My character is a half-elf oath of vengeance Paladin who hates evil with everything he has. If a character has proven himself to be trustworthy, he will do whatever he can to help that person and be friendly towards them. But let's say a band of goblins or bandits attack the party, he will smite them all with EXTREME prejudice. So where would this character fall in the alignment chart?
Ask your DM on their idea of alignments because you'll see tons of opinions on it.
But if you'll want an opinion, That sounds liked Lawful good to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born under the watch of something from the furthest corners of the far realms.... It knows all.... it sees all... and it asks: "What is it that you want to see?"... and my answer is... ALL"
Is getting worser if you choose the Paladin's Oath of Redemption. If you think Paladins are a tougher class to manage, then try one of those. At the end of the campaign, I bet you'll wish to be a Monk instead of being a peaceful Pally.
Character morality depends upon your campaign and your character's intentions.
If goblins and bandits are foundationally evil, then eliminating them is righteous. However, any humanoid creature is generally assumed to be a moral agent with free-will, so simply being a goblin or a bandit does not make them evil.
If you are Lawful Good, then community growth matters. Give them an opportunity to justify their actions, and attempt to help them to better themselves.
If you are Lawful Neutral, then justice matters. Defend yourself and deliver justice to the survivors according to a rigid code.
If you are Lawful Evil, then opportunity matters. Defend yourself with maximum prejudice because it is allowed, not because it is necessary.
Oath of Vengence Paladins are typically Neutral or Lawful Neutral. Your example suggests that your Paladin is Neutral.
If he is so extreme because of laws or his personal code, then he is Lawful Neutral.
If he is so extreme because he enjoys it, then he might even be Lawful or Neutral Evil with some good guy tendencies.
Thank you so much for your post. Basically, if an NPC's or monster's morality comes into question his first impulse isn't to kill but to understand. But while he does believe that people have sparks of good in them, if they prove themselves to be remorselessly cruel or evil, in his eyes they have abandoned justice and are no more than demons. So I guess in your example than he would probably be Lawful Neutral. Thank you again for your response.
I say lawful neutral as well. If it has a "Well it depends..." vibe and isn't selfish (evil) or selfless (good) and is trying to be rational, then I think it's neutral. I would think that killing evil out of revenge or gain is more lawful evil, and paladins ready to smite undeads and fiend for the betterment of the world is lawful good.
Thank you so much for your post. Basically, if an NPC's or monster's morality comes into question his first impulse isn't to kill but to understand. But while he does believe that people have sparks of good in them, if they prove themselves to be remorselessly cruel or evil, in his eyes they have abandoned justice and are no more than demons. So I guess in your example than he would probably be Lawful Neutral. Thank you again for your response.
I would say lawful good. Since he/she doesn't see combat as 1st choice even the enemy may be evil.
Put me down for Lawful Neutral on this as well. People don't usually turn to banditry because they are twirling their mustaches cackling maniacally. The bandits and goblins are probably not intrinsically evil, but forced to commit unlawful acts by desperation, culture, or the like. You're within your right to defend yourself, but murder is not Good. Particularly if your character enjoys it, as one who smites with extreme prejudice might.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Another medical problem. Indefinite hiatus. Sorry, all.
I'm not entirely sure of the lawful part. It would depend a lot on the world, and the specific part of the world they are in. What lawful authority appointed this paladin as the judge, jury and executioner within their realm? Sure, if attacked by bandits, there's a self-defense aspect that might be a reasonable way of saying they were acting within the law, but hunting them down does not sound like a lawful act. "smiting with extreme prejudice does not sound lawful. Lawful would be subduing and arresting them and bringing them to the local authorities. To me the actions described seem more chaotic or neutral good -- doing what they think is right no matter what the "law" says. And even that would depend on them knowing, for certain, that the attackers were bandits and not, say, a group of people living in the woods who were just trying to defend their homes from this heavily armed group of strangers tromping through it. How does the paladin know the difference? Do they bother to try and find out before they start smiting?
He does indeed try to find out if the enemy is evil or not. If they are not inherently evil, then he will simply defend himself. If they are mindlessly evil, or needlessly cruel, then by his code of morals, they are beasts for the slaughter. Also he follows his own laws, If he is tasked by the king to execute someone who does not deserve death so that the king may amass wealth, then the king is a dead man.
