D&D 5E Redemption Paladin

[pemerton]

I don't know that I really get this sublcass.

It says

The Oath of Redemption sets a paladin on a difficult path, one that requires a holy warrior to use violence only as a last resort. . . . These paladins face evil creatures in the hope of turning them to the light, and the paladins slay them only when such a deed will clearly save other lives. . . .

Violence is a weapon of last resort. Diplomacy and understanding are the paths to long-lasting peace. . . .

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.​

Some of this seems self-contradictory: the first paragraph says that these paladins kill only in defence of others, while the last one says that they kill "for the greater good", which strongly implies killing for reasons other than defence of others.

And some of it seems redundant - 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).

I've also read some people describing these characters as pacifists, but clearly they don't repudiate violence.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Seems to me they are basically just protecting the way-too-literal players out there from themselves.

The subclass boils down to "They are diplomats and try to solve all problems with patience, understanding, communication and redemption. But they also aren't stupid enough to believe they can negotiate with mindless evil creatures like zombies, so they WILL just destroy those things as needed. They fight as a last resort, but they aren't completely pacifistic Lawful Stupid. Don't think they are and don't play them that way. You do have a weapon you know how to use after all..."

 

[Imaro]

I don't know that I really get this sublcass.

It says

The Oath of Redemption sets a paladin on a difficult path, one that requires a holy warrior to use violence only as a last resort. . . . These paladins face evil creatures in the hope of turning them to the light, and the paladins slay them only when such a deed will clearly save other lives. . . .

Violence is a weapon of last resort. Diplomacy and understanding are the paths to long-lasting peace. . . .

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.​

Some of this seems self-contradictory: the first paragraph says that these paladins kill only in defence of others, while the last one says that they kill "for the greater good", which strongly implies killing for reasons other than defence of others.

And some of it seems redundant - 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).

I've also read some people describing these characters as pacifists, but clearly they don't repudiate violence.

He seems to be based on the "Don't Make Me Destroy You Trope"... http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontMakeMeDestroyYou

I'd say based on the the Martial Pacifist or Good Is Not Soft archetypes...

 

[Dualazi]

Honestly, there's not much to get simply because it's a bad subclass. Much like the pacifist monk, it's a bunch of awkward modifications bolted onto a class that, like all the others, devotes a huge amount of design space to be proficient in combat. Not only does it devote a lot of energy into undoing that combat ability, but it's contradictory with its capstone as to what combat abilities it was allowed. Furthermore, as I stated in the other thread, the choice to play a pacifist/peace oriented character is one of those things that should be confined to RP, since there could be a pacifist rogue or wizard just as easily as there could be a paladin, but we absolutely do not want/need a non-lethal subclass for all of them.

On a personal level, these options always struck me as stupid anyway. They tend to either come off as insincere when the peaceful folks do inevitably resort to violence, and they also tend to cause schisms in the group because they constantly push for nonviolent resolutions or a foolhardy level of compassion. In a reality where demon-spawned races of hyena-men are slavering in anticipation of eating you and your family, pacifism also seems like it would be even more rare than it currently is.

In summary I find it a poorly designed option for an incredibly niche theme and I hope it is either thoroughly revised or pruned from whatever player supplement is released later.

 

[CydKnight]

This seems like it could be a sub-class that is more for role-playing to me but then again, I also see them as a class that simply will not strike first mirroring the Order of the Gauntlet. This doesn't mean they won't strike. It simply means that when they do strike, it will have definite meaning and just cause behind it. As such it will be intended as a decisive blow. It could also mean that this particular sub-class' road to redemption comes to the realization that the nature of some creatures will not allow them to be turned to the light (fiends/devils).

 

[Imaro]

Furthermore, as I stated in the other thread, the choice to play a pacifist/peace oriented character is one of those things that should be confined to RP, since there could be a pacifist rogue or wizard just as easily as there could be a paladin, but we absolutely do not want/need a non-lethal subclass for all of them.

I disagree... I think there's a pretty big difference between someone choosing to be a pacifist vs. their very nature and abilities being entwined in fulfilling an oath around pacifism. IMO It's similar to claiming we don't need a cleric class because anyone can be pious and worship a deity... Yeah but their identity and powers aren't intrinsically tied to that... I also feel like this type of oath (and the tropes/archetypes associated with it) suit the paladin class extremely well.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I don't know that I really get this sublcass.

It says

The Oath of Redemption sets a paladin on a difficult path, one that requires a holy warrior to use violence only as a last resort. . . . These paladins face evil creatures in the hope of turning them to the light, and the paladins slay them only when such a deed will clearly save other lives. . . .

Violence is a weapon of last resort. Diplomacy and understanding are the paths to long-lasting peace. . . .

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.​

Some of this seems self-contradictory: the first paragraph says that these paladins kill only in defence of others, while the last one says that they kill "for the greater good", which strongly implies killing for reasons other than defence of others.

I don't think that there is a contradiction. Defence of others can be in the greater good.
These Paladins might try to redeem foes that could stop being a danger to others, and give them a chance to change their ways. However they have no compunctions about killing a foe that is unwilling or incapable of changing, in order to prevent them harming others in the future.

And some of it seems redundant - 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).

Many adventurers, even the good-aligned ones run on the basis that killing in self-defence is perfectly acceptable. The redemption Paladin seems more willing and capable of defending others and taking an opponent down without killing them, in order to give them a chance at redemption.

I've also read some people describing these characters as pacifists, but clearly they don't repudiate violence.

"Pacifist" in a D&D context means different things to different people, but I wouldn't view the redemption paladin as a pacifist myself. They're willing to try to not kill an opponent, and have abilities riffing off that, but it seems pretty obvious that they will kill when it is necessary.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Even ole' Mahatma Gandhi was aok with violence, if the alternative was cowardice, for a given context.

A Redemption Paladin could have a similar set of beliefs - when violence, while not wanted, is better than some alternative considered to be much worse.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think a bit of mildly contradictory fluff is inevitable: it is, after all, a game of killing things. [MENTION=98938]DeF[/MENTION]CON1 summed it up nicely.

This is one of the few options of the last few months of class & subclass concepts that I actually like. (The list is: Redemption Paladin, Drunken Master Monk, Raven Queen Warlock, Phoenix Sorcerer, and Tranquility Monk.)

 

[Horwath]

This is description of most martial artists.

They pursue the training for learning the skill alone not for beating the crap out of everyone in the street(there are some that do that). They know how much pain they can inflict and use their skills as a last resort measure. They WILL warn you that they know how to fight and if you are insistant on fighting them they will trash you.