Good is Not Nice: A Paladin's Guide

[Demonicattorney]

So if we reflavor what Angels do in D&D, reflavor the Pact of the Fiend, and than pick a very specific back story than a certain type of Paladin can take up to 2 levels of Warlock. Sure. I agree.

BTW the flame of Anor refers to the Sun, or more specifically the light of the Sun. That is radiant, holy fire is also radiant damage, which Tolkien referred to as "white flame", declaring the "Red Fire cannot come this way". Tolkien literally references the opposite of what you are saying.

[Yagyujubei]

So if we reflavor what Angels do in D&D, reflavor the Pact of the Fiend, and than pick a very specific back story than a certain type of Paladin can take up to 2 levels of Warlock. Sure. I agree.

BTW the flame of Anor refers to the Sun, or more specifically the light of the Sun. That is radiant, holy fire is also radiant damage, which Tolkien referred to as "white flame", declaring the "Red Fire cannot come this way". Tolkien literally references the opposite of what you are saying.

oh there's a book somewhere that describes 100% of what every single celestial being can do in DnD? and also, I would HOPE that any character you play has a very specific back story, because otherwise just play a video game that crates the characters for you.

[Demonicattorney]

oh there's a book somewhere that describes 100% of what every single celestial being can do in DnD? and also, I would HOPE that any character you play has a very specific back story, because otherwise just play a video game that crates the characters for you.

I don't think you understand what I am saying. I am saying that not every Paladin wants to be some emo Batman wannabe that is mad at his Church elders for not being harsh enough with Infidels. That is a specific story that might let you get into Warlock, but very few players will want to play that story, or something similar. When making a character guide, it might be best not to make Warlock a light blue choice, because their are role-playing issues with that combination. If your DM is willing to change around the Warlock pacts, or has an expansive idea of what celestials do, than fine, play what you want, but as written in 5E, or how Paladins were treated in previous editions, it will cause problems.

[Ferrin33]

I don't think you understand what I am saying. I am saying that not every Paladin wants to be some emo Batman wannabe that is mad at his Church elders for not being harsh enough with Infidels. That is a specific story that might let you get into Warlock, but very few players will want to play that story, or something similar. When making a character guide, it might be best not to make Warlock a light blue choice, because their are role-playing issues with that combination. If your DM is willing to change around the Warlock pacts, or has an expansive idea of what celestials do, than fine, play what you want, but as written in 5E, or how Paladins were treated in previous editions, it will cause problems.

Archfey Pact + Oath of (Any)
(Any) Pact + Oath of Vengeance

No problems for the above, and that allows for a lot of options for character concepts without reflavoring a single thing.

[Yagyujubei]

you could also easily justify pact of the old ones by making a backstory something like you were meant to be sacrificed for a ritual as a child, escaped halfway through, but have been plagued by horrible dreams since then, and you turned to the church to find an answer to rid yourself of these influences. flavor it that every time you use one of the power you lose a tiny bit of your sanity, and if you keep relying on the old one you will eventually be driven mad.


I guess my main point is that in a system like DnD you can make anything possible with a bit of imagination and this guy saying it's "dumb" to make your own stories is going against everything DnD represents in my opinion. theres no character combination you cant justify, because there are infinite reasons for any given person to act the way they do.

[DireSickFish]

Fiendish pact into Pally makes a lot of sense, you sold your soul not knowing the price. Now you are striving to make up for what you did. Lore aint to hard to rework, especially with all of the new variants and independence from alignment.

[Demonicattorney]

There is no greater evil in D&D than Fiends. They are "Evil Incarnate". No Paladin will sell their soul to or do service for a Fiend. Even Oath of Vengeance's very loose moral restrictions will not permit that because their is no greater evil. Nor would any Paladin agree to serve Cthulhu or He Who Lurks. They are the examples listed in the PHB as Ancient Ones. Its doubtful a Paladin will agree to serve Mab or any other high-ranking unseelie fey, though as I said before perhaps Titania or another seelie fey would be appropriate for an Oath of Ancients Paladin (given that you must celebrate life and all that). I don't think a lawful oath of devotion Paladin, or a Oath of Vengeance Paladin is gonna be down for running errands for a chaotic fey demi-god.

