4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Imaro]

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.

What about a paladin of the masochistic ethos?

 

[TwoSix]

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?

Carrot or stick. "Play in character and you'll succeed more often" vs "play out-of-character and you'll lose your cool toys."

 

[Dragoslav]

I don't really see a problem with paladins being punished for <snip> 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.

In terms of balance, that's not necessary in 4e because all of the classes are balanced by default. It's not like in earlier editions where a paladin was just objectively better than a fighter and needed to be reined in in some way.

In terms of the concept, 4e leaves that sort of thing for the GM to decide. It's funny how some people criticize 4e for being "a board game with no RP" and then others criticize it for not having enough rules and leaving things up to the GM to rule on.

 

[Ratskinner]

This also relates to @Ratskinner 's post above: the mechanical overhead of D&D is noticeable, but it does give a degree of detail in the fiction that reinforces certain things pretty tightly.

Indeed (although I might say "notable" rather than "noticeable", its not like there's a chance you'd miss it).

Which is both strength and weakness, depending on your desires and need for those "certain things" and that level of detail. For me, the overhead is a little much (so was 3e's), but not so much that I find it terribly odious.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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).

You mean that the 4e Paladin has powers that only work in Melee? Like Smite Evil? Or the ability to cast Holy Sword? And not having access to such powers because you don't want to use them is penalising you?

If I choose to play an archer paladin, then I am being punished for not playing the type of paladin 4e wants me too.

Or the sort 3e wants you to play, evidently! But seriously, 4e classes aren't more than superficially about where you get your power from. They are about what you actually do. In 3e the only way to be a paladin is to be a member of the (or a) Paladin class. In 4e most paladins are Paladins, but there is literally nothing to prevent your divinely empowered shining beacon of hope from being a Warlord (and a Bravura Warlord would make a damn good paladin in shining armour) or even an archer-bard. And there's nothing to prevent a Paladin from being an atheist or, worse yet, a paladin of the Blood of Vol who doesn't even know that their cult is a fake.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Because in the end both paladins follow an 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.

LG doesn't espouse those... not sure I ever claimed it did. But at the end of the day the DM and player have to decide exactly what "live and let live" means... or what the rules of conduct and such for a paladin "ecoterrorist" are. As for different alignments, the only diference in 4e and 3.5 was that the differently aligned paladins were different classes...and like 4e had different abilities to thematically represent their diversion from the base paladin. So instead of differentiating them on the basis of combat style, 3.5 differentiated them on the basis of alignment and/or ideals.

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 designers opinions. If they were not, there would not have been as many pixels killed in the apologetics of them.

So talking it out works in 4e for various ethos and/or alignments... but for some reason self-destructs if used in 3.5... uhm, ok never experienced it but I guess.

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.

And in 4e it is... punish the player for combat orientation slips... based on how the designers decided a paladin should fight... So I can accept that you prefer the punishment be centered around how the Paladin fights as opposed to his beliefs... but I don't accept he isn't punished for acting "wrong" in 4e.

 

[D'karr]

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.

In 4e at least you have a choice, even if it's not optimal. In earlier editions you don't get a choice at all. You were prohibited from using ranged weapons, it was somehow dishonorable.

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.

In 1e using a bow would have been grounds for expulsion - bye, bye ALL powers. In 4e if you use a bow you're simply not as effective - for your theme. That's not punishment. That's like when I give my kids a choice for pizza, or vegetables. They're both food and neither is going to kill them but they want the one that tastes better. Thematically they are playing kids, and kids like pizza.

I know which one I would prefer. One is a hammer to the head, the other is an actual choice.

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.

Yes there are, the cavalier and the blackguard come to mind. Each of the builds in divine power also cover more "themes". It might not be here nor there, but it's interesting that you have at least 6 different flavors of the paladin with 4e, and people complain that 4e is too narrow.

 

[Imaro]

You mean that the 4e Paladin has powers that only work in Melee? Like Smite Evil? Or the ability to cast Holy Sword? And not having access to such powers because you don't want to use them is penalising you?

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). I'm claimaing 4e punishes the paladin for not being played a certain way also. I think a refutation with some sort of evidence would have served your point better than pointing out something about 3e I already agreed with.

Or the sort 3e wants you to play, evidently! But seriously, 4e classes aren't more than superficially about where you get your power from. They are about what you actually do. In 3e the only way to be a paladin is to be a member of the (or a) Paladin class. In 4e most paladins are Paladins, but there is literally nothing to prevent your divinely empowered shining beacon of hope from being a Warlord (and a Bravura Warlord would make a damn good paladin in shining armour) or even an archer-bard. And there's nothing to prevent a Paladin from being an atheist or, worse yet, a paladin of the Blood of Vol who doesn't even know that their cult is a fake.

I'm not seeing how I couldn't play a different class in another edition and claim to be a paladin?? The point is that at the end of the day when I'm expected to do paladin stuf... like oh, say radiant damage to undead, no class (with the possible exception of another divine class) is going to be able to cut it. Also even in 3.5 a paladin doesn't have to serve a deity... so I'm not sure were you got the idea only a 4e paladin could be an atheist? As to the Blood of Vol example... I guess that all depends on what your prefered archetype of the Paladin is... I don't patrticularly like them as easy marks and dupes of religious charlatans... I like them as exemplars who are held, and hold themselves to a higher standard... and thus receive higher favor than a regular warrior or even a cleric... but hey, suit yourself.

 

[Imaro]

Yes there are, the cavalier and the blackguard come to mind. Each of the builds in divine power also cover more "themes". It might not be here nor there, but it's interesting that you have at least 6 different flavors of the paladin with 4e, and people complain that 4e is too narrow.

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...

 

[D'karr]

Because in the end both paladins follow an ethos...

Maybe I'm missing something how does being an LG Paladin mean that you follow an ethos. Anyone can follow an ethos, a peasant that is LG also follows that ethos. The restriction makes no sense in 4e, because in 4e a Paladin is a "Champion of an Ethos", not a "Champion of just this very narrow ethos that somebody decided was the only one appropriate for the class".

So instead of differentiating them on the basis of combat style, 3.5 differentiated them on the basis of alignment and/or ideals.

If the only ethos espoused is that of LG, then there is no differentiation between Paladins in 3.x or earlier. They ALL espouse the ideals of LG.

So talking it out works in 4e for various ethos and/or alignments... but for some reason self-destructs if used in 3.5... uhm, ok never experienced it but I guess.

Hyperbole is so well suited to conversation.

And in 4e it is... punish the player for combat orientation slips... based on how the designers decided a paladin should fight... So I can accept that you prefer the punishment be centered around how the Paladin fights as opposed to his beliefs... but I don't accept he isn't punished for acting "wrong" in 4e.

You keep saying punished, and I can't see how anyone could regard what we have discussed in 4e as punishment. I know you'd like it to be that way, to lend credence to the argument, but it falls extremely short of it.

I'm right handed, and I can write with my left hand. If I write with my left hand writing is more difficult. If I make a choice to use my left hand to write, there must be a reason to it, besides punishing myself for the effort, or the person that gets to read the "chicken scratch." I don't get hit over the head with a spatula every time I write with my left hand, or get told that I'm wrong to do so and there will be consequences. I'm just not as effective at "writing" when I use my left hand.

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?