Paladin Oath of Vengeance

[FiranDarcalus]

Hi everyone! New to the board, but VERY long time fan of your work. Been playing Ravenloft for close to 20 years now & been following this site for close to 15 (not sure why I never posted before LOL). I especially love your Quoth the Raven netbooks...such awesome & inspiring stuff!

I have a question for everyone because I would like your opinions on this. So I'm starting a new 5th ed game with some of my buddies. Game set in Barovia. One of my friends seems very set on playing a paladin, which I'm ok with. However, he really wants to go Oath of Vengeance for his character (specifically vengeance towards the undead). Now in reading the oath, I feel like it is not the most Ravenloft vibe you could have. I think I take especial issue with the whole ends justifying the means.

Tenets of Vengeance
The tenets of the Oath of Vengeance vary by paladin, but all the tenets revolve around punishing wrongdoers by any means necessary. Paladins who uphold these tenets are willing to sacrifice even their own righteousness to mete out justice upon those who do evil, so the paladins are often neutral or lawful neutral in alignment. The core principles of the tenets are brutally simple.

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.

So I underlined the parts that make me a bit leery of this oath. I just feel like in Ravenloft, a Paladin is supposed to be the beacon of light in the dark sort of thing. I guess my question is A) Have any of you DM'd/played a Paladin w/ oath of v & how did that go & B) Am I perhaps overthinking this as being an issue.

Appreciate any feedback you might have & look forward to posting more often!

[DustBunny]

Idle thoughts incoming

An oath of vengeance could easily fit into RL, - Van Richten sort of started on this path with the Radovan tribe incident, Jander Sunstar got drawn into RL due to his oath, etc. The 'vengance-fall-redemption' arc is an old trope, but as with RPG type scenarios - it’s up to the player.

But it will be a double-edged sword - the Dark Powers are going to take more than a passing interest in somebody with such an oath who also happens to be a paladin. The two tenets you have highlighted are going to be carefully watched, with the DP's more than happy to give said paladin a little nudge (powers check) if it takes their fancy. JS and VR backed away when they saw where the trail was going, will the Paladin do so?

After a messy and bloody battle with undead that claimed many of the innocent, will the paladin look at the blood on his hands and have an epiphany that his single-minded obsession could be wrong? Will he think 'What have I done' and start the long road back to redemption? Or will he simply shrug 'It was regrettable but necessary' as he continues down the road of good intentions.... (Hello, Elena Faith-hold Mk2).

From the mechanical point of view, as it is set in Barovia it is very easy to justify why such an oath exists - maybe Strahd or one of his minions used the PC's relatives for a snack. But if the reasoning behind it is 'Ravenloft = Lots of Undead to stomp', it probably won’t work very well.

[Mischief]

Hi everyone! New to the board, but VERY long time fan of your work. Been playing Ravenloft for close to 20 years now & been following this site for close to 15 (not sure why I never posted before LOL). I especially love your Quoth the Raven netbooks...such awesome & inspiring stuff!

I have a question for everyone because I would like your opinions on this. So I'm starting a new 5th ed game with some of my buddies. Game set in Barovia. One of my friends seems very set on playing a paladin, which I'm ok with. However, he really wants to go Oath of Vengeance for his character (specifically vengeance towards the undead). Now in reading the oath, I feel like it is not the most Ravenloft vibe you could have. I think I take especial issue with the whole ends justifying the means.

Tenets of Vengeance
The tenets of the Oath of Vengeance vary by paladin, but all the tenets revolve around punishing wrongdoers by any means necessary. Paladins who uphold these tenets are willing to sacrifice even their own righteousness to mete out justice upon those who do evil, so the paladins are often neutral or lawful neutral in alignment. The core principles of the tenets are brutally simple.

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.

So I underlined the parts that make me a bit leery of this oath. I just feel like in Ravenloft, a Paladin is supposed to be the beacon of light in the dark sort of thing. I guess my question is A) Have any of you DM'd/played a Paladin w/ oath of v & how did that go & B) Am I perhaps overthinking this as being an issue.

Appreciate any feedback you might have & look forward to posting more often!

5e doesn't include powers checks (by default, your table may be different). The overall Curse of Strahd moral vibe has slid a little more towards the utilitarian consequentialist end of the deontological-utilitarian consequentialist moral line compared to early Ravenloft.

A Paladin of Vengeance would be extremely dramatic in CoS, Strahd's favorite sort of chew toy. There's also a really good showdown with a certain order of knights that could come out of it.

