Essentially Robin Hood, except probably not as a consummate archer. A rebel tilting at tyrants, a defender of the downtrodden, a shining beacon leading the innocent out of the dark. In game terms, aim for the Swashbuckler archetype to make the most of your charisma or Arcane Trickster if you don't want to lose out on too much spellcasting.
Robin did not particularly smite either, really... If you think of the smites in tech terms, Black Widow perhaps?
Perhaps a low-level Paladin and a high-level Rogue? I don't know. I don't think there's much Paladin to him other than being good aligned. He's not even lawful good. He's chaotic good. Though I suppose it's rare for a Rogue to be lawful, so any Paladin Rogue is going to experience cognitive dissonance.
I think Robin Hood is just a Rogue who's good enough to win the friendship of a Cleric.
There is a strong argument that Robin was actually lawful good. He was very careful who he stole from and he only started doing so because his own land was confiscated. He was also only against Prince John, whom he saw (rightly, at least from the perspective of the stories) as an usurper. He may have lived in the woods and may have been willing to use deception but otherwise is still presented as fighting to reestablish the prior status quo rather than truly fighting for personal freedoms or peasant freedoms in any modern sense.
I guess there are different depictions of the Robin Hood character. In some of them we get his backstory as semi-historical noble lord down on his luck. Others just depict him has a bold rural outlaw with high-minded ideals.
You can make an argument he follows a particular enough moral code to be considered lawful even if he breaks the laws of the land. Lawful isn't only about enforceable laws. It's also about having principles, and treating rules as rules rather than guidelines.
But it's not that he's not lawful, it's that he's chaotic. The rich take taxes from the poor and conduct a careful administration with records of all its atrocities. Robin Hood steals from the rich and just throws the coins out at the feet of the peasants along the roadside as he speeds by in his hijacked carriage. His element is surprise, not strategy.
Paladins don't have to be lawful in 5E. Paladins of the Crown arguably should be, yes, but there's no such general rule anymore and nothing in the oath of Devotion that requires it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Multiclassing doeesn't have to be "moving away from the oath" it can simply be learning skills different from most others in order to fulfill your oath.
Depends on what kind of campaign you're in. MCing specifically from an Oath of Devotion paladin to rogue would absolutely require a good story justification in my game beyond "I want some new tricks".
If it's a more power-game-y, min-max-y campaign, where you're just optimizing the build, then sure, the character's story doesn't matter.
Are you saying that specifically for multi-classing into rogue or would you say the same thing if they were going into fighter or cleric?
If it is only rogue, I would disagree because rogues do not have to be shifty characters working outside the law. I played LG rogue once, a swashbuckler whose background was the city watch, who had investigated suspected criminal gangs by sneaking into their premises and looking for evidence. I think such a character is remarkably well aligned to the Paladin Oath.
I agree their is a lot of multi-classing done for power-gaming reasons, a Paladin taking a level of Hexblade is a classic example of this and in role-play based campaigns would need very good story reasons.
Any level up involves getting "new tricks" a power gamer approach works on what "new tricks" makes my character most powerful, a role-play approach is what "new tricks" would my character want most to develop.
These sorts of arguments popped up a lot in a thread about MCs in general. I think the flaws in the objection are twofold: 1.) frankly, failure of imagination and particularly failure of imagination beyond 2.) some sense that a Paladin has some sort of "integrity" to an Oath that's somehow challenged by multi classing. There are many ways to pick up the Rogue's skill sets besides a criminal lifestyle. A devotion Paladin mixed with a rogue I could see a personality based on the "one good cop" type archetype, like William Somerset (now there's a Paladin name), Morgan Freeman's character in Se7en. Somerset's ideal is justice and righteousness and "goodness" tied up in the character's last line, a false paraphrase of Hemminway, "Earnest Hemmingway once wrote, 'The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for' ... I agree with the second part." So a character who holds sacred virtues they recognize that the current world can not meet (a common problem in philosophy and theology of good and evil and right action), but nevertheless the character is driven to act in service of those virtues, sometimes is pretty dirty places. And like many a cavalier, Morgan Freeman's character's colleagues thought he was a sanctimonious full of himself type.