A pact is an agreement for service, power in exchange for doing stuff for your patron."The warlock learns and grows in power,
at the cost o f occasional services performed on the patron's behalf." So now you need to work for the devil, or Cthulhu or whatever. Moreover the motivations are wrong; "Warlocks are driven by insatiable need for knowledge and power", Paladins especially oath of vengeance are about justice, not personal power, and definitely not knowledge.

Finally, it literally states that only a Paladin oath binds a Paladin, your first loyalty is to the cause of righteousness,not to crown and country. How does that cope with you being owned and controlled by a pact to obey a non-good creature? Being a Paladin and being a Warlock are pretty much the opposites of each other, what happens when your patron and righteousness conflict?

There is a reason why Warlock shouldn't be a cyan entry.

[Demonicattorney]

Fiendish pact into Pally makes a lot of sense, you sold your soul not knowing the price. Now you are striving to make up for what you did. Lore aint to hard to rework, especially with all of the new variants and independence from alignment.

You still have to work for the devil. Or do you think those powers were yours? Anyone can be an ex-warlock Paladin, I just dont see how you can be a Paladin then take levels in Warlock.

[Yagyujubei]

You still have to work for the devil. Or do you think those powers were yours? Anyone can be an ex-warlock Paladin, I just dont see how you can be a Paladin then take levels in Warlock.

the other side of the coin though is a situation along the lines of you battling and coming to a draw against a demon and at some point in the process stealing some of its power. Again it would only really work ofr oath of vengeance, but turning your enemies own power against them is a common theme in fiction.

[Demonicattorney]

How exactly is that "making a pact" or "pact magic". The whole concept of the Warlock is about someone who makes a deal for power, all of these concepts are not that.

[DireSickFish]

You still have to work for the devil. Or do you think those powers were yours? Anyone can be an ex-warlock Paladin, I just dont see how you can be a Paladin then take levels in Warlock.

The powers are yours because they are given to you. Given to you in exchange for your service. Kind of like how Galactus has the Silver Surfer as his herald weilding the power cosmic. And yet he can subvert Galactisus will or outright turn against him. And if you arn't advancing in Warlock levls anymore you arn't "increasing in power" via your patron. Ghost rider also literally turned the devils powers against him. It's a rather common trope for a good guy to have bad powers and be working to subvert his power source.

You could also turn it on its head and hate celestials. Perhaps they (justly or unjustly) purged your town because there was some great evil there. Paladin of vengeance against all celestials. You can't tell me a person like that wouldn't turn to the greatest opposition of celestials for power. Evil Palladins are a possibility now in 5e.

Expand your horizons on what a class can and cannot do in this edition. There are a lot of interesting RP opportunities for you out there.

[Scirocco]

Pretty sure a Paladin of Asmodeus would be cool with making a Fiend pact. Tharizdun, Old One pact. The aforementioned Ancients Pally with Archfey.

Actually, Oath of the Ancients would work great for Old Ones with a Blue and Orange Morality reading of that particular oath (think Cenobite perception of what "heaven" is for a comparison).

[Demonicattorney]

Did anybody actually read the character entry for Paladin?
You must be committed to JUSTICE and RIGHTEOUSNESS.

"The most important aspect of a Paladin character is the nature of his HOLY quest". God, they let some lawful neutral Paladins in and suddenly "Evil" Paladins are apparently ok. Its a complete conflict with everything the archetype stands for. The PHB even strongly dissuades players from trying an evil Paladin because they conflict (although they did not go so far as an outright mechanical prohibition). Being a Paladin of Asmodeus is a contradiction, you cannot serve Justice and one of the most unjust beings at the same time.

