D&D 5E Redemption Paladin

[Gardens & Goblins]

assuming you play by published rules, a character will fight a ton of creatures as they level. Going through that much bloodshed would realistically leave most people a hardened shell of a person or probably having nightmares for the rest of their lives. But in D&D, roasting a half dozen sentients alive with a fireball is pretty routine.

At 5th, our lot were running from giant rats because - they're giant rats. With DISEASES! But mainly because they were roleplaying people who didn't want to be bitten by anything, least of all horrible rats. Granted, they don't really patch defeated foes all that much, but still - though they have had the same hostage for something like 10 sessions as they can't agree on what to do with it!

I don't subscribe to a 'general style of play'. Such a generalisation is a lazy person's theoretical framework, built on opinion and worth just as much. I only count the tables I've played at in my life and they've been, by and by, all about running realised characters through whatever events occur. And the rules say nothing to cause me to consider otherwise.

Sure, combat - in terms of hit points, attack bonuses, damage and the like - gets a lot of love, but that's simply because it can be trickier adjudicating the physics of who's where and when doing what and how hard than it is to make a call on who's feeling what and how they react.

Heck, in the last few sessions at one of the tables I enjoy playing at, there was 1 combat and maybe 3 attack rolls made, over the course of 3 hours. And I do believe 'murder hobo' is a stereotype that gets perpetuated and then assumed to be the norm, with minimal (at best) quantitative data to back it up.

Come to think of it - all our lot's roleplaying is really getting in the way of being remorseless killing machines.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

At 5th, our lot were running from giant rats because - they're giant rats. With DISEASES! But mainly because they were roleplaying people who didn't want to be bitten by anything, least of all horrible rats. Granted, they don't really patch defeated foes all that much, but still - though they have had the same hostage for something like 10 sessions as they can't agree on what to do with it!

I don't subscribe to a 'general style of play'. Such a generalisation is a lazy person's theoretical framework, built on opinion and worth just as much. I only count the tables I've played at in my life and they've been, by and by, all about running realised characters through whatever events occur. And the rules say nothing to cause me to consider otherwise.

Sure, combat - in terms of hit points, attack bonuses, damage and the like - gets a lot of love, but that's simply because it can be trickier adjudicating the physics of who's where and when doing what and how hard than it is to make a call on who's feeling what and how they react.

Heck, in the last few sessions at one of the tables I enjoy playing at, there was 1 combat and maybe 3 attack rolls made, over the course of 3 hours. And I do believe 'murder hobo' is a stereotype that gets perpetuated and then assumed to be the norm, with minimal (at best) quantitative data to back it up.

Come to think of it - all our lot's roleplaying is really getting in the way of being remorseless killing machines.

Well, thanks for calling me lazy! Nice to meet you too lol. I really feel that published adventures set the guideline for how the baseline game is played for a large portion of groups. Sure, you CAN run a game entirely about love triangles and social backbiting, but there really seem to be better systems for it (FATE with its social consequences for example). Again, not that non-violent D&D is badwrongfun, but is more of an outlier.

Murder-hobo is quite different from the level of violence you might expect during a normal adventure resolution, and will often be directed at "civilians" not normally positioned as "enemies" in the adventure setup. Guards, innkeepers who might object to having their barn lit on fire, merchants to be robbed, etc. My wife's combat cyborg in Rifts started as a murderhobo, with the stated goal of getting 3 throat rips a session (a turkey!). We had a good chuckle the first couple, then asked her to tone it down a notch since it really strained credulity she'd be allowed to remain in the party. Roberto flipped his alignment switch from CE to CN, and problem (mostly) solved. I really feel the motivation for violence is what makes a murder hobo.

Also, remorseless killing CAN be roleplaying! I really feel there tends to be a limited vision of what "roleplaying" is. Hell, we had a kid in our scout group who wanted to play, but be Batman. Not like, a character based off Batman. No, specifically Batman. So we made a "Batman" class, he essentially played his character as he thought Batman would react if he was in the Forgotten Realms, and we had a summer of dorking it up.

 

[pemerton]

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

It depends on the details, obviously. But I'm thinking, say, of the cultists in the d20 Ars Magic module "Black Monks of Glastonbury" - people who revel in having sold their souls, drunk the blood of innocents, etc. In the context of D&D fantasy, I think they are candidates to be beyond redemption.

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

I think the use of violence as a last resort is implicit, as a tendency at least, in good. And also implicit, at least as a likely element, of the typical paladin archetype - who fights duels, fights wars, etc - ie what I've called upthread "consensual" violence - and who otherwise fights in defence of others. But doesn't eg kill to steal.

The sub-class, by presenting this sort of attitude to violence as "special" or an outlier, seems to me to detract from the existing content of what it means to be "good" and/or a paladin (of the traditional, devotion-style sort).

