4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Neonchameleon]

I'm hardly being hypocrtical, merely pointing out that, by your own reasoning, the barbarian-paladin debate is moot if the fluff is mutable. If your character is an atheist with anger issues, he's not a paladin. He sounds like a barbarian to me. Or, if you really object to the barbarian, he's a fighter. Otherwise you're going to have to explain why your atheist non-divine paladin has healing powers and the ability to blast his enemies with light.

Not all 4e Paladins have Lay on Hands. Some have equivalent abilities (one allows other people to overcome stuns and other status conditions).

Writing that last line gives me an insight into the disconnect between playstyles. The traditional D&D paladin had mechanics that specifically represented the divine nature of the paladin: the code of conduct and the potential to fall. The 4e paladin can eat babies and still not lose his powers, so it's only natural that players not rigidly define the source of said powers. When the paladin is just a fighter with radiant powers, there's no need to make him anything but that.

Pretty much this. Classic mechanics represent who you are. 4e mechanics are much more about what you actually do. Your power source is a whole lot less important than how you use it. Which, for martial PCs is a vast improvement. How you move is important. For supernatural ones, it depends how you want the supernatural to work.And no, the paladin isn't just a fighter with radiant powers. The fighter's a melee badass, the paladin's much more of a protector.

 

[Imaro]

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.



The Paladin in 4e is defined as a "Champion of a particular Ethos". That's my closest definition based on the class writeup. That particular Ethos might be espoused by the tenets of a particular deity and their faith. Since nothing is published in the books except for broad "domains", and categories for the default gods, there are no "rules" for adherence to the ethos. Similarly there were no rules in AD&D except punishing the player if he broke the nebulous tenets. However, just because the "rules" don't have any consequences it doesn't mean that the DM and player can't work together on those areas which become questionable - according to the "Ethos".

Just because the game doesn't spell everything out doesn't mean that a DM and player can't come up with interesting things in their game. The best part about this is that the "ethos" acknowledgement is being made by the best people to do so. The players at a particular table, rather than a game designer that has no idea of the "ethical" game that a particular table might want to play.

I'm not sure why your example of "working it out" can't apply to 3e and earlier editions where Paladins were required to be LG?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mentioned the +2 to saves.

I know you did. I was just pointing out that +2 saves in 2E means more than a +2 in 3E.

I never saw a Holy Sword in play - they're pretty rare on the item tables.

It is still a mechanic in the game that helps the paladin greatly against multiple foes. If it is too rare for your tastes, that is easily changed.

But as for the circle of protection - it's an AC buff, but it's just as strong if you're fighting one target as many. What' distinctive about Valiant Strike is that that is not true.

The point is, its an ability intended for multiple opponents. It affects an area around you. So while it might not increase against multiple foes, its something that is good to have against them and encourages the paladin to take on more opponents than other characters.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm having a hard time seeing the difference, ultimately (going by your statements above) both games basically seem to be saying... play a certain way or have an unfun experience... am I missing something here?

It's the difference between the carrot and the stick approach to motivation. 4e Paladins (and other classes) played properly all fit together in one coherent, pleasing, and effective whole and reward you for doing this with a carrot. AD&D Paladins (and 3e to a slightly lesser extent) beat you round the head with the "Paladin Falling" stick.

 

[Imaro]

It's the difference between the carrot and the stick approach to motivation. 4e Paladins (and other classes) played properly all fit together in one coherent, pleasing, and effective whole and reward you for doing this with a carrot. AD&D Paladins (and 3e to a slightly lesser extent) beat you round the head with the "Paladin Falling" stick.

I'm not buying it... your descriptions above are based entirely on how you choose to view it. I could just as easily say 3e rewards you when you choose to play the 3e archetype of the paladin correctly and 4e punishes you (in making your powers less effective and less tactically optimal) when you choose not to act in accordance with the 4e archetype of the paladin and his powers...

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm not buying it... your descriptions above are based entirely on how you choose to view it. I could just as easily say 3e rewards you when you choose to play the 3e archetype of the paladin correctly and 4e punishes you (in making your powers less effective and less tactically optimal) when you choose not to act in accordance with the 4e archetype of the paladin and his powers...

