To round out the good guy trio I've started, I was thinking of making a Neutral Good character, and I want to base him off my old WoW main.
Here's the rub, while the vengeance oath is most thematically like a Blood Elf Paladin, I already have a Chaotic Good character (my warlock).
Anyone have any tips on justifying Tarvos as a Neutral Good avenger?, or am I gonna have to stick with the "so totally not a plate-wearing, non-shapeshifting druid" that seems more Neutral Goody? (or retcon Shamash as being a Neutral Good warlock, assuming I get the OK from my friends).
Details, fist off consult with your DM, while the D&D 5E rulebook does state that Paladins can be of any alignment the previous ones used to have a restriction for Lawful Good, because of that some DMs still apply that restriction because for them a Paladin should always be Lawful Good regardless of what the book does say, however, the book does state that whatever the DM decides is right.
Anyway, if you want a Neutral Good Elf Paladin, it's actually pretty easy, just grab the Oath of the Ancients it's iterally why it exists, however if you want a Neutral Good Paladin of Vengeance just say so, read the Oath, none of its Tenets indicate that its alignment is Chaotic, if anything it sounds more within a spectrum of Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good, I'd still argue that a Chaotic Good Paladin is kind of stupid, and I don't know where you're getting that the Oath of Vengeance is that, in fact reading it just now it says that they tend more towards Neutral Alignments rather than Chaotic.
The tenets of the Oath of Vengeance vary by the paladin, but
all the tenets revolve around punishing wrongdoers by
any means necessary. Paladins who uphold these tenets
are willing to sacrifice even their own righteousness to
mete out justice upon those who do evil, so the paladins
are often neutral or lawful neutral in alignment!. The
core principIes of the tenets are brutally simple.
Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting
my sworn foes or combating a Lesser evil, I choose the
greater evil.
No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win
my money, but my sworn enemies do no!.
By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can't get in the
way of exterminating my foes.
Restitution. ]f my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is
best use I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed
by their misdeeds.
So there you go, you can do it without that much fuss if your DM is fussy about rule stuff.
In any case I'm currently playing an Aasimar Paladin Oath of Devotion of the Order of the Knights of Solamnia who currently belongs to the Order of the Sword, and I have to tell you what really matters is what your DM thinks about the Paladin's code, how much do they want you to respect it and what are the consequences for defying it, besides that what code do you follow, my DM handed me a book that has over 6 Pages of Code that I must follow, and he said that if I don't follow it I will be expelled and lose my powers, because he's Old School and loves Paladins and I chose the most prestigious order in all of Dragonlance, I must mention that I started off as a mere squire and nothing else, and have to go to court and present witnesses to level up.
Being a Paladin is hard.
[sup][sup]And yes, of course, I'm playing Lawful Good, Knights represent Honor and code IMO they should always be Lawful.[/sup][/sup]
Actuaally I would very much love if people actually read the fucking Oaths, for whatever reason everybody I meet seems to think that the Oath of Vengeance is this crazed zealot asshole that attacks every creature that it detects as evil which is downright ridiculous and completely fucking stupid.
I mean just fucking read the thing, it practically says that if you are given a choice of accepting help from an evil creature to destroy the big bad evil creature, you accept it, because what's important is to vanquish the greater evil... GRUMBLE GRUMBlE, fucking idiotic other players, morality is not that simple, the alignments are just there as mechanics, try doing some actual RP, if you don't belive go and read D&D novels, paladins don't act like that, because that's stupid.
BTW, Aasimar Paladin is too good, specially Scourge, 10 ft Radiant DMG=to your level per turn + Radiant Damage = to your level on every hit from your attacks, add a Smite Spell which is a concentration spell, add Sacred Weapon Channel Divinity which adds + your Charisma to damage with one weapon, burn your highest spell Slot on the Divine Smite feature and you have guaranteed a shit-ton of damage.