Blue and Orange morality is stupid, it just a way of saying that a character does something with no framework that makes sense to people. It has no place in D&D where clear good and evil are defined.

Oath of Vengeance requires more than a hatred of a person. It requires you to "fight the greater evil", it would be hard to define celestials as evil at all, considering they are literally GOOD incarnate. If you don't like D&Ds stark alignment and morality system than you can dispense with it in your games, but guides shouldn't be written for houserules.

[Objulen]

A fiendish or great old one pact makes sense for an Oath of Vengeance Paladin. It's a terrible idea, icly, but vengeance at any price is the oath's theme.

Arch-fey are natural choices for the ancient oath, and you might be able to work out something feasible with an Elder god. Still, Elder gods are just less damaging than great old ones to humanity; there's nothing especially good about them, so it's still a better choice for oaths of vengeance.

[Ferrin33]

Did anybody actually read the character entry for Paladin?
You must be committed to JUSTICE and RIGHTEOUSNESS.

"The most important aspect of a Paladin character is the nature of his HOLY quest". God, they let some lawful neutral Paladins in and suddenly "Evil" Paladins are apparently ok. Its a complete conflict with everything the archetype stands for. The PHB even strongly dissuades players from trying an evil Paladin because they conflict (although they did not go so far as an outright mechanical prohibition). Being a Paladin of Asmodeus is a contradiction, you cannot serve Justice and one of the most unjust beings at the same time.

Blue and Orange morality is stupid, it just a way of saying that a character does something with no framework that makes sense to people. It has no place in D&D where clear good and evil are defined.

Oath of Vengeance requires more than a hatred of a person. It requires you to "fight the greater evil", it would be hard to define celestials as evil at all, considering they are literally GOOD incarnate. If you don't like D&Ds stark alignment and morality system than you can dispense with it in your games, but guides shouldn't be written for houserules.

Good and evil are not defined in D&D, they are arbitrarily decided upon for certain races to have a justification of killing them.

Justice is subjective, which by definition makes righteousness subjective. There is no objective morality even in a world with gods, they are merely enforcers of their own morality who arbitrarily decide what is good and evil. The paladin is a champion and follows his oath to the best of his ability but has to judge things as an individual. A Paladin of Devotion has to be honest, courageous, compassionate, honorable, and dutiful. None of these things exempts him from being allowed to make a pact to gain greater powers, depending on the nature of the pact. A pact with one devil to slay a thousand more, the greater evil. Ignorance, desperation, or even the willingness to do anything for power to fight what he perceives as a greater evil all clearly explain how a paladin might take up a pact with what most people see as the greatest evil. Again, it is subjective, the paladin might not think a fiend is the greatest evil but thinks eldritch horrors and their aberrations are, or the other way around. And these are just reasons why a paladin might bargain for power from the greatest evils in the game, for any other pact it becomes that much easier to find the link and justification to follow his oath while making a pact.

Some paladins might even swear their oath as part of a pact made with a good entity, tying it all up in one package.

[Demonicattorney]

Good and evil are not defined in D&D, they are arbitrarily decided upon for certain races to have a justification of killing them.

Justice is subjective, which by definition makes righteousness subjective. There is no objective morality even in a world with gods, they are merely enforcers of their own morality who arbitrarily decide what is good and evil. The paladin is a champion and follows his oath to the best of his ability but has to judge things as an individual. A Paladin of Devotion has to be honest, courageous, compassionate, honorable, and dutiful. None of these things exempts him from being allowed to make a pact to gain greater powers, depending on the nature of the pact. A pact with one devil to slay a thousand more, the greater evil. Ignorance, desperation, or even the willingness to do anything for power to fight what he perceives as a greater evil all clearly explain how a paladin might take up a pact with what most people see as the greatest evil. Again, it is subjective, the paladin might not think a fiend is the greatest evil but thinks eldritch horrors and their aberrations are, or the other way around. And these are just reasons why a paladin might bargain for power from the greatest evils in the game, for any other pact it becomes that much easier to find the link and justification to follow his oath while making a pact.

