D&D 5E Redemption Paladin

[pemerton]

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

Who mentioned con artists? I talked about corruption and exploitation by someone beyond redemption. In the fantasy genre, that might include certain sorts of demon or similar evil spirit. Also, perhaps, some sort of devil-worshippers.

 

[Imaro]

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.)

In the first tenet I see... punish those who threaten the weak... doesn't frame it as a last resort in any way, it's a tenet your purpose is to punish those who prey on the weak. It says show mercy but squat about redemption.

As for the second one, one can be totally fair and honorable while inflicting violence so again why would it have to be a last resort? Also doing as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm can easily lead to violence that leads to permanent death of a threat being the expedient answer that stops more harm from befalling others.

More importantly he has no call to redeem, or change his enemies he feels may not be totally evil... only to punish them and show them mercy at times.

 

[Imaro]

Who mentioned con artists? I talked about corruption and exploitation by someone beyond redemption. In the fantasy genre, that might include certain sorts of demon or similar evil spirit. Also, perhaps, some sort of devil-worshippers.

Thanks for clarifying...but the oath addresses the type of threats you allude to above...
undead, demons, devils, and other supernatural threats can be inherently evil. Against such foes, the paladins bring the full wrath of their weapons and spells to bear...

 

[pemerton]

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

Because redeeming an evildoer is about changing their bonds, their flaws and their ideals? It's about changing their personality and convictions, and these are the game mechanics that represent these things?

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.

I think the mechanics support the fiction well in the context of D&D... you seem to want a different game.

To me, it seems that the paladin has been a core element of the game since 1st ed AD&D. And the heart of the paladin class has always been the "knight in shining armour": this is clear from (eg) the holy avenger sword, and level titles such as Gallant and Chevalier, as well as the name "paladin" itself.

The extent to which any particular paladin focuses on redemption, or mercy, or justice, obviously will vary, but the idea that violence is a last resort, and that evildoers are capable of being redeemed, but also that evildoers must be held to account (and, upon their redemption, may insist - as part of their moral transformation - that they be held to account), has always been there. It's implicit in the very idea of the class, and the stories/traditions that the class draws upon.

As I've posted, I feel that a sub-class that (i) calls out the idea of violence as a last resort as though that is something distinctive about that particular sub-class, and that (ii) uses a mind controlling enchantment spell as its pathway into redemption, is cheapening or undermining the paladin archetype. I don't think that that view is a sign that I want to play a different game. I've never had any trouble realising the paladin archetype (or other, comparable, archetype that incorporate honour and/or a proper degree of other-regard (mercy, compassion, etc), such as certain samurai, martial artists, priests, etc) in earlier versions of the game (I'm thinking especially AD&D and 4e).

In AD&D, for instance, the loyalty chart on DMG p 37 (which is also applicable to reaction checks: p 63), tells us that having ransomed or rescued someone grants +15%, and saving someone's life directly or personally grants +25%. So a paladin who spares an enemy's life, and thereby demonstrates - through deeds - the quality and value of mercy, gets a reaction bonus of (say) +20%, on top of a CHA bonus of at least +30% (for 17 CHA). To do redemption, you don't need magic mechanics: you need proper social/interaction mechanics. There's nothing in the D&D tradition that is inimical to that.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ok, the shine is wearing off of Redemption for me already...

Armor of Peace: I love this conceptually, but it's really only a roleplaying benefit, not a mechanical one (except for some edge cases where you can't wear armor, or maybe you also want to stealth).

Warrior of Reconciliation: Again, fun/entertaining conceptually, but since you can't order them to attack it's not strictly better mechanically than just killing them. And unless you want to cheese it by switching weapons for the killing blow, forces you into doing less damage than a normal paladin as well.

Emissary of Peace: This could have the occasional benefit to match the resource cost, but not a common occurrence.

Rebuke the Violent: This one can be quite good, given that you can use it reactively so you never truly waste it. (E.g., wait for an enemy to land a particularly heavy hit.)

Aura of Guardian: Useful but at a pretty heavy price. Not as good as, say, giving everybody Advantage on saving throws versus spells.

Protective Spirit: The best of the lot. Regeneration when below 50% health is nice.

Emissary of Redemption: Needs to be clarified whether the damage counts as you dealing damage (which would mean this only works once against each opponent) and also whether "half the damage it dealt to you" means half of what it rolled or half of what you received, because if the latter then you're only reflecting 1/4 damage, at the cost of not being able to actually attack. This is another one that is really flavorful and distinct, but seems to have limited actual utility.