4e at no point ever makes your powers less effective. A Paladin who behaves like Brave Sir Robin will not have powers that are any different from one who behaves heroically. They merely are less effective at it. A 3e Paladin on the other hand is literally stripped of their powers which is overt punishment.The other point I didn't raise is that what is rewarded by the paladin can be tweaked by the selection of powers - for instance a Paladin that takes Valiant Strike is rewarded for wading in to the middle of a horde - one that takes Enfeebling Strike on the other hand picks the biggest, meanest enemy they can, and tanks them that much more effectively.

 

[D'karr]

I'm not sure why your example of "working it out" can't apply to 3e and earlier editions where Paladins were required to be LG?

I don't see how alignment is relevant to the discussion of how 4e in particular does it. In 4e a Paladin is a "Champion of an Ethos, an ideal", being LG has nothing to do with it - unless the paladin is espousing the LG ethos.

A god of nature might be more neutral (unaligned) and as such might espouse an ethos of "live and let live" (more chaotic), or one that is more militaristic and espouse "ecoterrorism" (more neutral evil). How does the restriction of being LG in anyway espouse those? In earlier editions the Paladin would not be able to espouse that live and let live ethos, in 4e they can. In 4e base rules the PCs would not be evil so the latter ethos would probably not apply. But if a DM and player wanted to do that they could probably work it out.

In earlier editions that was not possible at all, because in earlier editions the Paladin was only a "holy warrior for good". Therefore, other alignments did not have champions. In 4e a Paladin is a "Champion of Ideals" - good, bad, or ugly. If you want to have a Paladin that is more tied to the virtues you can play a Cavalier, if you want to have a "fallen" Paladin you play a Blackguard. And each of those have mechanical support that works well with their particular thematic (story) elements.

Alignment is an entirely different ball of wax altogether, and one that I'd rather not get into as part of this discussion. IMO, at the game level, the "ethics" of alignment are entirely based on opinion and usually the game designer's opinions. If they were not, there would not have been as many pixels killed in the apologetics of them.

In earlier editions, the default "rule" was punish "ethical" slips. But according to the "ethics" of whom; the DM, the player, the game designer? In 4e the default is we don't provide you rules for dealing with "ethical" slips, that is entirely a roleplay opportunity for the players at the table, and DM to explore. The class writeup gives the basis of the class. The default gods have some broad generalities to them if the DM wants to hang an "ethos" on them. I would have liked some examples, but the lack of examples doesn't "break" what is there.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't really see a problem with paladins being punished for not falling short of their ideals. It makes. Lot of sense for the concept and the restriction on behavior is one of the balancing factors of the class.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't really see a problem with paladins being punished for not falling short of their ideals.

You might want to reword that one. I don't think even paladins are so masochistic that they punish themselves for not falling short of their ideals.

 

[Imaro]

4e at no point ever makes your powers less effective. A Paladin who behaves like Brave Sir Robin will not have powers that are any different from one who behaves heroically. They merely are less effective at it. A 3e Paladin on the other hand is literally stripped of their powers which is overt punishment.The other point I didn't raise is that what is rewarded by the paladin can be tweaked by the selection of powers - for instance a Paladin that takes Valiant Strike is rewarded for wading in to the middle of a horde - one that takes Enfeebling Strike on the other hand picks the biggest, meanest enemy they can, and tanks them that much more effectively.

A paladin who uses a bow and arrow, is less effective and less tactically optimal than a paladin who does melee... due to the design of the mechanics (moreso power and class design). If I choose to play an archer paladin, then I am being punished for not playing the type of paladin 4e wants me too. I'm not arguing which paladin is a broader archetype, that's irrelevant... I'm saying both games punish you (albeit in different ways) and reward you for choosing to play the paladin the way they want you to with less effectiveness in the game.

Also, on a side note, if were discussing sourcebooks then I'm not sure the 4e archetype is broader since there were variant abilities for paladins as well as alternate classes that covered the alignemnet range of 4e, but that's neither here nor there.