D&D 5E Redemption Paladin

[Waterbizkit]

If Warrior of Reconciliation is too overtly magical, for some, as written, perhaps mashing it with some of the mechanics from the Swashbucklers Panache ability would make it more palatable? When an enemy is reduced to 0 hit points rather than having them automatically charmed they make an Insight check against the Paladins Persuasion check, if the enemy fails then they become charmed per what the rest of Warrior of Reconciliation states. Adding a skill check to the ordeal makes it more "mundane" rather than something a bit too close to magical brainwashing.

For the record though I'm fine with the ability working as it does now, I just imagine it as some sort of divine persuasion that temporarily causes the enemy to consider the Paladins words with more weight than they might otherwise, something that might lead to a long-term change of heart but isn't guaranteed to do so.

Either way, I'd be fine if the ability got the skill check added to change the narrative of it a bit... or stayed the same.

 

[Imaro]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] - as I said to [MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION], tell me what you think is happening in the fiction.

I stated this in the previous post...

you just gave him a serious thrashing... put him at the edge of unconsciousness... but spared his life and are badass enough to give him a lecture on top of it, all with a sub-par weapon that didn't draw any blood and no armor... he'd be foolish to be anything but peaceful and docile at this point and should probably be in utter awe..

 

[Manbearcat]

It is also based upon the individual.

Having one of those effects affect each and every person the paladin struck down would also be jarring I think. Just as much as the auto-success at redeeming them.
The article specifically calls out that not everyone is willing or able to be redeemed.

Would you be alright with it if it was allowed a Charisma Saving Throw?

Also, thoughts on below?

I'm curious... is the Battlemasters ability to inflict the frightened condition magic? How about the barbarian's ability to do the same thing with Intimidating Presence or even to rage? For contrast the Totem Warriors abilities are specifically called out as supernatural... So why aren't the paladin's?
@Manbearcat... I'd be interested in hearing whether you consider these abilities magical in nature as well...

EDIT: It's a game condition that the paladin's actions inflict upon the target of that ability... nothing states it has to be magical and with the example of other non-magical classes inflicting conditions, I'm not sure I see why it doesn't make sense unless it's magical...

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] , couple thoughts:

1) I don’t have my books available but I’m fairly certain that one or both of Fey Presence and Hypnotic Gaze aren’t called out as supernatural or magical effects in their descriptions. Does this mean these two are not/may not be magical? I think that would be pretty contentious.

2) I’m sure you know personally that I fully support the Frightened, Charmed (and plenty of other conditions including all sorts of Forced Movement) being achieved by mundane means. 5e has obviously supported this paradigm as well.

3) Finally, since we’re going there, I’m going to get into what I was intimating above. If this Paladin ability is mundane rather than magical, I fully expect there to be an utter outcry by the player base because of the Come and Get It paradigm. Come and Get It was (as we know) martial forced movement in the moment of deadly conflict whereby nearby martial actors were inexorably drawn to the Fighter’s challenge, feint, etc. No Saving Throw…just move adjacent. That made people CRAZY. This ability, if mundane, does WAAAAAAAAY more than CaGI…again, without a Saving Throw. It utterly takes ALL agency (not just moving adjacent) from them, rendering them actor docile and placid. This isn’t just a singular moment where a subconscious permutation takes place (which is not just a thing…this is the predominate mode of operation in conflict/stress-charged martial tests…which is why I’ve always been utterly find with CaGI)…this is for an ENTIRE MINUTE.

So to recap:

* Martial/mundane effect

* No Saving Throw allowed

* All agency removed

* For an entire minute.

Should I expect a Heavens and Earth moving outrage sometime shortly?

Just saw you responded, don't have time to read and respond now so I'll get to it tonight.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I don't agree with that description. I'm not justifying it having to be magical. I'm assuming it to be magical because that's how it looks to me, as an overall package, in light of my understanding of the 5e paradigm. If you're telling me it's really "dazed and disheartened, then swooning", well OK, that's an interesting interpretation. Tell me more - eg how does the swooning relate (if at all) to death saves? How does the ability to give commands fit in? Why only with a cudgel?

Those aren't rhetorical questions - if you think I'm making the wrong move from mechanics to fiction, then - as I said - tell me more!

