D&D 5E Redemption Paladin

[Guest 6801328]

What is it you are trying to accomplish by changing it in this way? It seems nearly identical except for the fact that the enemy you leave at 1 hit point has the option to run, attack you, or act against you physically...

It's a distinctly weaker version, but it might address the concerns of the people (posting in this thread) who find the magical charm for one minute to be narratively awkward.

 

[pemerton]

D&D 5e Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. (nothing about freedom or randomness as ultimate truths. No placing of value on life or the welfare of each individual inherently)

So we're back in Graz'zt is really CG territory - he just has a rather idiosyncratic conscience . . .

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So we're back in Graz'zt is really CG territory - he just has a rather idiosyncratic conscience . . .

nah. "Do what's right" implies an actual moral compass, not just doing whatever you want and painting a justification over it.

 

[Imaro]

So we're back in Graz'zt is really CG territory - he just has a rather idiosyncratic conscience . . .

*SIGH* This hyperbolic assertion does nothing to prove whatever point you're trying to make since Graz'zt can't be chaotic good for a couple of reasons...

1. He's supernatural evil
2. There are 6 other alignments and since you can only have one... the most relevant applies (i.e. chaotic evil, see below)
3. All demons are the embodiment of chaos and evil (MM pg. 50)

So no he isn't CG, he's CE...

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


Side Note: I find it interesting you keep bringing up Graz'zt since in 5e he is the evil who gives the lie to AD&D's LG assertion that beauty is intrinsically good or of great importance to good characters.

Out of the Abyss pg.240 "The appearance of the Dark Prince is a warning that not all beautiful things are good."

"

 

[MechaTarrasque]

For simplicity's sake, I tend to think of lawful types as prizing respectability over renown, chaotic types as prizing renown over respectability, and neutrals as prizing neither one (and a fair number of them not wanting other people to think about them at all).

I bring this up, because it seems like redemption feels more at home with neutrality (people who need to be hit over the head with a stick probably aren't that respectable) and maybe even chaos (my fame for redeeming this infamous bandit will inspire others). Devotion feels more lawful, as you often see yourself as a representative of something bigger than yourself, and try to act appropriately. Not saying you can't play a LG redemption paladin, but that is how my gut feels.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What stops the varlet from gutting the knight/monk is that (i) s/he is still dazed and disheartened by being beaten up, and (ii) s/he is held in awe by the knight/monk.

He's been defeated. In D&D, 0 hps. 0 hps doesn't absolutely have to mean unconscious in the sense of not being deaf to what the guy that just whup'd you has to say. It could be taken as forced to surrender, for instance.

The only reason that we would need some sort of magical effect to achieve that is because we are assuming that someone at 0 hp but still conscious must therefore be capable of launching attacks. It's the lack of a mechanical expression for the condition of being "dazed and disheartened" that is producing this outcome. That is, it's mechanics leading to (bad) fiction rather than expressing the desired fiction.

It sounds like it's a mechanical 'patch' against the possibility of a DM 'abusing' his Empowerment to undermine an already-difficulty-to-pull-off character concept. That's odd in 5e, which generally trusts the DM.

 

[pemerton]

It sounds like it's a mechanical 'patch' against the possibility of a DM 'abusing' his Empowerment to undermine an already-difficulty-to-pull-off character concept. That's odd in 5e, which generally trusts the DM.

I'm not going to venture an opinion on the bigger design issue you raise (it's an interesting one; I just don't feel qualified to comment).

But I like your description of it as a "mechanical 'patch'". That's how I feel, yes. (And the whole phrase is doing work for me - I'm not against mechanics, but this one doesn't seem right - subject to [MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION]'s post upthread, which I'm still digesting.)

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]: Gygax invented Graz'zt and wrote the AD&D books. There's no contradiction. In AD&D, beauty is one of the values that good affirms and evil scorns.

Graz'zt being beatutiful doesn't contradict that. Evil people enjoy being alive, and taking advantage of other living things, too. They just don't treat these things as ends in themselves - rather, they use life, beauty, truth etc simply as means to their selfish ends.

I also not you seem to accept that something can't be CG and CE at the same time. Which means that the idea of "doing what one's conscience dictates" must assume some sort of constraint on the contents of said conscience. The point of CG (in 5e as in AD&D) is that it's about independent judgement and self-realisation, rather than LG's collective pursuit of wellbeing.

 

[Imaro]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]: Gygax invented Graz'zt and wrote the AD&D books. There's no contradiction. In AD&D, beauty is one of the values that good affirms and evil scorns.

We're not discussing AD&D... we are discussing 5e. And yes Graz'zt himself contradicts that AD&D ideal in 5e.

Graz'zt being beatutiful doesn't contradict that. Evil people enjoy being alive, and taking advantage of other living things, too. They just don't treat these things as ends in themselves - rather, they use life, beauty, truth etc simply as means to their selfish ends.

It's not just about how he looks... the very first line of his description states that he is a reminder that beauty does not intrinsically equate to good in 5e. He is the contradiction to beauty equating to...being valued intrinsically by good.

I also not you seem to accept that something can't be CG and CE at the same time. Which means that the idea of "doing what one's conscience dictates" must assume some sort of constraint on the contents of said conscience. The point of CG (in 5e as in AD&D) is that it's about independent judgement and self-realisation, rather than LG's collective pursuit of wellbeing.

Nope again these are your personal assumptions outside of what is actually written. The only thing we know is that those of CG... act as their conscience
directs, with little regard for what others expect... aren't supernaturally evil and don't in general (since alignment is a general descriptor and " few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment)...

1. methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order
2. do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.
3. act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.
4. follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.
5. steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time
6. act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes
7. be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society
8. do the best they can to help others according to their needs.

That is how 5e defines being CG...anything else is your own personal addition and/or interpretation.

 

[Imaro]

What stops the varlet from gutting the knight/monk is that (i) s/he is still dazed and disheartened by being beaten up, and (ii) s/he is held in awe by the knight/monk. The only reason that we would need some sort of magical effect to achieve that is because we are assuming that someone at 0 hp but still conscious must therefore be capable of launching attacks. It's the lack of a mechanical expression for the condition of being "dazed and disheartened" that is producing this outcome. That is, it's mechanics leading to (bad) fiction rather than expressing the desired fiction.

Sorry but I disagree again...I would rather them reuse mechanics that already exist and that I and my players are familiar with than we go down the route of a thousand ever growing conditions and mechanics to express every new idea and concept. If it's absolutely necessary sure but if not this leads down a road of rule bloat and inelegance something 5e's design principles are against.