The party was attacked by goblins on wargs, they proceeded to kill them all. The Lawful Evil Oathbreaker Paladin chopped off the goblin heads and stacked them on a stump as a warning. The DM is saying he has a issue with lawful evil oathbreaker sending a message. Thoughts?
it's hard to know if the DM in this situation is pushing back on 1.) a spur of the moment over-reaction (chaotic) or if 2.) simply unsatisfied with "hey, I'm evil!"
if it's the "lawful" thing, it will help if the paladin can point to an oath, faith, or strongly held belief that makes this reaction seem natural. whether it's now the opposite of what they would have done before or if it's malicious compliance to the tatters of their old beliefs. if they broke their oath to, say, a god of justice then maybe they're twisting the response a good and just paladin would have by executing without trial. or if they broke an oath to defend then perhaps now they make it a point to chase down and slaughter every enemy because they're leaning into a heavy-handed argument that the dead threaten no one.
if it's the "evil" thing, try being more selfish and pragmatic, persuading the group to take the lazy option or lie about doing the work. well, i guess it depends on whether you're playing an Oathbreaker with no morals or a dishonoured paladin with a broken oath and deep regret. either way, "bloodthirsty" is a cartoony way to interpret evil alignment, in my opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Depending on the society, heads on a pike as a punishment and warning to others could be well within "what society expects", and therefore Lawful. Also Paladins aren't required to always be Lawful, and characters of any class aren't required to always act exactly as their alignment. Paladins are generally somewhat required to at least loosely follow the tenets of their Oath, and that behavior fits well within Oathbreaker tenets. So seems fine to me on all fronts
The party was attacked by goblins on wargs, they proceeded to kill them all. The Lawful Evil Oathbreaker Paladin chopped off the goblin heads and stacked them on a stump as a warning. The DM is saying he has a issue with lawful evil oathbreaker sending a message. Thoughts?
Any character could do that to serve a warning, even those not lawful evil. It's not for the light hearted but have nothing to do with alignment, which are much less impactful in 5E. Alignment in 5E are descriptor that broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes and offer typical behavior of a creature with that alignment, lawful evil creatures typically methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. But most importantly, Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior.
I would never restrict my player characters behaviors based on their alignment. At best if deviant behavior becomes frequent, i may suggest an alignment change, and only if in mutual agreement.
Alignment: A typical creature in the game world has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). Thus, nine distinct alignments define the possible combinations.
These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.
If the goblins were killed in self defense then their deaths were within the law, and by mounting their heads on a stick as a warning, they can make the argument that they are trying to prevent future loss of life by intimidating them into not attacking again. Just as the law would want!
Not to mention that an Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin’s heart has been extinguished, only darkness remains so this seem all legit on this front too
Not to mention that an Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin’s heart has been extinguished, only darkness remains so this seem all legit on this front too
not everyone who picks Oathbreaker is planning to tie damsels to cart paths or whatever. anyway, that's probably what the dm was thinking. my first impression was that having an evil character didn't get covered thoroughly in season zero.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Not to mention that an Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin’s heart has been extinguished, only darkness remains so this seem all legit on this front too
not everyone who picks Oathbreaker is planning to tie damsels to cart paths or whatever. anyway, that's probably what the dm was thinking. my first impression was that having an evil character didn't get covered thoroughly in season zero.
May be it wasn't i was just citing the Oathbreaker definition to show that it's also not unreasonable from such paladin.
Not to mention that an Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin’s heart has been extinguished, only darkness remains so this seem all legit on this front too
not everyone who picks Oathbreaker is planning to tie damsels to cart paths or whatever. anyway, that's probably what the dm was thinking. my first impression was that having an evil character didn't get covered thoroughly in season zero.
May be it wasn't i was just citing the Oathbreaker definition to show that it's also not unreasonable from such paladin.
oh, i wasnt arguing. i just found it convenient to quote your words to make a point. i agree with most of what you've said on the whole page above. especially that the dm shouldn't try and force a player to adhere to an alignment. oh, for sure! even if this paladin had nursed one goblin back to health and got him a cushy job administrating orphanages that would still be "not unreasonable" if it forwards a story the character wants to tell.
rather than tell the player they're wrong, seems like the dm should take this opportunity to formulate a story hook to challenge and explore that. if the character really does harbor some interesting and consistent internal rules, then it'll be fun to land a good dramatic dilemma on them later.
Putting heads on sticks as a warning is something that bad guys do. Every jungle movie has some scene where one of the characters (usually the heroine) pushes aisde some leaves to reveal a head on a stick *dramatic music*! It signals that the party is enteroing the territory of the savages/cannibals/natives/whatever (depending on when the movie was made).
So, have a discussion with the player, "Are you really intending that your character be one of the bad guys?"
