Would it be possible to have a Paladin who is so morally pure they are essentially evil? As in, will destroy anything morally imperfect, expect extreme levels of self-sacrifice. Not necessarily a hypocrite, one who lives up to their extreme ideals and expects everyone else to do the same. One who sees the inequality in society and believes that, to avenge the downtrodden, everyone else must be brutally brought to ''justice'? Is this a dumb idea?
I think it works great as a villain. The trick, however, is to find that delicate balance of "doing evil for the greater good" and "so morally overturned that everyone can see they're clearly wrong."
I think of ozymandias from watchmen is a good example of the former, while the typical stories of powerful rogue AI computers who come to the conclusion that to safeguard mankind is to eliminate them may fall under the latter. People might argue and debate about the former, but very few will agree with the latter.
I don't think it'd work well as a PC, just because their conviction is going to be like cilantro -- it'll overpower the rest of the table. Other players might see this paladin as a nagging Marge Simpson type instead of the Kingdom Come Batman you're probably hoping for.
Then again, as a PC, he might be very shortlived for he'll have to do some type of self-sacrificing act to keep from being a hypocrite, so he could work I suppose.
LN paladin could work. Maybe oath of Vengeance (they tend to be TN or LN anyway) or Oath of Conquest (You could do LN too):
Tenets of Vengeance
The tenets of the Oath of Vengeance vary by 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 principles 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 mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.
Tenets of Conquest
A paladin who takes this oath has the tenets of conquest seared on the upper arm.
Douse the Flame of Hope. It is not enough to merely defeat an enemy in battle. Your victory must be so overwhelming that your enemies’ will to fight is shattered forever. A blade can end a life. Fear can end an empire.
Rule with an Iron Fist. Once you have conquered, tolerate no dissent. Your word is law. Those who obey it shall be favored. Those who defy it shall be punished as an example to all who might follow.
Strength Above All. You shall rule until a stronger one arises. Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin.
By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can't get in the way of exterminating my foes.
Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds
I think it works great as a villain. The trick, however, is to find that delicate balance of "doing evil for the greater good" and "so morally overturned that everyone can see they're clearly wrong."
I think of ozymandias from watchmen is a good example of the former, while the typical stories of powerful rogue AI computers who come to the conclusion that to safeguard mankind is to eliminate them may fall under the latter. People might argue and debate about the former, but very few will agree with the latter.
I don't think it'd work well as a PC, just because their conviction is going to be like cilantro -- it'll overpower the rest of the table. Other players might see this paladin as a nagging Marge Simpson type instead of the Kingdom Come Batman you're probably hoping for.
Then again, as a PC, he might be very shortlived for he'll have to do some type of self-sacrificing act to keep from being a hypocrite, so he could work I suppose.
Sorta funny actually as I did base this question off a short novel I wrote that was about a rogue AI who sought to imprison humanity. And instead of a PC, I think they'd make a good villain (except are they the good guy...?)
It's technically acceptable for any good character to go to extremes; what matters is intention.
For example, let's say you know there's a cult operating out of a village, and it's on the verge of doing something really terrible, like opening a portal to the nine hells so that archdevils can enter the prime material plane.
If you know you're out of time, it's possible for any good character to justify destroying the entire village, as no matter the collateral damage it's still the "right" thing to do (sacrificing dozens to save millions). What might differ is how long one character is willing to wait before they do it, and how torn up they are about it afterwards.
A lawful good paladin for example might struggle to save the innocent lives right up until the very last moment (i.e- the portal is opening), whereas a chaotic good character might resort to extreme action a lot sooner, meanwhile the neutral good character might try to calculate the odds of finding the cult in time and base their decision on that.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, it's possible for an evil character to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing believing it to be right (from their perspective) and so-on. I played a neutral evil character in Curse of Strahd who defeated Strahd not to free Barovia, but because doing so might give him a clue to lifting his own curse (so absolutely selfish motivation, but with a "good" outcome). But you could also play a character who's nominally evil because they're ruthless but generally trying to do what they think is right.
There's basically infinite nuance when it comes to morality; even among the deities who tend to be pretty absolute in their views, some might sympathise with your difficult decision, while others will condemn you for it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It is difficult to define good and evil without reference to what is right and wrong. In D&D evil is often described as being motived by self gain while good is motivated by the gain to others. This definition means that if Hitler honestly believed the world would be a better place without Jews then he should be classed as good.