Some paladins might even swear their oath as part of a pact made with a good entity, tying it all up in one package.

That interpretation is literally against D&D cannon. Fiends are evil, they are not aligned with evil, they literally ARE team Evil. Player alignment is a way of discussing your character actions, but also assigning whose team on a cosmic struggle between good and evil you are on. Morality in D&D is objective. That is the lore, like it or not.

[Ferrin33]

That interpretation is literally against D&D cannon. Fiends are evil, they are not aligned with evil, they literally ARE team Evil. Player alignment is a way of discussing your character actions, but also assigning whose team on a cosmic struggle between good and evil you are on. Morality in D&D is objective. That is the lore, like it or not.

Which in this edition they're easing the leash on.

[Demonicattorney]

Which in this edition they're easing the leash on.

Where exactly are you getting that from? If anything they literally made things more clear. Look at many Paladin abilities, they literally target Fiends. Smite does additional damage to Fiends, the turn abilities of both Oath of Devotion and Ancients turn Fiends. The freakin Holy Avenger does more damage to Fiends. They avoided adding mechanical benefits to alignment like Smite Evil or Circle of Protection (law), and short-handed it to Fiends=Evil Undead=Evil. Objective Morality.

[Gnomes2169]

Where exactly are you getting that from? If anything they literally made things more clear. Look at many Paladin abilities, they literally target Fiends. Smite does additional damage to Fiends, the turn abilities of both Oath of Devotion and Ancients turn Fiends. The freakin Holy Avenger does more damage to Fiends. They avoided adding mechanical benefits to alignment like Smite Evil or Circle of Protection (law), and short-handed it to Fiends=Evil Undead=Evil. Objective Morality.

Hey, you know what isn't on any of these lists? Fey, old ones, elder gods, particularly powerful and ancient dragons/ abberations, etc etc, all of which can be patrons for a warlock... So if they aren't under the "objectively evil" tag (like undead and fiends are) then what exactly stops a paladin from making a pact with them? (Particularly a pact that gives them power to hunt undead and fiends)

[DireSickFish]

There is also a section in the front of the MM about the possibility of good green dragons and vampires. The Angels also don't lose much by going evil.

I agree that in D&D world good and evil are cosmic forces that can be objective instead of a list of "cultural norms". The class is just lest restrictive in this edition on having to be on one side or the other of that fight. The abilities lend themselves to the force of good, and an archtypical palladin would not be on a fiends side or else lose all of his abilities. There is more than 1 way to play a palladin in this edition now.

[Demonicattorney]

I don't think Paladins should be warlocks of an evil entity. Abberration gods are still evil, should still be prohibited. The listed greater god deities are nihilistic death gods, that focus on mind control and tentacle rape. Sounds very Paladin like.

I don't mind the Fey gods as much, I think a good or even a neutral fey god might be appropriate.

[Sir Jeff]

Is there any reason the simple compromise of adding "Be sure to talk to your DM regarding the specific RP consequences involved in a paladin/warlock build," doesn't solve the problem? It offers autonomy to individual playgroups and lets inexperienced players know that they can't just decide they're a paladin who drinks the blood of the innocent in service to some dark deity (not that this is necessarily a required action for warlocks).

Love the guide, EvilAnagram.

[Rhaegar14]

Solid guide thus far, though I'd like to see your evaluation of their spell list. I might argue that Mounted Combatant would be blue for Paladins, since they have very easy access to a mount as soon as they get second level spells.

EDIT: I'd also argue that the Oath of Devotion's Oath Spells do not deserve a light blue rating. While it's true that many of them are great spells, the vast majority are on the Paladin spell list by default and can be used by any Paladin.

[Demonicattorney]

Is there any reason the simple compromise of adding "Be sure to talk to your DM regarding the specific RP consequences involved in a paladin/warlock build," doesn't solve the problem? It offers autonomy to individual playgroups and lets inexperienced players know that they can't just decide they're a paladin who drinks the blood of the innocent in service to some dark deity (not that this is necessarily a required action for warlocks).