My second objection is that the redemption/reconciliation mechanic is silly. It produces the wrong fiction. Instead of the paladin persuading or converting the wrongdoer by dint of example, personality, etc, it magically charms the wrongdoer for a minute. It's not a redeemer - it's an enchanter.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], I suppose Grazzt is really CG - it's just that, when he consults his conscience, it tells him to conquer Demogorgon, Orcus, then the Abyss, then the world!

Given that the 5e alignment are meant to be mutually exclusive (in that no character can have more than one at a time) that they have to be read as a whole.

And given that 5e is meant to be a version of D&D that captures the traditions of the game, I also assume that its alignment labels roughly correspond to what has gone before.

The only significant change in 9-point alignment, over the history of the game, is whether truth and honour are part of goodness (as Gygax wrote) or part of lawfulness (as 3E has it). The 5e alignment descriptions don't seem to take a stand on this, although one could say the description of LE points in favour of the 3E approach. Personally I prefer Gygax's approach: I think it is more coherent.

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro, I suppose Grazzt is really CG - it's just that, when he consults his conscience, it tells him to conquer Demogorgon, Orcus, then the Abyss, then the world!

Eh, demons and devils are supernatural evil (do they even have a conscience?)... so they can't help but be evil and irredeemable at least in default D&D

Given that the 5e alignment are meant to be mutually exclusive (in that no character can have more than one at a time) that they have to be read as a whole.

And given that 5e is meant to be a version of D&D that captures the traditions of the game, I also assume that its alignment labels roughly correspond to what has gone before.

The only significant change in 9-point alignment, over the history of the game, is whether truth and honour are part of goodness (as Gygax wrote) or part of lawfulness (as 3E has it). The 5e alignment descriptions don't seem to take a stand on this, although one could say the description of LE points in favour of the 3E approach. Personally I prefer Gygax's approach: I think it is more coherent.

Funny assertion given the fact that 5e alignment has way less impact on the game than it did in AD&D, AD&D 2e, or even 3e. So, I'm going to disagree with your assertion that it's supposed to capture the traditions of the game. Call out to them sure, evoke them... ok... but replicate them...I don't think that was ever the goal of 5e.

 

[Imaro]

My second objection is that the redemption/reconciliation mechanic is silly. It produces the wrong fiction. Instead of the paladin persuading or converting the wrongdoer by dint of example, personality, etc, it magically charms the wrongdoer for a minute. It's not a redeemer - it's an enchanter.

The charm is to give him the opportunity to leverage the social interaction mechanics of D&D 5e without the person he is trying to redeem deciding to gut him while he's talking... which would, IMO, be silly and produce the wrong fiction.

EDIT: Or whatever social mechanics the DM is using in his particular game...

 

[Manbearcat]

I disagree... the paladin has a chance during that initial enchantment to suss out flaws, ideals, bonds, etc... that could potentially give him bonuses in future exchanges but I don't think he should get a permanent charm effect on every individual and creature he does this too. It's too powerful mechanically and thematically it means the paladin doesn't have to make the effort of actually playing out the redemption to keep hos bonuses, IMO it then becomes more like a domination or constant manipulation as opposed to a chance to really redeem or change someone.



Yeah I don't like this so I'm glad it's not THE way to do it. I think the advantage charmed grants plus the social interaction rules work fine for this as opposed to a complicated mini-system created for no real benefit.

1. Since he's charmed... can't be hostile during the interaction.
2. charmed gives advantage to all social rolls during the duration (So why does he need the flaw?).

Mechanically what you are trying to achieve is already wrapped up into the charmed condition. Charmed...concise, one word and a general rule/condition. I feel like what you are trying to do is give the redemption of someone by the paladin a strict step by step structure on how he must proceed with the redemption and I'm not a fan of that. I may decide I want to change his flaw, ideal or whatever after discovering it... 5e givess me the freedom to make that call as a DM vs. his reactions. That's why I don't want a (IMO, restrictive) structure for this.

1) My first and most significant issue is the thematic one; is this a magical charm (like Fey Warlock's Fey Presence, Enchanter Wizards Hypnotic Gaze) or is it mundane (like Swashbucker's Panache). I would say the evidence is strongly stacked toward it being a magical enchantment:

a) ...charmed creature is peaceful and docile, refusing to move or take actions, unless you command it.

b) When the effect end (after 1 minute), the creature falls unconscious if it has 0 HPs.

c) The overwhelming majority of charm effects in the game are magical in nature.

In the aesthetic of 5e and the culture that surrounds it/facilitated it, I would say this is clearly magical in nature. If you disagree, I'd love to hear the reasoning (and how it reconciles with adverse positions on other mundane compulsions for PCs...you know exactly what I'm talking about here).

I don't want this to be a magical charm. That is my first issue. "The weight of the Paladin's divinity" doesn't have to mean infliction of the magically charmed condition.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] , [MENTION=6846794]Gardens & Goblins[/MENTION] , [MENTION=31506]ehren37[/MENTION] , [MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION] . Thoughts on the directly above?

