Frankly, this is a prime example of why alignment is poorly defined. Is someone "lawful" someone who follows the law without question, someone that adheres to strict rules, or someone who believes in order over chaos? Every paladin adheres to the rules of their oath, so in that respect, they are all lawful. But a paladin of Tyr is chaotic to devils, and a paladin of Silvanus is chaotic to those that advocate for building great cities on forest-land.
Yeah. Alignment can be useful shorthand I guess but I tend to ignore it when it comes mechanics. It can be difficult to fit a nuanced character into a 3 by 3 box.
you stated "According to pages 82 and 122 of the 5e Player's Handbook, Paladins must be Lawful Good"
you said p82 mentions in several places that Paladins fight against evil
But nowhere does it say a paladin has to be lawful good. Any alignment and class can fight against evil, just because an elf is chaotic good does not mean they cant fight against evil.
Under the class descriptions 2nd Ed said that only lawful good humans can be paladins, 3.5 it was just lawful good.
5th Ed under the character description makes no such requirement of being lawful good, it does mention that they stand with the good things of the world so loosely it could be interpreted as requiring good in the alignment LG, NG, CG but then again that would dependant on the DM's interpretation
you said 122 of the 5e Player's Handbook, Paladins must be Lawful Good
Not necessarily true,
Quote "These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuais might vary significantly from that typical behavior"end quote (pg 122)
I would honestly consider more if your character fits with the oaths of the subclass you intend to take more than worrying about alignment. I think oath of vengeance and conquest based on their tenants for example you could make a strong arguement for at the very least neutral if not full out evil. Heck, the oath of conquest description even says some of that oath FOLLOW THE ARCHDEVEL BEL AND ARE CALLED HELL KNIGHTS.
I would consider the idea that paladins fight evil as more a guildeline than an actual rule.
The traditional definition of a paladin was a chivalrous knight who followed the code of chivalry devoutly. Charlemagne had 12 and expected nothing less than perfection (paladin).
So in retrospect since the beginning of the game paladins had always been LG.
In any case it all pretty moot seeing as how the DM has final say.
Me personally, I'm old school having played since 74, and I wont allow a paladin to be anything other than good, but like I said its up to the DM.
Also don't forget the game was based on good fighting evil (i did say based) Muwahahahahaha
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Animals die, friends die, and I shall die, but one thing never dies, and that is the reputation we leave behind at our death.”
Imo, alignment is more for flavor and the general priorities of your player character. It helps others, particularly the DM, get a feel for how you see this character. Alignment, along with personality traits, provide much of the framework for your roleplay. I try to think how my character would react to certain events, based on their alignment and worldview. Alignment gives me a consistent lighthouse help me navigate those roleplay waters. But it's not an ironclad straightjacket either. It should enhance your play, not be overly binding imo.
Just for theme, I would probably go with neutral good if my paladin worshipped Tyr. Or I would go with a different god, Lathander or one of the many other chaotic good or neutral good options. I try to avoid having a law vs chaos split. If I have a chaotic good character, I would tend towards a deity of chaotic good or neutral good, but probably not lawful anything. Chaotic puts freedom of action as the penultimate value. Lawful puts rules, regulations and laws of prime importance. Neutral good would think there has to be a balance between the two.
The traditional definition of a paladin was a chivalrous knight who followed the code of chivalry devoutly. Charlemagne had 12 and expected nothing less than perfection (paladin).
So in retrospect since the beginning of the game paladins had always been LG.
In any case it all pretty moot seeing as how the DM has final say.
Me personally, I'm old school having played since 74, and I wont allow a paladin to be anything other than good, but like I said its up to the DM.
Also don't forget the game was based on good fighting evil (i did say based) Muwahahahahaha
Once all this was true, but not in 5e. But I still like to role-play my paladin as being an honorable, devout and good character. I still have carry over things that I do, only for role-play such as donating at least a tithe of all my gold to my church/temple. And I say "at least" since in my current game, I'm probably closer to 1/3 of all my gold has been donated to help the relief of the needy in my area. Some of my party members think I'm being silly or stupid for giving away gold, but I think it enhances the game experience. That a paladin would not be worried about material things and would have more of a "god will provide" attitude. My current gold is really just awaiting a worthy cause to donate it to.
If I was a DM, I would make sure a character who donated large sums to their church and thereby had to forego certain purchased item upgrades, didn't fall behind in gear. To me, such role-play is reward in and of itself, but as the DM I would either have the church give him/her a useful magic item when they hit certain milestones of donations. I would never tell the player about the possibility of gaining something for the donations, since that shouldn't be the reason for doing it.
It would probably be an uncommon magic item, possibly a rare, but would be a reward from his/her deity for their actions in the world. "Lathander wishes to aid and reward you for helping to grow his church" or some such. I reiterate, I wouldn't want the chance of reward to ever be the reason for the donation, though. As a paladin, doing good is reward in and of itself. And yes...I have an "old school" view of paladins, but not as binding as the LG "stick in the mud" self righteous party pooper they used to be played as. But I do like some of the old flavor of the class and have kept it.