Love the guide, EvilAnagram.

Generally, I enjoy how Paladins are balanced in both 5e and Pathfinder. Being a Paladin closes off certain options because it forces you to do the right thing. A Paladin probably won't retreat when innocents are getting hurt, won't leave a party member behind, and will confront people that do evil, even when its not in their best interest. In return, Paladins are one, if not the most mechanically powerful classes in the game. They have the best defense, and some of the best offense, they get the best weapon. These advantages are balanced against your role-playing restrictions.

Warlock, likewise, comes with role-playing restrictions, (you are awesome, but are also somebody's errand boy), and your patron is likely evil, will likely tell you to do things that will hurt others, and undoubtedly self-serving. The role-playing restriction being that in order to keep your powers you might have to do something that ***** over yourself, the party, or the greater good. In return, Warlocks are awesome.

These two role-playing restrictions however, conflict. In most campaigns, without some serious homebrew you cannot be both a Paladin and a Warlock.

Yes, you can add the disclaimer, "its up to your DM", but that is true of every rule, it fails to show why this isn't a good choice. This edition has been incredibly nice about multi-classing and codes of conduct, they don't like saying the word "no", but if you read the "fluff" of both classes, what the designers are trying to tell you, you will see these options are incompatible.

Ultimately, it will almost always be more interesting to tell a story about a Paladin and a Warlock, rather than a Paladin/Warlock,

[Xetheral]

Is there any reason the simple compromise of adding "Be sure to talk to your DM regarding the specific RP consequences involved in a paladin/warlock build," doesn't solve the problem?

I like this solution. It sums up the controversy nicely.

In most campaigns, without some serious homebrew you cannot be both a Paladin and a Warlock.

I'd be surprised if that were true. Even if it is, I'd guess it be a very small majority at best. But since I doubt there is a good way to do a survey we'll never know for sure.

[Sir Jeff]

Generally, I enjoy how Paladins are balanced in both 5e and Pathfinder. Being a Paladin closes off certain options because it forces you to do the right thing. A Paladin probably won't retreat when innocents are getting hurt, won't leave a party member behind, and will confront people that do evil, even when its not in their best interest. In return, Paladins are one, if not the most mechanically powerful classes in the game. They have the best defense, and some of the best offense, they get the best weapon. These advantages are balanced against your role-playing restrictions.

Warlock, likewise, comes with role-playing restrictions, (you are awesome, but are also somebody's errand boy), and your patron is likely evil, will likely tell you to do things that will hurt others, and undoubtedly self-serving. The role-playing restriction being that in order to keep your powers you might have to do something that ***** over yourself, the party, or the greater good. In return, Warlocks are awesome.

These two role-playing restrictions however, conflict. In most campaigns, without some serious homebrew you cannot be both a Paladin and a Warlock.

This distinction might be oversimple. I don't believe that there is a typical warlock. For instance, from the Great Old One Patron tree, we see that "The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it." Nothing about that precludes a Paladin from access. From the Archfey: "Your patron is a lord or lady of the fey, a creature of legend who holds secrets that were forgotten before the mortal races were born. This being’s motivations are often inscrutable, and sometimes whimsical, and might involve a striving for greater magical power or the settling of age-old grudges." Again this is fine. The Paladin seeks the help of an unsavory character to advance the greater good. It involves roleplay, but so does any flavorful multi-class.

I think that you're right about the Fiend, and that making a pact with it would have serious consequences regarding roleplay and character inception. It might even mean the temporary loss of paladin or warlock abilities. But all of this is up to a specific DM, about whom we know nothing. So this disclaimer lets players know that they should consult their DM about her opinion on a paladin/warlock multi-class and move on from there (which, frankly, is how all character construction ought to go). There's no need to be any more specific; this is a very flexible game, and its players ought to be flexible as well.