He does indeed try to find out if the enemy is evil or not. If they are not inherently evil, then he will simply defend himself. If they are mindlessly evil, or needlessly cruel, then by his code of morals, they are beasts for the slaughter. Also he follows his own laws, If he is tasked by the king to execute someone who does not deserve death so that the king may amass wealth, then the king is a dead man.
(LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.
(NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.
(CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.
(LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.
I think LN is the best fit at this point. Lawful Good follow the society rule but this Paladin doesn't.
Keep in mind alignment isn't fixed. It may change as the character develops.
I would question if a good person would ever look at another person and consider them to be a "beast for the slaughter." That's straight up evil, and they've devised some way to convince themselves that what they are doing is righteous so its OK. It honestly sounds like a villain's origin story. (One day, they realized they kind of liked it ...)
Really, this is a good example of the limits of the alignment system, and a reason that the game has been taking steps away from it. The human condition doesn't really fit into nine easy boxes. To my mind, the important part is that a character act in a consistent manner (with adjustments made for growth and change when appropriate). I always thought of that as the point of the alignment system, was to enforce a kind of stability on the character's personality so players don't change them completely when convenient. As long as you keep them true, the label that you hang on it is really irrelevant. Obviously, your DM may disagree. In that case, I honestly wouldn't know what alignment to tell you to use.
My character is a half-elf oath of vengeance Paladin who hates evil with everything he has. If a character has proven himself to be trustworthy, he will do whatever he can to help that person and be friendly towards them. But let's say a band of goblins or bandits attack the party, he will smite them all with EXTREME prejudice. So where would this character fall in the alignment chart?
I'd say somewhere between lawful neutral, true neutral or lawful evil. Murdering every single of your attackers without any option for surrender or a fair trial is not very good and not necessarily even lawful. What if those goblins attacked because they thought you were the people that kidnapped their babies? Or the bandits were just poor farmers who triy to keep their families from starving after being evicted by their greedy landlord?
Murdering a greedy king would probably turn you closer to true neutral or lawful evil.
My character is a half-elf oath of vengeance Paladin who hates evil with everything he has. If a character has proven himself to be trustworthy, he will do whatever he can to help that person and be friendly towards them. But let's say a band of goblins or bandits attack the party, he will smite them all with EXTREME prejudice. So where would this character fall in the alignment chart?
I'd say somewhere between lawful neutral, true neutral or lawful evil. Murdering every single of your attackers without any option for surrender or a fair trial is not very good and not necessarily even lawful. What if those goblins attacked because they thought you were the people that kidnapped their babies? Or the bandits were just poor farmers who triy to keep their families from starving after being evicted by their greedy landlord?
Murdering a greedy king would probably turn you closer to true neutral or lawful evil.
See, I was thinking the opposite. If the king is the rightful king, even if he's greedy or corrupt, then overthrowing him is not lawful. (Assuming the idea is that the king is the absolute authority in the land, then it is he who establishes the laws to begin with). But it benefits the realm as a whole, so it would generally be good. So I'd say killing the corrupt king would fall probably chaotic good, maybe neutral good -- though the difference between those two has always seemed paper thin to me. Like I'd said before, the alignment system is pretty arbitrary.
My character is a half-elf oath of vengeance Paladin who hates evil with everything he has. If a character has proven himself to be trustworthy, he will do whatever he can to help that person and be friendly towards them. But let's say a band of goblins or bandits attack the party, he will smite them all with EXTREME prejudice. So where would this character fall in the alignment chart?
I'd say somewhere between lawful neutral, true neutral or lawful evil. Murdering every single of your attackers without any option for surrender or a fair trial is not very good and not necessarily even lawful. What if those goblins attacked because they thought you were the people that kidnapped their babies? Or the bandits were just poor farmers who triy to keep their families from starving after being evicted by their greedy landlord?
Murdering a greedy king would probably turn you closer to true neutral or lawful evil.
See, I was thinking the opposite. If the king is the rightful king, even if he's greedy or corrupt, then overthrowing him is not lawful. (Assuming the idea is that the king is the absolute authority in the land, then it is he who establishes the laws to begin with). But it benefits the realm as a whole, so it would generally be good. So I'd say killing the corrupt king would fall probably chaotic good, maybe neutral good -- though the difference between those two has always seemed paper thin to me. Like I'd said before, the alignment system is pretty arbitrary.
