I was thinking of an Inspector Javert-type character who, after many years of trying and failing to bring his arch nemesis to account, is angered by their death and, as he sees it, their escape from justice.

So he sets out on a journey into the bowels of hell to find the man's soul and ensure he is held accountable for his crimes.

The journey is full of challenges and dangers that he is unaware of at the beginning and ones that he must overcome if he is to succeed.

As a former guard, he was a capable fighter, but his determination and desire to bring this man to justice (even in death) has further empowered him so that he starts the game as a Paladin. However, I'm not quite sure what oath this character would take.  

I have already asked on Reddit whether or not this character is lawful good, and the consensus is that he would be lawful neutral.  

I am curious, however, whether or not you all think the reason this character becomes an adventurer is, well, reasonable.  

Also, what Paladin Oath do you think would suit him best?

I'm not getting something; Javert from Les Misérables was definitely Lawful Evil. His oath was his righteous fanaticism that he really believes he's doing justice. this destroys him in the end. I think it's a great character idea though! I just don't get the alignment. 

In a setting with the typical D&D cosmology, someone who gets upset about their foe dying and going to the Nine Hells because they see it as "escaping" justice is definitely neutral, not good.  That is not a place of reward, that is a place that you get sent to for being evil as a punishment.  Someone taking offense to that?  They're not playing with a full deck.

As far as which paladin oath fits a character with that motivation?  Oath of Vengeance and it's not even a debate.

Quote from TWForgeCleric >>

I am curious, however, whether or not you all think the reason this character becomes an adventurer is, well, reasonable.  

I don't see why this character would be an adventurer at all. They already have a very specific quest they've set themselves on, and it doesn't seem like anything would make them deviate from it. Like, is the rest of the party going to keep tricking the paladin into going into dungeons with them by claiming there's a gateway to hell in it?

This might be an interesting NPC to encounter in a Descent Into Avernus campaign, but this is not a coherent motivation for a PC

Now, if it's not their actual motivation, and just some colorful story they tell around the campfire ("one of these days, I'm going to march down to hell and drag that bastard back up, just so I can show those devils what real justice is like!"), a Javert-like paladin would almost certainly be Oath of the Crown

Quote from AntonSirius >>.  

 

I don't see why this character would be an adventurer at all. They already have a very specific quest they've set themselves on, and it doesn't seem like anything would make them deviate from it. Like, is the rest of the party going to keep tricking the paladin into going into dungeons with them by claiming there's a gateway to hell in it?

This might be an interesting NPC to encounter in a Descent Into Avernus campaign, but this is not a coherent motivation for a PC...

 That depends on the campaign. If they're doing a lot of diversions for random dungeon dives or whatever, sure, I'd agree. If the character sees everything they're doing as necessary to get to that target...then that would work. It'd be a bit challenging to maintain that over a campaign, but it's doable.

Ooh! I would say vengeance paladin too because of the flavor. Its mechanics are alright, as it helps you find and chase down your sworn enemy. If you are more interested in beating the crap out of your sworn enemies, and you do not mind reflavoring the tenets, the mechanics of conquest might be more to your liking.

As for the alignment, I think that depends on your GM more than anything. If I was the GM, as long as you can justify your PC's alignment and it makes sense to you, I am not going to tell you "no, it should be alignment XY instead".

The flag waving detail I'm seeing is a guy has a lifelong nemesis that dies and that is what spurs him into becoming a first level adventurer. Unless he already had the class and was taking levels while unsuccessfully attempting to catch the foe. In which case I'm agreeing fully with 6LG on this one that the character is Lawful Neutral, about two grapes shy of a fruit salad with a jumbo side of crazy fries, and Oath of Vengeance. 

I second Vengeance. Even though your character is not looking to personally revenge themself on this person, the relentless pursuit of a target just fits the motif too well. 

