4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[billd91]

That is exactly how a 4e Paladin that chooses not to use his "effective" powers works. No punishment. If he needs to shoot someone with an arrow, he can. He doesn't suddenly get smacked by his god because he's being dishonorable. His attacks with a bow are simply not as effective as his attacks with a melee weapon. No punishment there. It's the same as a PC that has decided to max his abilities tied to Strength. When shooting a bow, he will be less effective because Dexterity is not what he invested his efforts in. How is that punishment?

So, when were paladins punished, in accord with the rules, for using ranged weapons? Did I miss a memo at some point?

 

[B.T.]

I think that the problem with those "mechanics" was that they were not really mechanics at all. DMs could decide willy-nilly if a particular act had violated the "code". A "code" which was also nebulous. I don't recall ever seeing one published. So it became a "mechanic" whose sole basis for adherence/enforcement was opinion. If a Paladin "lied" during an interrogation by enemies of his god, he might incur the wrath of the DM. However, killing sentient creatures and taking their stuff was completely fine.

It made for the entire alignment of LG to be regarded as Lawful Stupid.

I feel the paladin's code is fairly well defined:

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

• Do not willingly do evil.
• Respect legitimate authority.
• Act honorably.
• Help the needy.
• Punish the wicked (those who threaten or harm others).

And there's some more rules about palling around with evil folks, but that's not a huge deal.

I don't get the problems people have with the paladin because it's very clear-cut. The only time that you're going to run into a problem with this is douchebag players and douchebag DMs, and they're going to be douchey without the paladin's code of conduct.

 

[D'karr]

I think this might have more to do with the fact that the only paladin who isn't expected to run up and get beat on to protect everyone else is the Blackguard (striker)... so while my paladin might be unaligned, selfish or even evil... he still seems to enjoy taking the beatdown and protecting others no matter what his personality and ethos are...

How is this any different than any other edition? In every edition of D&D the Paladin is most effective in melee combat. Since in 4e alignment doesn't define the paladin, those parts of his theme that are baked into the class are part of his class writeup. I've already posted those above. So if a PALADIN player does not want to play the class as defined by its general theme is it any surprise that we would not be as effective?

The mechanics support the class writeup. So if the class writeup says that a Paladin is valiant, when a player does things that "look" valiant in combat he is better at it. If he decides to spend his time skulking in shadows and shooting arrows, then maybe the player should have not chosen the Paladin Class. He should have worked with the DM to choose something that more closely approximated what he wanted to play. In other words after reading the class writeup the player purposely decided to play against type, and he's complaining that he's not effective.

The argument seems rather redundant in light of the actual "rules" restrictions that the Paladin had in previous editions. No bows, alignment, "nebulous code", etc.

If you don't like the flavor of the Paladin, then work with the DM and see if he agrees with your vision of the cowardly, selfish paladin. You might get lucky and get what you want. How is that an indictment on the game system, that did not exist before? In previous editions the limitations were worse. Try to play a cowardly, self-serving paladin in those editions and the DM might just decide that you are short for your powers, or the world. Try to use a bow, you're not even proficient with them, and the class prohibits them.

I fail to see any coherency to this argument.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't get the problems people have with the paladin because it's very clear-cut. The only time that you're going to run into a problem with this is douchebag players and douchebag DMs, and they're going to be douchey without the paladin's code of conduct.

Well, all of those points are open to interpretation. But even barring differences in interpretation, the simpler truth is this: the paladin's code is at heart at odds with the typical adventurer's. There's nothing honorable about hunting for treasure or killing things and taking their stuff. In some games, everyone will want to do paladin-y stuff, but in almost any other case, the paladin is potentially a problem regardless of whether the players are trying to be disruptive or not.

 

[TwoSix]

I feel the paladin's code is fairly well defined:


• Do not willingly do evil.
• Respect legitimate authority.
• Act honorably.
• Help the needy.
• Punish the wicked (those who threaten or harm others).

And there's some more rules about palling around with evil folks, but that's not a huge deal.

I don't get the problems people have with the paladin because it's very clear-cut. The only time that you're going to run into a problem with this is douchebag players and douchebag DMs, and they're going to be douchey without the paladin's code of conduct.

I don't think you need "douchebag" players or DMs to see a way in which "act honorably" or "respect legitimate authority" could be interpreted in multiple ways.

Is a government which allows behavior that the paladin finds abhorrent a "legitimate authority"?

Is doing something underhanded to save the life of another an honorable or dishonorable act? Is fulfilling your honor to the point where an innocent is killed due to your inaction evil?

Are there creatures that are inherently wicked? Even if they are currently not an active threat to others? Like, say, orc babies?

How much is the paladin obligated to do to help the needy? His magic sword could fetch enough gold to feed a starving village, is he obligated to give it up, despite now being weaker against further dangers?

Here's the thing. All those issues are AWESOME fodder for a roleplaying game. But the mechanic of "figure out these thorny moral issues, because if you don't, you lose your cool powers" seems to be directly inferior to a narrative game where raising those complications actually gives you mechanical feedback and rewards.

 

[D'karr]

So, when were paladins punished, in accord with the rules, for using ranged weapons? Did I miss a memo at some point?

I don't have my books with me and maybe I'm misremembering. It might have been the original Cavalier, and not the Paladin. But I can't currently check.

 

[Ratskinner]

@Neonchameleon : I picked up a copy of Marvel Heroic Civil War Premium Event Book yesterday, and am currently working through the OM. In terms of my typology of (quasi-)narrativist PC build models above, and with the caveat that I haven't actual read the datafile chapter yet, I would say that MHRP is closer to the free descriptor approach, but is leveraging its licensed content to generate saleable splat, so that players can see the "official" descriptors for their favourite superheroes. HeroWars/Quest has elements of this approach in its sales of Glorantha splat.

