D&D 5E Redemption Paladin

[Imaro]

+1 to both of these.

1) "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist" is a classic trope of evil, made truly famous by the Usual Suspects but originating in The Generous Gambler 130 years prior. The amount of bloodshed in our own world by those who willfully corrupt, exploit, and extort is unfathomable. So many of the greatest atrocities in the annals of history and on through today are committed by those who have physically let not a drop of blood.

2) Why doesn't it interact with the Social Interaction conflict resolution mechanics (DMG 244). I've called them "Wheel of Fortune-ey" in the past. As you note, this is the perfect opportunity to leverage them.

a) The fictional positioning changes as the NPC willingly lays his burden upon the Redemption Paladin. The NPC automatically shifts from Hostile to Indifferent.

b) Further, the Paladin automatically learns his Flaw (therefore not having to deftly converse to open up the opportunity for a Wisdom-Insight check to learn it; in Wheel of Fortune vernacular, this would be "Spinning the Wheel and earning letters on the board").

c) Through this moment of inspired connection, the Paladin can use the Flaw to either earn Advantage on the Charisma Check to sort out the Social Interaction or can turn the Indifferent NPC to Friendly before rolling their Charisma Check (This would be the "Solving the Puzzle" phase).

Instead they go with Charmed for 1 minute and then unconscious? Not good. Missed opportunity.

But... this resolution system can be invoked by the paladin if he chooses so with the bonus on social checks from the creature being charmed... or am I missing something here?

EDIT: Do people just want the entire system reprinted in the class description or something?

 

[Manbearcat]

But... this resolution system can be invoked by the paladin if he chooses so with the bonus on social checks from the creature being charmed... or am I missing something here?

EDIT: Do people just want the entire system reprinted in the class description or something?

1) The charmed condition is a magically inflicted status and has a duration. I'd much prefer, thematically and mechanically, for it to be a permanent, mundane change inspired by the weight of the Paladin's divinity.

2) You wouldn't have to recapitulate the entirety of the Social Interaction mechanics (and besides, 5e's natural language isn't disinclined toward turning what could be a pithy and cogent format into something more lengthy or sprawling). You just have to convey:

a) The NPC automatically goes from Hostile to Indifferent toward the Paladin.
b) The NPC automatically shares his Flaw with the Paladin in an emotional confessional.
c) The Paladin can use the Flaw to either turn the NPC from Indifferent to Friendly or for Advantage on the Charisma Check to decide the course of the Interaction.

Done. Cleanly.

 

[pemerton]

I fully agree with that, but at the moment I don't think there are what you refer to as "proper" social/interaction mechanics. There are some skills, but no rules/guidelines for how to use them.

If I'm understanding your point, you are proposing something along the lines of:
1) A general, game-wide set of concrete rules for using social skills to accomplish things such as persuading a bunch of lizardmen to give up their evil ways and depart, possibly leaving their lair unguarded. Or, with a good enough roll, becoming temporary allies. (The might entail the introduction of a Morale rating.)
2) The Redemption paladin, upon reducing said lizardmen to zero HP (or maybe half?) gets a hefty bonus for making that Persuasion roll.

Is that the sort of thing you're talking about?

Yep. That sort of thing. I don't think it has to be as elaborate as (say) the social conflict mechanics in a game like Burning Wheel. But it could be at least as elaborate as what AD&D offered, which was (i) reaction rolls that are binding on the GM (ie the reaction roll isn't just a way for the GM to get inspiration on how to handle the encounter; rather, like morale checks, once the dice are rolled the GM is bound by the result), and (ii) useful suggestions for mods to those rolls (CHA mods, the "circumstance" mods like those I mentioned, etc). In an era that is probably more familiar with the GM dictating NPC/monster reactions, rather than leaving it to a random process that the players have the ability to influence (eg by triggering circumstance bonuses), I think it can be easy to forget what a difference such a relatively simple mechanic can make.

Of course, there are issues. Allies can create problems a bit like summoning. It's tricky - for action economy reasons, balance reasons, spotlight-at-the-table reasons, handling time reasons, etc. I don't have a simple proposal there - that's what designers are for!

But however exactly we see the social mechanics working, I think that redemption belongs on that side of the line. It's about influencing by example, by leadership, by goodwill, etc - not about magically coercing and manipulating. It feels like the game has completely forgotten (whereas, once upon a time, it knew) that enchantment magic isn't the only way to get people to change their minds!

(An extra comment: in a more abstract system, I wouldn't mind that the Charmed condition is part of it. But 5e isn't that abstract. That's a difference from, say, 4e. In 4e, the mechanics model a really super-stealthy rogue by just letting him/her gain the invisibility condition. But in 5e non-magical stealth is always going to be a check; it's not handled in terms of conditions. And so in 5e, the most silver-tongued rogue or bard doesn't put the Charmed condition on someone as a way to model that silver-tongued-ness. It's a sign of magic at work.)