Ok let me just say something about the hole becoming an Oathbreaker. One does not simply just break their Oath and is at least level 3 and becomes an Oath Breaker. In fact the PHB clearly stats that If a Paladin breaks their Oath they loose their powers. They can seek redemption and regain their powers, or choose another class to become. In order for a Paladin to become an Oath Breaker they have to have no regards for their Oath and have to have zero desire to seek atonement for breaking their Oath.
Simply put becoming an Oath Breaker is about intent of the Character and happens after the fact of the Paladin already loosing their Paladin powers.
oathbreaker comes up on mine as a valid selection, so I guess as long as you would write it into your background and DM's approval just take it straight off the bat. So nothing to stop you starting out as an oathbreaker, but for me you would have to have a really good cover story behind it.
Personnaly, I tried making a paladin but didnt like any of the vows so changed the class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Animals die, friends die, and I shall die, but one thing never dies, and that is the reputation we leave behind at our death.”
Dont forget though, paladins in 5e dont have to be religious, they can be fighters for justice or just about anything else. So donations to churches wouldnt mean much if hes running around slaying bandits and evil lords
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Animals die, friends die, and I shall die, but one thing never dies, and that is the reputation we leave behind at our death.”
Ok let me just say something about the hole becoming an Oathbreaker. One does not simply just break their Oath and is at least level 3 and becomes an Oath Breaker. In fact the PHB clearly stats that If a Paladin breaks their Oath they loose their powers. They can seek redemption and regain their powers, or choose another class to become. In order for a Paladin to become an Oath Breaker they have to have no regards for their Oath and have to have zero desire to seek atonement for breaking their Oath.
Simply put becoming an Oath Breaker is about intent of the Character and happens after the fact of the Paladin already loosing their Paladin powers.
Oathbreaker is not an actual subclass available to player characters in any Wizards of the Coast literature. It's a DMG subclass designed for an NPC available to the DM, as the villain of a campaign.
Ok let me just say something about the hole becoming an Oathbreaker. One does not simply just break their Oath and is at least level 3 and becomes an Oath Breaker. In fact the PHB clearly stats that If a Paladin breaks their Oath they loose their powers. They can seek redemption and regain their powers, or choose another class to become. In order for a Paladin to become an Oath Breaker they have to have no regards for their Oath and have to have zero desire to seek atonement for breaking their Oath.
Simply put becoming an Oath Breaker is about intent of the Character and happens after the fact of the Paladin already loosing their Paladin powers.
Oathbreaker is not an actual subclass available to player characters in any Wizards of the Coast literature. It's a DMG subclass designed for an NPC available to the DM, as the villain of a campaign.
Torvald99 this is actually a very false statement. The following is a direct quote from the PHB compendium on the Paladin. Take special note to the very last paragraph.
"BREAKING YOUR OATH
A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a paladin to transgress his or her oath.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide."
Dont forget though, paladins in 5e dont have to be religious, they can be fighters for justice or just about anything else. So donations to churches wouldnt mean much if hes running around slaying bandits and evil lords
I really laugh when people try to make this claim. The entire aspect of where a Paladin gets its power from is directly connected to a diety. Anyone can make an Oath. An oath does not give one powers. A Paladin makes a Sacred Oath and receives Divine powers.
So let's look at the specific words that are used in connection with the Paladin class in 5e.
Sacred - connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.
Divine - of, from, or like God or a god.
Paladin core abilities
Divine Health
Divine Sense
Divine Smite
Sacred Oath
Yup absolutely nothing to do with religion, or deity's in any regards at all. Do not mistake the removable of the requirement to give your money to a church or the lack of the word church to mean Paladins do not get their powers from a deity. While a specific Paladin doesn't have to be religious they get their powers directly from divine entities.
Ok let me just say something about the hole becoming an Oathbreaker. One does not simply just break their Oath and is at least level 3 and becomes an Oath Breaker. In fact the PHB clearly stats that If a Paladin breaks their Oath they loose their powers. They can seek redemption and regain their powers, or choose another class to become. In order for a Paladin to become an Oath Breaker they have to have no regards for their Oath and have to have zero desire to seek atonement for breaking their Oath.
Simply put becoming an Oath Breaker is about intent of the Character and happens after the fact of the Paladin already loosing their Paladin powers.
Oathbreaker is not an actual subclass available to player characters in any Wizards of the Coast literature. It's a DMG subclass designed for an NPC available to the DM, as the villain of a campaign.
Torvald99 this is actually a very false statement. The following is a direct quote from the PHB compendium on the Paladin. Take special note to the very last paragraph.
"BREAKING YOUR OATH
A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a paladin to transgress his or her oath.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide."
Nowhere is Oathbreaker listed as a playable character class, outside of saying "perhaps" they could take an NPC subclass and homebrew it into a playable class. DM Fiat is always an option. But outside of DM Fiat, the Oathbreaker is not a playable player character subclass.