Nazi Germany actually shows how far you can go before "doing evil for the greater good" becomes "so morally overturned that everyone can see they're clearly wrong." . Hitler was able to convince most of the German people that the Jews were responsible for all that was wrong in the country and his actions were for the greater good, even if much of the rest of the world could see he was clearly wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Would it be possible to have a Paladin who is so morally pure they are essentially evil? As in, will destroy anything morally imperfect, expect extreme levels of self-sacrifice. Not necessarily a hypocrite, one who lives up to their extreme ideals and expects everyone else to do the same. One who sees the inequality in society and believes that, to avenge the downtrodden, everyone else must be brutally brought to ''justice'? Is this a dumb idea?
🍅 PM me the word 'tomato' 🍅 Extended Signature
I think it works great as a villain. The trick, however, is to find that delicate balance of "doing evil for the greater good" and "so morally overturned that everyone can see they're clearly wrong."
I think of ozymandias from watchmen is a good example of the former, while the typical stories of powerful rogue AI computers who come to the conclusion that to safeguard mankind is to eliminate them may fall under the latter. People might argue and debate about the former, but very few will agree with the latter.
I don't think it'd work well as a PC, just because their conviction is going to be like cilantro -- it'll overpower the rest of the table. Other players might see this paladin as a nagging Marge Simpson type instead of the Kingdom Come Batman you're probably hoping for.
Then again, as a PC, he might be very shortlived for he'll have to do some type of self-sacrificing act to keep from being a hypocrite, so he could work I suppose.
LN paladin could work. Maybe oath of Vengeance (they tend to be TN or LN anyway) or Oath of Conquest (You could do LN too):
Tenets of Vengeance
The tenets of the Oath of Vengeance vary by 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 principles 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 mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.
Tenets of Conquest
A paladin who takes this oath has the tenets of conquest seared on the upper arm.
Douse the Flame of Hope. It is not enough to merely defeat an enemy in battle. Your victory must be so overwhelming that your enemies’ will to fight is shattered forever. A blade can end a life. Fear can end an empire.
Rule with an Iron Fist. Once you have conquered, tolerate no dissent. Your word is law. Those who obey it shall be favored. Those who defy it shall be punished as an example to all who might follow.
Strength Above All. You shall rule until a stronger one arises. Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin.
By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can't get in the way of exterminating my foes.
Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
Sorta funny actually as I did base this question off a short novel I wrote that was about a rogue AI who sought to imprison humanity. And instead of a PC, I think they'd make a good villain (except are they the good guy...?)
🍅 PM me the word 'tomato' 🍅 Extended Signature
It's technically acceptable for any good character to go to extremes; what matters is intention.
For example, let's say you know there's a cult operating out of a village, and it's on the verge of doing something really terrible, like opening a portal to the nine hells so that archdevils can enter the prime material plane.
If you know you're out of time, it's possible for any good character to justify destroying the entire village, as no matter the collateral damage it's still the "right" thing to do (sacrificing dozens to save millions). What might differ is how long one character is willing to wait before they do it, and how torn up they are about it afterwards.
A lawful good paladin for example might struggle to save the innocent lives right up until the very last moment (i.e- the portal is opening), whereas a chaotic good character might resort to extreme action a lot sooner, meanwhile the neutral good character might try to calculate the odds of finding the cult in time and base their decision on that.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, it's possible for an evil character to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing believing it to be right (from their perspective) and so-on. I played a neutral evil character in Curse of Strahd who defeated Strahd not to free Barovia, but because doing so might give him a clue to lifting his own curse (so absolutely selfish motivation, but with a "good" outcome). But you could also play a character who's nominally evil because they're ruthless but generally trying to do what they think is right.
There's basically infinite nuance when it comes to morality; even among the deities who tend to be pretty absolute in their views, some might sympathise with your difficult decision, while others will condemn you for it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It is difficult to define good and evil without reference to what is right and wrong. In D&D evil is often described as being motived by self gain while good is motivated by the gain to others. This definition means that if Hitler honestly believed the world would be a better place without Jews then he should be classed as good.
Nazi Germany actually shows how far you can go before "doing evil for the greater good" becomes "so morally overturned that everyone can see they're clearly wrong." . Hitler was able to convince most of the German people that the Jews were responsible for all that was wrong in the country and his actions were for the greater good, even if much of the rest of the world could see he was clearly wrong.