D&D 5E Redemption Paladin

[Cap'n Kobold]

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

No. I don't see the redemption of an evil being as simple as a single roll, with the choices of either "unredeemable" or "redeemed" decided immediately.
If the foe is an utterly inconsequential random encounter for example, and the DM doesn't want to bog things down, I could see a skill check on behalf of the paladin, based on the degree of corruption etc.
But bear in mind that a Redemption Paladin would probably feel responsible for those they spared: if a foe decided not to try to change and went back to harming innocents, the paladin would likely feel responsible for not making the decision to kill them when they had the chance.

Also, thoughts on below?

Makes sense.

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 mentioned, that was my best understanding of the argument. I'm sure the people who were arguing that it must be a magical effect can give a better explanation.

 

[Istbor]

I think I would interpret it as Divine Grace.

This divine epiphany or some otherworldly power keeping your mind unclouded for that minute, which allows for the Paladin to lecture you and attempt to dissuade you from your current path.

If you want to consider that magical or mundane though, then go for it. I would probably consider it something in between.

And I certainly don't consider this Paladin the same thing as one of devotion. Would they work well together? Yeah probably.

 

[Guest 6801328]

What if the ability were simply changed to: "When you reduce a creature to zero hit points using a simple, bludgeoning weapon you have the option of leaving it at one hit point. When you do so, any Charisma-based skills you use on that creature for one minute are made with Advantage, and if any of those skills are opposed the target has Disadvantage."

 

[Imaro]

What if the ability were simply changed to: "When you reduce a creature to zero hit points using a simple, bludgeoning weapon you have the option of leaving it at one hit point. When you do so, any Charisma-based skills you use on that creature for one minute are made with Advantage, and if any of those skills are opposed the target has Disadvantage."

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...

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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

X can be a "best of" of Y without anyone who owns X needing to own Y.

No one is saying that you need AD&D to understand 5e. I'm saying that I don't think 5e's take on alignment should be taken to be radically different from earlier versions - which are consistent from AD&D through 3.5 with the exception that truth and honour get moved from "good" to "lawful".

 

[pemerton]

I can't imagine a redeemer believing that capital punishment can be just and right

From the UA article:

Paladins who dedicate themselves to this oath believe that any person can be redeemed . . . By setting the proper example, and working to heal the wounds of a deeply flawed world, you can set anyone on a righteous path. . . . [E]ventually you will be forced to admit defeat. 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. Any such action must be carefully weighed and the consequences fully understood, but once you have made the decision, follow through with it knowing your path is just.​

That doesn't seem to exclude capital punishment. In fact, the final two sentences seem to invite it.

This is why I don't understand the recurrent framing of the redeemer as a pacifist. There's no renunciation of violence.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

The other part of this that makes me smile is that it's a throwback to the old Cleric rule of only using bludgeoning weapons.

I think this subclass would make a good chassis for a Domain of Peace Cleric.

Unfortunately, Paladins are a lot less well served for subclass options than Clerics at this point in 5e.

 

[Imaro]

X can be a "best of" of Y without anyone who owns X needing to own Y.

It's not a "best of" though. A best of is a collection of the best parts/versions of something. Again... 5e is a callback... possibly a re-imagining or reboot of the older editions...but it's not the best of older versions of D&D... Have the Devs ever made that claim?

No one is saying that you need AD&D to understand 5e. I'm saying that I don't think 5e's take on alignment should be taken to be radically different from earlier versions - which are consistent from AD&D through 3.5 with the exception that truth and honour get moved from "good" to "lawful".

You quoted them...and they weren't the same...

 

[pemerton]

It's not a "best of" though. A best of is a collection of the best parts/versions of something. Again... 5e is a callback... possibly a re-imagining or reboot of the older editions...but it's not the best of older versions of D&D... Have the Devs ever made that claim?

They've said that 5e will deliver you the experience you enjoyed from previous editions. That was the core of the pitch in the development phase.

I'm not interested in quibbling over whether you think "best of" or "callback" is the best term for that - in this context I think they work as synonyms.

5e is not supposed to be a change or departure from the classic editions. It deliberately reverts to 9-point alignment. Are you really telling me that it is a reimagining or reconfiguration of 9-point alignment?

You quoted them...and they weren't the same...

Not the same words, no. Nor is "two plus two" the same bit of text as "four", but they denote the same thing (ie the number 4).

 

[Imaro]

They've said that 5e will deliver you the experience you enjoyed from previous editions. That was the core of the pitch in the development phase.

I thought it was that there would be something in 5e for all fans of D&D... Does anyone have the exact quote of the Dev's because I've seen countless variations on it that vary wildly in their meaning.

I'm not interested in quibbling over whether you think "best of" or "callback" is the best term for that - in this context I think they work as synonyms.

A call back or reboot by necessity has differences from the original. The difference in terms, irregardles of how you try to downplay it is exactly where our contention lies.

5e is not supposed to be a change or departure from the classic editions. It deliberately reverts to 9-point alignment. Are you really telling me that it is a reimagining or reconfiguration of 9-point alignment?

I'm saying the definitions of alignment have changed form AD&D to 3e to 4e (where the actual alignments were reconfigured) to 5e. Otherwise they'd just reprint the text of AD&D.

Not the same words, no. Nor is "two plus two" the same bit of text as "four", but they denote the same thing (ie the number 4).

No they don't... and you continuing to claim they do doesn't change that fact.

You're claiming without your own personal interpretations and convoluted connections all colored by AD&D... these two descriptions below describe the exact same beliefs... is that really what you are claiming?

AD&D Lawful Good: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order,
characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the
common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to
bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great
importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.

VS.

(D&D 5e)Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do
the right thing as expected by society (No mention of truth, life or beauty as inherently valuable)

and these two also describe the same ideals, standards and morals...

AD&D Neutral Good: Unlike those directly opposite them (neutral evil) in
alignment, creatures of neutral good believe that there must be some
regulation in combination with freedoms if the best is to be brought to the
world - the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and
intelligent creatures in particular.

vs.

D&D 5e Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according. to their needs. (less concerned about the most beneficial conditions in general and more concerned with persoanl needs)

or these...

AD&D Chaotic Good: While creatures of this alignment view freedom and the
randomness of action as ultimate truths, they likewise place value on life
and the welfare of each individual. Respect for individualism is also great.
By promoting the gods of chaotic good, characters of this alignment seek
to spread their values throughout the world.

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)

Yeah no, not buying it... it's not a case of 2+ 2 or four it's a case of you claiming 2+2 is equivalent to 6...