Don't believe me? Would you believe the lead designer for DnD 5e, Jeremy Crawford?
'"What about the Oathbreaker? It says you have to be evil." The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!" - Jeremy Crawford
p.s. Saying something is a "false statement" is quite aggressive. Just state why you disagree and show your evidence. I view us all and friends of a sort, or at least "friendly" based off our common interest of DnD. :)
players handbook within the DDB "create character" utilized by players to create there character listed under the 3rd level paladin class amongst all the vows can be selected (yes you guessed it) "Oathbreaker". No other DMG options are seen which means it is not only an npc selection, players can use it to define there character along the guidelines provided by the said selection "Oathbreaker".
On another issue as far as I can tell, paladins are no longer restricted by there alignment, so on a technicality said player could in fact choose an evil alignment and then under the class details in the character builder then choose oathbreaker for there vow (so to speak).
Does not matter what jeremy crawford has said, garry gygax the creator of D&D stated paladin are human lawful good, and D&D is based on good defeating evil and here we are now.
So if it wasnt meant to be a player choice then it would not be in DDB paladin 3rd level vow selections
And no.. I'm not using any homebrew and all but eberon is deselected
Ok let me just say something about the hole becoming an Oathbreaker. One does not simply just break their Oath and is at least level 3 and becomes an Oath Breaker. In fact the PHB clearly stats that If a Paladin breaks their Oath they loose their powers. They can seek redemption and regain their powers, or choose another class to become. In order for a Paladin to become an Oath Breaker they have to have no regards for their Oath and have to have zero desire to seek atonement for breaking their Oath.
Simply put becoming an Oath Breaker is about intent of the Character and happens after the fact of the Paladin already loosing their Paladin powers.
Oathbreaker is not an actual subclass available to player characters in any Wizards of the Coast literature. It's a DMG subclass designed for an NPC available to the DM, as the villain of a campaign.
Torvald99 this is actually a very false statement. The following is a direct quote from the PHB compendium on the Paladin. Take special note to the very last paragraph.
"BREAKING YOUR OATH
A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a paladin to transgress his or her oath.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide."
Nowhere is Oathbreaker listed as a playable character class, outside of saying "perhaps" they could take an NPC subclass and homebrew it into a playable class. DM Fiat is always an option. But outside of DM Fiat, the Oathbreaker is not a playable player character subclass.
Don't believe me? Would you believe the lead designer for DnD 5e, Jeremy Crawford?
'"What about the Oathbreaker? It says you have to be evil." The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!" - Jeremy Crawford
p.s. Saying something is a "false statement" is quite aggressive. Just state why you disagree and show your evidence. I view us all and friends of a sort, or at least "friendly" based off our common interest of DnD. :)
Stating something is a false has no intent you are reading emotion into that yourself. If you really think that is aggressive you have no actual understanding of what aggression really is. It is a statement nothing more. If I had called you a liar, or a vast amount of other insults one could put while denoting a false statement that would be aggressive. I did not do that as I have no animosity toward you and have had several good discussions with you.
Is the Oathbreaker subclass not listed in any book other than the DMG and was designed to be an NPC villian? Yes.
Is the Oathbreaker directly mentioned in the PHB as an option that DMs have to directly give a player? Yes.
The statement that :
Oathbreaker is not an actual subclass available to player characters in any Wizards of the Coast literature.
Given that it is a subclass available to player characters at DM discression due to choices that a player makes and is clearly spelled out in the PHB this is statement isn't something that is a "disagreement" this statement itself is categorically false.
Is it correct in the notion that it is not an option that players can just take? yes.
However, it still remains a false statement given the context of the discussion. The fact that I clearly stated there is an actual path one has to take and just doesnt become an Oathbreaker is evidence of the intent.
Additionally my post had zero to do with why the Oathbreaker was designed or a supposed required alignment. Nor did my response say anything as much either. Jeremy Crawfords post dealt directly with character alignment and mentioned why the Oathbreaker was made. That being said they also included the Oathbreaker as an option that DMs could allow players in the PHB. Or are you also implying that other things that are not necessarily allowed by standard rules but are listed in the PHB but under discretion of the DM is now according to you "as perhaps they could homebrew it". If that is so well man the entire FEAT section isnt rules but instead DM fiat and is thus homebrew even though it is clearly stated in the PHB.
Finally the fact you use this quote from Jeremy Crawford on me, who's only post deals with the path to Oathbreaker, instead of the overall group of people in this thread is wholly ironic. Given that it completely defeats any arguement any one has made in regards to alignment requirements.
players handbook within the DDB "create character" utilized by players to create there character listed under the 3rd level paladin class amongst all the vows can be selected (yes you guessed it) "Oathbreaker". No other DMG options are seen which means it is not only an npc selection, players can use it to define there character along the guidelines provided by the said selection "Oathbreaker".
