D&D 5E Redemption Paladin

[Sacrosanct]

The oddest thing to me is that in a game whose identity is "kill them and take their stuff" has had two or three pacifist PCs so far. That just seems odd.

 

[cmad1977]

' I don't start fights. I finish them.'
That's how I would play this character.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CydKnight]

The oddest thing to me is that in a game whose identity is "kill them and take their stuff" has had two or three pacifist PCs so far. That just seems odd.

I actually think this is a narrow view of the game in general. If it is a mirror of civilized society then we are all in trouble.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I dont get why pacifism equals no armor in the head of the designers. I mean, paladins are still the militant side of an ideal, they are still warriors. Why does believing an enemy can be saved from himself and giving second chances interfers in any way with the fact of using armors? Especially when the oath itself tells you that you'll need to confront the enemy first to make them realize they wont achieve everything thru violence. I get the whole ''preacher in robes'' trope, but this is not what the paladin is, its more for the pacifist monk or a cleric or a bard.

I'd remove the whole ''I'm so peaceful that blows have a hard time landind'' feature, and add something like the Undying patron feature that makes undead hesitant to attack you but with creatures at full health, simulating the enemy hesitating to initiate combat with someone who doest look agressive toward them.

 

[Mercule]

I think a bit of mildly contradictory fluff is inevitable: it is, after all, a game of killing things.

This. While D&D sometimes makes an effort at being inclusive of "deeper roleplaying", the default way of advancing your character is by killing stuff. Even if you use story-based XP awards, the standard model of adventures (i.e. published adventures) still involves a lot of bloodshed. Having played a pacifist PC, unless your group is really doing things differently, there's a point at which you just have to suck it up and beat something up. If you're lucky, most of the killing can be limited to fiends, undead, constructs, and similar irredeemable or non-sentient beings. Odds are good, though, that you're not going to be able to save every orc's soul.

The Redemption Paladin has two purposes:

1) Provide an option for those who want to really try to do the pacifist thing "right". This subclass assumes the pacifism is motivated not by what violence does to the PC, but out of a desire to "redeem" the enemy. That seems like a pretty reasonable take for a Paladin, since it would be the basis for most Christian pacifism, among others.

2) Provide an option for those who want to do pacifism as RP-light. By this I mean that you can have a beer-and-pretzels game, but still want to have somewhat distinctive personalities and takes on things. This subclass allows for "I'm charismatic enough that I can usually talk people down. If that fails, though, I can make them listen to reason by more physical means." That also means that they get the occasional night of hewing through orcish berserkers.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I actually think this is a narrow view of the game in general. If it is a mirror of civilized society then we are all in trouble.

"Well, we don't have a ninja or a warlord class, but how do you folks like our third pacifist character?"

The hippies have taken over WotC....

 

[Guest 6801328]

I dont get why pacifism equals no armor in the head of the designers. I mean, paladins are still the militant side of an ideal, they are still warriors. Why does believing an enemy can be saved from himself and giving second chances interfers in any way with the fact of using armors? Especially when the oath itself tells you that you'll need to confront the enemy first to make them realize they wont achieve everything thru violence. I get the whole ''preacher in robes'' trope, but this is not what the paladin is, its more for the pacifist monk or a cleric or a bard.

I'd remove the whole ''I'm so peaceful that blows have a hard time landind'' feature, and add something like the Undying patron feature that makes undead hesitant to attack you but with creatures at full health, simulating the enemy hesitating to initiate combat with someone who doest look agressive toward them.

"I am one with the Force the Force is with me I am one with the Force the Force is with me I am one with the Force the Force is with me...."

EDIT: More seriously, I think it just allows for fun roleplaying. "Yea, though I walk through the orc-invested dungeon with naught but a cudgel, I shall fear no evil..." Yes, you could do that without mechanics protecting you, but then you'd die. This lets you play that character without committing suicide-through-suboptimization.

 

[Sacrosanct]

On a side note, every time I see the "redemption" paladin, I get "Redemption song" by Bob Marley stuck in my head. So right there it won't be allowed at my table (good song, but I will get sick of it in short order)

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

EDIT: More seriously, I think it just allows for fun roleplaying. "Yea, though I walk through the orc-invested dungeon with naught but a cudgel, I shall fear no evil..." Yes, you could do that without mechanics protecting you, but then you'd die. This lets you play that character without committing suicide-through-suboptimization.

Ok, yeah...I can see that. You know what, I like that very much and now I wish paladins had alternative armor calculation (plus shield) in their base class like the barbarian, with archetype giving sometime more armor prof. like Valor giving heavy amors to play the classic knight in shining armor. Vengance Paladin without armor would make for a nice 4e avenger, while for the other archetype that would allow players to play the fanatic without armor.

 

[Dualazi]

I disagree... I think there's a pretty big difference between someone choosing to be a pacifist vs. their very nature and abilities being entwined in fulfilling an oath around pacifism. IMO It's similar to claiming we don't need a cleric class because anyone can be pious and worship a deity... Yeah but their identity and powers aren't intrinsically tied to that... I also feel like this type of oath (and the tropes/archetypes associated with it) suit the paladin class extremely well.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the first part, but the second is demonstrably false. The subclass actively gives up base elements of the class' kits, such as weapon and armor proficiency. It's really MAD, because it wants dex, cha, str (since there aren't any finesse bludgeoning simple weapons), and definitely con since a number of the subclass features are centered around you getting hit. The paladin's smiting ability goes largely to waste, and that's assuming you justify its use against things like constructs and fiends. The capstone either functions once per enemy or forces you to sit there like a lump.

The only classes I can see the pacifist angle actually working on are druid/cleric, since they have enough utility and full spellcasting to allow them to get more or less the full mileage out of their class options while still fitting the theme. Hell, in 4e the pacifist cleric had to be nerfed because its healing throughput was insane. Not saying they have to go that route again, but tacking the current abilities onto the paladin just makes him a crappy cleric.