Advice for Redemption Paladin roleplay

[Xtreme_Banana]

Hi everyone!

I'm in a bit of a pickle in my newest campaign. I am playing as an Eldarin Paladin, aaand I'm the only moral character in party (she basically sticks to the evil warlock, because they had a bet on wether the Good or Evil is stronger). Redemption paladins are strongly opposed to violence, but I'm not sure how to roleplay it without whining and complaining and being constantly laughed at in game :/
i.e we had a basic encounter with kobolds, and I rushed to combat – no killing, but still violent. What's worse I don't really think I could play much differently, without being a dead weight in encounters.

I'm trying to uphold the morals, but I have the feeling my RP comes quite bland, especially when compared to my friend's who is doing astonishingly well on his "magnificent bastard" warlock.

Have you got any tips on how to roleplay pacifists?

Thanks in advance!

[Seekergeek]

We had a redemption paladin in a party for ToA and the player took the angle that the paladin was a pacifist because he thought violence was beneath him. He was able to justify buffing and enabling the rest of the party to be better at violence as though it was just our base nature. From an RP perspective he was just a reall self-righteous dinkeroo but the guy himself is likeable enough that it didn't become grating in-character. Mechanically he was quite helpful in combat though he never really shone, himself.

[Unoriginal]

Hi everyone!

I'm in a bit of a pickle in my newest campaign. I am playing as an Eldarin Paladin, aaand I'm the only moral character in party (she basically sticks to the evil warlock, because they had a bet on wether the Good or Evil is stronger). Redemption paladins are strongly opposed to violence, but I'm not sure how to roleplay it without whining and complaining and being constantly laughed at in game :/
i.e we had a basic encounter with kobolds, and I rushed to combat – no killing, but still violent. What's worse I don't really think I could play much differently, without being a dead weight in encounters.

I'm trying to uphold the morals, but I have the feeling my RP comes quite bland, especially when compared to my friend's who is doing astonishingly well on his "magnificent bastard" warlock.

Have you got any tips on how to roleplay pacifists?

Thanks in advance!


You could be a magnificent bastard Paladin.

Redemption Paladins aren't strongly opposed to violence, they're strongly opposed to unnecessary violence. Defending yourself and others from aggressors is not unnecessary.

Honestly you could play a Palpatine-level mastermind and smooth politician, just benevolent and not acting to crush other people's wills, but rather trying to get people to see the value of being good.

The question is: in-universe, *why* did your character chose the Redemption path? What attracted them to the tenets and the life path?

[Xtreme_Banana]

My last character was a mastermind literally worshipping The Ambition, and I really wanted to play a good, maybe even friendly character – as my playgroup starts to joke that I play only to spark conflicts within the party. To be frank it's not untrue, as I vastly prefer RP to combat and other mechanics.

My current character believes that everyone can be redeemed, currently working on that warlock. She is trying to escape from her past as a scout searching for Drows to be sent to slaughter by her elven brethren. Never killed anybody directly, and wouldn't like to change that.

Like, I know that there are many ways to circumvent the Tenets of Redemption, but I'd like to stick to them for once. But if there's no other option, I'll start to think about less holy archetypes.

[RSP]

Hi everyone!

I'm in a bit of a pickle in my newest campaign. I am playing as an Eldarin Paladin, aaand I'm the only moral character in party (she basically sticks to the evil warlock, because they had a bet on wether the Good or Evil is stronger). Redemption paladins are strongly opposed to violence, but I'm not sure how to roleplay it without whining and complaining and being constantly laughed at in game :/
i.e we had a basic encounter with kobolds, and I rushed to combat – no killing, but still violent. What's worse I don't really think I could play much differently, without being a dead weight in encounters.

I'm trying to uphold the morals, but I have the feeling my RP comes quite bland, especially when compared to my friend's who is doing astonishingly well on his "magnificent bastard" warlock.

Have you got any tips on how to roleplay pacifists?

Thanks in advance!