On another issue as far as I can tell, paladins are no longer restricted by there alignment, so on a technicality said player could in fact choose an evil alignment and then under the class details in the character builder then choose oathbreaker for there vow (so to speak).
Does not matter what jeremy crawford has said, garry gygax the creator of D&D stated paladin are human lawful good, and D&D is based on good defeating evil and here we are now.
So if it wasnt meant to be a player choice then it would not be in DDB paladin 3rd level vow selections
And no.. I'm not using any homebrew and all but eberon is deselected
Just saying...
I'm not sure if you're replying to myself, Torvald, or both.
But here is my statement. I am going off the rule books and what they state. Not the character creator as that is not indicative of the rules themselves, but on how DDB has created the character creator.
The fact that it is in the character creator can mean many things ranging from its allowed, at DM discression, or the want to allow it.
Ok let me just say something about the hole becoming an Oathbreaker. One does not simply just break their Oath and is at least level 3 and becomes an Oath Breaker. In fact the PHB clearly stats that If a Paladin breaks their Oath they loose their powers. They can seek redemption and regain their powers, or choose another class to become. In order for a Paladin to become an Oath Breaker they have to have no regards for their Oath and have to have zero desire to seek atonement for breaking their Oath.
Simply put becoming an Oath Breaker is about intent of the Character and happens after the fact of the Paladin already loosing their Paladin powers.
Oathbreaker is not an actual subclass available to player characters in any Wizards of the Coast literature. It's a DMG subclass designed for an NPC available to the DM, as the villain of a campaign.
Torvald99 this is actually a very false statement. The following is a direct quote from the PHB compendium on the Paladin. Take special note to the very last paragraph.
"BREAKING YOUR OATH
A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a paladin to transgress his or her oath.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide."
Nowhere is Oathbreaker listed as a playable character class, outside of saying "perhaps" they could take an NPC subclass and homebrew it into a playable class. DM Fiat is always an option. But outside of DM Fiat, the Oathbreaker is not a playable player character subclass.
Don't believe me? Would you believe the lead designer for DnD 5e, Jeremy Crawford?
'"What about the Oathbreaker? It says you have to be evil." The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!" - Jeremy Crawford
p.s. Saying something is a "false statement" is quite aggressive. Just state why you disagree and show your evidence. I view us all and friends of a sort, or at least "friendly" based off our common interest of DnD. :)
Stating something is a false has no intent you are reading emotion into that yourself. If you really think that is aggressive you have no actual understanding of what aggression really is. It is a statement nothing more. If I had called you a liar, or a vast amount of other insults one could put while denoting a false statement that would be aggressive. I did not do that as I have no animosity toward you and have had several good discussions with you.
Is the Oathbreaker subclass not listed in any book other than the DMG and was designed to be an NPC villian? Yes.
Is the Oathbreaker directly mentioned in the PHB as an option that DMs have to directly give a player? Yes.
The statement that :
Oathbreaker is not an actual subclass available to player characters in any Wizards of the Coast literature.
Given that it is a subclass available to player characters at DM discression due to choices that a player makes and is clearly spelled out in the PHB this is statement isn't something that is a "disagreement" this statement itself is categorically false.
Is it correct in the notion that it is not an option that players can just take? yes.
However, it still remains a false statement given the context of the discussion. The fact that I clearly stated there is an actual path one has to take and just doesnt become an Oathbreaker is evidence of the intent.
Additionally my post had zero to do with why the Oathbreaker was designed or a supposed required alignment. Nor did my response say anything as much either. Jeremy Crawfords post dealt directly with character alignment and mentioned why the Oathbreaker was made. That being said they also included the Oathbreaker as an option that DMs could allow players in the PHB. Or are you also implying that other things that are not necessarily allowed by standard rules but are listed in the PHB but under discretion of the DM is now according to you "as perhaps they could homebrew it". If that is so well man the entire FEAT section isnt rules but instead DM fiat and is thus homebrew even though it is clearly stated in the PHB.
Finally the fact you use this quote from Jeremy Crawford on me, who's only post deals with the path to Oathbreaker, instead of the overall group of people in this thread is wholly ironic. Given that it completely defeats any arguement any one has made in regards to alignment requirements.
Crawford clearly is referring to the Oathbreaker being an NPC subclass, not a player character subclass. You can be any alignment with a player character subclass. The question is what about Oathbreaker, which requires them to be evil. Crawford responds to that question:
"The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!" - Jeremy Crawford
Which is yet another indicator that this is not originally intended as a playable subclass. It may very well become so in future books, given the popularity of it. But this is clearly not a RAW situation, but a DM Fiat. The DM has to say "yes, I will let you play a class that was intended for an NPC."
Yes, Oathbreaker is mentioned as in the PHB, but in a clear DM Fiat situation where it's saying how the DM may or may not want to handle it. The feats are DM optional, no doubt. But they are not DM Fiat, they are there as optional rules with feats FOR player characters. The Oathbreaker subclass is NOT there for player characters, but as an NPC subclass. The two situations are not comparable. The DM may allow for an NPC subclass to be a playable subclass through??? DM Fiat.