Yes, you can add the disclaimer, "its up to your DM", but that is true of every rule, it fails to show why this isn't a good choice. This edition has been incredibly nice about multi-classing and codes of conduct, they don't like saying the word "no", but if you read the "fluff" of both classes, what the designers are trying to tell you, you will see these options are incompatible.

I don't think that there is a "God's-eye view" regarding the intent of the designers, though to say that paladin and warlock are incompatible is a stretch, as demonstrated by the various in-text and out-of-text examples offered by me and a number of other people. Also, the disclaimer may apply to every rule, but it does so to different degrees. It's up to your DM whether or not you can get seven extra attacks at level two, but not in the same way that it's up to your DM whether or not you can role for your stats or if you must use an array, or if your urchin rogue can have an alley-cat for a pet. This conversation is of the second type, and it should be left up to a player and their DM.

Ultimately, it will almost always be more interesting to tell a story about a Paladin and a Warlock, rather than a Paladin/Warlock,

But that's not your call to make, and it would be misleading to include such a statement in a guide. What is not misleading is to advise players to construct a character with input from their DM, especially in cases where thematic conflict might arise.

[Yagyujubei]

you are so caught up in semantics. When boiled down, the whole crux of the paladin as a class is that they're a warrior that fights for a god and channels said gods power to strengthen themselves.

you could just as easily be a paladin of Cyric as one of Illmater, now I know someone like you will be outraged saying "BUT BAD PALADINS ARE BLACK GUARDS THO" but seriously at the end of the day they're basically the same thing with slightly changed wording. Detect good instead of detect evil, unholy aura instead of divine aura. big fricken whoop.

[CodeRed]

There is a reason why Warlock shouldn't be a cyan entry.

Which is why on a wonderful and free forum like this, you're perfectly free to go make your own guide. If you don't think Warlock multiclass shouldn't be listed because of RP concerns, then in your guide, you can color it whatever color you choose.

As to RAW, which is all that matters for discussion between people who aren't playing in the same game under the same DM, there is nothing that says you can't be a Paladin/Warlock multiclass. Further, your insinuations regarding "emo-wannabes" is rather insulting. If you dislike the potential multiclass combo, don't play it or let it be played in your game if you DM. But to get on an online forum and say that no-one should ever play it because you don't like it is petty and childish.

[Yagyujubei]

A guide looks at the class interactions mechanically without taking RP into account, just looking at how the features of the class and it's paths stack up, and how the features of various MC option synergize with the tools you already have.

in that light warlock is absolutely Cyan as a paladin multiclass. after that it's up to each player/DM how they want to make their mechanical build work within a world/story.

[EvilAnagram]

Finally, it literally states that only a Paladin oath binds a Paladin, your first loyalty is to the cause of righteousness,not to crown and country. How does that cope with you being owned and controlled by a pact to obey a non-good creature? Being a Paladin and being a Warlock are pretty much the opposites of each other, what happens when your patron and righteousness conflict?

There is a reason why Warlock shouldn't be a cyan entry.

First, a pact does not necessitate your obedience to the pactholder. You enter an agreement and must stick to the terms of that agreement, or you may simply siphon off power from an incomprehensible being without its knowledge. You do not necessarily have to obey the creature you enter a pact with so long as you stick to the terms of your agreement.

Second, this guide is primarily here to judge classes by their mechanical benefits, not their roleplaying ones. You could probably roleplay a very conflicted Paladin who entered into a dark pact to save someone. This could be awesome if done right, the key words being "done right." It's not my job to nip RP ideas in the bud.

Solid guide thus far, though I'd like to see your evaluation of their spell list. I might argue that Mounted Combatant would be blue for Paladins, since they have very easy access to a mount as soon as they get second level spells.

EDIT: I'd also argue that the Oath of Devotion's Oath Spells do not deserve a light blue rating. While it's true that many of them are great spells, the vast majority are on the Paladin spell list by default and can be used by any Paladin.

Good points, both of them. I'll consider them.