The oath of slaughter does not exist, on D&D Beyond at least, because it is not WotC content. However, some other possibly evil subclasses for the Paladin are the Oath of Conquest (Xanathar’s Guide), the Oathbreaker (Dungeon Master’s Guide), and the Oath of Vengeance (Player’s Handbook).
There is nothing really that prevents any of the oath to be sworn by an evil Paladin but some oaths mights require a bit more justification that others. Vengeance, Crown and Conquest are the obvious choices for an evil character but any of the other works as well. Let me know if there's a particular oath you are interested in and I'll tell you how I would make that work for an evil Paladin.
Paladin's are not locked into just good and/or Just lawful anymore. And most of the Oath's actually do a good job representing this.
As Lost Said, Vengeance, Crown, and Conquest are easily something that could be evil. Vengeance leaning heavily into chaotic alignments of all kinds. While Crown and Conquest lean towards lawful alignments. Oathbreaker forces an evil alignment and it's the only one with a forced alignment I can think of.
Glory leans heavily towards Neutrality. As Does Watchers Really though Watchers can be interpreted in a few ways and some might see it being a bit more "Not Chaos" depending on how you interpret things about who they oppose really.
Redemption, Ancients, and Devotion are the only three that Really would have a major problem being evil because their Tenants entirely lean towards being Good overall. Though Ancients has a tone that could be seen as neutral in some respects and is likely the only one that most clearly leans towards Chaotic Alignments.
Very fun idea is to run an Oath of Conquest Paladin who has strayed towards lawful evil and serves one of the lords of the nine hells (I think the book calls them Hell Knights)
Oath of Slaughter is not official content from WoTC but third party published.
Oaths have no alignment, characters do, and the only official oath that require a paladin to be of evil alignment is the Oathbreaker.
while they don't officially have an alignment. Some alignments are extremely hard to pull off while still following the tenants of the Oath. This is something that needs to be recognized. While this in general gives some room for interpretation and wiggle room. There are Oath's where either your going to lose your oath or your going to have your alignment change.
Oath of Slaughter is not official content from WoTC but third party published.
Oaths have no alignment, characters do, and the only official oath that require a paladin to be of evil alignment is the Oathbreaker.
while they don't officially have an alignment. Some alignments are extremely hard to pull off while still following the tenants of the Oath. This is something that needs to be recognized. While this in general gives some room for interpretation and wiggle room. There are Oath's where either your going to lose your oath or your going to have your alignment change.
In this edition of D&D, actions don't necessarily force a character to change alignment or abandon its Oath. It's all at the DM's discretion.
Oath of Slaughter is not official content from WoTC but third party published.
Oaths have no alignment, characters do, and the only official oath that require a paladin to be of evil alignment is the Oathbreaker.
while they don't officially have an alignment. Some alignments are extremely hard to pull off while still following the tenants of the Oath. This is something that needs to be recognized. While this in general gives some room for interpretation and wiggle room. There are Oath's where either your going to lose your oath or your going to have your alignment change.
In this edition of D&D, actions don't necessarily force a character to change alignment or abandon its Oath. It's all at the DM's discretion.
It has Always been DM's discretion. However that does not mean that it doesn't necessarily force a change to alignment. What it actually means is what it's always meant. These things Naturally happen. But the DM has the option to decide it doesn't instead of following the Natural route or when that Natural change finaly happens.
Now you are Correct about Abandoning it's oath in Technicality. But they do still have their Tenants and the Game does still say there are consequences for Violating them. You may not abandon your Oath but by the Technicality a good DM is still going to punish the character in some way.
But overall. The System has not changed and it doesn't just magically not exist in 5e. It's still there. it's still basically intact and it still functions under the same rules it always has for DM's to use. it is their Option to Ignore. Not your Demand to Ignore and their option to impliment it anyway.
Paladin's are not locked into just good and/or Just lawful anymore. And most of the Oath's actually do a good job representing this.
As Lost Said, Vengeance, Crown, and Conquest are easily something that could be evil. Vengeance leaning heavily into chaotic alignments of all kinds. While Crown and Conquest lean towards lawful alignments. Oathbreaker forces an evil alignment and it's the only one with a forced alignment I can think of.
Glory leans heavily towards Neutrality. As Does Watchers Really though Watchers can be interpreted in a few ways and some might see it being a bit more "Not Chaos" depending on how you interpret things about who they oppose really.
Redemption, Ancients, and Devotion are the only three that Really would have a major problem being evil because their Tenants entirely lean towards being Good overall. Though Ancients has a tone that could be seen as neutral in some respects and is likely the only one that most clearly leans towards Chaotic Alignments.
I disagree slightly on ancients. It's pretty clearly a 'neutral good' themed subclass. Very clearly and explicitly on the side of life and 'good' while not caring one way or the other about order and chaos. It could certainly be played by a chaotic character just fine, but the oath itself doesn't really lean chaotic. It just doesn't lean lawful either.
Paladin's are not locked into just good and/or Just lawful anymore. And most of the Oath's actually do a good job representing this.