EDIT: I'd missed [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s posts no. 49 & 52. That's the sort of thing I'm trying to get at. It makes the redemption about the authority of the paladin and his/her example, and about the response of the wrongdoer to that, rather than about a magical charm.

Again for clarity: I'm not against mechanics (either in general, or in this case). For me this thread is about the fiction. I think the "reconciliation" mechanic creates the wrong sort of fiction. Likewise the way the stuff about the redemption paladin's values and motivations implicitly reframes the values and motivations of other paladins and "good" characters.

 

[pemerton]

in the previous edition evil paladins as PC's were allowed and supported

From the 4e PHB, p 90:

You must choose an alignment identical to the alignment of your patron deity; a paladin of a good deity must be good, a paladin of a lawful good deity must be lawful good, and a paladin of an unaligned deity must be unaligned. Evil and chaotic evil paladins do exist in the world, but they are almost always villains, not player characters.​

From the 4e DMG, p 163:

Evil and chaotic evil deities have clerics and paladins just as other gods do. However, the powers of those classes, as presented in the Player’s Handbook, are strongly slanted toward good and lawful good characters. . . .

You can alter the nature of powers without changing their basic effects, making them feel more appropriate for the servants of evil gods: changing the damage type of a prayer, for instance, so that evil clerics and paladins deal necrotic damage instead of radiant damage.​

That is not support for evil paladin PCs.

But even if what you said was correct, it wouldn't change the fact that "knight in shining armour" was the heart of the class. Again, from the 4e PHB (p 89):

Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope. Paladins are transfigured on the field of battle, exemplars of divine ethos in action.

To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy’s charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice. Where others waver and wonder, your motivation is pure and simple, and your devotion is your strength. Where others scheme and steal, you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations.

Take up your blessed sword and sanctified shield, brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory!​

"Knight in shining armour" is another way of referring to an indomitable warrior who is a beacon of inextinguishable hope and thereby bolsters the courage of nearby companions, and whose devotion is his/her strength, and who protects his/her allies with his/her sacrifice.

This is a powerful fantasy archetype. I think it's important that D&D continue to support it. And I'm not a fan of game elements that (implicitly or explicitly) undermine it.

 

[Imaro]

1) The charmed condition is a magically inflicted status and has a duration. I'd much prefer, thematically and mechanically, for it to be a permanent, mundane change inspired by the weight of the Paladin's divinity.

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.

2) You wouldn't have to recapitulate the entirety of the Social Interaction mechanics (and besides, 5e's natural language isn't disinclined toward turning what could be a pithy and cogent format into something more lengthy or sprawling). You just have to convey:

a) The NPC automatically goes from Hostile to Indifferent toward the Paladin.
b) The NPC automatically shares his Flaw with the Paladin in an emotional confessional.
c) The Paladin can use the Flaw to either turn the NPC from Indifferent to Friendly or for Advantage on the Charisma Check to decide the course of the Interaction.

Done. Cleanly.

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.

 

[Imaro]

From the 4e PHB, p 90:

You must choose an alignment identical to the alignment of your patron deity; a paladin of a good deity must be good, a paladin of a lawful good deity must be lawful good, and a paladin of an unaligned deity must be unaligned. Evil and chaotic evil paladins do exist in the world, but they are almost always villains, not player characters.​

From the 4e DMG, p 163:

Evil and chaotic evil deities have clerics and paladins just as other gods do. However, the powers of those classes, as presented in the Player’s Handbook, are strongly slanted toward good and lawful good characters. . . .

You can alter the nature of powers without changing their basic effects, making them feel more appropriate for the servants of evil gods: changing the damage type of a prayer, for instance, so that evil clerics and paladins deal necrotic damage instead of radiant damage.​

That is not support for evil paladin PCs.

But even if what you said was correct, it wouldn't change the fact that "knight in shining armour" was the heart of the class. Again, from the 4e PHB (p 89):

Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope. Paladins are transfigured on the field of battle, exemplars of divine ethos in action.

To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy’s charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice. Where others waver and wonder, your motivation is pure and simple, and your devotion is your strength. Where others scheme and steal, you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations.

Take up your blessed sword and sanctified shield, brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory!​

"Knight in shining armour" is another way of referring to an indomitable warrior who is a beacon of inextinguishable hope and thereby bolsters the courage of nearby companions, and whose devotion is his/her strength, and who protects his/her allies with his/her sacrifice.

This is a powerful fantasy archetype. I think it's important that D&D continue to support it. And I'm not a fan of game elements that (implicitly or explicitly) undermine it.

