So as the title says, my Paladin wants to learn Thieves Tools...

But I have concerns that Thieves Tools is something a paladin wouldn't use, how the player has defended his choice, his back story is that his searching for his mother/killers of his mother and does a lot of investigating in trying to track down information about her disappearance...

Alignment- Chaotic Neutral 

God- Hasn't Declared Yet 

Oath of Vengeance 

If his God is a chaotic god the tools fit, but anything else I just feel it doesn't match with the paladin and being able to use his spells 

Disclaimer - DnD player/DM less than a year 

I don't see that as a particular issue. There are people who actually use lockpicks and learn how to open stuff without going stealing in the real world as well :) 

Given the alignment, I would say its even less of an issue - a CN character follow their whims, valuing their own freedom and self-interest above other concerns. Such creatures dislike being ordered to do things, and pay no regard for rules or other creatures’ expectations. And, while they are not always selfish to the point of harming others, they feel no compulsion to help other creatures in need.

So with that alignment - I really don't see any issue. 

Alignment has little impact here. There's an intire industry reliant upon good people that uphold the law while using lockpicks and opening containers that are secure. If your Paladin friend were to be of the Urchin background, there's excuse enough. They learned the skill before they changed carreer path.

Okay, if you've ever come across Deviant Ollam on Youtube, or Lockpicking Lawyer, you'll know that there are legitimate reasons for being able to use, for example lockpicks. 

Way back during my first ever career in IT I used to do some consulting work that pointed out security errors. Back then it was still silly things like people hiding their passwords on post-its around their desk so that any visitor could just get that password. The field has moved on considerably since then, but there are security professionals who have to learn, utilise, and understand the tools and equipment of thieves to be able to undertake their jobs to the best of their abilities. You can be lawful and understand thieves' tools. 

However, the biggest issue I can actually see is that they are a Paladin without a God. To me that makes zero sense from a story perspective. However, if their power is stemming from the vengeance they have sworn, I could see that being justice in their eyes, if not society's eyes (hence chaotic alignment). The oath still needs to have been sworn in the presence of some otherworldly being in order to give the paladin their powers (as per description in Players Handbook). Given how heavily justice is emphasised in the description of a Paladin however, I would usually advise that the player must either be or be striving toward the Lawful sides of alignment over the chaotic side. Someone who embraces chaotic philosophies as a character is actually more likely to be at peace with the loss of fellow people. Random acts of violence, or such would all seem part of the chaotic nature of the universe serving only to reinforce their view. As such said character is highly unlikely to be driven to swear vengeance. You can't be wronged if you don't believe that there is natural justice (chaos).

In a lot of discussions, I think the role of law has been minimised when discussing paladins. Personally, I think that a Paladin can never be neutral. The reason for this is that their Oath and bond very firmly places them on one side or other of a line.

Lawful Evil - A paladin can be evil (in the eyes of society) if they believe what they are doing is righteous or in the name of justice (Lawful Evil) [it might once have been legal to subjugate other human beings in our world...does not make it right or good to do so].
Chaotic Good - Paladin can be good but chaotic (again in the eyes of society) if they are doing the work of their deity without question (because it's all part of god's plan and we can't understand what seems like chaos)...think climate protestors trying to do something good, but in illegal or chaotic ways.
Lawful Good - The paladin stands up not just for the causes of justice and right, but also what is holy and good (your traditional paladin).
Chaotic Evil - A paladin who swears to serve the cause of evil is probably an Oathbreaker, but if they are not, I could see a paladin who believes that the cause of evil is actually good and therefore is evil only in the eyes of society, not within their own social group. Essentially this would make them chaotic good with very similar motivations. Think the paladin who serves the dictator who wishes to bring about perfect order...the paladin could believe that to be good, but the rest of the world may see it as evil because it minimises the individual and their freedoms.

For any other alignment, the real question to ask is why the player hasn't chosen a Warlock (if we're looking at evil), a Bard (who are great all-rounders despite the silly tropes), or a Ranger (who make for fantastic Neutrals). Especially as the melee/spellcasting split is possible in all these classes.

I bring this up to highlight a simple statement - either you care about alignment and character stories, or you don't.