The basic Redemption Paladin, in my opinion, is Obi Wan Kenobi. You could a lot from Obi Wan and play similar: not afraid to fight but be creative with other options before rolling initiative. Spare those you see good in, but don’t be afraid to do what’s necessary.

If the party is legit just murder hoboing people though, it may mean you’re playing the wrong character.

[Unoriginal]

My last character was a mastermind literally worshipping The Ambition, and I really wanted to play a good, maybe even friendly character – as my playgroup starts to joke that I play only to spark conflicts within the party. To be frank it's not untrue, as I vastly prefer RP to combat and other mechanics.

My current character believes that everyone can be redeemed, currently working on that warlock. Like, I know that there are many ways to circumvent the Tenets of Redemption, but I'd like to stick to them for once. But if there's no other option, I'll start to think about less holy archetypes.

You can be a mastermind and be a good, friendly character.

To re-use a Star Wars analogy, imagine if old Ben Kenobi had to take Revenge of the Sith-era Anakin as a Padawan, without any history between them.

Redemption Paladins don't have to be dumb, or doormats, or conflict-creating. They just have to try their best to make people see the value of being a good person.

[Xtreme_Banana]

To re-use a Star Wars analogy, imagine if old Ben Kenobi had to take Revenge of the Sith-era Anakin as a Padawan, without any history between them.

That's actually really descriptive, thanks!


I can play "the big picture" but, I've always thought that Redemption was about the small acts (especially when the Paladin worships Lliira, the goddess of joy). And it's about those small acts that I have doubts if I do well. Without constantly upholding the values I fear she comes as a hypocrite. And with upholdinging them, there's just too much unnecessary conflict.

[Unoriginal]

That's actually really descriptive, thanks!


I can play "the big picture" but, I've always thought that Redemption was about the small acts (especially when the Paladin worships Lliira, the goddess of joy). And it's about those small acts that I have doubts if I do well. Without constantly upholding the values I fear she comes as a hypocrite.

Small goods are important, yes, but only small goods is like putting an anti-rash ointment on a torn limb. And only the big goods is like fixing someone's torn limb but not caring they're suffering physically and mentally past the initial operation.

You're not a god, just someone trying to make the world a better place in any way they can.



And with upholdinging them, there's just too much unnecessary conflict.

Sorry, I don't get that. What about small acts of good cause unnecessary conflicts?

[LudicSavant]

Have you got any tips on how to roleplay pacifists?

The first is to realize that Redemption Paladins aren't pacifists. Their description even goes out of its way to tell you that. They carry a sword and are proficient in its use.

Violence is something you don't do a weapon of last resort. Diplomacy and understanding are the only path the paths to long-lasting peace.

While every creature can be redeemed, none some are so far along the path of evil that you shouldn't kill them 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, be really angsty about it follow through with it knowing your path is just.

The struck out bits aren't actually in the description!

That doesn't sound like a pacifist. You know who that sounds like? It sounds like Obi-Wan Kenobi.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeG215-yu-k

[Xtreme_Banana]

Sorry, I don't get that. What about small acts of good cause unnecessary conflicts?



"
"Let's not kill the kobolds, try to negotiate with them"
- that's something we as the players know won't work, but I feel I should push for it (you can maybe come to an agreement with kobolds, just I as a player know that's not an option now, and my character doesn't), even if organizing the bloodbath is quicker, more effective, and ultimately more fun than endless squabbling. And most likely the paladin will be left out, as others go for the most convenient method anyway.

The same goes for "Let's not kill that NPC even though that is clearly the most straightforward path". The other characters wouldn't see why should they restrain themselves from the easiest option, and I am either going against my character's morals or against the team.

[Xtreme_Banana]

Redemption Paladins aren't pacifists. Their description even goes out of its way to tell you that.

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

Isn't that the definition of rational pacifism? I never planned on spoiling the fun (stupid good paladin is just as bad as lawful stupid one) but most of the time in RPG the violence is the first option for most characters.

I know I can and should commit to violence once in a while. This while just seems to come up over and over again.

