures, both have a fairly Bane-ish disposition, and neither would necessarily have to be at odds with the party's main goals in the campaign.


As a more mechanical bit of advice, if you plan to play a conquest paladin in DtA, I recommend a 1 to 3 level multiclass dip into Clockwork Soul Sorcerer at some point in your progression. Exposure to Avernus as a lawful plane should provide the necessary narrative justification. Paladin/Sorcerer is a strong multiclass regardless, but in particular even a single level of CSS gets you 'restore balance' proficiency mod per day to cancel out spell resistance, and it shouldn't really be considered a spoiler to say that spell resistance will be an issue if you want to use your spell slots for more than just smites and buffs while adventuring in Hell. Just be willing to use it to support party spellcasters if they're winding up a more important spell than you have. You do, after all, have smites to fall back on.

[jojo]

There shouldn't be any particular issues with playing a Paladin who worships Bane as far as the Module itself is concerned. Any issues would arise from your character's behavior.

Followers of the Dead Three are currently operating via what amounts to compartmentalized terror cells in 5E so there's no issue with the Sectarian stuff, your character doesn't have to agree with every other Banite just because they all follow Bane anymore than all the Zhentarim agree with one another or all the Harpers do.

As far as the titular Descent... a Lawful Evil character is probably going to have a few more opportunities to gain power quickly because Hell is sort of their place. However it could just as easily motivate you into a redemption arc since you'll get a nice taste of your own medicine and you might not like what happens to people on the bottom rung of your evil ladder.

It's also worth noting that, it's not like Bane himself is going to be in the Hells, the Hells are full of Lawful Evil things but per basic canon those things have their own agendas that aren't related to the Dead Three.

This is the same in Curse of Strahd, evil players run into some dilemmas but, whether it's a problem or not depends entirely on the behavior of individual players.

*EDIT* And, keep in mind it's not like there aren't two sides to this coin. Every single follower of a "Good God" is going to have to justify playing nice with denizens of the Hells since you're not 20th level Epic power houses who can just hack your way through the Hells with Impunity slaying everything that's "Evil." So, how is that any different than an Evil Character who worships an Evil God working for a "good purpose." For that matter, it's not like everything in Hell is trying to kill you all the time, so how do they justify that? Well, the same way that you can, by having your interests be in acquiring power and remembering that if you "save the day" it will get a lot easier for you to acquire and wield power and authority in the mortal world on Bane's behalf.

So, maybe Bane ordered you to do this one particular thing so that you can gain status in Baldur's Gate to act more effectively in his interests. Maybe he even ordered a lot of different people to do that and the strong will survive while the weak will be winnowed. Maybe Bane left the specifics rather vague and, people are acting in what they "THINK" is in line with Bane's Grand Master Plan but really, they're just being set up to fail so that the strongest can succeed.

I can think of any number of other ways to justify a Paladin of Bane cooperating with the party "against the interests" of other Banites. So like I already said, your choice of God shouldn't be anything like the sort of issue that your DM is making it out to be.

[Unoriginal]

There shouldn't be any particular issues with playing a Paladin who worships Bane as far as the Module itself is concerned. Any issues would arise from your character's behavior.

Followers of the Dead Three are currently operating via what amounts to compartmentalized terror cells in 5E so there's no issue with the Sectarian stuff, your character doesn't have to agree with every other Banite just because they all follow Bane anymore than all the Zhentarim agree with one another or all the Harpers do.



I can think of any number of other ways to justify a Paladin of Bane cooperating with the party "against the interests" of other Banites.

Untrue in the context of Baldur's Gate in 5e. The cult is under active management to avoid that kind of infighting/undermining.

A Banite could still try, mind, but the result wouldn't be pretty for them.

[jojo]

Untrue in the context of Baldur's Gate in 5e. The cult is under active management to avoid that kind of infighting/undermining.

A Banite could still try, mind, but the result wouldn't be pretty for them.

Based on what? The DM's idea of how the game "should be played" or, recognizing that the Player has a decent excuse to justify hand-wave the narrative so they can have fun and play what they want to play?

[Mastikator]

Based on what? The DM's idea of how the game "should be played" or, recognizing that the Player has a decent excuse to justify hand-wave the narrative so they can have fun and play what they want to play?
It's in the module.

It's like trying to be a paladin of tiamat while also trying to kill tiamat, makes no sense.

[Unoriginal]

Based on what? The DM's idea of how the game "should be played" or, recognizing that the Player has a decent excuse to justify hand-wave the narrative so they can have fun and play what they want to play?

What.

It's based on the module and its context.

