So, I'm not sure this is really metagaming as an understanding of how vengeance works for Oath of Vengeance paladins. I would say that the appropriateness of the reaction depends on certain factors. In your post, you mention that the paladin viewed the village as a threat. Certainly, that means that he has no remorse about destroying the village. On the other hand, he might not see an individual goblin as a threat, much less one that has been his ally and will continue to be his ally. Depending on his alignment, it might be entirely appropriate to accept another's vengeance with serenity if that vengeance is warranted; a lawful good paladin might believe that this individual has the right to take vengeance for the destruction of the village and subject himself to punishment. Meanwhile, a chaotic or evil paladin would potentially see this as a justified reason to attack and kill the (now surrendering?) goblin. Alignment is significant and if it's plausible that in character the paladin would make this decision, I'd allow it without consequence. I would ask the player why the paladin relents from attacking the goblin, and if the reason is coherent with the character's backstory and past actions, I'd allow the character to continue. If it's a significant break with the paladin's past actions, I would work in that it's a crisis of faith in his oath and force the paladin, in character, to reconstruct a worldview consistent with this action.
Honestly, though, on the topic of metagaming, this is the one kind I typically allow: things that are good for party cohesion. I've seen someone metagame and destroy party cohesion (one of the players had a chaotic evil druid who was actually a decent guy except for a genocidal hatred of drow that drove him to terrible violence and another player's lawful good special snowflake dragon-elf-human tribrid paladin-sorcerer somehow knew this despite the druid's good behavior in front of the party, going so far as to try to get the party to stop torturing a drow they had captured (so that he could kill that drow secretly under the guise of tending to his wounds) and acting disgusted when they continued torturing the drow) and that basically forced a player to retire a character to avoid long, in character lectures that interrupted party flow and just made the sessions not fun. The metagaming player should have been punished, especially since his character acted repeatedly on knowledge he did not actually have. Unfortunately, I was not the DM, so it went unnoticed and while the player's replacement character drove some interesting party dynamics, especially with the fun tensions between the charismatic but impatient warlock and dumb as bricks dragonborn fighter with no sense of personal space, it was still an unpleasant experience for the player who had to switch their character to avoid drama.
Am I the only one who thinks that this doesn't necessarily qualify as an oath break in the first place?
Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the greater evil.
No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.
By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can’t get in the way of exterminating my foes.
Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds.
This is the Vengence Paladin Oath. Is the new PC the paladin's sworn enemy? Is the goblin going to wreck ruin on the world? Is there not a greater evil afoot (ie the lich), than one single survivor who doesn't have the ability to do much on their own?
I can't see this situation as a violation of the Oath, no matter how strict we take it. If anything, I'd say killing the new PC would actually violate the Greater Evil part of the Oath, since that is reducing the potential to stop the evil going on.
Am I the only one who thinks that this doesn't necessarily qualify as an oath break in the first place?
No you're not the only one. If the Paladin broke the oath at all, I think it would have been in killing the non fighting members of the village. Unless the oath of vengeance was to kill the entire race, the non fighting villagers were clearly not the greater evil.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, I'm not sure this is really metagaming as an understanding of how vengeance works for Oath of Vengeance paladins. I would say that the appropriateness of the reaction depends on certain factors. In your post, you mention that the paladin viewed the village as a threat. Certainly, that means that he has no remorse about destroying the village. On the other hand, he might not see an individual goblin as a threat, much less one that has been his ally and will continue to be his ally. Depending on his alignment, it might be entirely appropriate to accept another's vengeance with serenity if that vengeance is warranted; a lawful good paladin might believe that this individual has the right to take vengeance for the destruction of the village and subject himself to punishment. Meanwhile, a chaotic or evil paladin would potentially see this as a justified reason to attack and kill the (now surrendering?) goblin. Alignment is significant and if it's plausible that in character the paladin would make this decision, I'd allow it without consequence. I would ask the player why the paladin relents from attacking the goblin, and if the reason is coherent with the character's backstory and past actions, I'd allow the character to continue. If it's a significant break with the paladin's past actions, I would work in that it's a crisis of faith in his oath and force the paladin, in character, to reconstruct a worldview consistent with this action.
Honestly, though, on the topic of metagaming, this is the one kind I typically allow: things that are good for party cohesion. I've seen someone metagame and destroy party cohesion (one of the players had a chaotic evil druid who was actually a decent guy except for a genocidal hatred of drow that drove him to terrible violence and another player's lawful good special snowflake dragon-elf-human tribrid paladin-sorcerer somehow knew this despite the druid's good behavior in front of the party, going so far as to try to get the party to stop torturing a drow they had captured (so that he could kill that drow secretly under the guise of tending to his wounds) and acting disgusted when they continued torturing the drow) and that basically forced a player to retire a character to avoid long, in character lectures that interrupted party flow and just made the sessions not fun. The metagaming player should have been punished, especially since his character acted repeatedly on knowledge he did not actually have. Unfortunately, I was not the DM, so it went unnoticed and while the player's replacement character drove some interesting party dynamics, especially with the fun tensions between the charismatic but impatient warlock and dumb as bricks dragonborn fighter with no sense of personal space, it was still an unpleasant experience for the player who had to switch their character to avoid drama.
Am I the only one who thinks that this doesn't necessarily qualify as an oath break in the first place?
This is the Vengence Paladin Oath. Is the new PC the paladin's sworn enemy? Is the goblin going to wreck ruin on the world? Is there not a greater evil afoot (ie the lich), than one single survivor who doesn't have the ability to do much on their own?
I can't see this situation as a violation of the Oath, no matter how strict we take it. If anything, I'd say killing the new PC would actually violate the Greater Evil part of the Oath, since that is reducing the potential to stop the evil going on.