D&D 5E Redemption Paladin

[pemerton]

I don't think that there is a contradiction. Defence of others can be in the greater good.

Sure - but it first says that these paladin will slay evil beings "only when such a deed will clearly save other lives" (emphasis added), and then it goes on to say that "some are so far along the path of evil that you have no choice but to end their lives for the greater good". Killing for the greater good is inconsistent with killing only in defence of others, unless defence of others is exhaustive of the greater good. But that doesn't seem very plausible.

The redemption Paladin seems more willing and capable of defending others and taking an opponent down without killing them, in order to give them a chance at redemption.

But this is weird, too - it's a bizarre case of the game mechanics leading the fiction, and the morality of the fiction, in weird ways. ie because our default combat mechanic is "victory = reduce opponent to 0 hp", and "0 hp = dead", therefore everyone who is not a pacifist ends up having no compunctions about killing. And to have someone who takes a different view, we have to introduce this weird "knock them out and charm them" mechanic.

But at least as far as paladins, who tend to be melee combatants, are concerned, the new mechanic seems redundant in any event. Anyone can declare, upon dropping an enemy to zero hp in melee combat, that the enemy is unconscious - so any good character has the option of taking opponents down without killing them. And presumably that is what someone who values the dignity of other beings would do. (Eg classical knights errant spare their foes and allow them to ransom themselves for freedom, or even to be released on parole.)

I just don't get it - by stating these fairly simple moral principles as some demanding commitment of some special class, it suddenly reframes all the other paladins of devotion (who, per SRD p 33, "meet the ideal of the knight in shining armor, acting with honor in pursuit of justice and the greater good"), clerics of benevolent deities, honourable fighters etc as slavering psychopaths!

 

[pukunui]

This subclass reminds me of the Vow of Poverty feat from 3.5 and not in a good way.

 

[Imaro]

Sure - but it first says that these paladin will slay evil beings "only when such a deed will clearly save other lives" (emphasis added), and then it goes on to say that "some are so far along the path of evil that you have no choice but to end their lives for the greater good". Killing for the greater good is inconsistent with killing only in defence of others, unless defence of others is exhaustive of the greater good. But that doesn't seem very plausible.

I would assume that if an NPC or monster is "so far along the path of evil"... that they must be slain for the greater good... then it's a given they have and will take a life without a second thought... probably more than one if they've moved that far along the path of evil for this to be necessary, where exactly that specific line lies is up to the individual Paladin... Or is your contention that a creature or NPC in the D&D genre who is so far along the path of evil that this paladin would slay them... might need to be slain for the greater good but somehow is not a threat to innocent lives, but instead is... what exactly?

But this is weird, too - it's a bizarre case of the game mechanics leading the fiction, and the morality of the fiction, in weird ways. ie because our default combat mechanic is "victory = reduce opponent to 0 hp", and "0 hp = dead", therefore everyone who is not a pacifist ends up having no compunctions about killing. And to have someone who takes a different view, we have to introduce this weird "knock them out and charm them" mechanic.

Wait why does this mechanic force everyone else to have no compunctions against killing? That's still a choice they can make. It's like claiming all other characters must forsake worshiping a deity because clerics exist...

What this mechanic does, IMO, is ensure that the paladin gets to play out the archetype he embodies... the being he uses this on will listen to him, and consider what he says... will talk to him as a friend would and possibly do penance, flee, or other actions that may be set to him by the paladin for a minute. Without this mechanic the paladin doesn't get that enforcement of the tropes of his/her archetype when dealing with a creature he defeated in battle.

But at least as far as paladins, who tend to be melee combatants, are concerned, the. new mechanic seems redundant in any event. Anyone can declare, upon dropping an enemy to zero hp in melee combat, that the enemy is unconscious - so any good character has the option of taking opponents down without killing them. And presumably that is what someone who values the dignity of other beings would do. (Eg classical knights errant spare their foes and allow them to ransom themselves for freedom, or even to be released on parole.)

Yes but for other paladins nothing guarantees a friendly exchange when they come too... a chance to understand and redeem an enemy one feels may be worth it. The Redemption Paladin is divinely empowered to do this... and the mechanics back it up.

I just don't get it - by stating these fairly simple moral principles as some demanding commitment of some special class, it suddenly reframes all the other paladins of devotion (who, per SRD p 33, "meet the ideal of the knight in shining armor, acting with honor in pursuit of justice and the greater good"), clerics of benevolent deities, honourable fighters etc as slavering psychopaths!

Yeah I'm not seeing that... they can knock and enemy out and take their chances with his/her reaction upon awakening... but nothing forces them to be "slavering psycopaths"... What they lack is the divine empowerment to make a creature they have defeated listen to them and regard them as a friend when they become conscious.

 

[pemerton]

I would assume that if an NPC or monster is "so far along the path of evil"... that they must be slain for the greater good... then it's a given they have and will take a life without a second thought... probably more than one if they've moved that far along the path of evil for this to be necessary, where exactly that specific line lies is up to the individual Paladin... Or is your contention that a creature or NPC in the D&D genre who is so far along the path of evil that this paladin would slay them... might need to be slain for the greater good but somehow is not a threat to innocent lives, but instead is... what exactly?

Maybe they corrupt people. Maybe they exploit people. There are all sorts of ways of being a threat to the greater good, and also beyond redemption, which don't involve being a violent threat.

As far as killing and the use of violence is concerned, what do you think is the difference between a "redemption" paladin and a "devotion" paladin? Starting from first principles I don't see any, and yet the existence of the distinct sub-classes, and the text of the "redemption" paladin, seems to imply that there is. The text of the "redemption" paladin implies that there is something "special" about using violence only as a last resort, in defence of others or pursuit of the greater good; my point is that I would assume this to be the norm for a wide swathe of paladins and other "good" characters.