Ok let me just say something about the hole becoming an Oathbreaker. One does not simply just break their Oath and is at least level 3 and becomes an Oath Breaker. In fact the PHB clearly stats that If a Paladin breaks their Oath they loose their powers. They can seek redemption and regain their powers, or choose another class to become. In order for a Paladin to become an Oath Breaker they have to have no regards for their Oath and have to have zero desire to seek atonement for breaking their Oath.
Simply put becoming an Oath Breaker is about intent of the Character and happens after the fact of the Paladin already loosing their Paladin powers.
Oathbreaker is not an actual subclass available to player characters in any Wizards of the Coast literature. It's a DMG subclass designed for an NPC available to the DM, as the villain of a campaign.
Torvald99 this is actually a very false statement. The following is a direct quote from the PHB compendium on the Paladin. Take special note to the very last paragraph.
"BREAKING YOUR OATH
A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a paladin to transgress his or her oath.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide."
Nowhere is Oathbreaker listed as a playable character class, outside of saying "perhaps" they could take an NPC subclass and homebrew it into a playable class. DM Fiat is always an option. But outside of DM Fiat, the Oathbreaker is not a playable player character subclass.
Don't believe me? Would you believe the lead designer for DnD 5e, Jeremy Crawford?
'"What about the Oathbreaker? It says you have to be evil." The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!" - Jeremy Crawford
p.s. Saying something is a "false statement" is quite aggressive. Just state why you disagree and show your evidence. I view us all and friends of a sort, or at least "friendly" based off our common interest of DnD. :)
Stating something is a false has no intent you are reading emotion into that yourself. If you really think that is aggressive you have no actual understanding of what aggression really is. It is a statement nothing more. If I had called you a liar, or a vast amount of other insults one could put while denoting a false statement that would be aggressive. I did not do that as I have no animosity toward you and have had several good discussions with you.
Is the Oathbreaker subclass not listed in any book other than the DMG and was designed to be an NPC villian? Yes.
Is the Oathbreaker directly mentioned in the PHB as an option that DMs have to directly give a player? Yes.
The statement that :
Oathbreaker is not an actual subclass available to player characters in any Wizards of the Coast literature.
Given that it is a subclass available to player characters at DM discression due to choices that a player makes and is clearly spelled out in the PHB this is statement isn't something that is a "disagreement" this statement itself is categorically false.
Is it correct in the notion that it is not an option that players can just take? yes.
However, it still remains a false statement given the context of the discussion. The fact that I clearly stated there is an actual path one has to take and just doesnt become an Oathbreaker is evidence of the intent.
Additionally my post had zero to do with why the Oathbreaker was designed or a supposed required alignment. Nor did my response say anything as much either. Jeremy Crawfords post dealt directly with character alignment and mentioned why the Oathbreaker was made. That being said they also included the Oathbreaker as an option that DMs could allow players in the PHB. Or are you also implying that other things that are not necessarily allowed by standard rules but are listed in the PHB but under discretion of the DM is now according to you "as perhaps they could homebrew it". If that is so well man the entire FEAT section isnt rules but instead DM fiat and is thus homebrew even though it is clearly stated in the PHB.
Finally the fact you use this quote from Jeremy Crawford on me, who's only post deals with the path to Oathbreaker, instead of the overall group of people in this thread is wholly ironic. Given that it completely defeats any arguement any one has made in regards to alignment requirements.
Crawford clearly is referring to the Oathbreaker being an NPC subclass, not a player character subclass. You can be any alignment with a player character subclass. The question is what about Oathbreaker, which requires them to be evil. Crawford responds to that question:
"The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!" - Jeremy Crawford
Which is yet another indicator that this is not originally intended as a playable subclass. It may very well become so in future books, given the popularity of it. But this is clearly not a RAW situation, but a DM Fiat. The DM has to say "yes, I will let you play a class that was intended for an NPC."
Yes, Oathbreaker is mentioned as in the PHB, but in a clear DM Fiat situation where it's saying how the DM may or may not want to handle it. The feats are DM optional, no doubt. But they are not DM Fiat, they are there as optional rules with feats FOR player characters. The Oathbreaker subclass is NOT there for player characters, but as an NPC subclass. The two situations are not comparable. The DM may allow for an NPC subclass to be a playable subclass through??? DM Fiat.
Torvald Crawfords entire series of tweets that is connected to is addressing character alignment. The Oathbreaker is brought up because it says it has to be Evil.
I honestly dont know why you continuously keep bringing up this tweet. No one here argued it wasn't designed to be used by NPC's.
You are the one that falsly made the statement that no where in Wizard of the Coast literature does it say it can be used by players. It directly does in the PHB.
You know this is funny you are treating the Oathbreaker as if its directly comparable to the Death Cleric as solely an NPC class. The very fact that it puts it as an option in the PHB puts intent towards the player using it. The Death Cleric is not mentioned anywhere else besides the DMG.