In allowing the player to create a Chaotic Neutral Paladin you've kinda given the signal that you don't care about alignment. It sends (even unintentionally) the message that all that character stuff is somewhere pushed to the background. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you're just playing in a dungeon crawling hack and slash style, that's amazing and doesn't require the character to make sense. However, if your game has story components then a structure is necessary as are boundaries. Failing to specify to whom they swore their oath also did this. 

So, here's the suggestions I'd make:

1 - Alignment, is it important in your game? If it is, then the player needs to be taking actions that will match up on the justice and Lawful side of the alignment charts. Even if they start from chaos, they need to strive for the lawful actions to truly be a paladin. In which case, thieves' tools might need to be used in line with this goal. They're used to help secure chests and doors rather than break through them. Maybe the tools can be used to reclaim property that has been stolen (great for a vengeance paladin who wishes to redress the balance much like some of the people who chase after and aim to restore stolen art to the rightful owners). 

2 - Bond/Oath - The Player's Handbook is quite careful with this particular line 'Whether sworn before a god’s altar and the witness of a priest, in a sacred glade before nature spirits and fey beings, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin’s oath is a powerful bond.' This allows you tremendous flexibility in who it is that provides the power on which a paladin draws. I have had a paladin sworn and oath to a Fey previously. This meant that though they didn't serve a God, it was the Fey and the Fey court to whom the oath was made. My point is that an oath must be sworn to something or someone. That is the important part, much like a warlock without a pact makes very little sense. Again, failing to specify this aspect kind sends players the signal that you don't prioritise story in your games (which is absolutely fine).

The God thing is just an oversight due to our greenesh he had a god in mind but just never told me or included it on his Character sheet he submitted to me

Quote from Aquilain >>

Okay, if you've ever come across Deviant Ollam on Youtube, or Lockpicking Lawyer, you'll know that there are legitimate reasons for being able to use, for example lockpicks. 

Way back during my first ever career in IT I used to do some consulting work that pointed out security errors. Back then it was still silly things like people hiding their passwords on post-its around their desk so that any visitor could just get that password. The field has moved on considerably since then, but there are security professionals who have to learn, utilise, and understand the tools and equipment of thieves to be able to undertake their jobs to the best of their abilities. You can be lawful and understand thieves' tools. 

However, the biggest issue I can actually see is that they are a Paladin without a God. To me that makes zero sense from a story perspective. However, if their power is stemming from the vengeance they have sworn, I could see that being justice in their eyes, if not society's eyes (hence chaotic alignment). The oath still needs to have been sworn in the presence of some otherworldly being in order to give the paladin their powers (as per description in Players Handbook). Given how heavily justice is emphasised in the description of a Paladin however, I would usually advise that the player must either be or be striving toward the Lawful sides of alignment over the chaotic side. Someone who embraces chaotic philosophies as a character is actually more likely to be at peace with the loss of fellow people. Random acts of violence, or such would all seem part of the chaotic nature of the universe serving only to reinforce their view. As such said character is highly unlikely to be driven to swear vengeance. You can't be wronged if you don't believe that there is natural justice (chaos).

In a lot of discussions, I think the role of law has been minimised when discussing paladins. Personally, I think that a Paladin can never be neutral. The reason for this is that their Oath and bond very firmly places them on one side or other of a line.

Lawful Evil - A paladin can be evil (in the eyes of society) if they believe what they are doing is righteous or in the name of justice (Lawful Evil) [it might once have been legal to subjugate other human beings in our world...does not make it right or good to do so].
Chaotic Good - Paladin can be good but chaotic (again in the eyes of society) if they are doing the work of their deity without question (because it's all part of god's plan and we can't understand what seems like chaos)...think climate protestors trying to do something good, but in illegal or chaotic ways.
Lawful Good - The paladin stands up not just for the causes of justice and right, but also what is holy and good (your traditional paladin).
Chaotic Evil - A paladin who swears to serve the cause of evil is probably an Oathbreaker, but if they are not, I could see a paladin who believes that the cause of evil is actually good and therefore is evil only in the eyes of society, not within their own social group. Essentially this would make them chaotic good with very similar motivations. Think the paladin who serves the dictator who wishes to bring about perfect order...the paladin could believe that to be good, but the rest of the world may see it as evil because it minimises the individual and their freedoms.