If you are in a position to make suggestions, maybe ask your friend to play the paladin as conniving, no matter what his/her stats are. Like a Batman-type hero. A patient strategist willing to overlook evil or even do some of it to catch a bigger foe in a moment of weakness. Barovia is like an evil buffet, you don't want to fill up on the teasing appetizers before the main courses come out.

CoS has a lot of likely-to-TPK encounters if they are charged into head-on with no cunning or strategy. As long as the other players are happy, and the Paladin isn't forcing the other PCs to attack directly because smashing every visible evil as soon as it appears is what his/her character would do, then things will probably be okay.

Edit: I am assuming you aren't the DM. If you are, my advice changes slightly.

[Wolfglide of the Fraternity]

There is certainly a risk that the character could behave as an over-the-top vigilante, pursuing justice "by any means necessary," even if it flouts local laws and generally interferes with the creation of a Gothic story.

I remember struggling with something like this before in a non-Ravenloft game. One of the players was playing a chaotic good priestly sort, and the city the party was inhabiting held a strong lawful neutral ethos. The head of law enforcement insisted that people could only be punished for actually attempting or committing crimes, not just being detected as evil (a fairly open-minded concept). Even though the party was concerned that dangerous shapeshifters were entering the city, the guards refused to take drastic action without more evidence.

Taking matters into his own hands, the chaotic good character camped out in the forest near the city gate and pegged any evil humanoids passing by with arrows. In response, one of the churches of the city was petitioned to call a planar ally to bring him to justice. When it became clear the city would punish lawbreakers, no matter their intentions, the character agreed to moderate his behavior.

If something like this happens, a reasonable consequence can be concocted to handle the character. In Ravenloft, the Dark Powers can start paying attention to the character as well. The tricky part is making sure the response is not ham-fisted railroading.

That being said, I don't think the Oath of Vengeance is necessarily going to be problematic. To me, it seems like the paladin could take a sort of Avenger role (as in the prestige class from Van Richten's Arsenal Volume I). That would be quite reasonable for the mood of a Ravenloft campaign. It is certainly not a classical paladin role, but it can work and be interesting. If you want to allow a character like this, but don't like the idea of it being classified as a paladin, you could negotiate with the player to reskin the class.

[Five]

I just feel like in Ravenloft, a Paladin is supposed to be the beacon of light in the dark sort of thing.

The issue here could very well be as Mischief pretty much said: your view of paladins in general and RL in particular doesn't necessarily line up with official 5th edition material. Old(er) versus new, edition versus edition, etc.

5E (through CoS) has essentially erased the moral compass/Player-PC introspection/DM thematic mechanic that by and large made Ravenloft, the setting, what it is. And the paladin has changed as well. I can only assume both were done to open up possibilities for the players. Streamline, inclusion, adventure-only adaptation (I don't think any had the Powers Check in them), etc. Simple put, the official RL focus has shifted. 2E took the dungeons from the dragons, 3E balanced setting with game, and 5E seems to be giving the dungeons back to the dragons. And the paladin has become a weapon of dogma rather than a singular divine force against Evil. Regardless, here we are.

Unless a Powers Check is introduced to a 5E RL table then the actions, and inactions, of a over-zealous paladin (or any PC for that matter) doesn't have to carry such grave consequences. As long as the vow isn't broken (and they don't mind being vilified by the loved ones of their victims) then it's a non-mechanical issue. Sure, it'll still make for a great PC background and some cool roleplaying opportunities, but it's only "enforcable" as long as the players want it to be. In other words, PC fluff/DM loose ends.

Funny that this came up because my next sidequest involves a paladin with the possibility of a fall from grace due to zealotry...

[FiranDarcalus]

Hi everyone,

Thanks so much for your feedback, really appreciated. As some context, I'm not actually using Curse of Strahd. I am using 5th ed rules, but am keeping the general 3.5 White Wolf campaign vibe that I've always used. I also bought off DM's Guild the really excellent Heroes the Mist book (which I believe Frat member Jester created & is AMAZING). So I will be using powers checks, dark shdows, etc & still using more of the 3.5 vibe I guess. I honestly was not crazy about CoS...found it very Forgotten Realmsy to be honest.

Dust Bunny I like your whole turn to the darkness (Elena-style) vibe, but not sure my friend will be ok w/ that. He has a tendency to want to have his cake & eat it too when it comes to character creation.

Mischief, I am DM'ing the game & am looking at Barovia through the lens of 3.5 Gaz. Am also going to be running as my 1st adventure the Beast of Graenseskov adv from DM's guild (find it really neat).

