D&D 5E Redemption Paladin

[pemerton]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]: I think it's enough if I resond to this: "there is nothing in the descriptions of the good alignments that necessitate killing as a last resort."

And this: "I also don't see how Killing in more-or-less consensual situations is somehow more 'good' than fighting dirty."

From the AD&D PHB (p 33):

[K]indness, and good deeds are disdained [by the chaotic evil]. Life has no value. . . .

[C]reatures of [chaotic good] alignment . . . place value on life and the welfare of each individual. . . .

[L]ife, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless [by the lawful evil], or at least scorned. . . .

[T]ruth is of highest value [to those who are lawful good], and life and beauty of great importance.

[C]reatures of neutral good . . . [seek] the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and intelligent creatures in particular.​

From the AD&D DMG (p 23):

Basically stated, the tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness.​

From the 3.5 SRD:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. . . .

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.​

From the 4e PHB (pp 19-20):

Protecting the weak from those who would dominate or kill them is just the right thing to do. If you’re a good character, you believe it is right to aid and protect those in need. . . .

Good and evil represent fundamentally different viewpoints . . .

Lawful good characters believe just as strongly as good ones do in the value of life . . .

Evil characters . . . don’t care whether laws hurt other people.​

Fron the 5e Basic PDF (p 34):

Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. . . .

Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. . . .

Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. . . .

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. . . .

Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. . . .

Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.​

Good values life, and more generally has regard for others; whereas evil doesn't. That has been a constant across editions. It's why those who are good will tend to kill only as a last resort (either in self-defence, defence of others or perhaps as punishment) or perhaps in "consensual" situations.

In AD&D good also values truth. And hence does not use deception. 3E changes this - the SRD says that "Lawful characters tell the truth . . . 'Law' implies honour". But 3E maintains the connection between goodnes and treating others with dignity. Consensual violence respects the dignity of the other party; "dirty" fighting does not. "Dirty" fighting is a form of donig whatever one can get away with; it is not honouring the requirements of conscience, or treating others with the respect and dignity that they are due.

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro: I think it's enough if I resond to this: "there is nothing in the descriptions of the good alignments that necessitate killing as a last resort."

And this: "I also don't see how Killing in more-or-less consensual situations is somehow more 'good' than fighting dirty."


Fron the 5e Basic PDF (p 34):

Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. . . .

Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. . . .

Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. . . .

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. . . .

Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. . . .

Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.​

Couple points...

1. We are talking about a 5e class here, so I'm really not concerned with the other editions and how they define alignment so much.
2. Nothing in the 5e descriptions for good states one must use killing as a last resort... you posted a list but it doesn't support what you are claiming. You are confusing your own moral standards or expectations with those of the D&D genre, you can do that in your home campaign but it doesn;t hole when we are talking about a class for D&D as a whole... The D&D in which good is often and frequently attained with steel or spell.

Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. . . .

What if my society believes the only way to free an evil soul is to kill the being and allow it to reincarnate?

Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. . . .

What if you need me to slay that evil cleric who has set up a temple outside your town following numerous disappearances?

Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. . . .

My conscience tells me the only way to quickly and permanently stop the Orc incursions and end the constant deaths and raiding is to slay them all.

 

[Imaro]

Good values life, and more generally has regard for others; whereas evil doesn't. That has been a constant across editions. It's why those who are good will tend to kill only as a last resort (either in self-defence, defence of others or perhaps as punishment) or perhaps in "consensual" situations.

So do they kill as a last resort or do they kill... in self-defence, defence of others, as punishment and in consensual situations... because that's alot of situations (that seems to be growing as we continue this conversation) to consider as a last resort... According to the fluff the redemption paladin on the other hand will kill if an innocent is in danger or if it's a supernatural evil... seems like alot smaller list, with much less wiggle room, than what you listed above

In AD&D good also values truth. And hence does not use deception. 3E changes this - the SRD says that "Lawful characters tell the truth . . . 'Law' implies honour". But 3E maintains the connection between goodnes and treating others with dignity. Consensual violence respects the dignity of the other party; "dirty" fighting does not. "Dirty" fighting is a form of donig whatever one can get away with; it is not honouring the requirements of conscience, or treating others with the respect and dignity that they are due.