Do note, that the Aasimar feat does not state one weapon unlike the Sacred Weapon Channel Divinity and neither do the Smite Concentration Spells so you're stacking and the Divine Smite Feature is at will and requires no action, so if you Dual Wield you can stack a ridiculous amount of damage.
I have read it, and, honestly, it just gave off that vibe. One of the essences of Chaotic Good is that they're willing to serve the greater good even if it screws the ruled, and even if they have to get their hands really dirty. You said by any means necessary, and any means can involve breaking a whole lot of rules.
Maybe I'm just way too exposed to Yuri Lowell-esque vigilantes, but any means necessary can involve killing nobles despite the rules saying that's illegal, and Neutral Good characters are the type that, least if you ask me, seem as internally-reformist as a Lawful Good character.
Then again, maybe it's just me (and it probably is). That said, that ain't the reason I need tp talk with my DM. The reason why I'd need to talk with my DM is that I've done something with my 'lock that's irreconcilable with the Neutral Good mindset (though, then again, we could handwave it away with an aspect of my 'lock's story).
I have read it, and, honestly, it just gave off that vibe. One of the essences of Chaotic Good is that they're willing to serve the greater good even if it screws the ruled, and even if they have to get their hands really dirty. You said by any means necessary, and any means can involve breaking a whole lot of rules.
Well, maybe I am wrong, but I always thought that the main diference between NG and CG is that while CG people will pursue their idea of good by all means neccessary, NG people will always consider whether they can do what they need while still not breaking the law.
If Vengeful Paladin is willing to sacrifice lawfulness to achieve their goal, well, it doesn't mean that they HAVE to, right? I think that while Ordinary Paladin will always try to pay by the books, Vengeful one will try to play by the books, but if it fails they will do their own thing.
If Vengeful Paladin is willing to sacrifice lawfulness to achieve their goal, well, it doesn't mean that they HAVE to, right? I think that while Ordinary Paladin will always try to pay by the books, Vengeful one will try to play by the books, but if it fails they will do their own thing.
To me Lawful for Paladins is honoring the laws of their patron Deity First and anything else second. So if a noble is corrupt and abusing the weak it his duty to strike him down...and then surrender to the proper authorities if they are not corrupt. This naturally leads to easy falls because it relies on the paladins interpretation of his deities will, but no paladin is fun without the risk of falling. Fallen paladins also make amazing lawful evil Knights Templar types.
As people have said, talk it over with your GM. Personally (and I know nothing of WoW), the only oaths that fit with NG are Devotion and Ancients. Vengance is really for the guy straddling the line between Neutral and Evil, not any kind of Good person (Good as defined by the admittedly strange conceptions of the DnD alignment system)
I have read it, and, honestly, it just gave off that vibe. One of the essences of Chaotic Good is that they're willing to serve the greater good even if it screws the ruled, and even if they have to get their hands really dirty. You said by any means necessary, and any means can involve breaking a whole lot of rules.
Maybe I'm just way too exposed to Yuri Lowell-esque vigilantes, but any means necessary can involve killing nobles despite the rules saying that's illegal, and Neutral Good characters are the type that, least if you ask me, seem as internally-reformist as a Lawful Good character.
Then again, maybe it's just me (and it probably is). That said, that ain't the reason I need tp talk with my DM. The reason why I'd need to talk with my DM is that I've done something with my 'lock that's irreconcilable with the Neutral Good mindset (though, then again, we could handwave it away with an aspect of my 'lock's story).
I see, the problem seems to be that you have neither read the tenets of the knight nor the Dogma of a deity, I assure you it will make more sense after that, at the moment I'm busy so I can't type it since I have it handwritten but I would recommend looking up The Oath and The Measure of The Knights of Solamnia[footnote]The original Paladins in AD&D.[/footnote] and The Dogma of The God Paladine.