I tend to agree with this assessment. One of the things I find strange about the "D&D" hacks for MHRP is that, if you didn't know the D&D fluff for the various races&classes etc., you couldn't really run the character. Even the Marvel datafiles include verbose character bios, to help players who might not be as familiar with the character (or the version of the character for that "Event".) At the table, when running similar games, this isn't a concern, because the player/group are defining their terms as they are created.

This is not necessarily true for all representations of the Cortex Plus system that MHRP uses. The Leverage game, for example, has several categories of standardized traits; a very D&D-like set of attributes, and a set of roles--Hitter, Hacker, Grifter, Mastermind, Thief.

If I was shooting to emulate a D&D-like fantasy game with Cortex, I'd lean closer to Leverage than MHRP. Although there'd still be some work to do, depending on how the group wanted it play out. One aspect of Cortex + that seems to be often overlooked in people's blog hacks is the scene structures. Leverage has a special type of "flashback" scene that mimics the way the show can retconn things as a reveal to the audience, and no special scenes for a fight. Marvel only makes a distinction between Action and not-Action. I figure a dungeon-crawling game would need Fight, Exploration/Dungeoneering, and some kind of Recuperation non-adventurous scene. If you wanted a less dungeon-crawley version, you might get away with Combat and Non-combat.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Uhm yeah. I'm not arguing 3.x doesn't punish you for playing a paladin a certain way, so I'm not exactly sure why you brough it up (though I'm starting to notice you do this alot when discussing 4e).

No. What you are literally arguing is that having things work better when you play them the way you planned to and the way you visualised is a punishment (despite the fact that every single class in any class based game that doesn't end up as Pun-Pun has strengths and weaknesses), and being turned into an inferior version of a fighter under conditions under the DM's control is a reward.

Your argument about Paladins being punished by working better is precisely the same argument as says "Wizards are punished by not being able to stand on the front lines wearing their robes and wielding a staff and trading blows with an ogre without casting spells."

Is the wizard being punished by this? Or is picking what you want to be good at, and being good at that part of any class based game?

And your argument that Paladins aren't punished by having mechanics to turn them into a strictly inferior version of a fighter is something I can't get my head round.

I feel the paladin's code is fairly well defined:


• Do not willingly do evil.
• Respect legitimate authority.
• Act honorably.
• Help the needy.
• Punish the wicked (those who threaten or harm others).

And there's some more rules about palling around with evil folks, but that's not a huge deal.

Which edition?

The 1e Paladin's code contains the charming restriction "paladins can join a company of adventurers which contains non-evil neutrals only on a single expedition basis, and only if some end which will favour the cause of lawful good is purposed."

In other words, unless the entire party is good, the Paladin needs to be talked into every single expedition. Having a paladin in the party controls what other players are allowed to be - you can not, for example have either an assassin or an evil thief in the party. I'd call dictating what everyone else at the table is allowed to play, and having to be argued into every single adventure a huge deal, myself.

Well, all of those points are open to interpretation. But even barring differences in interpretation, the simpler truth is this: the paladin's code is at heart at odds with the typical adventurer's. There's nothing honorable about hunting for treasure or killing things and taking their stuff. In some games, everyone will want to do paladin-y stuff, but in almost any other case, the paladin is potentially a problem regardless of whether the players are trying to be disruptive or not.

This. Especially with the 1e restrictions (a 2e paladin will explicitely tolerate evil thieves as long as they are trying to reform).

 

[D'karr]

Here's the thing. All those issues are AWESOME fodder for a roleplaying game. But the mechanic of "figure out these thorny moral issues, because if you don't, you lose your cool powers" seems to be directly inferior to a narrative game where raising those complications actually gives you mechanical feedback and rewards.

Very well said.

 

[B.T.]

I don't think you need "douchebag" players or DMs to see a way in which "act honorably" or "respect legitimate authority" could be interpreted in multiple ways.

Is a government which allows behavior that the paladin finds abhorrent a "legitimate authority"?

Is doing something underhanded to save the life of another an honorable or dishonorable act? Is fulfilling your honor to the point where an innocent is killed due to your inaction evil?

Are there creatures that are inherently wicked? Even if they are currently not an active threat to others? Like, say, orc babies?

How much is the paladin obligated to do to help the needy? His magic sword could fetch enough gold to feed a starving village, is he obligated to give it up, despite now being weaker against further dangers?

Here's the thing. All those issues are AWESOME fodder for a roleplaying game. But the mechanic of "figure out these thorny moral issues, because if you don't, you lose your cool powers" seems to be directly inferior to a narrative game where raising those complications actually gives you mechanical feedback and rewards.

I think players who kill orc babies and DMs who deliberately put them in lose-lose scenarios so they'll fall are douchebags, so that's a non-issue for me. I'll give an example: in the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil vidya, you can participate in a drinking contest. If you have a paladin in the party, the paladin falls. Not if the paladin participates in the drinking contest, but if the paladin is in a party in which someone participates in a drinking contest. He falls, no warning, and I don't remember if he can get his powers back.

That's a douchebag move. It's bad DMing (or, in this case, coding), and there ain't nothing in the world that will save you from a bad DM. Trying to hard code that kind of thing in a game is stupid. We can have basic scenarios where the paladin murders an innocent person: okay, obvious fall. But what if his deity is displeased by him getting drunk (as in the RttToEE game)? Does he fall then? If so, how hard does he fall?

Do we need these rules codified in the game? No, I don't think so. It's best left to the DM's discretion, perhaps with a few examples and guidelines thrown in.