A D&D riff on that character would definitely qualify as a "good story to tell", so I'm not sure why asking for that kind of arc to support the MC would be some sort of great imposition. There's been plenty of archetypes and examples offered up already in this thread. By the way, Somerset absolutely had some ideals they gave up on before the events of Se7en. His world weariness and cynicism were hard-won. Consider this exchange:
William Somerset : I just don't think I can continue to live in a place that embraces and nurtures apathy as if it was virtue.
David Mills : You're no different. You're no better.
William Somerset : I didn't say I was different or better. I'm not. Hell, I sympathize; I sympathize completely. Apathy is the solution. I mean, it's easier to lose yourself in drugs than it is to cope with life. It's easier to steal what you want than it is to earn it. It's easier to beat a child than it is to raise it. Hell, love costs: it takes effort and work.
As for the rest, we're specifically talking about a paladin/rogue and an Oath of Devotion ("The Oath of Devotion binds a paladin to the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order") pally at that, so whatever. I don't see how asking someone to square that particular circle is a "failure of imagination".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I agree their is a lot of multi-classing done for power-gaming reasons, a Paladin taking a level of Hexblade is a classic example of this and in role-play based campaigns would need very good story reasons.
I don't see any absolute problems with a Conquest, Glory or Vengeance paladin aligning themselves with someone like the Raven Queen if they feel it will further their goals. Paladins in 5E don't swear allegiance to a deity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Multiclassing doeesn't have to be "moving away from the oath" it can simply be learning skills different from most others in order to fulfill your oath.
Depends on what kind of campaign you're in. MCing specifically from an Oath of Devotion paladin to rogue would absolutely require a good story justification in my game beyond "I want some new tricks".
If it's a more power-game-y, min-max-y campaign, where you're just optimizing the build, then sure, the character's story doesn't matter.
Are you saying that specifically for multi-classing into rogue or would you say the same thing if they were going into fighter or cleric?
Errr, yes?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Sure, but the difference is whether those tricks are the reason for doing the MC, or just a by-product of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
These sorts of arguments popped up a lot in a thread about MCs in general. I think the flaws in the objection are twofold: 1.) frankly, failure of imagination and particularly failure of imagination beyond 2.) some sense that a Paladin has some sort of "integrity" to an Oath that's somehow challenged by multi classing. There are many ways to pick up the Rogue's skill sets besides a criminal lifestyle. A devotion Paladin mixed with a rogue I could see a personality based on the "one good cop" type archetype, like William Somerset (now there's a Paladin name), Morgan Freeman's character in Se7en. Somerset's ideal is justice and righteousness and "goodness" tied up in the character's last line, a false paraphrase of Hemminway, "Earnest Hemmingway once wrote, 'The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for' ... I agree with the second part." So a character who holds sacred virtues they recognize that the current world can not meet (a common problem in philosophy and theology of good and evil and right action), but nevertheless the character is driven to act in service of those virtues, sometimes is pretty dirty places. And like many a cavalier, Morgan Freeman's character's colleagues thought he was a sanctimonious full of himself type.
A D&D riff on that character would definitely qualify as a "good story to tell", so I'm not sure why asking for that kind of arc to support the MC would be some sort of great imposition. There's been plenty of archetypes and examples offered up already in this thread. By the way, Somerset absolutely had some ideals they gave up on before the events of Se7en. His world weariness and cynicism were hard-won. Consider this exchange:
William Somerset : I just don't think I can continue to live in a place that embraces and nurtures apathy as if it was virtue.
David Mills : You're no different. You're no better.
William Somerset : I didn't say I was different or better. I'm not. Hell, I sympathize; I sympathize completely. Apathy is the solution. I mean, it's easier to lose yourself in drugs than it is to cope with life. It's easier to steal what you want than it is to earn it. It's easier to beat a child than it is to raise it. Hell, love costs: it takes effort and work.
As for the rest, we're specifically talking about a paladin/rogue and an Oath of Devotion ("The Oath of Devotion binds a paladin to the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order") pally at that, so whatever. I don't see how asking someone to square that particular circle is a "failure of imagination".