And Vengeance need not *just* be evil. Sure there's shades of grey around it even if it isn't black and white, but Batman represents Vengeance, and it's not evil. It is a matter of whether you're talking personal vengeance (i.e revenge, which is bad), or whether you're talking vengeance on behalf of a code that's been violated, or vengeance on behalf of the people who have been wronged, then you're into more of a dark gray territory (depending on the cause/code) than straight up evil. 

Quote from AntonSirius >>

This might be an interesting NPC to encounter in a Descent Into Avernus campaign, but this is not a coherent motivation for a PC

Quote from Flushmaster>>

The flag waving detail I'm seeing is a guy has a lifelong nemesis that dies and that is what spurs him into becoming a first level adventurer.

I am not overly fond of either of these arguments, and think they verge heavily on “you are wrong to play the character you want to play.”

Both of these concerns are not that hard for the OP to solve. Let’s look at Javert, the inspiration for this character.  Yes, he has an incredible desire to capture his nemesis…. But, while his desire to capture Valjean consumes him, he still is capable of functioning - he does other things in the novel/play/1998 film (the 2012 film was garbage and shouldn’t count), like trying to arrest folks or infiltrating the revolutionaries.  He is relentless in his pursuit of Valjean, but that does not fully exclude him from other pursuits. 

People are complicated and rarely are limited to one driving factor. I feel too many D&D players read “this character idea’s primary motivation is X” as “this character idea’s solitary motivation is X.”  OP’s character almost certainly became fixated on his Valjean out of some drive for law, his view of good, etc. - he isn’t going to forget the underlying traits that gave him the fixation just because he has an obsession.

For the age thing, that’s something that can be said about so many character backgrounds that it is silly - particularly when the OP never said they were starting at level 1, so you are just shooting off a complaint about the character idea without even knowing that complaint is relevant to the thread. 

There’s plenty of ways to justify this kind of character, even at level 1.  Maybe he didn’t take his oath until he learned of his Valjean’s death.  Perhaps he had taken his oath long ago, but his connection to the oath waned as he grew more complacent with not finding Valjean, and the death sparked a desire to re-attune with the presently-degraded oath.  Maybe they were a really good investigator, but not a very good combatant, so they’re learning how to actually fight.  Or perhaps they were a good fighter, but grew old and slow, so can’t swing a sword very well… until they get a divine energy to reinvigorate tired bones. 

Or perhaps they just accept the fiction that every player needs to start at the same level for the game to be fair, and acknowledge backstory is more for personality than levels, so who really cares if it doesn’t make sense?

So, OP, I wouldn’t see either of these as real problems - they’re both easy enough to account for that it borders on unhelpful to bring them up without also presenting any “but here is a reason or two so you can explain that” assistance at the same time.

Quote from TWForgeCleric >>

So he sets out on a journey into the bowels of hell to find the man's soul and ensure he is held accountable for his crimes.

The journey is full of challenges and dangers that he is unaware of at the beginning and ones that he must overcome if he is to succeed.

That's not a character you can just drop into LMoP and have it make much sense

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

I am not overly fond of either of these arguments, and think they verge heavily on “you are wrong to play the character you want to play.”

 

It's part of a DM's job to make sure a character's backstory fits their campaign -- not simply take whatever the player hands them and find a way to shoehorn it in. OP obviously understands this, or they wouldn't have asked their question to begin with 

Unless this is a character specifically created for a "let's all go to hell" scenario, it's going to need some heavy tweaking

Quote from AntonSirius>>

Unless this is a character specifically created for a "let's all go to hell" scenario, it's going to need some heavy tweaking

See and this is my problem - when you start by just launching into accusing the OP of making something that “doesn’t sound like an adventurer” and then go on to admit your entire post is predicated on assuming facts not in evidence, it rather seems like you are more concerned telling the OP about how much you do not like the character.  You could have asked “is this a hell campaign” but instead just assumed that the OP was making a character without taking their specific campaign into account.