Fair enough. I'd probably flavour it as the foe being so impressed by the paladin's righteousness that they're able to stave off falling unconscious for a while. Possibly the paladin's mercy inspiring the foe with divine fervour. As I said: it can be quite easily flavoured as supernatural, or at least a reaction to the supernatural nature of the paladin empowered by her oath.

As far as I'm aware, the ability shouldn't interact with death saves: the foe isn't actually dying are they? If they took additional damage from some source after being affected, then I think that they would keel over and start bleeding out however.

Most of the weapons that the redemption paladin can use to invoke this effect are less lethal: a wooden club or staff is less likely to kill someone than an axe or hammer. While the general rules mechanics don't reflect this particularly, the fiction of this ability requires the paladin to show a 'good-faith' effect to not kill their foe, by using such a less-lethal weapon. (I'd probably allow it to work with unarmed strikes as well.)

EDIT: It's a game condition that the paladin's actions inflict upon the target of that ability... nothing states it has to be magical and with the example of other non-magical classes inflicting conditions, I'm not sure I see why it doesn't make sense unless it's magical...

I believe the point of contention is not the charmed effect, but the foe's ability to hold off falling unconscious for a while. There are no rules mechanics elsewhere that allow this effect to be replicated by purely mundane means as far as I know

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro , couple thoughts:

1) I don’t have my books available but I’m fairly certain that one or both of Fey Presence and Hypnotic Gaze aren’t called out as supernatural or magical effects in their descriptions. Does this mean these two are not/may not be magical? I think that would be pretty contentious.

Fey Presence clearly states it's bestowed upon you by your Patron... the supernatural being you get you powers from. It's not something you can do of your own accord. And again no mention of any being giving the paladin the ability to do this... and Hypnotic gaze states it's magical in the description...

2) I’m sure you know personally that I fully support the Frightened, Charmed (and plenty of other conditions including all sorts of Forced Movement) being achieved by mundane means. 5e has obviously supported this paradigm as well.

Yep and yet here we are with an ability that doesn't allude to anything magical and you want to force it into that category. Personally I think the player can play it either way he wants... but there is nothing in the description that calls it out as magical.

3) Finally, since we’re going there, I’m going to get into what I was intimating above. If this Paladin ability is mundane rather than magical, I fully expect there to be an utter outcry by the player base because of the Come and Get It paradigm. Come and Get It was (as we know) martial forced movement in the moment of deadly conflict whereby nearby martial actors were inexorably drawn to the Fighter’s challenge, feint, etc. No Saving Throw…just move adjacent. That made people CRAZY. This ability, if mundane, does WAAAAAAAAY more than CaGI…again, without a Saving Throw. It utterly takes ALL agency (not just moving adjacent) from them, rendering them actor docile and placid. This isn’t just a singular moment where a subconscious permutation takes place (which is not just a thing…this is the predominate mode of operation in conflict/stress-charged martial tests…which is why I’ve always been utterly find with CaGI)…this is for an ENTIRE MINUTE.


So to recap:

* Martial/mundane effect

* No Saving Throw allowed

* All agency removed

* For an entire minute.

Should I expect a Heavens and Earth moving outrage sometime shortly?

Just saw you responded, don't have time to read and respond now so I'll get to it tonight.

I was never one of the people who got up in arms about CaGi...and honestly it semed to pretty much die down after the save was introduced... but I do see some pretty big differences...

1. You have to defeat him first...I think most people consider zero hit points the defacto point where you can narrate how you defeat an enemy and thus this ability doesn't force any actions on the npc/monster in the heat of battle... it creates a narrative after the battle has already been decided. So I don't agree agency is removed... it was decided by the battle

2. This doesn't force a particular way of thinking on the NPC/monster's part instead it leaves it up to roleplay and the dice (That's one of my objections with your method... you want to force him to befriend the paladin automatically). This roleplaying and skill use is in effect the saving throw, either he's convinced or not.

4.Mundane characters in 5e can inflict conditions...it's been there since day one. I don't think inflicting a condition was the problem with CaGi though. Just saying.

3. Finally I think the biggest one is...it's left ambiguous enough that those who want to call it magical can. at your table it could easily be magical but for the purposes of discussing the class... nothing indicates that.


So I guess my short answer would be that this ability actually avoids all of the pitfalls of the original CaGi (at least as I understood them to be).