Not all character concepts will fit all modules, nor all campaigns. If you agree to play Candlekeep Mysteries, you can't play a character who is adamant all books must be destroyed without being read and will actively do so. If you agree to play Out of the Abyss, you can't play a character who would commit seppuku on the spot if they ever became someone's prisoner. If you agree to play the Autumn version of Dragon Heist, you can't play a character who is such a loyal follower of Jaralaxle that they'll do anything for him. And if you agree to play Descent into Avernus, you can't play a character who is an actual servant of Bane, Bhaal or Myrkhul

Sure, a DM can change things in a module, but they're not obligated to, and regardless of if they want to or not is still needs to be acknowledged by us forum users as a change, and not a "your character idea will work without any change to the module".

For OP's situation, OP could play a Paladin of any other evil deities except the Dead Three without any change to the module. But if they want to play a Paladin of the Dead Three, then the DM needs to change the module quite a bit. OP's DM seems unwilling to change that. You can argue that the DM should be willing to change that, but that doesn't make it less of a change.

[jojo]

OK.


It's in the module.

It's like trying to be a paladin of tiamat while also trying to kill tiamat, makes no sense.

Now, I'm about to get a little... GRUMPY.


What.

It's based on the module and its context.

Not all character concepts will fit all modules, nor all campaigns. If you agree to play Candlekeep Mysteries, you can't play a character who is adamant all books must be destroyed without being read and will actively do so. If you agree to play Out of the Abyss, you can't play a character who would commit seppuku on the spot if they ever became someone's prisoner. If you agree to play the Autumn version of Dragon Heist, you can't play a character who is such a loyal follower of Jaralaxle that they'll do anything for him. And if you agree to play Descent into Avernus, you can't play a character who is an actual servant of Bane, Bhaal or Myrkhul

Sure, a DM can change things in a module, but they're not obligated to, and regardless of if they want to or not is still needs to be acknowledged by us forum users as a change, and not a "your character idea will work without any change to the module".

For OP's situation, OP could play a Paladin of any other evil deities except the Dead Three without any change to the module. But if they want to play a Paladin of the Dead Three, then the DM needs to change the module quite a bit. OP's DM seems unwilling to change that. You can argue that the DM should be willing to change that, but that doesn't make it less of a change.

First of all, OP specifically asked for NO SPOILERS. Fortunately you can't spoil something if what you're saying is literally untrue.
Scrubbed

I say this as someone who:

1. Ran through Descent into Avernus as a Player.
2. Subsequently Ran Descent into Avernus as a DM.
3. Has 25 years of Experience on both sides of the table.
4. {Scrubbed}

So, I have no idea how you two either DM'd or, had this module DM'd for you but spoilers to follow Scrubbed

The Agenda of the Dead Three in Descent into Avernus revolves around securing secular power in Baldur's Gate by capitalizing on the Chaos created by Elturgard's titular Descent into Avernus. To QUOTE the MODULE "With Grand Duke Ulder Ravengard out of the way, Thalamara is paying the Dead Three to shatter confidence in the Flaming Fist so that all payments to the decapitated organization can be cut off. Thalmara, a devout disciple of the archdevil Zariel, has brokered a deal that will enable her to claim the role of Grand Duke once the Flaming Fist disbands, paving the way for the City's Descent into Avernus." In other words, the Dead Three are explicitly being used as pawns by a mortal follower of Zariel not ACTING IN THE INTERESTS OF THEIR OWN FREAKING GODS.

Now, anyone who:

1. Reads the above spoiler.
2. Scrubbed
3. Doesn't want to drive their player off the table

Might justifiably conclude that Bane actually has a perfectly good reason to order his ACTUALLY LOYAL FOLLOWERS to go out and SAVE THE DAY in this case. Arguably, an even better reason than Helm does in the context since Bane is a Lawful Evil Deity who is being used as a Cat's paw to advance the agenda of a completely independent rival power named Zariel...

{Scrubbed}

*EDIT* What all this means is that, no the DM doesn't "need" to "change the module" to accommodate a Paladin of Bane acting in support of the Party's Agenda. They just need to have a conversation with the player before the first session to clarify the information contained in my spoilers above. As far as the whole "Autumn Version" of Dragon Heist thing goes... well seriously, again you have no idea how the module works. Neither the players nor, the DM is actually supposed to control which version comes out, you might suggest that a player pick something "not loyal to Jarlaxle" but you might also just let the player have the freedom to create a cool narrative by making sure that they know you expect them to cooperate with the party thereby also NOT SPOILING what's going on. OR, you could just let the player play what they want and switch to the Winter, Spring or, Summer Versions without actually having to DO ANYTHING including let anyone know that might have been a "THING."

You're the DM. You have that power.

[PattThe]

what your dm says goes but Bane and his bois aren't gods anymore. Just immortal douches.

[Dualight]

what your dm says goes but Bane and his bois aren't gods anymore. Just immortal douches.