If you murder someone for being greedy you are over-reacting to the point of being a psycopath. Does he also go around murdering greedy merchant or kids who won't share their toys? The lawful part comes from the fact that the character thinks it's "wrong" to be greedy and that the murder could benefit the realm. Murdering someone for wanting stuff is pretty evil.
Not to mention all the murdering of team members he would have to do considering the greed of your average adventuring party...
My character is a half-elf oath of vengeance Paladin who hates evil with everything he has. If a character has proven himself to be trustworthy, he will do whatever he can to help that person and be friendly towards them. But let's say a band of goblins or bandits attack the party, he will smite them all with EXTREME prejudice. So where would this character fall in the alignment chart?
I'd say somewhere between lawful neutral, true neutral or lawful evil. Murdering every single of your attackers without any option for surrender or a fair trial is not very good and not necessarily even lawful. What if those goblins attacked because they thought you were the people that kidnapped their babies? Or the bandits were just poor farmers who triy to keep their families from starving after being evicted by their greedy landlord?
Murdering a greedy king would probably turn you closer to true neutral or lawful evil.
See, I was thinking the opposite. If the king is the rightful king, even if he's greedy or corrupt, then overthrowing him is not lawful. (Assuming the idea is that the king is the absolute authority in the land, then it is he who establishes the laws to begin with). But it benefits the realm as a whole, so it would generally be good. So I'd say killing the corrupt king would fall probably chaotic good, maybe neutral good -- though the difference between those two has always seemed paper thin to me. Like I'd said before, the alignment system is pretty arbitrary.
If you murder someone for being greedy you are over-reacting to the point of being a psycopath. Does he also go around murdering greedy merchant or kids who won't share their toys? The lawful part comes from the fact that the character thinks it's "wrong" to be greedy and that the murder could benefit the realm. Murdering someone for wanting stuff is pretty evil.
Not to mention all the murdering of team members he would have to do considering the greed of your average adventuring party...
Well the scenario was that the king was greedy to the point of killing his own subjects to amass more wealth.
My character is a half-elf oath of vengeance Paladin who hates evil with everything he has. If a character has proven himself to be trustworthy, he will do whatever he can to help that person and be friendly towards them. But let's say a band of goblins or bandits attack the party, he will smite them all with EXTREME prejudice. So where would this character fall in the alignment chart?
I'd say somewhere between lawful neutral, true neutral or lawful evil. Murdering every single of your attackers without any option for surrender or a fair trial is not very good and not necessarily even lawful. What if those goblins attacked because they thought you were the people that kidnapped their babies? Or the bandits were just poor farmers who triy to keep their families from starving after being evicted by their greedy landlord?
Murdering a greedy king would probably turn you closer to true neutral or lawful evil.
See, I was thinking the opposite. If the king is the rightful king, even if he's greedy or corrupt, then overthrowing him is not lawful. (Assuming the idea is that the king is the absolute authority in the land, then it is he who establishes the laws to begin with). But it benefits the realm as a whole, so it would generally be good. So I'd say killing the corrupt king would fall probably chaotic good, maybe neutral good -- though the difference between those two has always seemed paper thin to me. Like I'd said before, the alignment system is pretty arbitrary.
If you murder someone for being greedy you are over-reacting to the point of being a psycopath. Does he also go around murdering greedy merchant or kids who won't share their toys? The lawful part comes from the fact that the character thinks it's "wrong" to be greedy and that the murder could benefit the realm. Murdering someone for wanting stuff is pretty evil.
Not to mention all the murdering of team members he would have to do considering the greed of your average adventuring party...
Well the scenario was that the king was greedy to the point of killing his own subjects to amass more wealth.
Again, if you automatically want to murder someone because of greed, you are a psycopath, even if you do it "for good". Classical murder hobo-ing. And unless you want to take the path of Chaotic Evil (being completely arbitrary when it comes to the people you murder for being "too greedy") you would probably also need to murder at least a few of your fellow party members.