Anyway, given the extra detail I just mentioned, let me know if you have anything else to add, as I really appreciate the feedback. My friend can be difficult sometimes (like I said, likes his cake & eating it as well).

[The Lesser Evil]

Hi everyone,

Thanks so much for your feedback, really appreciated. As some context, I'm not actually using Curse of Strahd. I am using 5th ed rules, but am keeping the general 3.5 White Wolf campaign vibe that I've always used. I also bought off DM's Guild the really excellent Heroes the Mist book (which I believe Frat member Jester created & is AMAZING). So I will be using powers checks, dark shdows, etc & still using more of the 3.5 vibe I guess. I honestly was not crazy about CoS...found it very Forgotten Realmsy to be honest.

Dust Bunny I like your whole turn to the darkness (Elena-style) vibe, but not sure my friend will be ok w/ that. He has a tendency to want to have his cake & eat it too when it comes to character creation.

Mischief, I am DM'ing the game & am looking at Barovia through the lens of 3.5 Gaz. Am also going to be running as my 1st adventure the Beast of Graenseskov adv from DM's guild (find it really neat).

Anyway, given the extra detail I just mentioned, let me know if you have anything else to add, as I really appreciate the feedback. My friend can be difficult sometimes (like I said, likes his cake & eating it as well).

It sounds like you're expressing a desire for authenticity, specifically authentically relating to your understanding of the paladin and the Ravenloft setting as related to the 3rd edition materials. Is that a fair understanding of where you're coming from?

In addition, it might be helpful to hear what the player is looking for in playing a paladin with the Oath of Vengeance. What is the desired experience they're seeking to fulfill by this option?

[Five]

I also bought off DM's Guild the really excellent Heroes the Mist book (which I believe Frat member Jester created & is AMAZING). So I will be using powers checks, dark shdows, etc & still using more of the 3.5 vibe I guess.

That should do the trick. Powers Checks can be the go-between between the player's wants and your RL wants. It could help keep the player/PC focused on the Good aspect of their class selection/vocation even in times when their oath becomes a moral liability to themselves and the others in the party (lose your power or lose your soul). An in-game heads up from you to them. After that, it's all on the player and their choices. Spilt milk and all that. Heh

All that's to say is there should be no reason to not allow the player to play a paladin who has sworn an oath of vengeance. And there should be no reason for you, as DM, to not frame RL however you see fit. If the PC becomes a sullen individual who snaps at the confirmation of Evil, then so be it. They're just a paladin cut from a different cloth (than the old school variety). If they snap at the supposition of Evil then there's going to be harsh consequences at some point in time. The road to wisdom could be a cool and rewarding one to play out either way.

Hope whatever you decide turns out to be fun for you all.

[Mischief]

It sounds like you're expressing a desire for authenticity, specifically authentically relating to your understanding of the paladin and the Ravenloft setting as related to the 3rd edition materials. Is that a fair understanding of where you're coming from?

In addition, it might be helpful to hear what the player is looking for in playing a paladin with the Oath of Vengeance. What is the desired experience they're seeking to fulfill by this option?

This is a great insight. I think a "Session 0" where the DM explains the fundamentals of the world he wants to weave before players create their characters is going to be a necessity. In my opinion, 5e has a pretty significant culture clash with pre-5e Ravenloft such that a discussion about the viability of PC antiheroes is warranted.

I'm only speaking from my own experience, but when I started reading through the Pre-5e Ravenloft modules/rulebooks before I joined the forum, I felt like I was telling myself a lot from a player perspective "well that's not viable, can't do that, forget that whole class, that race is right out." The emphasis seemed to be on closing doors of opportunity to force the right vibe. It's definitely something players ought to know about ahead of time as far as outcasting, NPC racism and biases and whatnot might be concerned.

Also talk to your players about the morality of the Dark Powers and how you intend to twist magic, assuming you do so.

The biggest pre/post 5e point of conflict IMHO is how Ravenloft handles magic and morals. Barring a few spells, magic in 5e is a neutral force that depends on how it is used.
Example A. Xanathar's Cleric of the Grave. "Gods of the grave watch over the line between life and death. To desecrate the peace of the dead is an abomination. Followers of these deities seek to put wandering spirits to rest, destroy the undead, and ease the suffering of the dying." Cleric of the Grave's domain spell list includes: ray of enfeeblement, vampiric touch, blight, raise dead. The domain is basically a good necromancer who seeks to set the life-death balance right, even if it requires hiccups along the way for the greater good. (If anyone does have the opportunity to play CoS, ask your DM about playing a grave cleric and taking a sharpened shovel as a weapon.)

