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've answered this in another post but let me just say... nothing above points to magic.
a.) Yeah 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 weapon that didn't draw any blood... he'd be foolish to be anything but peaceful and docile at this point.
b.) Yep because what we don't want is the enemy slurping down a healing potion once you've failed to redeem him and attacking you, fleeing, etc. It doesn't fit the thematic fiction. One would assume if the paladin feels he has a shot at redemption... he'd heal him. Either way this ensures the paladin's defeat of the enemy stays relevant.
c.) The overwhelming majority of conditions in the game are caused by magic... even frightened which both the battlemaster and barbarian can inflict. that's the nature of the game when you have 100's of magical spells.
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.
Again it's not magical... charmed is a game condition, not an in world state for the fiction. A charm person spell is an in world magical effect that inflicts the charmed condition. Charmed in and of itself is not magical by default... it is a condition just like unconscious or grabbed or frightened.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] , [MENTION=6846794]Gardens & Goblins[/MENTION] , [MENTION=31506]ehren37[/MENTION] , [MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION] . Thoughts on the directly above?
I'd also be interested in what you all think of my points 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).
Uhm ok so it guarantees...
1.) 1. min of advantage on all social interactions (isn't this exactly the benefit you wanted from learning flaws, ideals, etc.?)
2.) The creature cannot take actions (run away, attack, etc.) while you are giving him your redemption speech
3.) No his attitude doesn't change... that's where the roleplaying and skill use comes into the picture. You have a setup conducive to it, but it's not an "I WIN" button
NOTE: You do realize that the spell Charm Person does in fact change the targets attitude to friendly... so I'm not quite understanding why the fact that this
doesn't work like that is proof of magic. This statement is a real head scratcher logic wise. Since I would think changing a foe's attitude, who you've beaten to the edge of consciousness, have at your mercy, and are lecturing on life... instantly to friendly would be...well...magical.
I don't like that from either a thematic perspective, a fictional positioning perspective, or a mechanical perspective:
Yes but that's because I think you are dealing with some incorrect assumptions and I think you already have a set idea of how this should be represented... thus making you less open to accepting alternative ways to model it.
* Its thematically incoherent with what should be happening given the trope and archetype that (it would seem) the designers are trying to emulate.
Not at all... Everything above falls in line with the thematics well enough and the only thing jarring is again, IMO, due to your assumptions about the nature of certain things (like the charmed condition)... which aren't really holding up when examined
* 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.
Nope it won't but someone playing the paladin in such a way (i.e. not being true to the archetype) could certainly model the fiction as such... Of course you can purposefully re-skin or play against theme, for almost any class in D&D. Not sure how that speaks to whether the class will work for someone who embraces the thematics of the redemption paladin though. It's assuming a bad player and then blaming the class for it.
* 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).
Nope disagree and this is where I think the big contention comes in. D&D 5e is based on rulings not rules. The DM is trusted to play this scene out with his players with integrity and it's the right call IMO. Everyone isn't redeemable (and I'd argue that's a big part of the tropes and thematics of the class as well) so you're auto-friends shift totally destroys that possibility and eliminates any tension and drama that is generated when this plays out... to me that's silly and thematically inappropriate. I don't want that expectation set up for the paladin because exploring a character who can't be redeemed and won't be the paladin's friend (and may even hate him more for his mercy and efforts) is valid and should be a possibility if the rolls play out that way.
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.
If it's both automatic and permanent... what would stop players who would beat down entire towns and force every NPC to have a permanent friendly attitude (now everyone gives info freely and will do things easily for you) to them... Nope, don't want to even entertain that type of silliness.
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.
Eh, and I think you have a specific way mechanically you want this modeled (which in and of itself is fine) but there is nothing inherently wrong (thematically or mechanically) with the way it has been done by the Devs here, in fact I see more issues with the way you are suggesting it be modeled than with the way it works now.