It will teach you a lot of what a Paladin is meant to, do keep in mind that I'm the sort of person that takes RP very seriously[footnote]Literally my whole Weekend is playing D&D and scolding the party to not do stupid shit which always fails but it's why it's fun.[/footnote] and I always do a ton of research before playing anything and am getting into the politics of being a Knight, you don't have to follow The Oath and The Measure if you think that's too complex but regardless of that you should read it, for it is the true Knight's Code.
I have read it, and, honestly, it just gave off that vibe. One of the essences of Chaotic Good is that they're willing to serve the greater good even if it screws the ruled, and even if they have to get their hands really dirty. You said by any means necessary, and any means can involve breaking a whole lot of rules.
Eh...sorta kinda? For all that D&D codified alignment types, the distinctions aren't always very well defined. To borrow from the Tome of Fiends:
Let's get this out in the open: Law and Chaos do not have any meaning under the standard D&D rules.
We are aware that especially if you've been playing this game for a long time, you personally probably have an understanding of what you think Law and Chaos are supposed to mean. You possibly even believe that the rest of your group thinks that Law and Chaos mean the same thing you do. But you're probably wrong. The nature of Law and Chaos is the source of more arguments among D&D players (veteran and novice alike) than any other facet of the game. More than attacks of opportunities, more than weapon sizing, more even than spell effect inheritance. And the reason is because the "definition" of Law and Chaos in the Player's Handbook is written so confusingly that the terms are not even mutually exclusive. Look it up, this is a written document, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to stop reading at this time, flip open the Player's Handbook, and start reading the alignment descriptions. The Tome of Fiends will still be here when you get back.
?
There you go! Now that we're all on the same page (page XX), the reason why you've gotten into so many arguments with people as to whether their character was Lawful or Chaotic is because absolutely every action that any character ever takes could logically be argued to be both. A character who is honorable, adaptable, trustworthy, flexible, reliable, and loves freedom is a basically stand-up fellow, and meets the check marks for being "ultimate Law" and "ultimate Chaos". There aren't any contradictory adjectives there. While Law and Chaos are supposed to be opposed forces, there's nothing antithetical about the descriptions in the book
It goes into considerably more depth - so by all means give it a read - but that's the major elephant in the room. So like so many others, I suggest talking to your GM about what their take on alignment is for this Campaign. Does lawful to them mean adherence to the law of the Land and chaos mean active rebellion against it? Does lawful mean sane and chaotic insane? Is a lawful character simply any character with a personal code? Until that is clarified, there's only so much you can do to nail down the character concept.
I've always perceived neutral good as a "Do good regardless" style character. They're not keen to break the law in their quest to do so, but aren't above it either. Not the same as Chaotic good, as I've read that as more of a Robin Hood esque vigalante style of good.
I'm playing a Neutral Good Paladin, specifically a Knight of Sune, the goddess of beauty. I went with the Oath of the Ancients, reasoning that the whole beauty and nature thing would intertwine nicely.
Also, my paladin has a secret. She's a werebear. So far, only the DM knows, as I've not been forced to reveal it to the group. The only time it's been a full moon so far was during a period of travel on a ship, so I told the group I was standing vigil and not to be disturbed while locking myself in my quarters.
The ironic thing is that so far the paladin thing has been causing more friction than the bear thing. The rest of my group is less morally flexible than me, so there have been times when I've sat out of fights, as they have been the instigators. Hell, there are a couple of party members I'd probably be honour bound to point my spear at myself if not for the whole fighting a greater evil quest thing we have going on.
The ironic thing is that so far the paladin thing has been causing more friction than the bear thing. The rest of my group is less morally flexible than me
That's not ironic, that's the most cliche D&D gaming experience ever. The rest of the party want to be murder hobos while the paladin is like "um, can we not be total dicks to everyone we meet?" "GOD! WHY DO YOU HAVE TO KILL OUR FUN PALADIN!? PALADIN OF SUCK!!" Sound familiar at all?
Weresquirrel said:
, so there have been times when I've sat out of fights, as they have been the instigators. Hell, there are a couple of party members I'd probably be honour bound to point my spear at myself if not for the whole fighting a greater evil quest thing we have going on.
