Do your character know Alignment exists?

[NorthernPhoenix]

I generally run things without Meta knowledge of "Alignment" existing, but still have it in the background, sort of how the 5e books present it.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is why muddying the waters of alignment with any real world ideas is bad and just leads to unfortunate implications.

It also gets in the way of having fun, or of having a fruitful discussion on the internet.

Mine don't. The only characters I see that act as if they do are paladins that are played as if they are still mired in 3rd edition; complete with getting upset when other characters are using necrotic damage.

Did the rest of the party throw the Paladin out of the party? Question 0 is : Why are we adventuring together? What common mission/purpose/threat brought us together such that we go on life threatening adventures and possibly kill various Monsters/NPCs and break stuff? That apparently has not been established at your table, or, as you say, the paladin may be stuck in a bucket full of old assumptions.

I generally run things without Meta knowledge of "Alignment" existing, but still have it in the background, sort of how the 5e books present it.

Which overcomes most of those problems.

[JackPhoenix]

Meanwhile, Doresain, creator of the Ghouls, was an elf who betrayed the elven gods to worship Orcus. He became a powerful demon, but Orcus abandoned Doresain when he defeated by Yeenoguh. Doresain begged the elven pantheon for help, and taking pity on him, the gods of the elves saved him.

People may say that sending a subordinate to their death without informing them and letting villages get destroyed in order to get more time is unforgiveable, and people may say that a mass murderer and creator of mass murderers asking for forgiveness when on the receiving end of arbitrary violence for once does not deserve to be redeemed. But that is not what alignment is about.

It should be noted Doreisan wasn't redeemed, the elven gods saved him, and in return, elves are immune to ghoul paralysis, but he's not any less evil than before. He's just a hypocrite who begged for help from deities he's spurned before when he was in trouble.

[cutlery]

Question 0 is : Why are we adventuring together? What common mission/purpose/threat brought us together such that we go on life threatening adventures and possibly kill various Monsters/NPCs and break stuff? That apparently has not been established at your table, or, as you say, the paladin may be stuck in a bucket full of old assumptions.

It's always been this way with paladins, though - nearly never with clerics or anything else. It's like week one in paladin school is "How to be a Lawful Jerk."

5e is making strides away from this, but lots of people already think they know what "paladin" means, no matter what the flavor text in the book says.

That they got this understanding of paladin (perhaps secondhand) from previous editions of the game doesn't matter.

[Darth Credence]

In my campaign, I have three alignment axes - good/evil, order/chaos, and civilization/nature. Every Deity is an aspect of one of those, touching on another - e.g. the is a God of good touching on order who creates paladins, and a Lord of order touching on good that does the same.

My players picked the Deity they follow at the beginning of the game, giving a starting point. Other than that, they do not know their alignments. They understand the concept of alignments, because the structure of the Deities pretty much require that people know about it. As we play, I record when they do something that adjusts their alignment one way or another, and track their points, so I know exactly where they fall. This will usually only matter for clerics or paladins, because if they stray too far from their Deity's alignment, the Deity might decide they are done with them.

This actually became a bit interesting recently, when one of them cast detect good and evil when trying to figure out if they were in the presence of a fiend. Two of the five started to glow, indicating that they were good, while the others did not. There were some interested looks at the table from this, although no one said anything at the time. One was the party's paladin, who does a great job of being lawful good but not lawful jerk. The other was the artificer, who just does the right thing. I think the cleric, who is aligned with the Father of civilization leaning to chaos, was a little surprised that they weren't good as they see themselves as fighting evil, but when you are willing to create elaborate plans to steal things from your party members in order to fight evil, it doesn't make you good.

[Tanarii]

It's like week one in paladin school is "How to be a Lawful Jerk."

Those players all play LN Vengeance Paladins now tho

[PhoenixPhyre]

This actually became a bit interesting recently, when one of them cast detect good and evil when trying to figure out if they were in the presence of a fiend. Two of the five started to glow, indicating that they were good, while the others did not. There were some interested looks at the table from this, although no one said anything at the time. One was the party's paladin, who does a great job of being lawful good but not lawful jerk. The other was the artificer, who just does the right thing. I think the cleric, who is aligned with the Father of civilization leaning to chaos, was a little surprised that they weren't good as they see themselves as fighting evil, but when you are willing to create elaborate plans to steal things from your party members in order to fight evil, it doesn't make you good.

