Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Coredump00 Oct 31, 2014 7:18:27	So one of the tenents of the Oath is:   Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil. I choose the greater evil.     This doesn't make sense to me.   By "RAW" i guess it would mean I fight my sworn foe, but this would be a *really* clumsey way of writing that.  Should have made the titel "Fight my Sworn Foes".  Also, when giving a choice of A or B, the answer should be given as 'A', instead of saying 'notB'.   What I *think* makes much more sense all around, is if there was a typo, and they meant the choice to be Sworn Foe vs Greater Evil.  Then the choice makes sense and the title makes sense.   Any ideas on this?
#2 Elfcrusher Oct 31, 2014 7:30:32	Um, I don't think you're reading it correctly.  Or I'm not reading what you wrote correctly.   I think it means "If my sworn enemy is on the battlefield I have to attack it first."  That is, the sworn enemy is always the greater evil from the paladin's point of view...even if there is an objectively greater evil, or a tactically smarter target.  Two examples:   1) Your sworn enemy is on the battlefield with full health, and so is Tiamat, who only has 1 HP left.  Sorry...you have to attack your sworn enemy. 2) Your sworn enemy is 100' away, and you are surrounded by kobolds.  Kill them all with Destructive Smite?  Nope....gotta chase your sworn enemy.  (Ok, maybe in that cirucmstance you could get away with Destructive Smite as long as you then immediately move toward your enemy. But you get the idea.)
(Reply to #2) Coredump00	Elfcrusher wrote:
#4 IxidorRS Oct 31, 2014 10:21:27	No, no. The Sworn Foe IS the Greater Evil.
(Reply to #4) Nevvur	IxidorRS wrote:
#6 Timborama Oct 31, 2014 12:35:09	Actually I read it as whichever is the greater evil, be it the sworn foe or lesser evil. Albeit that lesser evil seems to be directly referring to the sworn foe (it's a lesser evil COMPARED TO the sworn foe).   But all of this is mechanically meaningless because it's fluff. So...there's that!
#7 Illithidbix Oct 31, 2014 13:20:20	And of course the expecation is that a Oath is sworn against a great evil, not say: quadriplegic kobolds.   So in most cases it should be the nastiest target!
#8 IxidorRS Oct 31, 2014 13:33:08	Illithidbix wrote:
#9 Corran21 Oct 31, 2014 13:41:49	Illithidbix wrote:
#10 BRJN Oct 31, 2014 19:03:17	Give the Paladin enough freedom of choice to decide "I'm tough enough to take a swipe at the other evils (and give my allies breathing space) AND continue on towards my sworn foe with a minimum of distraction."    Think strategically, Paladin. - The killing blow on Tiamat is a fair option - then my allies can help me deal with my sworn foes because they aren't going to be distracted by Tiamat any more. - The Cleric of Gruumsh is also fighting my sworn foes.  I can ally with him for the time being, and consult the gods & my conscience after my sworn foes are dead / defeated.   Do not let the hot call of Vengence cloud your mind and cause you to defeat yourself.
#11 Coredump00 Oct 31, 2014 19:36:37	Hmmmmm... been thinking about this, and contemplating what has been said... and I have a new take on this.     Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil. I choose the greater evil.     I *think* what this means is 'Don't be a wimp',  if you get a chance to go after the big guy... take it. Don't waste time on the Captain when you have a shot at the General.  I think the idea when writing the tenant was that if you are attacking a camp, its because the Chief is the target and the Greater Evil.  Its more 'Cinematic' and 'proper' for the Vengeance Paladin to be battleing the toughest target, the most evil target....     The tenant does not (directly) address what to do if you go after the Chief, and there happens to be someone even more Evil in camp.  What if "Faced with a choice between my sworn foe or combating a Greater evil"?  I think the final sentence (and title) stays the same. "I choose the greater evil".    I think that overall, this tenant is less of a restriction, and more of a reminder "When you have a shot at the big guy, don't wimp out, and don't get bogged down by the small fish."     Do not let the hot call of Vengence cloud your mind and cause you to defeat yourself.
#12 Psikerlord Nov 01, 2014 1:31:21	Nevvur wrote:
#13 Leugren Nov 01, 2014 8:42:49	Coredump00 wrote:
#14 Elfcrusher Nov 01, 2014 8:51:36	The language is confusing (to me, anyway) if you interpret Greater Evil to mean anything other than Sworn Enemy.  Therefore, I conclude, Greater Evil == Sworn Enemy.   As for rationalizations like "well, if I get Tiamat out of the way then my friends can help me with my sworn enemy..." that feels weasely to me, but YMMV.  Certainly since the Paladin was introduced players have been coming up with all sorts of elaborate reasons to get around the behavioral restrictions ("I won't claim any of the treasure so I don't have to tithe any of it, but my friends will buy me anything I need!"), so it wouldn't be anything new.  But I for one would have more fun roleplaying something incredibly tactically stupid like ignoring Tiamat to charge my Sworn Enemy ("Leeeeeeeroy!") than I would "winning" D&D via logic gymnastics.  I'd play a Vengeance Pally because I want to play that character, not because DPR Kings says it's the highest damage. And to me a key part of Vengeance Pallies is that they really hate their Sworn Enemies and don't act wisely or rationally when faced by them.   (I had a lot of trouble with this concept when I first started playing WoW back in the day...it seemed like the Paladins were the worst gankers on the server, and I was all, "But...but...they're PALADINS!")
#15 Leugren Nov 01, 2014 14:06:29	Elfcrusher wrote:
#16 Elfcrusher Nov 01, 2014 16:07:26	Some of the greatest action climaxes ever, in fiction and in cinema, could be described as "tactically moronic", yet they make for great stories.    One of my favorites: Sam charging Shelob. What a moron.    This concept was also a critical feature of Greek drama. (c.f. "Tragic flaw.")   Personally I like having my characters do foolish things because of their personalities.    And, yes, I read the Gygax article 30+ years ago.
#17 Leugren Nov 01, 2014 16:51:12	Elfcrusher wrote:
#18 Yunru Nov 01, 2014 16:57:50	Who's playing Wheatley now? :P
#19 Ganymede425 Nov 01, 2014 17:06:54	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #13) Coredump00	Leugren wrote:
#21 Coredump00 Nov 01, 2014 17:56:45	I think it is important to note that the Tenet (hi Leugren) never directly comments on Sworn Enemy vs Greater Evil......  only vs Lesser Evil.  I think that is important.  The Tenet is titled "Fight the Greater Evil" and the final line is "I choose the greater evil".  I think in the case of Sworn Enemy vs Greater Evil...... you still go after the Greater Evil.   I think this fits the rest of the tenets and descriptions...the Paladin is willing to "sacrifice their own righteousness to mete out justice".  I think the Paladin would sacrifice his 'personal' desires to Fight the Greater Evil.   Of course, the Greater Evil will usually be the target.... but that is a different issue.     Ganymede425 wrote:
#22 Elfcrusher Nov 01, 2014 18:39:10	Leugren wrote:
#23 Leugren Nov 01, 2014 19:18:31	Elfcrusher wrote: