Newbie here, I just rolled an Oath of Ancients Paladin, but I'm not sure just how restrictive my oath is. There's another Paladin in the group who's been calling me out on my "Shelter the Light" oath because I tend not to punish "evil" and not want to get involved. But, my whole point is always live and let live; good and evil are subjective terms, but death is final.
Am I free to interpret my oath? Or am I obligated, as a Paladin, to leap into every conflict and persecute all people/creatures who have the "evil" alignment? Am I playing the wrong class? Maybe I should talk to my DM, and see if he'd let me keep my character, but switch to a nature domain cleric.
Or maybe two paladins with differing oaths should have different understandings of what constitutes "good." Though I think the rest of the party is less interested in this philosophical conundrum.
Shelter the light doesn't require you to destroy evil, it requires you to protect good from evil. Also, just because someone is of evil alignment, that doesn't mean you should punish them. For example, an evil person can donate heavily to charity because it makes him look good and allows him to have a greater influence over his community.
Ideally, you would want to cover this with your DM. I only say that because you and the DM would be the ones to determine if the oaths have been broken, thus potentially becoming an Oathbreaker paladin. Also, the DM would be the one to answer the question of how much they are open to interpretation. The goal would be to not only talk about possible in game consequences, but also to get a better idea of how your specific paladin interprets the general oaths. Just a guess, but you may be more heavily influenced by the first part of the oath, Kindle the Light. You say live and let live. If this mentality comes from a paladin that tries to influence "evil" to a path of "good" and gives them an opportunity to make amends, then you are fully within the first part of your oath. (In quotes to represent game terms, specifically NPCs and monsters with evil in their stat block.)
Newbie here, I just rolled an Oath of Ancients Paladin, but I'm not sure just how restrictive my oath is. There's another Paladin in the group who's been calling me out on my "Shelter the Light" oath because I tend not to punish "evil" and not want to get involved. But, my whole point is always live and let live; good and evil are subjective terms, but death is final.
Am I free to interpret my oath? Or am I obligated, as a Paladin, to leap into every conflict and persecute all people/creatures who have the "evil" alignment? Am I playing the wrong class? Maybe I should talk to my DM, and see if he'd let me keep my character, but switch to a nature domain cleric.
Or maybe two paladins with differing oaths should have different understandings of what constitutes "good." Though I think the rest of the party is less interested in this philosophical conundrum.
You're absolutely right. Oath of Ancients is about preserving life and beauty, it is specifically not following classic Paladin ideals like Honor, duty or courage. You do not care what a knight would call Good or Evil, you are there to preserve beauty, nature and life. And that also means the life of crooks. That doesn't mean you are pacifist (you are still a Paladin after all), but you are supposed to inspire others by being a shining example of virtue and courage.
Be more concerned with always having laughter and joy in your heart. Under normal circumstances your fun to be around, at a funeral when your joking around and asking why everyones got a long face it can be hard on the bereaved. 'Be happy the gods gave you two children, you only lost half!' doesnt cheer anyone up.
I think the conflicting ideals are acutally a possible source for decent RP. The classic "Smite evil" paladin vs. the more flexible "Hippie" paladin. But like rules wise there's nothing wrong with playing a character as you see fit as long as the DM can roll with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Newbie here, I just rolled an Oath of Ancients Paladin, but I'm not sure just how restrictive my oath is. There's another Paladin in the group who's been calling me out on my "Shelter the Light" oath because I tend not to punish "evil" and not want to get involved. But, my whole point is always live and let live; good and evil are subjective terms, but death is final.
Am I free to interpret my oath? Or am I obligated, as a Paladin, to leap into every conflict and persecute all people/creatures who have the "evil" alignment? Am I playing the wrong class? Maybe I should talk to my DM, and see if he'd let me keep my character, but switch to a nature domain cleric.
Or maybe two paladins with differing oaths should have different understandings of what constitutes "good." Though I think the rest of the party is less interested in this philosophical conundrum.
Shelter the light doesn't require you to destroy evil, it requires you to protect good from evil. Also, just because someone is of evil alignment, that doesn't mean you should punish them. For example, an evil person can donate heavily to charity because it makes him look good and allows him to have a greater influence over his community.
Ideally, you would want to cover this with your DM. I only say that because you and the DM would be the ones to determine if the oaths have been broken, thus potentially becoming an Oathbreaker paladin. Also, the DM would be the one to answer the question of how much they are open to interpretation. The goal would be to not only talk about possible in game consequences, but also to get a better idea of how your specific paladin interprets the general oaths. Just a guess, but you may be more heavily influenced by the first part of the oath, Kindle the Light. You say live and let live. If this mentality comes from a paladin that tries to influence "evil" to a path of "good" and gives them an opportunity to make amends, then you are fully within the first part of your oath. (In quotes to represent game terms, specifically NPCs and monsters with evil in their stat block.)
You're absolutely right. Oath of Ancients is about preserving life and beauty, it is specifically not following classic Paladin ideals like Honor, duty or courage. You do not care what a knight would call Good or Evil, you are there to preserve beauty, nature and life. And that also means the life of crooks. That doesn't mean you are pacifist (you are still a Paladin after all), but you are supposed to inspire others by being a shining example of virtue and courage.
Be more concerned with always having laughter and joy in your heart. Under normal circumstances your fun to be around, at a funeral when your joking around and asking why everyones got a long face it can be hard on the bereaved. 'Be happy the gods gave you two children, you only lost half!' doesnt cheer anyone up.
I think the conflicting ideals are acutally a possible source for decent RP. The classic "Smite evil" paladin vs. the more flexible "Hippie" paladin.
But like rules wise there's nothing wrong with playing a character as you see fit as long as the DM can roll with it.