 

[Imaro]

I believe the point of contention is not the charmed effect, but the foe's ability to hold off falling unconscious for a while. There are no rules mechanics elsewhere that allow this effect to be replicated by purely mundane means as far as I know

So we have a new mundane ability... if the PDK can heal allies in a radius when he uses his second wind and it's not considered magical... why does this have to be magical? We have mundane characters doing all kinds of stuff that break the general rules because specific trumps general in 5e.

@pemerton : Fiction wise I would assume this is why the simple blunt weapon is called for... less damage no blood loss, etc. which is then mechanically modeled as the monster or NPC being able to hold on to consciousness for a bit longer. It's a D&D fictional trope (blunt weapons not drawing blood) that started with the cleric.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I thought 5e was meant to be the "best of", "back to the source" edition. How can past alignment understandings not be relevant?

Nothing in the 5e descriptions for good states one must use killing as a last resort

<snip>

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

<snip>

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

<sniup>

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.

I'm sure that Graz'zt conscience doesn't keep him awake at night either! On the other hand, killing someone doesn't seem like "helping others according to their needs" - it's hardly helping the one that you kill!

Good means valuing life and wellbeing. It's inherent in the word. Casually killing others ie outside contexts of defensive violence, legitimate punishment or where they have staked their own life (eg in a duel) is hardly treating others with respect. It's the sort of thing that, classically, the game has characterised as evil.

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

That's probably why, in UA, thieves can't be good. In the AD&D PHB they can be NG, but that is described as rare (PHB p 27). For obvious reasons. I don't think it's ever been suggested (in D&D rulebooks, or by real-life moralists) that being good requires never acting contrary to any value. But obviously if you're not honouring the truth (which a thief doesn't, in his/her deceptive mode of attack) then you'd better be honouring other values in your conduct.

 

[Imaro]

I thought 5e was meant to be the "best of", "back to the source" edition. How can past alignment understandings not be relevant?

Does everyone who purchases a 5e PHB also get a copy of every past edition? If not and they can play 5e on it's own merits...as a separate and distinct game... it's not. Alignment as set forth by 5e is what's relevant to 5e.

I'm sure that Graz'zt conscience doesn't keep him awake at night either! On the other hand, killing someone doesn't seem like "helping others according to their needs" - it's hardly helping the one that you kill!

Nope but it's helping those others you need to... in other words while killing may not always be the only way to help others...it also doesn't prohibit it or demand it be a last resort....

Good means valuing life and wellbeing. It's inherent in the word. Casually killing others ie outside contexts of defensive violence, legitimate punishment or where they have staked their own life (eg in a duel) is hardly treating others with respect. It's the sort of thing that, classically, the game has characterised as evil.

I said this before there's a wide spectrum between casual killer and kills as a last resort. And again the redemption paladin has more restrictions on him than even the ones you list above... the same assertions which, as I said before, seems to give alot of wiggle room to "last resort"... especially the "have staked their own life" (isn't this inherent in deadly combat?) which can be done just as easily by evil as good...

That's probably why, in UA, thieves can't be good. In the AD&D PHB they can be NG, but that is described as rare (PHB p 27). For obvious reasons. I don't think it's ever been suggested (in D&D rulebooks, or by real-life moralists) that being good requires never acting contrary to any value. But obviously if you're not honouring the truth (which a thief doesn't, in his/her deceptive mode of attack) then you'd better be honouring other values in your conduct.

We're not discussing AD&D... You keep referencing things that have nothing to do with 5e... as evidence about the nature of 5e.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

So we have a new mundane ability... if the PDK can heal allies in a radius when he uses his second wind and it's not considered magical... why does this have to be magical? We have mundane characters doing all kinds of stuff that break the general rules because specific trumps general in 5e.

As Arthur C. Clarke never said,

''Any sufficiently advanced mundane ability is indistinguishable from magic.''



[sblock]Can't reply further at this time, many things. Imaro - you got me thinking, cheers! Take care all.[/sblock]

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

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.

I never said it was the only interpretation.

Likewise, what you say here about punishment *can* apply to the redeemer, but certainly doesn't have to. Plenty of stories have heroes giving people second chances without any direct punishment, and the remorseful person seeks to atone on their own terms for their wrongdoing. The point either way is, the redeemer isn't going to execute anyone, except in very extreme circumstances, and will argue strongly against execution, perhaps even physically prevent it, while a lot of people believe it is fine for a devotion Paladin may accept execution as a just punishment for some crimes.

I can't imagine a redeemer believing that capital punishment can be just and right, while every other Paladin certainly could.