The Oath of Detachment finishes off my first trio of paladins, each inspired by Dragon magazine's "A Plethora of Paladins" article. This one was originally called the Oath of the Paramander and based off the true neutral-only pseudo-paladin class of the same name. In this post, I'd like to use this Sacred Oath as a jumping off point to talk about the reason I used optional variant feature sidebars in these three subclasses, and then I'd like to touch on how subtext can tell a story in a subclass.
So, why do I relegate features like Arcanist, Detect Imbalance, and Smite the Radical to a sidebar? Why not just include them as additional features at 3rd level? Well, there's a few reasons, but in this blog post I'll focus on just one, because I think this is the most interesting one to think about.
The reason is this: as optional variant features, I can suggest within the sidebar to the player and Dungeon Master that they be "included… as part of the paladin's progression starting from 1st level." This avoids the narrative awkwardness of the paladin's base class features changing between 2nd and 3rd level. Think about what these three optional features do: they change the kind of spellcasting focus the paladin can use, they change the kinds of creatures they detect with Divine Sense, and they change the kind of creatures that the bonus damage of Divine Smite applies to.
Changing the way a player character's basic class features function is, to put it mildly, a little strange! While it makes sense that paladins bearing the Oath of Detachment are especially effective at fighting alignmentally radical creature types, it doesn't make as much sense for the paladin to somehow stop being good at fighting fiends and undead when a level ago they were good at it. It's the loss of ability that is strange.
That's why such a feature plays very strangely when placed at 3rd level alongside the other archetype's features: because it isn't a gain but a change and replacement.
So, I find myself in a pickle. I want to include these features, partly because I find them interesting and partly as an homage to the original classes. But I want them to be a smoother inclusion in the player character's experience and progression. How do I do this? It'd be better for these to be features available at 1st level, but that's impossible; the Sacred Oath progression only starts at 3rd.
The solution: present the features as optional variants in a sidebar. This is what I call a healthy compromise. It provides access to the feature to those who want to use it, it makes it possible to include it at the level one prefers, and if a player or Dungeon Master doesn't like the variant they feel empowered to ignore it without compromising the homebrew. These sidebars were to me a means of keeping the best of both worlds: the old school specialization the Lyan, Fantra, and Paramander had, while still existing within the contemporary design of Fifth Edition.
Second, while doing so will make this post a bit long, I'd like to write some of my thoughts on how the Oath of Detachment tells its story through subtext.
I like to write subclass lore 'from its own perspective,' so to speak. In the case of the Oath of Detachment, its introductory paragraph focuses mostly on what it is, without explicitly passing a value judgment on the oath. However, from reading the subclass you may have already made your own about what you think of it, and you may have a guess as to how I feel about it. In other words, what you might think of a paramander as a person, setting aside your interest (or disinterest, perhaps) in the subclass as a player.
If I've done well, you can hopefully guess that I've tried to write this homebrew in such a way that you would think you wouldn't like to meet a paramander in person. In other words, I've tried to write this homebrew such that the Oath of Detachment is portrayed as unheroic. Why and how do I go about this?
The why is simple: the Oath of Detachment's extreme centrism is, to me, almost worse than being in opposition to a just cause. It's a false veneer of being the most just by refusing to engage with anything! But that kind of talk is for a philosophy class or discussion; for now, we'll return to homebrew.
There's a few factors to the how. In a small way, even the lore, while lacking an explicit judgment, does nudge one toward seeing the paramanders as unheroic. No heroic exploits are mentioned, and they're explicitly described as separating themselves from 'good.' Even in the context of the factional alignments of Dungeons & Dragons, not being 'good' doesn't feel 'good' to us.
The second most notable factor in my mind is the capstone, Impose Compromise. I think it's a great example of narrative through mechanics. You can see how the mechanical impacts of the feature tell the story of what a paramander thinks a compromise should be: all opposition to the paramander is blunted, and all resistance against them is diminished. The 'compromise' is only really a 'balance' in the paladin's favor!
A third factor is the rollable traits table, which presents as options some less than flattering traits:
When faced with a moral quandary, you universally prefer dissembling over discussion.Or,
You watch people argue with each other as a pastime.Or,
Your most prized possession is a spellbook you swear was signed by Mordenkainen himself.
Finally, there is the sidebar on Paremandyrs. Of note is that I didn't make up Paremandyrs. The same lore is actually included in the original "A Plethora of Paladins" article. Now, what this sidebar does is it finally pushes the Oath of Detachment into a more sinister light. How? By saying that the 'villain' version of the Oath… is exactly the same as the Oath!
This isn't to say you have to play your own Oath of Detachment paladin as evil or as a villain. While I may not like the premise of the oath's philosophy, no player character is obligated to be a caricature of their class. You might interpret the Oath of Detachment in a less extreme way, or you may see it in a different light than I do, or maybe your character themselves is conflicted about the oath and how to apply it; it's certainly possible, since I avoid explicitly referring to the Oath as directly unjust. That's another reason to use subtext to tell this story, as it provides flexibility to players and Dungeon Masters who want to play the archetype in a different way.
I consider the Oath of Detachment one of my best personal homebrew creations. Which is interesting to say, because it simultaneously isn't actually one of my favorites, though I do like it a lot, because it comes together really nicely. And yet the homebrews of my own that are my favorite tend to be such for other reasons. Perhaps that's another interesting question to dissect.
No comments:
Post a Comment