House rule on detect evil and good? Because by default it won't tell you anything about alignment. It only pings for certain creature types, and none of them are mortals.

With that house rule in place, then sure. People will know something about alignment, as long as there are people who can cast the spell around (not hard, as it's one on at least cleric and paladin lists).

[Porcupinata]

Characters in my settings know that the Great Wheel exists and that it's arranged the way it is - with a Good/Evil axis and a Law/Chaos axis. They also know that their afterlife destination will be based on their moral/ethical outlook and behaviour.

So in a sense they know that at the end of their life they'll be sorted by alignment.

But on the other hand, there's no easy way to know the alignment of a living person. It's not like it shows up on detection spells or anything simple like that. So alignment is often seen as a retroactive "verdict" that sums up your life at its end rather than an active measure that can change during your life.

This is complicated by the fact that the gods will intervene in the afterlife destinations of their followers. If you're a well-behaved follower of Thor then you might end up in Asgard as one of his einherjar even if you're Lawful Neutral and would otherwise have gone to Arcadia after death. So there is a lot of conflation between "this behaviour is good" and "this behaviour pleases the gods I worship" - the two probably have a large overlap, but there's enough difference that different religious groups can have major (and violent) disagreements about what is good and what isn't.

[cutlery]

Those players all play LN Vengeance Paladins now tho

That would be easier to get along with.

Warlock: "Hey, look, the focus for your entire revenge story just went down that corridor!"

Paladin: "Me Smite!"

Rogue: "Bob, that's the corridor full of traps."

Warlock: "I know."

[KorvinStarmast]

It's always been this way with paladins

No, it hasn't. Maybe at your tables, but I've rarely run into it. (And when we did we took it out of character to resolve)

Mind you, there was one particular player (college time frame, late 1970's) who was the kind of toxic presence at a table who got lucky enough to roll a 17 on Charisma (which if you knew the guy, would seem to be quite the ironic roll of the die). This was OD&D+Greyhawk days. He was insufferable. So we basically told him to not come back; IIRC, of the five different people who were DMs in that group, four of the five refused to have him as a player at their table, and most of the players would not play with him.
The issue wasn't/isn't "paladin" ... not in my experience.

The other guy in that group of players (we had not quite 20 all told) who had a paladin was freaking awesome.

[cutlery]

No, it hasn't. Maybe at your tables, but I've rarely run into it.

Not necessarily every paladin, but the players that take the role of alignment police are nearly always paladins.

The class does not pair well with a player with a lack of imagination.

[Darth Credence]

House rule on detect evil and good? Because by default it won't tell you anything about alignment. It only pings for certain creature types, and none of them are mortals.

With that house rule in place, then sure. People will know something about alignment, as long as there are people who can cast the spell around (not hard, as it's one on at least cleric and paladin lists).

Yes, that's a house rule, because of the way the Deities work. The spell can also be easily defeated through a couple of different methods, so it isn't always accurate with mortals, but in this case, no one was attempting to defeat it.

[Naanomi]

Haven't checked them all, but these specifically have no mechanical effect on alignment- no mechanics stop good oathbrokers or good necromancers from existing (just like nothing mechanical stops evil paladins of other oaths from existing).

Oathbreaker specifically says 'A Paladin must be Evil and at least 3rd level to become an Oathbreaker'

House rule on detect evil and good? Because by default it won't tell you anything about alignment. It only pings for certain creature types, and none of them are mortals.

A Warlock's Sprite Familiar can 'heart-sight' Alignment though

[Valmark]

Oathbreaker specifically says 'A Paladin must be Evil and at least 3rd level to become an Oathbreaker'

*Rereads* Oh, it says that. Says the same thing about the Death domain, apparently.

That... Makes no sense and I'll completely ignore it, but it is true.

[ProsecutorGodot]

*Rereads* Oh, it says that. Says the same thing about the Death domain, apparently.

That... Makes no sense and I'll completely ignore it, but it is true.

Well you had to have taken an oath, broke it willingly (generally takes a big thing to do that nowadays) and have no remorse or willingness to atone for whatever act made you break your oath.

From my point of view, a non evil oath breaker is either not a paladin or takes a different more appropriate oath, but gaining power over the undead after having broken a binding vow that had previously granted you divine power is very hard to spin as non evil.