So some, I'd say a lot, of campaigns make the assumption that a Paladin's Oath is like computer programming, and they become the character's operating system that can't be deviated from without massive malfunction. That's fair, and I wouldn't necessarily force a reconsideration of those assumptions. However, feeling conflicted is instrumental to so many stories of oaths and virtuous service, everywhere from Arthurian lore to theological traditions. There's a presumption that a Paladin is a zealot, given the tenets of a lot of those oaths, I can see many a mortal soul contemplating the "rightness" of their oaths, it's a common RL thing. I'd say Somerset's pause is common among anyone who's been engaged in a committed struggle long term. Heck, Clone Wars the cartoon does a great job of reflecting this in a lot of story arcs. Interestingly the Jedi rules in FFG's Star Wars game has a whole mechanic for Conflict that allows these ambiguities to have game considerations. There are more focused games on chivalry and honor that also use such mechanics (I think FFG actually is the present publisher of Legend of Five Rings). D&D throws these oaths down, and I think one way to incorporate them into a game is treating them as something like Asimov's Laws of Robotics. However, if you read the actual fiction, the limitations are laid bare. Basically Paladin Oaths, at least in my game, aren't an operating system, they're a values system which the Paladin has a relationship with as a means to further the games story. Traditionally sure Paladins had a sort moral straight jacket on them, I guess as a means to balance their power to other classes in prior editions, but I'd say the present iteration is more nuanced and worldly, or at least grants the DM and players space to do that.
Let's remember 3 levels as an errant, then the oath is taken ... do we assume it's just a toggle and "oath activitated" a la Robocop? Or is the oath like any other RL human vow (of military/civil service, religion, marriage...) where the oath is made ... but throughout the oath keepers life the oath is challenged, sometimes dealt within the conscience, but there's a whole history of counseling within the various oath requiring institutions where discussion of "the right thing to do" is actually a very nuanced conversation (writing as someone who was involved in a field where a range of oaths were taken by various actors in the space, said oaths demanding a higher standard of conduct and accountability, yet "right action" wasn't always clear and the principles of the oath weren't quite the go/no-go cheatsheet DMs and Palladins sometimes presume ... oaths are frameworks of consideration and deliberation, not as clear a map as PHB allows).
tl:dr Some DMs and players want oaths to be bright lines, but the IRL practice of such systems is much more nuanced and deliberative than those players presume. That shouldn't stop them, but there's a lot of ways D&Ds moral systems can be practiced.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
So some, I'd say a lot, of campaigns make the assumption that a Paladin's Oath is like computer programming, and they become the character's operating system that can't be deviated from without massive malfunction. That's fair, and I wouldn't necessarily force a reconsideration of those assumptions. However, feeling conflicted is instrumental to so many stories of oaths and virtuous service, everywhere from Arthurian lore to theological traditions. There's a presumption that a Paladin is a zealot, given the tenets of a lot of those oaths, I can see many a mortal soul contemplating the "rightness" of their oaths, it's a common RL thing. I'd say Somerset's pause is common among anyone who's been engaged in a committed struggle long term. Heck, Clone Wars the cartoon does a great job of reflecting this in a lot of story arcs. Interestingly the Jedi rules in FFG's Star Wars game has a whole mechanic for Conflict that allows these ambiguities to have game considerations. There are more focused games on chivalry and honor that also use such mechanics (I think FFG actually is the present publisher of Legend of Five Rings). D&D throws these oaths down, and I think one way to incorporate them into a game is treating them as something like Asimov's Laws of Robotics. However, if you read the actual fiction, the limitations are laid bare. Basically Paladin Oaths, at least in my game, aren't an operating system, they're a values system which the Paladin has a relationship with as a means to further the games story. Traditionally sure Paladins had a sort moral straight jacket on them, I guess as a means to balance their power to other classes in prior editions, but I'd say the present iteration is more nuanced and worldly, or at least grants the DM and players space to do that.