But, hey, why ask the OP “what type of campaign are you doing?” and, if they say “open world adventuring shenanigans” then pointing out concerns based on a legitimate issue when you could just launch into accusing them of making a PC with “not a coherent motivation”!

An interesting idea but one that ultimately can only be answered by you discussing it with your DM. 

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from TWForgeCleric >>

I am curious, however, whether or not you all think the reason this character becomes an adventurer is, well, reasonable.  

I don't see why this character would be an adventurer at all. They already have a very specific quest they've set themselves on, and it doesn't seem like anything would make them deviate from it. Like, is the rest of the party going to keep tricking the paladin into going into dungeons with them by claiming there's a gateway to hell in it?

 This illustrates the difference between a goal and a motivation. Generally, it's much better for a PC to have a motivation rather than a goal because otherwise you need to constantly be justifying how every action is leading to your goal, and then if you manage to achieve it you need to justify why your character would continue adventuring. Whereas if you had a character who's motivation was "See that justice is administered to all evildoers," you've got an ongoing hook and you can also kind of explore the boundaries of what counts as "justice" and who counts as "evildoers." Overall there's just a lot more you can do as the character evolves.

Generally when a character's backstory focuses on a goal, the backstory itself is attempting to tell the full story of the character. Not just how they began, but how their story will end. I would suggest that it can be much more fulfilling to create a character with a more open future so that you can react to the ongoing campaign story and just see where they end up.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having a goal, so long as your character is willing to do other things. With a party, it can be a 'you scratch my back I scratch yours' sort of deal where the party helps eachother out. Not every outing has to advance the goal of every single party member, so long as working with the group in general does more for their goal than working alone would. Plus, the experience, loot, info etc they can find along the way may be able to contribute to said goal. In a prior campaign for example, my rogue had a couple very specific goals in mind but that didn't mean she'd leave the rest of the party high and dry when it came to helping them out too. 

 A goal can also shift or be replaced over time. By the time my rogue achieved what she first set out to do, she had a new goal by the end of it. 

For the OP's example, getting into hell isn't a simple goal, it's one that would likely need to be worked up toward throughout the campaign unless you're doing DIA etc. It could be an end game goal for the character who is willing to do other things to help their allies etc along the way, rather than insisting that every moment be spent working towards it. 

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from AntonSirius>>

Unless this is a character specifically created for a "let's all go to hell" scenario, it's going to need some heavy tweaking

 

See and this is my problem - when you start by just launching into accusing the OP of making something that “doesn’t sound like an adventurer” and then go on to admit your entire post is predicated on assuming facts not in evidence, it rather seems like you are more concerned telling the OP about how much you do not like the character.

I answered the question OP asked. I didn't "accuse" them of anything -- unlike what you're doing right now to me -- and considering I offered suggestions on how to make the character work in any campaign, I have no clue where you're getting the idea I don't like the concept

For whatever reason, you seem to be reading a lot more into my posts than what it there. Maybe take it down a notch or two

This would be a campaign through the 9 hells.  It isn’t descent into avernus but it is a hell campaign.  

We don’t start out in the hells, we have to find our way there, and we start at level 6.  

We all have our own reasons for going but are united in a single purpose.  Bad things are coming out of the Yawning Portal and we have been contracted or volunteered to investigate, discover what is happening and put a stop to it.  

So we are strangers thrust together by common cause, but we all have our reasons for why we became an adventurer in the first place, and our own goals and desires that drive us.  

*shrugs* I have seen this OP begin to second guess perfectly serviceable ideas because they get barraged by folks who make assumptions about their campaign, group, etc. That’s not cool, and I’d hate to see it happen to OP again.