2) The fictional positioning of this effect guarantees nothing (other than 1 minute of Advantage when trying to learn Ideals, Bonds, Flaws via Insight and the same for Charisma checks...or anything else that can be interpreted as social). The creature is "peaceful and docile" but the rules language does nothing to create inference that the Hostile Attitude is changed from either Indifferent or all the way to Friendly. In fact, I would say that its silence on the matter (and the fact that the charm only lasts 1 minute) means that its fundamental Attitude is unchanged from Hostile (again, this should be another line of evidence that it is a magical charm or (d) above).

I don't like that from either a thematic perspective, a fictional positioning perspective, or a mechanical perspective:

* Its thematically incoherent with what should be happening given the trope and archetype that (it would seem) the designers are trying to emulate.

* It will create weird/nonsensical fiction (and possibly problematic play for the group) where the Paladin is playing hypnotist to a catatonic and Hostile NPC (rather than empathic priest to a newly evangelized parishioner in an emotional confessional) whereby the other PCs are inevitably standing by with their itchy trigger-fingers.

* The Paladin player is at the mercy of the GM with respect to Attitude. I think bare minimum the ability should contain a proviso that the Attitude shifts from Hostile to Indifferent. I would much prefer to get rid of the charmed condition outright and just have the Attitude shifted from Hostile to Friendly and have that be permanent. Sussing out its Flaws via Insight and cementing relationship with a Charisma check happening without Advantage would be just fine by me if the attitude change is guaranteed (thus opening up the prospects of thematic coherency with absolution and a newly minted NPC ally).

3) I don't think that is too powerful at all. This is a game with stupidly powerful Enchanters, Diviners, Lore Bards (and other various multiclass builds). The Redemption Paladin already gives up its 3rd level ability for what (nearly) amounts to fluff (You can play it as a cloth-wearing priest rather than a heavily armored militant). Allowing it to gain followers/hirelings by granting absolution doesn't strike me as remotely too powerful in light of these things.

If there needs to be some sort of level/CR stipulation/numbers stipulation to ensure things don't scale improperly, then the designers can have at it.

---

Bottom line, I think the designers missed a golden opportunity for interesting mechanics for this subclass feature (which is odd, because class design has been a strong suit in 5e) and thematic/fictional positioning coherency.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It depends on the details, obviously. But I'm thinking, say, of the cultists in the d20 Ars Magic module "Black Monks of Glastonbury" - people who revel in having sold their souls, drunk the blood of innocents, etc. In the context of D&D fantasy, I think they are candidates to be beyond redemption.

Of course! They...drink the blood of innocents. Clearly, they are a threat to innocents.

But, if one or more of them seems, to the redeemer, to be willing to repent, to "still have good in them", it would be in character to try and redeem them.

But, not for the Devotion Paladin. Because they drank the blood of innocents and stuff. Devotion Paladin will show mercy if they surrender, sure, but giving them a second chance isn't the Devotion Paladin's job.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

1) ...

I'd run it as magical, folks at my table are unlikely to mind much either way, though there's often a chat about freewill and the morality of charm spells.

As for shifting the reaction - personally I'd prefer to codify the possibility of attitudes through the social skills - enough at least to represent it as possibility (without reducing things to a 'I check to make them Neutral!). Then our Redemptionist could conceivably engage with some targets through the social skill where possible while also having the option to bop a foe over the head till they magically calm down - where upon they have the chance to use the social skills to shift the target's attitude, time and place allowing.

Of course this is in keeping with a more 'magical' class ability, a mystical martial diplomat - and there's a few good one liners regarding walking softly and carry a big stick. It does leave wiggle room for folks wishing to play things out in their own way though - some might magical bop foe first, talk later. Others might talk and then bop. And folks can choose which social skill to employ that best represents their style of diplomacy/conversion - trickery/bully tactics or well formed arguments.

Ultimately though, my go to will always be - 'Let's play it for 20 mins and see how it goes. Collect feedback. Tweak. Play again. Rinse & repeat until we're having fun. While it makes for less of a lengthy forum back and forth, I do find it makes for a better play experience!

 

[pemerton]

if one or more of them seems, to the redeemer, to be willing to repent, to "still have good in them", it would be in character to try and redeem them.

Sure. I didn't take that to be in dispute.

But, not for the Devotion Paladin. Because they drank the blood of innocents and stuff. Devotion Paladin will show mercy if they surrender, sure, but giving them a second chance isn't the Devotion Paladin's job.

Personally I don't think that's the only reading of the devotion paladin. I also don't think it's the only reading of the redemption paladin (ie that they be given a second chance). To say it would be in character to try and redeem them isn't at all to say that they must be given a second chance - after all, under the heading "wisdom" we are told that "While every creature can be redeemed, some are so far along the path of evil that you have no choice but to end their lives for the greater good."

I also don't think the redeemer has be be averse to punishment. A very standard theme in the contemporary literature on the "expressive" theory of punishment is that the wrongdoer only demonstrates genuine remorse (and hence genuinely achieves redemption) by undergoing the penance that punishment consists in.