I can't find it in my self-notes, but somewhere I described the Dark Powers as something along the lines of "the apotheosized souls of the schoolboard nannies who would expel a third grader because grandma sent her to school with a knife to cut the birthday cake she brought in." and "deontological extremists." I found them so counter-intuitive to the way 5e is played (and an unfun drag), I rebooted them. If you are going to play the Ravenloft gods as "evil dicks you hope to go unnoticed by", which they are in pre-5e, let your players know.

[FiranDarcalus]

My group is pretty experienced with Ravenloft and the general atmosphere as we have been playing it for many years. I think I probably have to adjust my expectations a bit as you are right, 5ed definitely changes up the atmosphere a bit. I was planning on having a session 0 sort of thing with each and every character anyway, so I think I will address some of my concerns. To be fair, I actually don't mind the 5ed Paladin that much, I think the Oath of Vengeance just seems a bit off for me...of course I'm probably seeing the Paladin through my old fashioned lens...which is certainly on me to adjust.

After speaking with my friend, he's actually ok about maybe even adjusting some of the workings of the Oath of Vengeance, so i'm really glad about that. I think things will work out, and if he decides to go a bit AWOL with it, well then there are always the dark powers there to remind him (mwa ha ha).

Thanks everyone for the suggestions, I appreciate it!

[ewancummins]

I'd let him play it, but warn him up front that Ravenloft's rules and ethos trump any 5E stuff.
That is, if his character does evil deeds, he cannot expect some special exception from powers checks and the like, and if his guy does too many evil things he might become a Creature of Ravenloft and therefore an NPC.

[Hell_Born]

The Oath of Vengeance Paladin traces its DNA all the way back to the Domains of Dread version of Ravenloft, where the Avenger was literally introduced as a Ravenloft version of the Paladin; its entire thing was "vengeance-driven vigilante/madman", to the point its abilities actually only functioned against a single designated individual foe that they were driven to destroy. So, yeah, the Oath of Vengeance makes perfect sense as a Ravenloft character to me - about the only real difference between it and the Avenger is that the OoV Paladin is actually useful against opponents other than a single boss monster.

[ewancummins]

It's not necessarily based on revenge, but the Avenger high level fighter variant in BECMI is pretty nifty.
In Classic/BECMI, there are no low level paladins. Rather, a 9th level Lawful fighter can swear fealty to a Lawful clerical order and gain some clerical powers. Neutrals can become secular knights (RC makes it clear that L and C fighters have this option, too). Chaotics can become Avengers. Avengers don't turn undead. Instead they can compel undead and also attract the service of Chaotic monsters.

As far as the DoD Avenger goes, I like the class but I don't think I ever saw anybody actually play one.

[Hell_Born]

As far as the DoD Avenger goes, I like the class but I don't think I ever saw anybody actually play one.

Well, yeah... I mean, I don't want to edition war, but the DoD Avenger was... kind of awful. You had what was basically a gimmicky Fighter/Ranger hybrid who both advanced on the Paladin EXP table (aka, one of the slowest growth rates in AD&D) and whose special abilities only ever functioned against a single individual, making you basically useless except against that one opponent. The best you can say is that A: it was clearly designed for one-shot adventures, and B: at least it wasn't the Arcanist, a hybrid Necromancer/Diviner in a setting where necromancy spells are basically going to screw you over and 99% of divination spells just don't work.

[ewancummins]

As far as the DoD Avenger goes, I like the class but I don't think I ever saw anybody actually play one.

Well, yeah... I mean, I don't want to edition war, but the DoD Avenger was... kind of awful. You had what was basically a gimmicky Fighter/Ranger hybrid who both advanced on the Paladin EXP table (aka, one of the slowest growth rates in AD&D) and whose special abilities only ever functioned against a single individual, making you basically useless except against that one opponent. The best you can say is that A: it was clearly designed for one-shot adventures, and B: at least it wasn't the Arcanist, a hybrid Necromancer/Diviner in a setting where necromancy spells are basically going to screw you over and 99% of divination spells just don't work.

I like the Avenger of DoD but I agree that advancing as a paladin is pretty harsh. I'd place the class on the standard fighter table.
It's not really a class of it own. It's more like a kit.
And I note that the Avenger does not gain the DoD fighter's bravery special ability (unless I am not remembering it correctly).