Death cleric I can perhaps see an argument for neutral, but any god that would grant you that sort of power will generally try to tempt you wholly to evil, in fact many might not even bother granting the person cleric powers at all if they aren't already aligned with the gods interest, which is almost always evil as far as undead creation is concerned.

Necromancers are significantly more grey considering they're able to be divorced from any gods or oaths. The debates have been long on them.

[Demonslayer666]

Yes, but not as strictly as it is defined. Good vs. evil, and Law vs. Chaos are well known concepts, but in my game, alignment does not restrict your actions. It is merely a roleplaying guideline of your typical behavior. So you can't look at someone and know their alignment. The character would know where their own alignment sits, and I warn them before a change. I've never had to change a character's alignment in my games. I came close last campaign, but they changed their mind on fireballing a group of ruffians in town that were only threatening them (not attacking). Crisis averted.

I have changed my alignment on character's I have played. My Blood Hunter went from NG, to CG, to CN to reflect his struggle with the demons within.

[Tanarii]

From my point of view, a non evil oath breaker is either not a paladin or takes a different more appropriate oath, but gaining power over the undead after having broken a binding vow that had previously granted you divine power is very hard to spin as non evil.

Chaotic.

Chaotic paladins are really hard to justify in the first place, given the typical associated behaviors. And oath breakers should require being chaotic.

The oath breaker as written should really be named fallen knight or something. Its a fall from Good grace theme, not a "broke my oath of vengeance and have no remorse" class. With oath of conquest out it makes even less sense as a person that violated their oath.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well you had to have taken an oath, broke it willingly (generally takes a big thing to do that nowadays) and have no remorse or willingness to atone for whatever act made you break your oath.

From my point of view, a non evil oath breaker is either not a paladin or takes a different more appropriate oath, but gaining power over the undead after having broken a binding vow that had previously granted you divine power is very hard to spin as non evil.

Yeah. Oathbreakers aren't just those paladins who broke their oath and fell. They're those that recoiled all the other way and immersed themselves in dark powers. You've not just gone back to neutral, you've come out as in opposition to all that is good.

You can be a non-good paladin. You can be a non-evil fallen paladin (meaning you don't have any paladin powers or you've switched oaths, although I'd say that's rare). But being a non-evil Oathbreaker just doesn't make sense in any serious setting.

Chaotic.

Chaotic paladins are really hard to justify in the first place, given the typical associated behaviors. And oath breakers should require being chaotic.

The oath breaker as written should really be named fallen knight or something. Its a fall from Good grace theme, not a "broke my oath of vengeance and have no remorse" class. With oath of conquest out it makes even less sense as a person that violated their oath.

It's more than that. You can be a chaotic Vengeance paladin just fine. Oathbreaker is not just fall from Good, it's open, direct acceptance of darkness and opposition to Good. You haven't quit the game, you've outright defected to the other side.

[cutlery]

It's more than that. You can be a chaotic Vengeance paladin just fine. Oathbreaker is not just fall from Good, it's open, direct acceptance of darkness and opposition to Good. You haven't quit the game, you've outright defected to the other side.

Oathbreakers are a great way to cover the bases the Blackguard did in 3e without making a whole new class or prestige class.

And, yeah, vengeance can be chaotic just fine. "Screw everything, I need revenge" sounds a lot more chaotic than lawful to me; while "Tradition demands vengeance for [grievance], and I shall devote my life to seek it" is the other way.

[Valmark]

The problem with the oathbreaker having to be evil is that evil paladins can exist of other oaths which are mostly based on Good- before Xanathar's I think the most evil oath you could get was the Vengeance one, and even that strongly implies you not being Evil.

Then Conquest and maybe some other came around and that defies the whole theme making Oathbreaker just weird to be considered strictly evil.

The thing about Death Cleric is that... It's honestly simply geared towards damage, rather then undeads. It's even good against them, since you can pierce their resistance to necrotic. I'd easily see a good death cleric (I've actually made one).

[Unoriginal]

Yeah. Oathbreakers aren't just those paladins who broke their oath and fell. They're those that recoiled all the other way and immersed themselves in dark powers. You've not just gone back to neutral, you've come out as in opposition to all that is good.