 

[pemerton]

What this mechanic does, IMO, is ensure that the paladin gets to play out the archetype he embodies... the being he uses this on will listen to him, and consider what he says... will talk to him as a friend would and possibly do penance, flee, or other actions that may be set to him by the paladin for a minute. Without this mechanic the paladin doesn't get that enforcement of the tropes of his/her archetype when dealing with a creature he defeated in battle.

<snip>

for other paladins nothing guarantees a friendly exchange when they come too... a chance to understand and redeem an enemy one feels may be worth it.

<snip>

What they lack is the divine empowerment to make a creature they have defeated listen to them and regard them as a friend when they become conscious.

The mechanic strikes me as silly. And cheapening of the whole archetype. And it seems to be completely driven by considerations of mechanical gameplay rather than by any sort of fidelity to the fiction.

The fiction of this sort of redemption is that of the scales falling from the wrongdoer's eyes, inspired by the divine grace and example of the one who has chastised and/or bested him/her. The fiction the mechanics gives us, though, is of the wrongdoer remaining unchanged and unmoved, but being subject to a brief enchantment spell.

Why doesn't it interact with the Bond, Flaw, Ideal mechanics? With the mechanics for resolution of social conflict (which might then allow a guarantee of a "friendly exchange")? It's as if the game designers can't envisage gameplay involving genuine interaction and persuasion unless its via enchantment magic.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The mechanic strikes me as silly. And cheapening of the whole archetype. And it seems to be completely driven by considerations of mechanical gameplay rather than by any sort of fidelity to the fiction.

The fiction of this sort of redemption is that of the scales falling from the wrongdoer's eyes, inspired by the divine grace and example of the one who has chastised and/or bested him/her. The fiction the mechanics gives us, though, is of the wrongdoer remaining unchanged and unmoved, but being subject to a brief enchantment spell.

Why doesn't it interact with the Bond, Flaw, Ideal mechanics? With the mechanics for resolution of social conflict (which might then allow a guarantee of a "friendly exchange")? It's as if the game designers can't envisage gameplay involving genuine interaction and persuasion unless its via enchantment magic.

While I agree with you philosophically, both here and in the longer post above, I think your expectations are a bit high for a game in which (for example) thousand foot falls are easily survivable.

 

[Flamestrike]

I don't think that there is a contradiction. Defence of others can be in the greater good.
These Paladins might try to redeem foes that could stop being a danger to others, and give them a chance to change their ways. However they have no compunctions about killing a foe that is unwilling or incapable of changing, in order to prevent them harming others in the future.

Not so sure about that last sentence. They can only kill as a 'last resort', and when such action is 'clearly' needed to save lives.

Unless that foe has a gun to someone else's head (or similar) then I wouldn't think that Lethal force was a last resort and clearly needed to save a life.

 

[Imaro]

Maybe they corrupt people. Maybe they exploit people. There are all sorts of ways of being a threat to the greater good, and also beyond redemption, which don't involve being a violent threat.

Wow so now con-artists are so far along the path of evil that they can never be redeemed and must be slain for the greater good... I'm starting to get a lawful stupid vibe here in how you're choosing to interpret some of this.

As far as killing and the use of violence is concerned, what do you think is the difference between a "redemption" paladin and a "devotion" paladin? Starting from first principles I don't see any, and yet the existence of the distinct sub-classes, and the text of the "redemption" paladin, seems to imply that there is. The text of the "redemption" paladin implies that there is something "special" about using violence only as a last resort, in defence of others or pursuit of the greater good; my point is that I would assume this to be the norm for a wide swathe of paladins and other "good" characters.

One's primary focus is on redemption... the other is more concerned with upholding a particular standard. To illustrate more clearly...

A devotion paladin's oath revolves around honesty, being courageous, honor, their duty and punishing evil.

A redeption paladin's oath revolves around diplomacy, understanding (even of evil), shepherding change of evil, and eliminating evil that can't be redeemed.

I'm a little confused on how you see these archetypes as the same. One is the honorable punisher and protector... the other is the shepherd and (sometimes bloody handed) sanctifier.

 

[Imaro]

The mechanic strikes me as silly. And cheapening of the whole archetype. And it seems to be completely driven by considerations of mechanical gameplay rather than by any sort of fidelity to the fiction.

Well yeah... we disagree not much else to say here, I think the mechanics support the fiction well in the context of D&D... you seem to want a different game.

The fiction of this sort of redemption is that of the scales falling from the wrongdoer's eyes, inspired by the divine grace and example of the one who has chastised and/or bested him/her. The fiction the mechanics gives us, though, is of the wrongdoer remaining unchanged and unmoved, but being subject to a brief enchantment spell.

No that's what diplomacy and insight and other social skills are for...along with the paladin's later abilities that enhance them... or was he supposed ot be handed an I win button that converts everyone 100% of the time?

Why doesn't it interact with the Bond, Flaw, Ideal mechanics? With the mechanics for resolution of social conflict (which might then allow a guarantee of a "friendly exchange")? It's as if the game designers can't envisage gameplay involving genuine interaction and persuasion unless its via enchantment magic.

Why should it interact with Bonds/Flaws/or Ideals?

No it's as if there's a chance to redeem the creature. the DM decides if it's a certainty one way or the other and if there is uncertainty calls for a roll of the die. It's the general rules of the game.

 

[pemerton]

Page 33 of the SRD, under the heading "tenets of devotion", says the following:

Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.

Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.​

How does this character not treat violence, and especially killing, as a last resort? (Subject to exceptions around consent, eg duels and some modes of warfare.)