As Lost Said, Vengeance, Crown, and Conquest are easily something that could be evil. Vengeance leaning heavily into chaotic alignments of all kinds. While Crown and Conquest lean towards lawful alignments. Oathbreaker forces an evil alignment and it's the only one with a forced alignment I can think of.
Glory leans heavily towards Neutrality. As Does Watchers Really though Watchers can be interpreted in a few ways and some might see it being a bit more "Not Chaos" depending on how you interpret things about who they oppose really.
Redemption, Ancients, and Devotion are the only three that Really would have a major problem being evil because their Tenants entirely lean towards being Good overall. Though Ancients has a tone that could be seen as neutral in some respects and is likely the only one that most clearly leans towards Chaotic Alignments.
I disagree slightly on ancients. It's pretty clearly a 'neutral good' themed subclass. Very clearly and explicitly on the side of life and 'good' while not caring one way or the other about order and chaos. It could certainly be played by a chaotic character just fine, but the oath itself doesn't really lean chaotic. It just doesn't lean lawful either.
Please Read. That's not what I said. i said that it could lean towards Chaos. Not that it has a Chaotic Central focus of any kind. So your not actually contradicting anything that I said.
That being Said it does lean more towards chaos than Law because it's tenants have a lot to say about you and your outlook rather than the outlook of the group and there is some unwritten assumption thta you and your outlook if Held up as an example would inspire others to be brighter and more positive. That individualistic nature tends to lean more towards chaos than Law. Law tends to be bout the group over everything else. Chaos tends to be driven far more by the individual. But that is not to say that it is a Directly Chaotic Oath or set of Tenants in it's primary focus. That's just saying that a Chaotic, non evil, character could likely make it work very well with only minimal trouble.
I also don't prescribe to the Notion that Life is automatically good. I feel like that is a hold over from older simpler systems. While Undeath is a corruption and perversion of Life and is evil. That does not make life Good because Life is not the Opposite of Undeath. Life is the Opposite of Death. And both life and Death really should be treated as either neutral, or unaligned properties. Not good and evil. This concept has become increasingly popular in various forms of media for quite a while now (with the exception of perhaps horror movies where Death is often seen as an Antagonist). A few even put life on more of a Chaos and Death on more of a Law axis instead. Since Life is unpredictable and quite varied and Death is ordered and fairly static.
I did read, and to be more specific I was referring to this:
Though Ancients has a tone that could be seen as neutral in some respects and is likely the only one that most clearly leans towards Chaotic Alignments.
I thought you were saying the oath itself was leaning chaotic, but if you just meant characters of chaotic alignment could play it without issue, that I agree with.
Redemption would work great if they didn't have that stipulation that they still have to kill undead, fiends ect... Without that you could have this enabler character who helps people do bad things in the hope they'll get better
Redemption would work great if they didn't have that stipulation that they still have to kill undead, fiends ect... Without that you could have this enabler character who helps people do bad things in the hope they'll get better
You could play one that way, but Redemption has this bit in its tenets without even referring to specific creature types. Playing an 'enabler' character could be interesting but definitely something to discuss with the group beforehand lol, as it could go from fun to frustrating quickly if it conflicts with how the other players want to approach things all the time.
Wisdom. Your heart and mind must stay clear, for eventually you will be forced to admit defeat. While every creature can be redeemed, some are so far along the path of evil that you have no choice but to end their lives for the greater good. Any such action must be carefully weighed and the consequences fully understood, but once you have made the decision, follow through with it knowing your path is just.
Would a Conquest Paladin serving, say, Bane or Tiamat be considered evil for breaking an oath to essentially serve oppression? Though WotC may have considered an Oathbreaker to be evil per their writings, it still falls to the party's (and DM's) point of view. In a way, the fires of an evil heart have been quenched and possibly replaced by the radiance of goodness.
I posit that -- in the aforementioned example -- the RP to becoming this kind of Oathbreaker implies some sort of redemption coming from within the paladin. As the DM of a nascent campaign, if someone wanted to do this to replace a fallen PC, I'd probably have them endure some hardship for breaking their oath, but then modify some of the features to fit this change of heart.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
anyone know if the oath of slaughter is on dndbeyond? if so which source book
The oath of slaughter does not exist, on D&D Beyond at least, because it is not WotC content. However, some other possibly evil subclasses for the Paladin are the Oath of Conquest (Xanathar’s Guide), the Oathbreaker (Dungeon Master’s Guide), and the Oath of Vengeance (Player’s Handbook).
Come participate in the Competition of the Finest Brews, Edition XXIV?
My homebrew stuff:
Spells, Monsters, Magic Items, Feats, Subclasses.
I am an Archfey, but nobody seems to notice.
Extended Signature
There is nothing really that prevents any of the oath to be sworn by an evil Paladin but some oaths mights require a bit more justification that others. Vengeance, Crown and Conquest are the obvious choices for an evil character but any of the other works as well. Let me know if there's a particular oath you are interested in and I'll tell you how I would make that work for an evil Paladin.
Paladin's are not locked into just good and/or Just lawful anymore. And most of the Oath's actually do a good job representing this.