[Unoriginal]

That doesn't sound like a pacifist. You know who that sounds like? It sounds like Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Man, everyone had the Obi-Wan Kenobi impression it seems.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeG215-yu-k

A strong contender for THE best lightsaber fight in all Star Wars works.


"
"Let's not kill the kobolds, try to negotiate with them"
- that's something we as the players know won't work, but I feel I should push for it anyway, even if organizing the bloodbath is quicker, more effective, and ultimately more fun than endless squabbling. And most likely the paladin will be left out, as others go for the most convenient method anyway.

The same goes for "Let's not kill that NPC even though that is clearly the most straightforward path". The other characters wouldn't see why should they restrain themselves from the easiest option, and I am either going against my character's morals or against the team.

That's not small acts, though.

Why are the PCs willing to kill people who can be negotiated with? Does the DM provide no incentives for it? Do the kobolds actually look like they could be willing to discuss things out, or are they openly attacking? Would the party refuse if you said "look, give me 10 minutes, I'll try talking"?


Isn't that the definition of rational pacifism? I never planned on spoiling the fun (stupid good paladin is just as bad as lawful stupid one) but most of the time in RPG the violence is the first option for most characters.

I know I can and should commit to violence once in a while. This while just seems to come up over and over again.

Violence is the first option for most characters when in an inherently hostile environment where negotiations aren't on the table anymore.

Do your party never talk with NPCs?

[Xtreme_Banana]

A strong contender for THE best lightsaber fight in all Star Wars works.
Indeed. Never saw it before, but oh man is it epic.





Why are the PCs willing to kill people who can be negotiated with?

They cannot be, just I know this as a player, not character.



Would the party refuse if you said "look, give me 10 minutes, I'll try talking"?
probably, afaik. But it's not murder-hoboing per se, it actually fits well in rp.



Violence is the first option for most characters when in an inherently hostile environment where negotiations aren't on the table anymore.

Do your party never talk with NPCs?
They do, but it doesn't really change the attitude of "we kill when it's most beneficial, not when there's no other option"

[Unoriginal]

They do, but it doesn't really change the attitude of "we kill when it's most beneficial, not when there's no other option"

What do they define as "most beneficial"?



They cannot be, just I know this as a player, not character.


How do you know it as a player but not as a character?

Is your DM against negotiating with potential enemies and told you so?

[LudicSavant]

A strong contender for THE best lightsaber fight in all Star Wars works. I see you are a person of culture as well.

I appreciate that he counters the same move that was used to kill Qui-Gon.

[Xtreme_Banana]

What do they define as "most beneficial"?

Anything that gives them money, fun, power or easy life. With exceptions, but most of them try to do something like that.




How do you know it as a player but not as a character?

Is your DM against negotiating with potential enemies and told you so?
That's just the prologue, and I know my DM's style well enough to see which enemies are negotiable with, and which are just fodder.

Oor maybe not, and I screwed up even before everything stared, and it's only my fault. That doesn't sound unreasonable now tbh.

[Unoriginal]

I appreciate that he counters the same move that was used to kill Qui-Gon.

Indeed. I also love how he deliberately baited the move by adopting the Form IV stance, the one Qui-Gon used (and also the one Obi-Wan used when he failed to stop Qui-Gon's death), after cycling through Form III (the one which he used during most of the Clone Wars and of which he was considered THE master) then Form I (the one he used to fight and beat Maul in the last section of their first fight).

Also worth noting that Form IV is the form of Lightsaber combat which allows the most use of the Force to boost one's physical prowess (which is why Yoda was the master of it), so Obi-Wan was essentially projecting "I'm way too past my prime and rusty in dueling for this, but I still strong in the Force", which was a believable lie.

There is just so many layers in so few moves.



Anything that gives them money, fun, power or easy life. With exceptions, but most of them try to do something like that.

Just killing people doesn't grant that, though. You can get more money and power by establishing long-term bonds than by just killing people for their stuff. Even orcs don't just level villages when they can regularly raid them.