You know I can also capitalize words. The DM makes the decision that they have to choose a different class or use the Oathbreaker FOR the player. Much like the DM decides FOR the players that feats are not used. It is a fiat nonetheless you are playing semantics.
Further the way it is stated in the PHB the exact same way that Variant Human is put in the PHB.
Tolvard your arguement is simply just wrong. No one has in this entire thread argued that it wasn't designed to be used as an NPC but it was also intended to be used as players due to its direct reference as such in the PHB. As Jeremy Crawfords tweet does not address this inclusion it is irrelevant to my point.
Dont forget though, paladins in 5e dont have to be religious, they can be fighters for justice or just about anything else. So donations to churches wouldnt mean much if hes running around slaying bandits and evil lords
I really laugh when people try to make this claim. The entire aspect of where a Paladin gets its power from is directly connected to a diety. Anyone can make an Oath. An oath does not give one powers. A Paladin makes a Sacred Oath and receives Divine powers.
So let's look at the specific words that are used in connection with the Paladin class in 5e.
Sacred - connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.
Divine - of, from, or like God or a god.
Paladin core abilities
Divine Health
Divine Sense
Divine Smite
Sacred Oath
Yup absolutely nothing to do with religion, or deity's in any regards at all. Do not mistake the removable of the requirement to give your money to a church or the lack of the word church to mean Paladins do not get their powers from a deity. While a specific Paladin doesn't have to be religious they get their powers directly from divine entities.
According to the books, you are completely incorrect. There is as much (or rather, as little) need for a Paladin to be religious as there is for a a Rune Knight to be a knighted noble. Judge Dredd, Batman and Frank Castle are all examples of characters who could easily be paladins.
The fact that you claim the bolded part is especially funny since, in 5E, that is exactly what gives a paladin their powers. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah. Alignment can be useful shorthand I guess but I tend to ignore it when it comes mechanics. It can be difficult to fit a nuanced character into a 3 by 3 box.
@HarmattanAssassin
you stated "According to pages 82 and 122 of the 5e Player's Handbook, Paladins must be Lawful Good"
you said p82 mentions in several places that Paladins fight against evil
But nowhere does it say a paladin has to be lawful good. Any alignment and class can fight against evil, just because an elf is chaotic good does not mean they cant fight against evil.
Under the class descriptions 2nd Ed said that only lawful good humans can be paladins, 3.5 it was just lawful good.
5th Ed under the character description makes no such requirement of being lawful good, it does mention that they stand with the good things of the world so loosely it could be interpreted as requiring good in the alignment LG, NG, CG but then again that would dependant on the DM's interpretation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you said 122 of the 5e Player's Handbook, Paladins must be Lawful Good
Not necessarily true,
Quote "These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuais might vary significantly from that typical behavior"end quote (pg 122)
“Animals die, friends die, and I shall die, but one thing never dies, and that is the reputation we leave behind at our death.”
I would honestly consider more if your character fits with the oaths of the subclass you intend to take more than worrying about alignment. I think oath of vengeance and conquest based on their tenants for example you could make a strong arguement for at the very least neutral if not full out evil. Heck, the oath of conquest description even says some of that oath FOLLOW THE ARCHDEVEL BEL AND ARE CALLED HELL KNIGHTS.
I would consider the idea that paladins fight evil as more a guildeline than an actual rule.
The traditional definition of a paladin was a chivalrous knight who followed the code of chivalry devoutly. Charlemagne had 12 and expected nothing less than perfection (paladin).
So in retrospect since the beginning of the game paladins had always been LG.
In any case it all pretty moot seeing as how the DM has final say.
Me personally, I'm old school having played since 74, and I wont allow a paladin to be anything other than good, but like I said its up to the DM.
Also don't forget the game was based on good fighting evil (i did say based) Muwahahahahaha
“Animals die, friends die, and I shall die, but one thing never dies, and that is the reputation we leave behind at our death.”
Imo, alignment is more for flavor and the general priorities of your player character. It helps others, particularly the DM, get a feel for how you see this character. Alignment, along with personality traits, provide much of the framework for your roleplay. I try to think how my character would react to certain events, based on their alignment and worldview. Alignment gives me a consistent lighthouse help me navigate those roleplay waters. But it's not an ironclad straightjacket either. It should enhance your play, not be overly binding imo.
Just for theme, I would probably go with neutral good if my paladin worshipped Tyr. Or I would go with a different god, Lathander or one of the many other chaotic good or neutral good options. I try to avoid having a law vs chaos split. If I have a chaotic good character, I would tend towards a deity of chaotic good or neutral good, but probably not lawful anything. Chaotic puts freedom of action as the penultimate value. Lawful puts rules, regulations and laws of prime importance. Neutral good would think there has to be a balance between the two.
Have to agree to a lot of that
for me though its simpler
Law = Order
Chaos = freedom
“Animals die, friends die, and I shall die, but one thing never dies, and that is the reputation we leave behind at our death.”