The evil psycopath part comes (slightly) less from the "kill people I think are bad" and more from "I must murder everyone I think is bad and there is no other solution but murder".
Good topic. I ran Curse of Strahd the other day. The Party had a NPC Paladin with them. Not to give away the particular part of the adventure but there was a situation were some children were being locked in cages and being fatten up to be a meal. the party was trying to negotiate with the individuals responsible for this.. I as the DM said the paladin is having none of this and is attacking. Protecting the innocent is a prime principle of any paladin. It might not always be clear cut, in this case there was no question.
Good topic. I ran Curse of Strahd the other day. The Party had a NPC Paladin with them. Not to give away the particular part of the adventure but there was a situation were some children were being locked in cages and being fatten up to be a meal. the party was trying to negotiate with the individuals responsible for this.. I as the DM said the paladin is having none of this and is attacking. Protecting the innocent is a prime principle of any paladin. It might not always be clear cut, in this case there was no question.
And this is why Paladins have a long history of going stark raving mad in Ravenloft-esque settings.
Though in 5e. Protecting the Innocent is not actually a prime driving force of all Paladin's anymore as it was in previous editions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My character is a half-elf oath of vengeance Paladin who hates evil with everything he has. If a character has proven himself to be trustworthy, he will do whatever he can to help that person and be friendly towards them. But let's say a band of goblins or bandits attack the party, he will smite them all with EXTREME prejudice. So where would this character fall in the alignment chart?
Ask your DM on their idea of alignments because you'll see tons of opinions on it.
But if you'll want an opinion, That sounds liked Lawful good to me.
Born under the watch of something from the furthest corners of the far realms.... It knows all.... it sees all... and it asks: "What is it that you want to see?"... and my answer is... ALL"
Is getting worser if you choose the Paladin's Oath of Redemption. If you think Paladins are a tougher class to manage, then try one of those. At the end of the campaign, I bet you'll wish to be a Monk instead of being a peaceful Pally.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
Character morality depends upon your campaign and your character's intentions.
If goblins and bandits are foundationally evil, then eliminating them is righteous. However, any humanoid creature is generally assumed to be a moral agent with free-will, so simply being a goblin or a bandit does not make them evil.
If you are Lawful Good, then community growth matters. Give them an opportunity to justify their actions, and attempt to help them to better themselves.
If you are Lawful Neutral, then justice matters. Defend yourself and deliver justice to the survivors according to a rigid code.
If you are Lawful Evil, then opportunity matters. Defend yourself with maximum prejudice because it is allowed, not because it is necessary.
Oath of Vengence Paladins are typically Neutral or Lawful Neutral. Your example suggests that your Paladin is Neutral.
If he is so extreme because of laws or his personal code, then he is Lawful Neutral.
If he is so extreme because he enjoys it, then he might even be Lawful or Neutral Evil with some good guy tendencies.
Thank you so much for your post. Basically, if an NPC's or monster's morality comes into question his first impulse isn't to kill but to understand. But while he does believe that people have sparks of good in them, if they prove themselves to be remorselessly cruel or evil, in his eyes they have abandoned justice and are no more than demons. So I guess in your example than he would probably be Lawful Neutral. Thank you again for your response.
I say lawful neutral as well. If it has a "Well it depends..." vibe and isn't selfish (evil) or selfless (good) and is trying to be rational, then I think it's neutral. I would think that killing evil out of revenge or gain is more lawful evil, and paladins ready to smite undeads and fiend for the betterment of the world is lawful good.
I would say lawful good. Since he/she doesn't see combat as 1st choice even the enemy may be evil.
Put me down for Lawful Neutral on this as well. People don't usually turn to banditry because they are twirling their mustaches cackling maniacally. The bandits and goblins are probably not intrinsically evil, but forced to commit unlawful acts by desperation, culture, or the like. You're within your right to defend yourself, but murder is not Good. Particularly if your character enjoys it, as one who smites with extreme prejudice might.
Another medical problem. Indefinite hiatus. Sorry, all.