If nothing else changed, I would either:
1) multiclass with Monk, use just a staff, and keep levels about equal
2) Go with Great Weapon Fighting, carry a staff, and keep a Greatsword slung over my back

I do love (love love) the general idea, but the mechanics need some work.

 

[Imaro]

Because redeeming an evildoer is about changing their bonds, their flaws and their ideals? It's about changing their personality and convictions, and these are the game mechanics that represent these things?

That could be one DM's way of handling it, but for another DM's preference alignment might work better, while another may figure it's just a matter of roleplaying the converted NPC/monster differently now or having his attitude and reactions change to fit his conversion... In other words I think it's better to leave how the effect is represented to individual tables as opposed to trying to force a one size fits all rule on everyone.

 

[Imaro]

To me, it seems that the paladin has been a core element of the game since 1st ed AD&D. And the heart of the paladin class has always been the "knight in shining armour": this is clear from (eg) the holy avenger sword, and level titles such as Gallant and Chevalier, as well as the name "paladin" itself.

How can this be the "heart" of the paladin since 1e... when in the previous edition evil paladins as PC's were allowed and supported and before that pseudo paladins of all the good alignments were playable. I think your view of the paladin might be slightly outdated at this point, if anything it's diverged quite a bit from what you claim is the core since 1e AD&D...

 

[Guest 6801328]

To do redemption, you don't need magic mechanics: you need proper social/interaction mechanics. There's nothing in the D&D tradition that is inimical to that.

I fully agree with that, but at the moment I don't think there are what you refer to as "proper" social/interaction mechanics. There are some skills, but no rules/guidelines for how to use them.

If I'm understanding your point, you are proposing something along the lines of:
1) A general, game-wide set of concrete rules for using social skills to accomplish things such as persuading a bunch of lizardmen to give up their evil ways and depart, possibly leaving their lair unguarded. Or, with a good enough roll, becoming temporary allies. (The might entail the introduction of a Morale rating.)
2) The Redemption paladin, upon reducing said lizardmen to zero HP (or maybe half?) gets a hefty bonus for making that Persuasion roll.

Is that the sort of thing you're talking about?

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

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.

+1 to both of these.

1) "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist" is a classic trope of evil, made truly famous by the Usual Suspects but originating in The Generous Gambler 130 years prior. The amount of bloodshed in our own world by those who willfully corrupt, exploit, and extort is unfathomable. So many of the greatest atrocities in the annals of history and on through today are committed by those who have physically let not a drop of blood.

2) Why doesn't it interact with the Social Interaction conflict resolution mechanics (DMG 244). I've called them "Wheel of Fortune-ey" in the past. As you note, this is the perfect opportunity to leverage them.

a) The fictional positioning changes as the NPC willingly lays his burden upon the Redemption Paladin. The NPC automatically shifts from Hostile to Indifferent.

b) Further, the Paladin automatically learns his Flaw (therefore not having to deftly converse to open up the opportunity for a Wisdom-Insight check to learn it; in Wheel of Fortune vernacular, this would be "Spinning the Wheel and earning letters on the board").

c) Through this moment of inspired connection, the Paladin can use the Flaw to either earn Advantage on the Charisma Check to sort out the Social Interaction or can turn the Indifferent NPC to Friendly before rolling their Charisma Check (This would be the "Solving the Puzzle" phase).

Instead they go with Charmed for 1 minute and then unconscious? Not good. Missed opportunity.

 

[Manbearcat]

I fully agree with that, but at the moment I don't think there are what you refer to as "proper" social/interaction mechanics. There are some skills, but no rules/guidelines for how to use them.

If I'm understanding your point, you are proposing something along the lines of:
1) A general, game-wide set of concrete rules for using social skills to accomplish things such as persuading a bunch of lizardmen to give up their evil ways and depart, possibly leaving their lair unguarded. Or, with a good enough roll, becoming temporary allies. (The might entail the introduction of a Morale rating.)
2) The Redemption paladin, upon reducing said lizardmen to zero HP (or maybe half?) gets a hefty bonus for making that Persuasion roll.

Is that the sort of thing you're talking about?

You don't like the game's Social Interaction conflict resolution mechanics on DMG 244? I've long said they're the 5e designers' best work (along with Background Traits, Legendary and Lair Actions, and generally, the class/subclass design is well done).