For any other alignment, the real question to ask is why the player hasn't chosen a Warlock (if we're looking at evil), a Bard (who are great all-rounders despite the silly tropes), or a Ranger (who make for fantastic Neutrals). Especially as the melee/spellcasting split is possible in all these classes.

I bring this up to highlight a simple statement - either you care about alignment and character stories, or you don't.

In allowing the player to create a Chaotic Neutral Paladin you've kinda given the signal that you don't care about alignment. It sends (even unintentionally) the message that all that character stuff is somewhere pushed to the background. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you're just playing in a dungeon crawling hack and slash style, that's amazing and doesn't require the character to make sense. However, if your game has story components then a structure is necessary as are boundaries. Failing to specify to whom they swore their oath also did this. 

So, here's the suggestions I'd make:

1 - Alignment, is it important in your game? If it is, then the player needs to be taking actions that will match up on the justice and Lawful side of the alignment charts. Even if they start from chaos, they need to strive for the lawful actions to truly be a paladin. In which case, thieves' tools might need to be used in line with this goal. They're used to help secure chests and doors rather than break through them. Maybe the tools can be used to reclaim property that has been stolen (great for a vengeance paladin who wishes to redress the balance much like some of the people who chase after and aim to restore stolen art to the rightful owners). 

2 - Bond/Oath - The Player's Handbook is quite careful with this particular line 'Whether sworn before a god’s altar and the witness of a priest, in a sacred glade before nature spirits and fey beings, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin’s oath is a powerful bond.' This allows you tremendous flexibility in who it is that provides the power on which a paladin draws. I have had a paladin sworn and oath to a Fey previously. This meant that though they didn't serve a God, it was the Fey and the Fey court to whom the oath was made. My point is that an oath must be sworn to something or someone. That is the important part, much like a warlock without a pact makes very little sense. Again, failing to specify this aspect kind sends players the signal that you don't prioritise story in your games (which is absolutely fine).

While it's clear you've thought about this a lot for your own games, much of this is not true in a universal sense. There are zero restrictions on Alignment for Paladins in DnD 5e.  In the early days, they were limited to Lawful Good, but that's not the case anymore.  The Player's Handbook does make some suggestions, but they are not hard rules.  The Oath of Vengeance even specifically says that many Paladins that take this oath are Neutral.  

Paladins don't have to tend towards Lawful alignments.  Both Players and DMs can care a great deal about Roleplaying without restricting any class to a particular alignment or cosmological world view.  

So don't worry, Mattlehammerqqq, you're not doing anything against the rules or the spirit of the game here.  There is no reason this PC couldn't know Thieve's Tools.  Picking locks isn't inherently good/evil/lawful/unlawful, or anything at all that could interfere with a Paladin's oath.  There are no restrictions on the kind of person a Paladin can be.  And even if there were, there is no inherent morality attached to picking locks.  Detectives aren't breaking the law picking locks.  Locksmiths aren't evil for doing their job.  And even if they were doing something 'wrong' in someone's eyes, it wouldn't have anything to do with a Paladin's oath unless the player wanted it to. 

Quote from Stegodorkus >>

 

While it's clear you've thought about this a lot for your own games, much of this is not true in a universal sense. There are zero restrictions on Alignment for Paladins in DnD 5e.  In the early days, they were limited to Lawful Good, but that's not the case anymore.  The Player's Handbook does make some suggestions, but they are not hard rules.  The Oath of Vengeance even specifically says that many Paladins that take this oath are Neutral.  

Paladins don't have to tend towards Lawful alignments.  Both Players and DMs can care a great deal about Roleplaying without restricting any class to a particular alignment or cosmological world view.  

So don't worry, Mattlehammerqqq, you're not doing anything against the rules or the spirit of the game here.  There is no reason this PC couldn't know Thieve's Tools.  Picking locks isn't inherently good/evil/lawful/unlawful, or anything at all that could interfere with a Paladin's oath.  There are no restrictions on the kind of person a Paladin can be.  And even if there were, there is no inherent morality attached to picking locks.  Detectives aren't breaking the law picking locks.  Locksmiths aren't evil for doing their job.  And even if they were doing something 'wrong' in someone's eyes, it wouldn't have anything to do with a Paladin's oath unless the player wanted it to. 