You can be a non-good paladin. You can be a non-evil fallen paladin (meaning you don't have any paladin powers or you've switched oaths, although I'd say that's rare). But being a non-evil Oathbreaker just doesn't make sense in any serious setting.



It's more than that. You can be a chaotic Vengeance paladin just fine. Oathbreaker is not just fall from Good, it's open, direct acceptance of darkness and opposition to Good. You haven't quit the game, you've outright defected to the other side.

Yeah, the DMG specifically says it's possible to stop following your oath and such stop being a Paladin, or change your Oath. It's not even a question of Chaos, because a Paladin's Oath also is (or can be) a contract with yourself.

An Oathbreaker meanwhile is empowered by the hole left as they broke the contract magic and then kept digging.

They're people who looked at the Conquest Oath and went "pfft, amateurs."

Also interesting to note that if you use the lore from the MM, all the Oathbreaker Paladins become Death Knights after dying.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yeah, the DMG specifically says it's possible to stop following your oath and such stop being a Paladin, or change your Oath. It's not even a question of Chaos, because a Paladin's Oath also is (or can be) a contract with yourself.

An Oathbreaker meanwhile is empowered by the hole left as they broke the contract magic and then kept digging.

They're people who looked at the Conquest Oath and went "pfft, amateurs."

Also interesting to note that if you use the lore from the MM, all the Oathbreaker Paladins become Death Knights after dying.

I can't remember their names, but in mad mage we recently encountered what our DM described to us as fallen paladins who's souls were made into devils. They were specifically not death knights though, I'm unsure if that was something my DM came up with or an actual creature in a book.

Chaotic.

Chaotic paladins are really hard to justify in the first place, given the typical associated behaviors. And oath breakers should require being chaotic.

I thought about this distinction, from a thematic standpoint I agree but the mechanics don't leave a lot of grey area for anything but evil or hard leaning neutral, which as far as I'm concerned is just not wanting to write evil on your sheet. I just think if you were prone to acts of goodness this path isn't even an option.

[Tanarii]

It's more than that. You can be a chaotic Vengeance paladin just fine.

All the chaotic behaviors will struggle somewhatwith Paladin oaths IMO. chaotic Good the least.

Oathbreaker is not just fall from Good, it's open, direct acceptance of darkness and opposition to Good. You haven't quit the game, you've outright defected to the other side.

&

I thought about this distinction, from a thematic standpoint I agree but the mechanics don't leave a lot of grey area for anything but evil or hard leaning neutral, which as far as I'm concerned is just not wanting to write evil on your sheet. I just think if you were prone to acts of goodness this path isn't even an option.

And yeah that was my point at guess. Breaking your oath and being unrepentant and losing your powers is A thing that should be more about chaos and the name oathbreaker fits.

The villain class called oath breaker with a certain theme to its class features, and requiring being evil, should have been called a black knight or fallen one or forsworn one or something.

[PhoenixPhyre]

All the chaotic behaviors will struggle somewhatwith Paladin oaths IMO. chaotic Good the least.

I think it strongly depends on the Oath. Chaos vs Law isn't about being able to hold to a fixed intention; being Chaotic doesn't mean you're random. It's fundamentally about whether you care what other people think, about whether you're focused on self-will or society. "I will do this, because I said I would" is chaotic, while "I will do this because society expects me to" is lawful. And the flip side is whether you're comfortable imposing those behaviors on others in the name of society.

Conquest? Crown? Yeah, Lawful or bust. They're all about leading or following others.
Devotion? Mostly lawful, but neutral can fit. It's more about people, but building up society is a sub-theme.
Ancients? I'd say it's neutral or chaotic better than lawful. Nurture the light even in people society has cast out.
Vengeance? This is all about self. You're free to shatter societal norms--in fact you're obligated to if it gets in the way of your vengeance and hunting evil.
Redemption? Neutral/Chaotic. Even when society says that they're outlaws, you try to find the good in them and bring them back if possible. And you are the judge of those that cannot be redeemed, not society.

And yeah that was my point at guess. Breaking your oath and being unrepentant and losing your powers is A thing that should be more about chaos and the name oathbreaker fits.

The villain class called oath breaker with a certain theme to its class features, and requiring being evil, should have been called a black knight or fallen one or forsworn one or something.