Again not concerned with AD&D and honestly if you interpret that as no good character can fight dirty... well then that means no rogue who uses backstab , sneak attack could be good... no party that ambushes or surprises enemies could be good...and so on. It doesn't make sense for the D&D genre... good thing 5e doesn;t make that connection.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

"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....

Maybe the warlord is the pacifist fighter. Seems like a good description of the lazylord to me.

I remember an old Lex Luthor line: Kill you? I abhor violence. Mercy [his bodyguard], kill them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

The class text deals with supernaturally evil beings.

As for devil worshippers, so what? How would they be beyond redemption, unless they are doing something more than worshipping devils?

Slavers, murderers, abusers, and rapists. That is it, AFAIC. And even then, this archetype would try to redeem these sinners unless they see that they will not change, and giving them a chance will lead directly to more people being enslaved, murdered, abused, etc.

i still dont don't get what your objection is.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

1) The charmed condition is a magically inflicted status and has a duration. I'd much prefer, thematically and mechanically, for it to be a permanent, mundane change inspired by the weight of the Paladin's divinity.

2) You wouldn't have to recapitulate the entirety of the Social Interaction mechanics (and besides, 5e's natural language isn't disinclined toward turning what could be a pithy and cogent format into something more lengthy or sprawling). You just have to convey:

a) The NPC automatically goes from Hostile to Indifferent toward the Paladin.
b) The NPC automatically shares his Flaw with the Paladin in an emotional confessional.
c) The Paladin can use the Flaw to either turn the NPC from Indifferent to Friendly or for Advantage on the Charisma Check to decide the course of the Interaction.

Done. Cleanly.

I'd be fine with this.

Especially as I have a personal "hang up" where I can't help but consider any form of mind control beyond the sort of suggestion Jedi mind trick does, and even that is iffy, to be a purely and egregiously evil act, morally distinct from violent rape *only* in that it isn't violent. Were I to let that hang up inform roleplaying, and I've had one or two characters who did, I would feel obligated to stop, by violence if necessary, any use of spells like charm person. Certainly, I would never use such spells with a character I consider Good.

Which is too bad, because in beer and pretzel or video games, it kicks ass to turn an enemy into an ally for the rest of a fight! Which most DnD harm doesn't even allow. So it's mind control without the tactical benefit that makes mind control fun in video games/mmos.

So yeah, giving Paladins Charm Person as a class feature doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Imaro]

I'd be fine with this.

Especially as I have a personal "hang up" where I can't help but consider any form of mind control beyond the sort of suggestion Jedi mind trick does, and even that is iffy, to be a purely and egregiously evil act, morally distinct from violent rape *only* in that it isn't violent. Were I to let that hang up inform roleplaying, and I've had one or two characters who did, I would feel obligated to stop, by violence if necessary, any use of spells like charm person. Certainly, I would never use such spells with a character I consider Good.

Which is too bad, because in beer and pretzel or video games, it kicks ass to turn an enemy into an ally for the rest of a fight! Which most DnD harm doesn't even allow. So it's mind control without the tactical benefit that makes mind control fun in video games/mmos.

So yeah, giving Paladins Charm Person as a class feature doesn't sit well with me.

Is this the use of a spell? In the article I thought it was the paladin inflicting the charmed condition... but it doesn't specify that it's a spell or even magical in nature.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Is this the use of a spell? In the article I thought it was the paladin inflicting the charmed condition... but it doesn't specify that it's a spell or even magical in nature.

You're being too literal. It isn't literally the spell, as such. It just does the same thing. Magically.

 

[Imaro]

You're being too literal. It isn't literally the spell, as such. It just does the same thing. Magically.

While both give you the advantages of the charmed condition... There is one major difference between the spell vs. this ability. The spell forces the creature to view you as a friendly acquaintance (resulting in lower DC's to convince it to do something) while the paladin's ability doesn't actually make him view you as a friend and thus the DC's will in most cases be much higher since he can be friendly, indifferent or hostile....

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Well if you enter a bandit camp heavely armed and armored they might assume you are there with the intention to kill them.
They might even atack as a way of self defence as you clearly came there looking for a fight.

Which doesnt make sense in a D&D world, given that the most dangerous guy in the room is probably the geezer in a bathrobe with a stick. Monks, magic, polymorphed dragons... You wanna negotiate in my own lair? Have a buddy throw me your own severed head and we'll cast Speak w Dead on it. Better hurry, that Revivify clock is ticking.