Yeah....that reminds me of when I was playing a Paladin of the Night Raven...I think that was her name? The Neutral Good goddess of death from 4th edition. Anyway, I played him like "death is a sacred thing, and the dead should be honored and respected" He didn't revel in death, but he accepted it was part of life. So one time, our party is going through a tomb to find something, and the rogue (because of course it's the rogue) says he starts cracking open crypts to look for loot. And then he's shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that the PALADIN OF DEATH, would have a problem with someone desecrating the honored dead. And he acted like I was totally sucking the fun out of the session simply by asking "Please don't loot the corpses of the honored dead while a paladin of the god of death is around" I mean, this isn't that hard to figure out.
So yeah, I feel your pain, but I have no advice for you other than to find another group of players, or just accept that they are going to keep doing things to piss your PC off.
OT: I'm trying to think of some examples of "paladin" esque characters who weren't tied to any direct ethos of a god, and were more a "paladin of the people" kind of thing. I know I've read some over the years but I can't think of any.
So yeah, I feel your pain, but I have no advice for you other than to find another group of players, or just accept that they are going to keep doing things to piss your PC off.
Heh, I don't begrudge them for it at all, these guys are friends outside of the gaming sphere as well. So they don't treat me being righteous as a burden or me being a killjoy. I just thought it funny that being "good" would be the cause of conflict rather than me being a monster in disguise. That may change once I do go full bear, but we'll see. It'll be especially funny since one of the members of the party (played by my brother's girlfriend) is very fond of using bear traps in fights. She throws them at people, with mixed results
In any case I'm going to provide you with the Dogma of Paladine and The requirements, Oath & Measure to the Knights of the Crown which are the lowest Ranking just so that you will get an idea of what it used to mean to be a Paladin, do keep in mind this was the original way to play a Paladin, and you had to multi-class into 3 Classes in order to get Holy Powers as a Paladin but let's not get into that, only the role-playing aspect of it.
The dogma of the Church of Paladine[footnote]Do keep in mind that it used to be that even the Paladins of Vengeance had to follow this Dogma, even if they didn't follow the Oath and the Measure, although they did follow the Oath and the Measure at least to some degree, and do keep in mind that this is taken from Dragonlance Campaign Setting for 3rd Edition, not 3.5, 3rd.[/footnote]:
Rewards fit actions. The guilty must be brought before the Law. Good stands in contrast to Evil as Day is in contrast to Night, and neither one is able to exist without the other. Although the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, the parts must not be forgotten. Good redeems its own. None are so lost that they cannot be brought to the Light.
The Measure of a Crown Knight:
Loyalty and obedience in all that a Knight is and does. Loyalty requires unquestioned obedience to higher power and authority, as long as that power adheres to the precepts set forth in the Oath and the Measure.
Loyalty is due to one's family, all that is good, those oppressed by Evil and those monarchs that by decree and common consent of the Knightly Councils is in good standing with the Knighthood and deserving of its honorable Loyalty and Protection.
Acts befitting a Knight of the Crown include:
- Unquestioned obedience to those whose authority is righteously maintained in the Knightly Councils.
- Dedication to the ideals of the Measure.
- Loyalty to brother Knights of all Orders.
- All other acts that cause the strengthening of loyalty among Knights.
Responsibilities of a Crown Knight:
A Knight of the Crown must serve and aid any fellow Knight who is on the business of his order and requires assistance, and serve the Kingdoms on the List of Loyalty as compiled by the Grand Circle of Knights. Failure to fulfill these duties may cause the honor of a Knight to be questioned and may cause her knighthood to be stripped from her.
Now do keep in mind that the Order of the Crown didn't even have holy powers, only the Order of the Sword and Rose had those and in order to acquire them you had to be high ranking on the Order of the Crown before you could even apply to the Order of the Sword, so it was pretty complex.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