 
I agree there's no hard or fast rules saying it's impossible, but it very much falls into the category of DMs who allow checks against impossible things. For example the typical Charisma persuasion to get the ruler of the land to nominate the Bard as the heir to the throne. Or PCs asking to roll persuasion to negotiate a poor merchant's prices down. There's nothing in the rules against those, it's just that different games will operate in different styles. Indeed, I recognise that Paladins don't have to be Lawful. They do have to pick a side though, for good or evil, for law or chaos, the very fact they take an oath defines the position they take. Neutrality in terms of story for a paladin just never makes any consistent sense.

My point was that if you don't care about the story consistency, which many games don't, then there's no reason the PC in this case shouldn't have lockpicks. However, if you do care about story consistency then Neutral aligned paladins make as much sense as the merchant on the breadline being able to be persuaded to offer a discount. Such a merchant can't afford to offer a discount on their prices, so negotiation is going to be pointless. Either style is a valid option, but in terms of game style, it is important to consider the messages that we as DMs send to our players. In this, I fear you've missed the point. Consistency from a DM is very important.

In the example given there's already inconsistency, so does the theives' tools issue really matter?

What I was attempting to do is show that in either side there are valid reasons for a paladin to have access to those tools. 

I agree that Thieve's Tools are totally fine for a Paladin.

I just don't agree with your interpretation that Paladins must tend towards any specific alignment to make a consistent or plausible story/world.  They don't have to 'pick a side.'  They have to pick an oath.

This player is playing an Oath of Vengeance Paladin.  It says in the description in the Player's Handbook that they tend towards Neutral alignments. They don't have to be, but that is common.  It's not only acceptable, it's given as a literal example of a common theme for the subclass. 

You're free to add whatever additional limitations you want in your own games. That's totally fine.  But a DM that allows a Neutral aligned Paladin is not somehow abandoning good storytelling. 

I had a player who was a vengeance paladin, with the urban bounty hunter background. We continued that theme in game and he picked a ton of locks. It made sense.

Either he could pick a lock, then sneak in and get the bad guy, or kick open the door the bounty ran and endangered innocents in a long chase. It's all on how you rationalize using whatever tool your useing.

I echo the sentiment of others here in that lockpicks are fine. If they're starting the game with them, I'd ask perhaps that it replace a proficiency they would ordinarily get due to their class (unless it's well within the rules of character creation, such as background profiencies), but if they want to learn how to gain proficiency they can do it in the usual ways. Knowing criminal arts is quite possibly the best way to catch them at their own activity, and I think that fits well within the boundaries of the Oath of Vengeance's tenets.

There are literally no reasons (alignment, class, deity) why the player shouldn't have access to proficiency with thieves' tools, except maybe balance. The reasons you've listed have no mechanical significance.

You might want to negotiate with the player, to have them give up a proficiency they already have in exchange for the thieves' tools proficiency.

Another vote for it being OK.

For one, the tools are just tools. There's nothing inherently evil about knowing how to use a tool, it comes down to how someone uses it. If they're using it to rob people, I could see a god getting upset. If they're using it to gather evidence so they can bring evildoers to justice, I don't see a problem there.

Keep in mind Paladins don't have any alignment restrictions in this edition. Also, they don't necessarily have to follow a god at all. If that's what you're doing at your table, cool. Just know it's not a rules mandate. It used to be, but it's not now. In this edition, it's more important that they stick to their tenets. Seems like the playtest has stuck pallys in the divine category, so maybe that's going to change in 2024.

Quote from Mattlehammerqqq >>

his back story is that his searching for his mother/killers of his mother and does a lot of investigating in trying to track down information about her disappearance

That's a strong fit for the Urban Bounty Hunter background, which comes with thieves tools proficiency

There's nothing inherently evil about picking a lock, if that's your concern. What if it's the lock on manacles for someone who's been kidnapped?