I'm not entirely sure of the lawful part. It would depend a lot on the world, and the specific part of the world they are in. What lawful authority appointed this paladin as the judge, jury and executioner within their realm? Sure, if attacked by bandits, there's a self-defense aspect that might be a reasonable way of saying they were acting within the law, but hunting them down does not sound like a lawful act. "smiting with extreme prejudice does not sound lawful. Lawful would be subduing and arresting them and bringing them to the local authorities. To me the actions described seem more chaotic or neutral good -- doing what they think is right no matter what the "law" says. And even that would depend on them knowing, for certain, that the attackers were bandits and not, say, a group of people living in the woods who were just trying to defend their homes from this heavily armed group of strangers tromping through it. How does the paladin know the difference? Do they bother to try and find out before they start smiting?
He does indeed try to find out if the enemy is evil or not. If they are not inherently evil, then he will simply defend himself. If they are mindlessly evil, or needlessly cruel, then by his code of morals, they are beasts for the slaughter. Also he follows his own laws, If he is tasked by the king to execute someone who does not deserve death so that the king may amass wealth, then the king is a dead man.
I think LN is the best fit at this point. Lawful Good follow the society rule but this Paladin doesn't.
Keep in mind alignment isn't fixed. It may change as the character develops.
I would question if a good person would ever look at another person and consider them to be a "beast for the slaughter." That's straight up evil, and they've devised some way to convince themselves that what they are doing is righteous so its OK. It honestly sounds like a villain's origin story. (One day, they realized they kind of liked it ...)
Really, this is a good example of the limits of the alignment system, and a reason that the game has been taking steps away from it. The human condition doesn't really fit into nine easy boxes. To my mind, the important part is that a character act in a consistent manner (with adjustments made for growth and change when appropriate). I always thought of that as the point of the alignment system, was to enforce a kind of stability on the character's personality so players don't change them completely when convenient. As long as you keep them true, the label that you hang on it is really irrelevant. Obviously, your DM may disagree. In that case, I honestly wouldn't know what alignment to tell you to use.
I'd say somewhere between lawful neutral, true neutral or lawful evil. Murdering every single of your attackers without any option for surrender or a fair trial is not very good and not necessarily even lawful. What if those goblins attacked because they thought you were the people that kidnapped their babies? Or the bandits were just poor farmers who triy to keep their families from starving after being evicted by their greedy landlord?
Murdering a greedy king would probably turn you closer to true neutral or lawful evil.
See, I was thinking the opposite. If the king is the rightful king, even if he's greedy or corrupt, then overthrowing him is not lawful. (Assuming the idea is that the king is the absolute authority in the land, then it is he who establishes the laws to begin with). But it benefits the realm as a whole, so it would generally be good. So I'd say killing the corrupt king would fall probably chaotic good, maybe neutral good -- though the difference between those two has always seemed paper thin to me. Like I'd said before, the alignment system is pretty arbitrary.
If you murder someone for being greedy you are over-reacting to the point of being a psycopath. Does he also go around murdering greedy merchant or kids who won't share their toys? The lawful part comes from the fact that the character thinks it's "wrong" to be greedy and that the murder could benefit the realm. Murdering someone for wanting stuff is pretty evil.
Not to mention all the murdering of team members he would have to do considering the greed of your average adventuring party...
Well the scenario was that the king was greedy to the point of killing his own subjects to amass more wealth.
Again, if you automatically want to murder someone because of greed, you are a psycopath, even if you do it "for good". Classical murder hobo-ing. And unless you want to take the path of Chaotic Evil (being completely arbitrary when it comes to the people you murder for being "too greedy") you would probably also need to murder at least a few of your fellow party members.
The evil psycopath part comes (slightly) less from the "kill people I think are bad" and more from "I must murder everyone I think is bad and there is no other solution but murder".
Good topic. I ran Curse of Strahd the other day. The Party had a NPC Paladin with them. Not to give away the particular part of the adventure but there was a situation were some children were being locked in cages and being fatten up to be a meal. the party was trying to negotiate with the individuals responsible for this.. I as the DM said the paladin is having none of this and is attacking. Protecting the innocent is a prime principle of any paladin. It might not always be clear cut, in this case there was no question.
In Strahd you'd better be playing Vengeance Paladins, because there's a whole lot of avenging that needs doing.
And this is why Paladins have a long history of going stark raving mad in Ravenloft-esque settings.
Though in 5e. Protecting the Innocent is not actually a prime driving force of all Paladin's anymore as it was in previous editions.