Oor maybe not, and I screwed up even before everything stared, and it's only my fault. That doesn't sound unreasonable now tbh.

I get the impression you feel bad about making this character and you're blaming yourself a lot. I can't and won't tell you what to feel, but what is the core of what's bothering you?

[da newt]

I like to play PCs who question the morality of the party's actions (but it certainly isn't for everyone or every table). If you can keep asking the party "Are we the 'Good Guys?'" I think that is in line with the Redemption Pali Oath / purpose.

Sometimes the right answer is 'those guys are evil and therefore we should end them now', but that isn't the only answer and should not be the default for any 'Good Guy.'

The Redemption Pali is the moral compass - this is their chosen role - their purpose, and it isn't an easy one.

[micahaphone]

Take the alert feat so you can always go first, and spend your first turn suggesting parley. If they keep attacking, now you're in the clear!

[Xtreme_Banana]

Yeah, I see now more clearly of what should I play as. It's not so much about "making the party commit good acts" but rather "being the good yourself".

I've always thought about RPG in "we" terms not in "I" terms, as to make sure that everyone is having fun, and I might have wandered too far away – the paladin has to show an example, not constantly check whether other are complying with his/her ideals


You gave me some good insight and ideas on how to rp. Thanks a ton!

[LudicSavant]

Indeed. I also love how he deliberately baited the move by adopting the Form IV stance, the one Qui-Gon used (and also the one Obi-Wan used when he failed to stop Qui-Gon's death), after cycling through Form III (the one which he used during most of the Clone Wars and of which he was considered THE master) then Form I (the one he used to fight and beat Maul in the last section of their first fight).

Also worth noting that Form IV is the form of Lightsaber combat which allows the most use of the Force to boost one's physical prowess (which is why Yoda was the master of it), so Obi-Wan was essentially projecting "I'm way too past my prime and rusty in dueling for this, but I still strong in the Force", which was a believable lie.

There is just so many layers in so few moves.

Yeah.

Meanwhile the Disney movies seem to have managed fewer layers in more moves than I thought possible. :(

[Vogie]

Our HotDQ campaign had a Redemption Paladin... and his strategy was basically outlined above.

We avoided combat encounters a lot due to his influence - his plan was to try to avoid direct combat as much as possible. Encouraging the party to attempt literally anything else - from getting cultists drunk or high, using the Warlock's Mask of Many Faces invocation to infiltrate our way around things and/or have the cultists distracted by one of their own, to occasionally just channeling divinity to make themselves incredibly persuasive and talk either himself (or the entire party) out of (or into) things. I've never seen someone cast Calm Emotions and Sleep more in my life, as a player or GM.

If they attacked however... He'd be happy to Smite them to oblivion, while excitedly wait for a huge pile of damage so he could Rebuke the pants off of them.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Man I'm loving seeing all this extending interest in Redemption Paladins.

The way I see it, you're just as skilled in combat as any other Paladin but you don't go to battle for the sake of being violent, or for winning. You fight as a last resort, when words fail or can't have worked to begin with. Combat is not exciting, thrilling or a measure of your worth, it's an unfortunate thing to accept that despite your best efforts there will be people who don't want to be good. It's important that you have the skills needed to persuade those who can change as well as the ability to stop those who won't.

Something I had to deal with, playing my own, was that my DM had offhandedly noted that my Paladin seemed quicker to combat. As a player, I was getting into the tunnel vision aspect of a dungeon crawl and had unintentionally let that important aspect of the character fall aside. It was a good time to pay some penance, even if it was an out of character reason I had made some poor in character choices. Next time we had some downtime I went and climbed halfway up Mount Waterdeep to spend time with Hlam in reflection. This moment actually carried forward into eventually reconciling my Paladin's relationship with Tyr who he had previously followed.

[HappyDaze]

I've seen some players that inherently see the redemption paladin as a path to passive-aggressive PVP, whether as the paladin that cramps the groups' styles or as a group that cramps that of the paladin. I would only suggest playing such a character in a group that consents to it.