Let's remember 3 levels as an errant, then the oath is taken ... do we assume it's just a toggle and "oath activitated" a la Robocop? Or is the oath like any other RL human vow (of military/civil service, religion, marriage...) where the oath is made ... but throughout the oath keepers life the oath is challenged, sometimes dealt within the conscience, but there's a whole history of counseling within the various oath requiring institutions where discussion of "the right thing to do" is actually a very nuanced conversation (writing as someone who was involved in a field where a range of oaths were taken by various actors in the space, said oaths demanding a higher standard of conduct and accountability, yet "right action" wasn't always clear and the principles of the oath weren't quite the go/no-go cheatsheet DMs and Palladins sometimes presume ... oaths are frameworks of consideration and deliberation, not as clear a map as PHB allows).
tl:dr Some DMs and players want oaths to be bright lines, but the IRL practice of such systems is much more nuanced and deliberative than those players presume. That shouldn't stop them, but there's a lot of ways D&Ds moral systems can be practiced.
I absolutely agree that part of the fun of playing a paladin can be, as you suggested, the conflict between their oaths and "reality", between their perceived duties and their situation.
However, that conflict exists precisely because those oaths are tough to stay true to all the damn time. If they were merely "a framework of consideration and deliberation", if they allowed for the kind of "nuanced conversation" you're suggesting, there'd be no significant internal conflict. The pally would have plenty of leeway to do the 'right thing' even if it didn't conform to the oath. It's just a conversation, after all.
I mean, that's what conflict is -- opposing forces pushing against each other. What the reality of the situation seems to demand, versus what the oaths ask of you. The BBEG has tricked you into giving your word not to stop their escape, and now they're escaping. Do you try to stop them and prevent them from doing further evil, or do you honor your word? Deliberation and nuance don't really have a place in that moment. There's just a choice, and the consequences of that choice.
I'm kind of scratching my head at the 'programming' metaphors though. That makes no sense to me at all, and is the complete opposite of where I'm coming from. A pally's oaths in 5E don't seem like a how-to manual to me, or a set of rules, or an operating system. They're presented as tenets, ideals -- aspirational, not pragmatic. They're supposed to be something an individual tries to live up to -- and not always with success, but that's just part of the process. I mean, look at the Oath of Devotion. "Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm." That's not Dr. Susan Calvin, that's more like Valentine Michael Smith. It's not an on/off logic gate, it's a set of scales.
Paladins are undertaking a journey, spiritually and emotionally, by swearing their oaths. Perhaps more explicitly than any other class in the game, growth and character development are baked into the cake, if that's the kind of campaign you want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Paladins don't have to be lawful in 5E. Paladins of the Crown arguably should be, yes, but there's no such general rule anymore and nothing in the oath of Devotion that requires it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Are you saying that specifically for multi-classing into rogue or would you say the same thing if they were going into fighter or cleric?
If it is only rogue, I would disagree because rogues do not have to be shifty characters working outside the law. I played LG rogue once, a swashbuckler whose background was the city watch, who had investigated suspected criminal gangs by sneaking into their premises and looking for evidence. I think such a character is remarkably well aligned to the Paladin Oath.
I agree their is a lot of multi-classing done for power-gaming reasons, a Paladin taking a level of Hexblade is a classic example of this and in role-play based campaigns would need very good story reasons.
Any level up involves getting "new tricks" a power gamer approach works on what "new tricks" makes my character most powerful, a role-play approach is what "new tricks" would my character want most to develop.
A D&D riff on that character would definitely qualify as a "good story to tell", so I'm not sure why asking for that kind of arc to support the MC would be some sort of great imposition. There's been plenty of archetypes and examples offered up already in this thread. By the way, Somerset absolutely had some ideals they gave up on before the events of Se7en. His world weariness and cynicism were hard-won. Consider this exchange:
As for the rest, we're specifically talking about a paladin/rogue and an Oath of Devotion ("The Oath of Devotion binds a paladin to the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order") pally at that, so whatever. I don't see how asking someone to square that particular circle is a "failure of imagination".