Would Batman have Thieves tools?  If you turn off the rogue vibe, Batman gives off strong Palladin vibes.

Yes, Urban Bounty Hunter, or pick it up through a feat.

Oath of Vengeance and Oathbreaker are obvious choices, but I could also see Conquest and the Palladin is a self-style one person swat team and uses the tools as breaching gear.  Those are the easy ones, other oaths might be a bit harder ... maybe Oath of Ancients spends a lot of time purging libraries of Books of Vile Darkness adjacent material and thus spends a lot of time skulking through secure book and scroll collections kept under lock and key.  Actually, a lot of "inquisitor" type work would find a little breaking and entering justifiable.

In other words, to prove their hunch a given suspected baddie is smite-worthy, the Paladin may make use of "sneakiness" to dig around and dig up evidence that the suspect is in fact smite-worthy.  Then it's smite time.

Quote from Beardsinger >>

Paladins aren’t required to follow a god. They aren’t religious holy warriors of good. They aren’t even required to be lawful. There is literally no in game reason or rule that would prevent them from gaining proficiency in thieves tools or punish them if they did.

 a level 3+ paladin has an oath. however, before that their class features use key words such as divine and blessed. i accept that they can function perfectly well without a god to which they're bound like a patron, yet still it seems a step too far to state that "they aren't religious holy warriors" in general. yes, they are unless you re-theme them. it's just that nobody minds if you re-theme them and it's trivial to do so.

case in point, i have an oath of glory paladin on hiatus who will become the greatest thief. the important bit is that it's for glory, not greed/evil. apparent ne'er-do-well with a heart of gold, and all that. i didn't feel comfortable with the design until i stumbled upon the Astral Drifter background and decided that after a brush with a goddess put himself on a self-imposed do-or-die quest to impress her one day (by stealing the moon) as the ultimate gentleman thief. without that fig leaf of adjacency to divinity he'd only be, as i've said before elsewhere, powered by nothing but narcissism. no thanks.

oath of vengeance isn't far from that as well if you're not bothering to invoke gods of justice to aid you in your quest. and why wouldn't you unless it was a narcissistic self-righteous self-indulgence rather than true pursuit of cosmic justice? i might be wrong in this, but if you've got the gods on your side when you swing swords (and pick locks) then you're a paladin. if you're not sure if they are on your side, ask them. if they're not or you simply won't check, then i'd wonder why your divine class features are functioning. ymmv, but i itch when i see the "they aren't religious" thing in regards to paladins. shrug.

tl;dr - there's always at least one god that'll have a paladin's back no matter what. even for lock picking. and if yours doesn't, then get one that does. you're a free agent, but you still need a team to play.

I dont see any issue, any class can learn thieves tools proficiency via training or feat. i think a character class or backstory shouldnt be a reason to ban it in itself, it can even help define one.

I don't see any mention of the tools having multiple uses, which might be what drives a lot of folks to say it's not a good fit.  Thieves' tools would be lockpicks as well as other fine tools, used for disarming traps as an example.  I don's see any real reason to disallow them, regardless of class, as anyone might have an interest or need to use such tools.  Hell, in real life the most common use of lockpicks would be locksmiths, who HELP people more than anything, lending more toward a paladin theme than rogue.

Oath of the Lockbreaker. Now there's a cool idea.

On the same basis that I think a god of peace and love would still allow their paladins to wield weapons, I think paladins would not be banned from using thieves' tools.  However, their particular god might have some strong feelings about how those tools ought to be used... especially in the hands of someone who invokes the god's holy name on a daily basis.  That's assuming the paladin has to have a god, of course, and that the god is willing to enforce their commandments among the faithful.  Which is a long-winded way of saying "it's really up to the DM," I suppose.

I have to say, the question kind of makes me want to homebrew a deity for my campaign, that regards locks and locked doors as sacred.  Their followers actually would see the mere possession of thieves' tools as a grave sin, and the more devout followers might even balk at opening a door that someone else closed.  That might be a fun thing to include as a quirk of some out-of-the-way settlement.  But outside of special cases like this, I can't see a solid basis for totally banning a paladin from using thieves' tools.