Oathbreaker (the sub-class) has breaking your oath and inverting it as prerequisites. So you must be a fallen paladin to gain it. You also have to be evil and bound to dark and ruinous powers. A fighter who turns to evil isn't an Oathbreaker. It relies on the "the higher they are, the harder they fall" theme--no one is so far fallen as one who rejected a divine Oath; once you've bound yourself to the universe by an Oath, neutral isn't really an option any more if you reject what you know in full knowledge of its truth. Not just "I'm not sure anymore" (that's a crisis of faith and a "regular" fallen paladin if it continues). It's "I know what I swore, but I reject that the Oath has any power over me and I intend to fight everything it stood for, including the Power by which it was made."

[ProsecutorGodot]

Redemption? Neutral/Chaotic. Even when society says that they're outlaws, you try to find the good in them and bring them back if possible. And you are the judge of those that cannot be redeemed, not society.

Purely nitpicking here, but a strict adherence to a well defined personal code is still considered lawful behavior. If your redemption paladin has a well understood idea of what is right, he can still be lawful trying to redeem creatures or people that would be seen as irredeemable by society at large.

If I had to summarize it (probably not very well, but generally accurate) the Lawful part would be trying to redeem them to good standards rather than how you feel they should act at the time, the Good part would be bothering to attempt redemption at all.

[JackPhoenix]

Oathbreaker specifically says 'A Paladin must be Evil and at least 3rd level to become an Oathbreaker'

You need to be evil to become Oathbreaker, but you don't have to stay that way. One of my old character concepts was a paladin who in a fit of rage killed his wife, turned against everything he stood for and ended up as your standard dark lord type. On his death bed, he begged the gods for forgiveness, and they dropped him back in the world few centuries later to see if he can redeem himself. They depowered him, but left him his dark powers, to see how he'll manage with that.

Cue non-evil revenant Oathbreaker starting at level 3 like everyone else....

[ProsecutorGodot]

You need to be evil to become Oathbreaker, but you don't have to stay that way. One of my old character concepts was a paladin who in a fit of rage killed his wife, turned against everything he stood for and ended up as your standard dark lord type. On his death bed, he begged the gods for forgiveness, and they dropped him back in the world few centuries later to see if he can redeem himself. They depowered him, but left him his dark powers, to see how he'll manage with that.

Cue non-evil revenant Oathbreaker starting at level 3 like everyone else....

That's some semantics, much like you need to adhere to your oath to keep it, if you're no longer okay with the Oathbreaker stuff like you were when you ran down that road, you probably shouldn't keep those powers.

Seems much more appropriate to be a Oath of Redemption Paladin here, surprisingly similar to the route I took for my current Paladin who died some centuries ago because he was a young reckless hooligan and his recklessness cost good people their lives to boot.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Purely nitpicking here, but a strict adherence to a well defined personal code is still considered lawful behavior. If your redemption paladin has a well understood idea of what is right, he can still be lawful trying to redeem creatures or people that would be seen as irredeemable by society at large.

That's not stated anywhere but in the LN text. LG and LE don't claim personal codes. So if you're adhering to a personal code above all else and don't care about good and evil, you're LN. But someone who does what society doesn't want can't be LG, no matter what kind of personal code they've got. But they can "act as their personal conscience directs, with little care for what others think," which is CG (literally torn from the CG description).

But yes, Redemption can be lawful. But just as easily chaotic or neutral. It's fact-dependent. Hard for it to not be Good, however.

Old-edition alignment mentality doesn't work in 5e. The labels and the general sense are the same, but all the details are different.

[Sigreid]

I imagine for most people, including characters the answer is, to quote Rick Sanchez "don't think about it". They're running around doing their thing, living their lives and while they probably honor one or more gods, they don't put a lot of thought into what that means in the grand scheme of things. That said, other people are probably not only aware of the constant cosmic struggle, but dedicated to their "faction". For example, Mordenikian is dedicated to keeping things more or less in balance between the cosmic forces, believing that if one were to dominate it would be the ruin of all.

[Tanarii]

Purely nitpicking here, but a strict adherence to a well defined personal code is still considered lawful behavior.

Yeah, it fits with all the lawful behaviors quite well.

Even the 'follow the dictates of your conscience' of Chaotic Good might cause occasional conflicts with the oath. Unless you want to define your conscience as the oath.