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don't see any absolute problems with a Conquest, Glory or Vengeance paladin aligning themselves with someone like the Raven Queen if they feel it will further their goals. Paladins in 5E don't swear allegiance to a deity.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Errr, yes?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Sure, but the difference is whether those tricks are the reason for doing the MC, or just a by-product of it.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
So some, I'd say a lot, of campaigns make the assumption that a Paladin's Oath is like computer programming, and they become the character's operating system that can't be deviated from without massive malfunction. That's fair, and I wouldn't necessarily force a reconsideration of those assumptions. However, feeling conflicted is instrumental to so many stories of oaths and virtuous service, everywhere from Arthurian lore to theological traditions. There's a presumption that a Paladin is a zealot, given the tenets of a lot of those oaths, I can see many a mortal soul contemplating the "rightness" of their oaths, it's a common RL thing. I'd say Somerset's pause is common among anyone who's been engaged in a committed struggle long term. Heck, Clone Wars the cartoon does a great job of reflecting this in a lot of story arcs. Interestingly the Jedi rules in FFG's Star Wars game has a whole mechanic for Conflict that allows these ambiguities to have game considerations. There are more focused games on chivalry and honor that also use such mechanics (I think FFG actually is the present publisher of Legend of Five Rings). D&D throws these oaths down, and I think one way to incorporate them into a game is treating them as something like Asimov's Laws of Robotics. However, if you read the actual fiction, the limitations are laid bare. Basically Paladin Oaths, at least in my game, aren't an operating system, they're a values system which the Paladin has a relationship with as a means to further the games story. Traditionally sure Paladins had a sort moral straight jacket on them, I guess as a means to balance their power to other classes in prior editions, but I'd say the present iteration is more nuanced and worldly, or at least grants the DM and players space to do that.
Let's remember 3 levels as an errant, then the oath is taken ... do we assume it's just a toggle and "oath activitated" a la Robocop? Or is the oath like any other RL human vow (of military/civil service, religion, marriage...) where the oath is made ... but throughout the oath keepers life the oath is challenged, sometimes dealt within the conscience, but there's a whole history of counseling within the various oath requiring institutions where discussion of "the right thing to do" is actually a very nuanced conversation (writing as someone who was involved in a field where a range of oaths were taken by various actors in the space, said oaths demanding a higher standard of conduct and accountability, yet "right action" wasn't always clear and the principles of the oath weren't quite the go/no-go cheatsheet DMs and Palladins sometimes presume ... oaths are frameworks of consideration and deliberation, not as clear a map as PHB allows).
tl:dr Some DMs and players want oaths to be bright lines, but the IRL practice of such systems is much more nuanced and deliberative than those players presume. That shouldn't stop them, but there's a lot of ways D&Ds moral systems can be practiced.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I absolutely agree that part of the fun of playing a paladin can be, as you suggested, the conflict between their oaths and "reality", between their perceived duties and their situation.
However, that conflict exists precisely because those oaths are tough to stay true to all the damn time. If they were merely "a framework of consideration and deliberation", if they allowed for the kind of "nuanced conversation" you're suggesting, there'd be no significant internal conflict. The pally would have plenty of leeway to do the 'right thing' even if it didn't conform to the oath. It's just a conversation, after all.
I mean, that's what conflict is -- opposing forces pushing against each other. What the reality of the situation seems to demand, versus what the oaths ask of you. The BBEG has tricked you into giving your word not to stop their escape, and now they're escaping. Do you try to stop them and prevent them from doing further evil, or do you honor your word? Deliberation and nuance don't really have a place in that moment. There's just a choice, and the consequences of that choice.
I'm kind of scratching my head at the 'programming' metaphors though. That makes no sense to me at all, and is the complete opposite of where I'm coming from. A pally's oaths in 5E don't seem like a how-to manual to me, or a set of rules, or an operating system. They're presented as tenets, ideals -- aspirational, not pragmatic. They're supposed to be something an individual tries to live up to -- and not always with success, but that's just part of the process. I mean, look at the Oath of Devotion. "Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm." That's not Dr. Susan Calvin, that's more like Valentine Michael Smith. It's not an on/off logic gate, it's a set of scales.
Paladins are undertaking a journey, spiritually and emotionally, by swearing their oaths. Perhaps more explicitly than any other class in the game, growth and character development are baked into the cake, if that's the kind of campaign you want.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)