Hey you want to quibble about the meaning of support fine. An evil paladin by a player character is an option in 4e and does not coincide with the supposed "heart" of the paladin you stated previously... is that better wording?

So given the fact that 4e does allow one to play an evil paladin... I'm failing to see how the description of the paladin from 4e supports your initial assertion that violence as a last resort is a given for a paladin... in fact the paladin of 4e from your description above seems to almost revel in violence and combat...even if you argue it's for a "good" cause (and since he seems primarily concerned with the protection of his allies as opposed to the weak or innocent not sure it can be classified as good). In other words this is a very different paladin from AD&D 1e.

 

[pemerton]

I'm failing to see how the description of the paladin from 4e supports your initial assertion that violence as a last resort is a given for a paladin

I didn't say that violence as a last resort is a given for a paladin. Eg clearly it's not a given for a vengeance paladin.

In the OP, I said that "given that killing wantonly is pretty much the hallmark of evil, it seems that any good character will tend to use violence only as a last resort (or perhaps in more-or-less consensual situations, where the violence doesn't undermine the dignity of its victim - eg duels, some sorts of warfare)."

That is to say, the idea that violence is a last resort doesn't call out anything distinctive. And by implying the contrary - by implying that it is special - the redemption paladin casts other paladins and good characters in a certain light that, in my view, undermines the archetype.

It would be like having a courageous fighter sub-class, which - by suggesting that characters of that sub-class are distinctively courageous - suddenly implies that other fighters aren't particularly courageous, or noteworth in that respect. I think that would also be an unhappy sub-class.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

I likes it. Thematically, there's more than enough wiggle room for folks to play it in a manner of ways. And technically there's enough crunch to keep a level of mechanical consistency between said ways.

If folks don't like the theme or crunch of the class - heck, change it. Play it. Test it. Then let us know how you got on!

 

[Imaro]

I didn't say that violence as a last resort is a given for a paladin. Eg clearly it's not a given for a vengeance paladin.

In the OP, I said that "given that killing wantonly is pretty much the hallmark of evil, it seems that any good character will tend to use violence only as a last resort (or perhaps in more-or-less consensual situations, where the violence doesn't undermine the dignity of its victim - eg duels, some sorts of warfare)."

"

There's a big difference between killing wantonly and killing as a last resort... with plenty of in-between space there. Now I'm going to assume we are speaking to the D&D genre (where violence of all types is pretty common) as opposed to real life and with that said... there is nothing in the descriptions of the good alignments that necessitate killing as a last resort. In fact if it will expediently save lives, stop the bad guy, etc. with minimal risk and loss of innocents it should probably be the go to for the good guys in a D&D world... but not the redemption paladin, he needs to be sure that this person or monster is irredeemable in order to use death as his first response.

Now I also don't see how Killing in more-or-less consensual situations is somehow more "good" than fighting dirty. Is the chaotic good rogue less good because he used a sneaky move to finish the cultist off before he could murder his prepared sacrifices to a dark god. I would think not. Being honorable and being good are not the same thing.

That is to say, the idea that violence is a last resort doesn't call out anything distinctive. And by implying the contrary - by implying that it is special - the redemption paladin casts other paladins and good characters in a certain light that, in my view, undermines the archetype.

So you're assertion is that enough good characters in the D&D genre use violence as a last resort that it's the most common method of dealing with threats? Huh? This certainly doesn't match up with the source material (novels, supplements, etc) or how I've seen it played by most people... In fact I would argue the opposite is true.

It would be like having a courageous fighter sub-class, which - by suggesting that characters of that sub-class are distinctively courageous - suddenly implies that other fighters aren't particularly courageous, or noteworth in that respect. I think that would also be an unhappy sub-class.

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. The paladin has devoted his life to said calling (and let's be honest for a minute, you are focusing on a small piece of the oath not it's entirety), that's the point of the oath giving him supernatural power, most characters who may decide to use violence as a last resort... haven't devoted themselves to it in the same way. I mean this is a silly argument because it can be applied to nearly anything if worded right. Why can't anyone who is literate (as most D&D characters are) learn to read and cast spells without taking a spellcasting class? Why can't anyone who prays to a god and shows devotion get some magic without taking the cleric class? This argument doesn;t make much sense in the context of D&D.

 

[CydKnight]

Nothing in the description suggests that they won't "strike first" - eg it talks about using violence in pursuit of the greater good.

Unless by "strike" you also mean "threaten".

I wasn't speaking to the actual wording of the description. I was speaking of my own personal impression based on the overall description provided. To clarify, yes, I believe threaten could be used instead of the word "strike" but it doesn't really capture the essence of what I was trying to convey either. While they may strike before actually being struck, they may also actually strike a creature first if it has already struck or is threatening imminent harm upon a creature that the Redemption Paladin deems in need of protection.