Citation needed. The PHB, in the 'Deities of the Forgotten Realms' table, names Bane, Bhaal, and Myrkul as gods.
Are you perhaps confused with an earlier edition? This sounds like the type of change that could have happened in 4e, and then been undone for 5e.

[Unoriginal]

Citation needed.


https://youtu.be/AIdSoaR7SH4

So to be specific,

Bhaal, Bane and Myrkhul are still Demigods and capable of empowering followers, but they are mortal/killable.

Even more specifically,


the Dead Three are physically present IN Baldur's Gate, and in direct control of their cult. Which is why having a Paladin of Bane working against the cult does not work: if Bane disapprove what someone in the cult does, he can and will deal with it directly.

[Dualight]

Ok, so it is a recent development I wasn't aware of.
I stand corrected.

[jojo]

https://youtu.be/AIdSoaR7SH4

So to be specific,

Bhaal, Bane and Myrkhul are still Demigods and capable of empowering followers, but they are mortal/killable.

Even more specifically,


the Dead Three are physically present IN Baldur's Gate, and in direct control of their cult. Which is why having a Paladin of Bane working against the cult does not work: if Bane disapprove what someone in the cult does, he can and will deal with it directly.

You're referencing a Video Game, one which isn't even released yet that has absolutely zero bearing on what the module Descent into Avernus actually says.

It doesn't say anything to support what's contained in the spoiler text quoted above.

As a DM, I can't even begin to comprehend why everyone in this thread seems so adamant about OP not playing what they want to play. The information in the arguments being presented is not even remotely accurate nor is it found anywhere in the module explicitly or, otherwise.

In fact what the module actually says (bolding is my emphasis) regarding the presence of cultists is While the Dead Three occupy a prominent place in Baldurian's fears, their faiths currently have only the shallowest roots in the city. Followers of the Dead Three have done more to incite dread than faith. As a result, their numbers remain relatively small. Their sinister reputations outstrip their actual influence...

This is wildly at odds with the idea that 3 demi-gods are directly controlling events as people keep stating. It's worth noting that BG3 takes place AFTER the events of Descent into Avernus so, sure they could show up later, but as far as Descent into Avernus is concerned, there's no real basis for claiming this is a sufficient problem that the OP shouldn't play their character.

As detailed above, really all that needs to happen is for the DM to let OP claim "well it's a Sectarian thing" and all OP has to do is convince the other members of the party that this is true so they don't get in his face and team kill him. That should not be that difficult unless the group itself or the DM is already conflict oriented.

Further, OP is playing a Paladin. In 5E this means his powers will be derived from his Oath, not from who he worships so really, if OP is playing an Oath of the Crown Paladin (perfectly valid for Bane) or, even an Oath of Vengeance (also OK for Bane) then he should be fine. The only one that might be problematic is Oath of Conquest which includes the phrase "Douse the Flame of Hope" as a tenant. THAT, not BANE is what I would be looking at as a DM and THAT is what OP should be looking at. Even so, douse the flame of hope refers to "enemies" which means that a decent argument could be made that Bane's enemies and, the Paladin's enemies are shared with the party as I said above "it's a sectarian thing, etc."

The real issue is, mechanically an Oath of Conquest Paladin in Descent into Avernus will have a really hard time getting any meaningful use out of it's Sub-Class abilities at all due to the nature of the enemies in play.

*EDIT* I will say that, the DM shouldn't be keeping players completely in the dark on all levels. They're resident's of Baldur's Gate presumably so, they should at least be made privy to very basic information found in the Gazetteer between page 158 and, page 207. In fact, by not providing players with that information the DM is actually making A LOT MORE WORK for herself. I've required that my players read that information for Waterdeep and, Baldur's Gate. I made my second Tomb of Annihilation Group read some of the information as well and frankly, the games ran much more smoothly than previous Waterdeep based games had as a result.

The DM could also just say (after a certain point in the story) "You're beginning to suspect that the Priest who indoctrinated you to the worship of Bane was a charlatan out for personal power..."

[Zevox]

https://youtu.be/AIdSoaR7SH4

So to be specific,

Bhaal, Bane and Myrkhul are still Demigods and capable of empowering followers, but they are mortal/killable.

Even more specifically,


the Dead Three are physically present IN Baldur's Gate, and in direct control of their cult. Which is why having a Paladin of Bane working against the cult does not work: if Bane disapprove what someone in the cult does, he can and will deal with it directly.
Okay, have to say, that's just dumb.
Bane at least had returned to life fully as a deity long ago. They could do something like this with Bhaal and Myrkul if they wanted, since in between the Time of Troubles and 5E they were never brought back from the dead, but it makes no sense to put Bane in that kind of position when he's been back as a full deity for a long time.