Once all this was true, but not in 5e. But I still like to role-play my paladin as being an honorable, devout and good character. I still have carry over things that I do, only for role-play such as donating at least a tithe of all my gold to my church/temple. And I say "at least" since in my current game, I'm probably closer to 1/3 of all my gold has been donated to help the relief of the needy in my area. Some of my party members think I'm being silly or stupid for giving away gold, but I think it enhances the game experience. That a paladin would not be worried about material things and would have more of a "god will provide" attitude. My current gold is really just awaiting a worthy cause to donate it to.
If I was a DM, I would make sure a character who donated large sums to their church and thereby had to forego certain purchased item upgrades, didn't fall behind in gear. To me, such role-play is reward in and of itself, but as the DM I would either have the church give him/her a useful magic item when they hit certain milestones of donations. I would never tell the player about the possibility of gaining something for the donations, since that shouldn't be the reason for doing it.
It would probably be an uncommon magic item, possibly a rare, but would be a reward from his/her deity for their actions in the world. "Lathander wishes to aid and reward you for helping to grow his church" or some such. I reiterate, I wouldn't want the chance of reward to ever be the reason for the donation, though. As a paladin, doing good is reward in and of itself. And yes...I have an "old school" view of paladins, but not as binding as the LG "stick in the mud" self righteous party pooper they used to be played as. But I do like some of the old flavor of the class and have kept it.
Ok let me just say something about the hole becoming an Oathbreaker. One does not simply just break their Oath and is at least level 3 and becomes an Oath Breaker. In fact the PHB clearly stats that If a Paladin breaks their Oath they loose their powers. They can seek redemption and regain their powers, or choose another class to become. In order for a Paladin to become an Oath Breaker they have to have no regards for their Oath and have to have zero desire to seek atonement for breaking their Oath.
Simply put becoming an Oath Breaker is about intent of the Character and happens after the fact of the Paladin already loosing their Paladin powers.
oathbreaker comes up on mine as a valid selection, so I guess as long as you would write it into your background and DM's approval just take it straight off the bat. So nothing to stop you starting out as an oathbreaker, but for me you would have to have a really good cover story behind it.
Personnaly, I tried making a paladin but didnt like any of the vows so changed the class.
“Animals die, friends die, and I shall die, but one thing never dies, and that is the reputation we leave behind at our death.”
Dont forget though, paladins in 5e dont have to be religious, they can be fighters for justice or just about anything else. So donations to churches wouldnt mean much if hes running around slaying bandits and evil lords
“Animals die, friends die, and I shall die, but one thing never dies, and that is the reputation we leave behind at our death.”
Oathbreaker is not an actual subclass available to player characters in any Wizards of the Coast literature. It's a DMG subclass designed for an NPC available to the DM, as the villain of a campaign.
Torvald99 this is actually a very false statement. The following is a direct quote from the PHB compendium on the Paladin. Take special note to the very last paragraph.
"BREAKING YOUR OATH
A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a paladin to transgress his or her oath.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide."
I really laugh when people try to make this claim. The entire aspect of where a Paladin gets its power from is directly connected to a diety. Anyone can make an Oath. An oath does not give one powers. A Paladin makes a Sacred Oath and receives Divine powers.
So let's look at the specific words that are used in connection with the Paladin class in 5e.
Sacred - connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.
Divine - of, from, or like God or a god.
Paladin core abilities
Divine Health
Divine Sense
Divine Smite
Sacred Oath
Yup absolutely nothing to do with religion, or deity's in any regards at all. Do not mistake the removable of the requirement to give your money to a church or the lack of the word church to mean Paladins do not get their powers from a deity. While a specific Paladin doesn't have to be religious they get their powers directly from divine entities.
Nowhere is Oathbreaker listed as a playable character class, outside of saying "perhaps" they could take an NPC subclass and homebrew it into a playable class. DM Fiat is always an option. But outside of DM Fiat, the Oathbreaker is not a playable player character subclass.
Don't believe me? Would you believe the lead designer for DnD 5e, Jeremy Crawford?
'"What about the Oathbreaker? It says you have to be evil." The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!" - Jeremy Crawford
(1) Jeremy Crawford on Twitter: ""What about the Oathbreaker? It says you have to be evil." The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss! #DnD" / Twitter
p.s. Saying something is a "false statement" is quite aggressive. Just state why you disagree and show your evidence. I view us all and friends of a sort, or at least "friendly" based off our common interest of DnD. :)
am i missing something
players handbook within the DDB "create character" utilized by players to create there character listed under the 3rd level paladin class amongst all the vows can be selected (yes you guessed it) "Oathbreaker". No other DMG options are seen which means it is not only an npc selection, players can use it to define there character along the guidelines provided by the said selection "Oathbreaker".
On another issue as far as I can tell, paladins are no longer restricted by there alignment, so on a technicality said player could in fact choose an evil alignment and then under the class details in the character builder then choose oathbreaker for there vow (so to speak).