From your subsequent posts, here is what you actually meant to say initially, in a manner that actually answers the question itself, and scrubbed of dismissive language like saying their idea is “not cohesive” or problematic and insulting assumptions like “let’s just assume from the getgo that you did not consider your own campaign when making your character”:

The idea is cohesive and makes sense if this is a character specifically created for a "let's all go to hell" scenario, it's not going to need much tweaking.  However, if you are not planning on going to hell it might require some tweaking to make the character fit with the party - every character needs a reason to travel with the party and a reason the party wants to travel with that character.  If your party is not trying to go to hell, a character laser focused on going to hell could be a problem.  That still does not mean you cannot use this as your backstory, just that you might want to find some other motivation as well that keeps your feet more firmly planted on the plane your party will be exploring.

Edit: Just saw OP’s subsequent post, which just goes to show why one shouldn’t be more concerned with basing advice on assumptions, rather than obtaining facts.

Quote from TWForgeCleric >>

This would be a campaign through the 9 hells.  It isn’t descent into avernus but it is a hell campaign.  

We don’t start out in the hells, we have to find our way there, and we start at level 6.  

We all have our own reasons for going but are united in a single purpose.  Bad things are coming out of the Yawning Portal and we have been contracted or volunteered to investigate, discover what is happening and put a stop to it.  

So we are strangers thrust together by common cause, but we all have our reasons for why we became an adventurer in the first place, and our own goals and desires that drive us.  

As scatterbraind said above, there's a big difference between having a concrete goal, like "Drag my arch-nemesis back from hell so they can face real justice", and a motivation, like "My arch-nemesis escaped justice (by dying like a coward) and I've taken an oath never to let that happen again"

Let me ask you this. If, as part of the main campaign quest, you do find your arch-nemesis, or even just a clue to their whereabouts... would your character actually try to do what they swore they'd do, and set off to bring them back from hell to face mortal justice? Or would you stay on mission?

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

In a setting with the typical D&D cosmology, someone who gets upset about their foe dying and going to the Nine Hells because they see it as "escaping" justice is definitely neutral, not good.  That is not a place of reward, that is a place that you get sent to for being evil as a punishment.  Someone taking offense to that?  They're not playing with a full deck.

As far as which paladin oath fits a character with that motivation?  Oath of Vengeance and it's not even a debate.

 I'd say that person is Lawful Evil if they take offence to a guilty person being punished. But yeah, Vengeance for sure. This isn't about upholding the laws or even justice as Oath of the Crown is, this is purely to satisfy the character's own personal twisted desires.

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from TWForgeCleric >>

I am curious, however, whether or not you all think the reason this character becomes an adventurer is, well, reasonable.  

 

I don't see why this character would be an adventurer at all. They already have a very specific quest they've set themselves on, and it doesn't seem like anything would make them deviate from it. Like, is the rest of the party going to keep tricking the paladin into going into dungeons with them by claiming there's a gateway to hell in it?

This might be an interesting NPC to encounter in a Descent Into Avernus campaign, but this is not a coherent motivation for a PC

 This. This a perfect example of a character that would only work as an NPC or that needs to have the campaigned adjusted around it.

Quote from TWForgeCleric >>

This would be a campaign through the 9 hells.  It isn’t descent into avernus but it is a hell campaign.  

We don’t start out in the hells, we have to find our way there, and we start at level 6.  

We all have our own reasons for going but are united in a single purpose.  Bad things are coming out of the Yawning Portal and we have been contracted or volunteered to investigate, discover what is happening and put a stop to it.  

So we are strangers thrust together by common cause, but we all have our reasons for why we became an adventurer in the first place, and our own goals and desires that drive us.  

 But you don't have a common cause. The other have the cause of stopping the evils coming out of the portal. Your character's cause is, according to what you've written, to go into hell and to get satsifaction for their own desires. And why isn't this character already on their way to hell? The question has already been asked but bears repeating, what happens if your character has to choose between the mission and their own personal satisfaction?

People juggle multiple jobs at a time. There is no reason OP's character cannot juggle multiple goals at the same time. Nick picking on a character's ability to multitask is like questioning your parents ability to raise multiple kids at once, work their jobs, and take care of all the chores around the house. Come on guys.