The anwers might be, "Yes. These goblins have proven that they don't understand civilised bevahour, so let's send them a message in a language they do understand."
The answer might be, "Umm, I never thought of it that way."
But have the conversation. Until you do, someone is going to be feeling uncomfortable.
Alignment is a guiding light not a pair of handcuffs. Lawful evil fighter can be nice to their dog and a neutral good cleric can be irritated at beggars.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The party was attacked by goblins on wargs, they proceeded to kill them all. The Lawful Evil Oathbreaker Paladin chopped off the goblin heads and stacked them on a stump as a warning. The DM is saying he has a issue with lawful evil oathbreaker sending a message. Thoughts?
Well, it's an oath breaker so they are probably not following any oath that would forbid it. As for the lawful evil element:
it's hard to know if the DM in this situation is pushing back on 1.) a spur of the moment over-reaction (chaotic) or if 2.) simply unsatisfied with "hey, I'm evil!"
if it's the "lawful" thing, it will help if the paladin can point to an oath, faith, or strongly held belief that makes this reaction seem natural. whether it's now the opposite of what they would have done before or if it's malicious compliance to the tatters of their old beliefs. if they broke their oath to, say, a god of justice then maybe they're twisting the response a good and just paladin would have by executing without trial. or if they broke an oath to defend then perhaps now they make it a point to chase down and slaughter every enemy because they're leaning into a heavy-handed argument that the dead threaten no one.
if it's the "evil" thing, try being more selfish and pragmatic, persuading the group to take the lazy option or lie about doing the work. well, i guess it depends on whether you're playing an Oathbreaker with no morals or a dishonoured paladin with a broken oath and deep regret. either way, "bloodthirsty" is a cartoony way to interpret evil alignment, in my opinion.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Depending on the society, heads on a pike as a punishment and warning to others could be well within "what society expects", and therefore Lawful. Also Paladins aren't required to always be Lawful, and characters of any class aren't required to always act exactly as their alignment. Paladins are generally somewhat required to at least loosely follow the tenets of their Oath, and that behavior fits well within Oathbreaker tenets. So seems fine to me on all fronts
Any character could do that to serve a warning, even those not lawful evil. It's not for the light hearted but have nothing to do with alignment, which are much less impactful in 5E. Alignment in 5E are descriptor that broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes and offer typical behavior of a creature with that alignment, lawful evil creatures typically methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. But most importantly, Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior.
I would never restrict my player characters behaviors based on their alignment. At best if deviant behavior becomes frequent, i may suggest an alignment change, and only if in mutual agreement.
If the goblins were killed in self defense then their deaths were within the law, and by mounting their heads on a stick as a warning, they can make the argument that they are trying to prevent future loss of life by intimidating them into not attacking again. Just as the law would want!
Sounds lawful evil to me
Not to mention that an Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin’s heart has been extinguished, only darkness remains so this seem all legit on this front too
not everyone who picks Oathbreaker is planning to tie damsels to cart paths or whatever. anyway, that's probably what the dm was thinking. my first impression was that having an evil character didn't get covered thoroughly in season zero.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
May be it wasn't i was just citing the Oathbreaker definition to show that it's also not unreasonable from such paladin.
oh, i wasnt arguing. i just found it convenient to quote your words to make a point. i agree with most of what you've said on the whole page above. especially that the dm shouldn't try and force a player to adhere to an alignment. oh, for sure! even if this paladin had nursed one goblin back to health and got him a cushy job administrating orphanages that would still be "not unreasonable" if it forwards a story the character wants to tell.
rather than tell the player they're wrong, seems like the dm should take this opportunity to formulate a story hook to challenge and explore that. if the character really does harbor some interesting and consistent internal rules, then it'll be fun to land a good dramatic dilemma on them later.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Yeah i agree the DM and player should discuss this point
This sounds more like this is coming from an outside the table issue that someone might be having. Really might need to have a conversation about it.
Putting heads on sticks as a warning is something that bad guys do. Every jungle movie has some scene where one of the characters (usually the heroine) pushes aisde some leaves to reveal a head on a stick *dramatic music*! It signals that the party is enteroing the territory of the savages/cannibals/natives/whatever (depending on when the movie was made).
So, have a discussion with the player, "Are you really intending that your character be one of the bad guys?"
The anwers might be, "Yes. These goblins have proven that they don't understand civilised bevahour, so let's send them a message in a language they do understand."
The answer might be, "Umm, I never thought of it that way."
But have the conversation. Until you do, someone is going to be feeling uncomfortable.
Alignment is a guiding light not a pair of handcuffs. Lawful evil fighter can be nice to their dog and a neutral good cleric can be irritated at beggars.