Does not matter what jeremy crawford has said, garry gygax the creator of D&D stated paladin are human lawful good, and D&D is based on good defeating evil and here we are now.
So if it wasnt meant to be a player choice then it would not be in DDB paladin 3rd level vow selections
And no.. I'm not using any homebrew and all but eberon is deselected
Just saying...
“Animals die, friends die, and I shall die, but one thing never dies, and that is the reputation we leave behind at our death.”
Stating something is a false has no intent you are reading emotion into that yourself. If you really think that is aggressive you have no actual understanding of what aggression really is. It is a statement nothing more. If I had called you a liar, or a vast amount of other insults one could put while denoting a false statement that would be aggressive. I did not do that as I have no animosity toward you and have had several good discussions with you.
Is the Oathbreaker subclass not listed in any book other than the DMG and was designed to be an NPC villian? Yes.
Is the Oathbreaker directly mentioned in the PHB as an option that DMs have to directly give a player? Yes.
The statement that :
Oathbreaker is not an actual subclass available to player characters in any Wizards of the Coast literature.
Given that it is a subclass available to player characters at DM discression due to choices that a player makes and is clearly spelled out in the PHB this is statement isn't something that is a "disagreement" this statement itself is categorically false.
Is it correct in the notion that it is not an option that players can just take? yes.
However, it still remains a false statement given the context of the discussion. The fact that I clearly stated there is an actual path one has to take and just doesnt become an Oathbreaker is evidence of the intent.
Additionally my post had zero to do with why the Oathbreaker was designed or a supposed required alignment. Nor did my response say anything as much either. Jeremy Crawfords post dealt directly with character alignment and mentioned why the Oathbreaker was made. That being said they also included the Oathbreaker as an option that DMs could allow players in the PHB. Or are you also implying that other things that are not necessarily allowed by standard rules but are listed in the PHB but under discretion of the DM is now according to you "as perhaps they could homebrew it". If that is so well man the entire FEAT section isnt rules but instead DM fiat and is thus homebrew even though it is clearly stated in the PHB.
Finally the fact you use this quote from Jeremy Crawford on me, who's only post deals with the path to Oathbreaker, instead of the overall group of people in this thread is wholly ironic. Given that it completely defeats any arguement any one has made in regards to alignment requirements.
I'm not sure if you're replying to myself, Torvald, or both.
But here is my statement. I am going off the rule books and what they state. Not the character creator as that is not indicative of the rules themselves, but on how DDB has created the character creator.
The fact that it is in the character creator can mean many things ranging from its allowed, at DM discression, or the want to allow it.
Crawford clearly is referring to the Oathbreaker being an NPC subclass, not a player character subclass. You can be any alignment with a player character subclass. The question is what about Oathbreaker, which requires them to be evil. Crawford responds to that question:
"The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!" - Jeremy Crawford
Which is yet another indicator that this is not originally intended as a playable subclass. It may very well become so in future books, given the popularity of it. But this is clearly not a RAW situation, but a DM Fiat. The DM has to say "yes, I will let you play a class that was intended for an NPC."
Yes, Oathbreaker is mentioned as in the PHB, but in a clear DM Fiat situation where it's saying how the DM may or may not want to handle it. The feats are DM optional, no doubt. But they are not DM Fiat, they are there as optional rules with feats FOR player characters. The Oathbreaker subclass is NOT there for player characters, but as an NPC subclass. The two situations are not comparable. The DM may allow for an NPC subclass to be a playable subclass through??? DM Fiat.
Torvald Crawfords entire series of tweets that is connected to is addressing character alignment. The Oathbreaker is brought up because it says it has to be Evil.
I honestly dont know why you continuously keep bringing up this tweet. No one here argued it wasn't designed to be used by NPC's.
You are the one that falsly made the statement that no where in Wizard of the Coast literature does it say it can be used by players. It directly does in the PHB.
You know this is funny you are treating the Oathbreaker as if its directly comparable to the Death Cleric as solely an NPC class. The very fact that it puts it as an option in the PHB puts intent towards the player using it. The Death Cleric is not mentioned anywhere else besides the DMG.
You know I can also capitalize words. The DM makes the decision that they have to choose a different class or use the Oathbreaker FOR the player. Much like the DM decides FOR the players that feats are not used. It is a fiat nonetheless you are playing semantics.
Further the way it is stated in the PHB the exact same way that Variant Human is put in the PHB.
Tolvard your arguement is simply just wrong. No one has in this entire thread argued that it wasn't designed to be used as an NPC but it was also intended to be used as players due to its direct reference as such in the PHB. As Jeremy Crawfords tweet does not address this inclusion it is irrelevant to my point.
According to the books, you are completely incorrect. There is as much (or rather, as little) need for a Paladin to be religious as there is for a a Rune Knight to be a knighted noble. Judge Dredd, Batman and Frank Castle are all examples of characters who could easily be paladins.
The fact that you claim the bolded part is especially funny since, in 5E, that is exactly what gives a paladin their powers. :)