As Lost Said, Vengeance, Crown, and Conquest are easily something that could be evil. Vengeance leaning heavily into chaotic alignments of all kinds. While Crown and Conquest lean towards lawful alignments. Oathbreaker forces an evil alignment and it's the only one with a forced alignment I can think of.
Glory leans heavily towards Neutrality. As Does Watchers Really though Watchers can be interpreted in a few ways and some might see it being a bit more "Not Chaos" depending on how you interpret things about who they oppose really.
Redemption, Ancients, and Devotion are the only three that Really would have a major problem being evil because their Tenants entirely lean towards being Good overall. Though Ancients has a tone that could be seen as neutral in some respects and is likely the only one that most clearly leans towards Chaotic Alignments.
Very fun idea is to run an Oath of Conquest Paladin who has strayed towards lawful evil and serves one of the lords of the nine hells (I think the book calls them Hell Knights)
Oath of Slaughter is not official content from WoTC but third party published.
Oaths have no alignment, characters do, and the only official oath that require a paladin to be of evil alignment is the Oathbreaker.
while they don't officially have an alignment. Some alignments are extremely hard to pull off while still following the tenants of the Oath. This is something that needs to be recognized. While this in general gives some room for interpretation and wiggle room. There are Oath's where either your going to lose your oath or your going to have your alignment change.
à
In this edition of D&D, actions don't necessarily force a character to change alignment or abandon its Oath. It's all at the DM's discretion.
It has Always been DM's discretion. However that does not mean that it doesn't necessarily force a change to alignment. What it actually means is what it's always meant. These things Naturally happen. But the DM has the option to decide it doesn't instead of following the Natural route or when that Natural change finaly happens.
Now you are Correct about Abandoning it's oath in Technicality. But they do still have their Tenants and the Game does still say there are consequences for Violating them. You may not abandon your Oath but by the Technicality a good DM is still going to punish the character in some way.
But overall. The System has not changed and it doesn't just magically not exist in 5e. It's still there. it's still basically intact and it still functions under the same rules it always has for DM's to use. it is their Option to Ignore. Not your Demand to Ignore and their option to impliment it anyway.
I disagree slightly on ancients. It's pretty clearly a 'neutral good' themed subclass. Very clearly and explicitly on the side of life and 'good' while not caring one way or the other about order and chaos. It could certainly be played by a chaotic character just fine, but the oath itself doesn't really lean chaotic. It just doesn't lean lawful either.
Please Read. That's not what I said. i said that it could lean towards Chaos. Not that it has a Chaotic Central focus of any kind. So your not actually contradicting anything that I said.
That being Said it does lean more towards chaos than Law because it's tenants have a lot to say about you and your outlook rather than the outlook of the group and there is some unwritten assumption thta you and your outlook if Held up as an example would inspire others to be brighter and more positive. That individualistic nature tends to lean more towards chaos than Law. Law tends to be bout the group over everything else. Chaos tends to be driven far more by the individual. But that is not to say that it is a Directly Chaotic Oath or set of Tenants in it's primary focus. That's just saying that a Chaotic, non evil, character could likely make it work very well with only minimal trouble.
I also don't prescribe to the Notion that Life is automatically good. I feel like that is a hold over from older simpler systems. While Undeath is a corruption and perversion of Life and is evil. That does not make life Good because Life is not the Opposite of Undeath. Life is the Opposite of Death. And both life and Death really should be treated as either neutral, or unaligned properties. Not good and evil. This concept has become increasingly popular in various forms of media for quite a while now (with the exception of perhaps horror movies where Death is often seen as an Antagonist). A few even put life on more of a Chaos and Death on more of a Law axis instead. Since Life is unpredictable and quite varied and Death is ordered and fairly static.
I did read, and to be more specific I was referring to this:
I thought you were saying the oath itself was leaning chaotic, but if you just meant characters of chaotic alignment could play it without issue, that I agree with.
Redemption would work great if they didn't have that stipulation that they still have to kill undead, fiends ect...
Without that you could have this enabler character who helps people do bad things in the hope they'll get better
You could play one that way, but Redemption has this bit in its tenets without even referring to specific creature types. Playing an 'enabler' character could be interesting but definitely something to discuss with the group beforehand lol, as it could go from fun to frustrating quickly if it conflicts with how the other players want to approach things all the time.
Wisdom. Your heart and mind must stay clear, for eventually you will be forced to admit defeat. While every creature can be redeemed, some are so far along the path of evil that you have no choice but to end their lives for the greater good. Any such action must be carefully weighed and the consequences fully understood, but once you have made the decision, follow through with it knowing your path is just.
Quick thought:
Would a Conquest Paladin serving, say, Bane or Tiamat be considered evil for breaking an oath to essentially serve oppression? Though WotC may have considered an Oathbreaker to be evil per their writings, it still falls to the party's (and DM's) point of view. In a way, the fires of an evil heart have been quenched and possibly replaced by the radiance of goodness.
I posit that -- in the aforementioned example -- the RP to becoming this kind of Oathbreaker implies some sort of redemption coming from within the paladin. As the DM of a nascent campaign, if someone wanted to do this to replace a fallen PC, I'd probably have them endure some hardship for breaking their oath, but then modify some of the features to fit this change of heart.