4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Tallifer]

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...

If you want to be selfish or evil then why do you want to play a paladin? If you want to play a non-defender, then why do you want to play a paladin?
You could easily play a Blackguard and actually enjoy your character, and you can write "paladin of evil" on the top of the sheet to thumb your nose at the church and nobility.

Your complaint is just as if I tried to play a Wizard like an AD&D Cavalier and then complained that none of the spells or armour rules or proficiencies allowed me to play my character.

 

[billd91]

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.

Losing your powers isn't mechanical feedback? I can accept that particular feedback is not to your taste, but it most certainly is feedback. How is 4e superior to previous editions in that respect? What mechanical feedback or reward does it provide for exploring thorny moral issues?

 

[TwoSix]

Losing your powers isn't mechanical feedback? I can accept that particular feedback is not to your taste, but it most certainly is feedback. How is 4e superior to previous editions in that respect? What mechanical feedback or reward does it provide for exploring thorny moral issues?

I was thinking more about focused narrative games a la FATE, Cortex, etc. 4e sidesteps the issue by not requiring paladins to have a code of behavior.

Plus, I tend to think of feedback as a cycle. You try something, see what happens, adjust accordingly. Unless paladins in your game are in a try something -> lose powers -> get atonement cycle, which I haven't seen at the table but I obviously can't account for everyone's games.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

The reverse of your statement is true: having an evil character in the party dictates that nobody can play a Paladin. (And I've been in that situation many more times than your hypothetical.)

But honestly, I don't think it is truly "dictating."

Personally, I'd call that a situation in which one character concept or the other (or both) is a poor fit for the party or campaign. That happens...and not just in D&D. Its just that this example has a certain mechanical rule behind it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Double post.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Losing your powers isn't mechanical feedback? I can accept that particular feedback is not to your taste, but it most certainly is feedback.

With you, 100%.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The reverse of your statement is true: having an evil character in the party dictates that nobody can play a Paladin. (And I've been in that situation many more times than your hypothetical.)

Now there's a big difference in culture between groups. I'd say I've had more characters in the evil alignments than lawful good over the years (never mind paladins), and far more neutrals than either of the extremes. To me, the archetypical D&D character is neutral to chaotic neutral, trending slightly evil as well. So if you have one character whose mechanics dictate that he can't participate in evil acts, that conflicts with most of the other PCs he's likely to meet.

YMMV, I guess.

Also, I don't think your argument holds. Evil characters don't necessarily mind having paladins around, as long as they're allowed to keep being evil. Of course, this requires some deception and possible magic to obscure alignment, but evil characters do those kinds of things anyway.

 

[Balesir]

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).

This is "well defined"???

1) The first condition uses the term "evil", which philosophers, both religious and otherwise, have been debating the meaning of for thousands of years and still haven't come up with a firm conclusion

2) The second condition uses the term "legitimate authority". Apart from "legitimate" being dependent upon what you regard an acceptable set of laws to be, this is still contested in several regions of the real world today. Just as a (fairly non-contentious) example, in medieval times who was the "legitimate" king might be determined by who was born when with the old king as their father. If opposed by a democratically elected "peasant council", such a king would be seen as unequivocally "legitimate" whereas the council was not. In the modern world, or based on modern sensibilities, I imagine this might not be quite so clear cut...

3) "Honour" has been a cornerstone of warrior culture all across the world through the ages. But what it meant to a samurai, what it meant to a knight and what it meant to a noble Parthian were very different things...

4) "The needy" - hmmm. Would those be the ones demonised as "slackers and welfare cheats" in the gutter press, or the ones who would go hungry without support - oh, wait; those could be the same people! Or not! Who gets to decide what "needy" means, again?

5) "Those who threaten or harm others" - does that mean you have to punish them without hurting them? Or do you just have to punish yourself after you punish them - hey, clever get-out!

Overall, these don't seem at all well defined or clear, to me. They seem exceedingly subjective and fuzzy.

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

Right - the bit about "never associating with evil characters". And suppose they lie to you? Oh, maybe that's what the "Detect Evil" power was for. And subjecting everyone you meet to what amounts to an insult and a gross invasion of privacy is "lawful" and "good", we assume?

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.

In the sense of "douchbag" that translates as "those who have a different view of what a range of ambiguous and contentious terms mean than I do"? Because all I see as required for problems, here, is a simple and legitimate difference of opinions.

As to "what is different with the 4e approach", it's simple. In 4e, exactly what you will be "rewarded" for and what you will be "punished" for is perfectly clear up-front (assuming you actually read the rules). In earlier editions, what you will be punished for (there being no specified reward) is entirely dependent on the world-view of one individual who is not you. This makes the "right answer" that will lead to you not being punished essentially a mystery that you get to take a guess at. Being rewarded for guessing right is superficially fun, for a while, but being punished for guessing wrong gets old really fast.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

But not everyone wants narrative mechanics. For me, I have never really had any of the issues with paladins you raise here. The people I game with come from all different backgrounds, have different world views, but are able to handle paladins following a code of conduct without a problem. I think the key is to not trap the player. It isn't a game of gotcha. As a GM i wont worry too much about cases where there is a lot of doubt. So the paladin challenging local authorities because they do something shady that make them illegitimate in his eyes, I am not going to take away his powers over that. If he tortures prisoners or uses force to bully locals into giving him good armor, then yes I am going to take away his powers. And I am not going to sit up a situation as a trap. If a dillema case does arive, we've already sorted whether that counts or not against him prior to play (and this will vary from setting to setting a bit). I am of the opinion, that if a paladin does something questionable but felt he had to for the greater good (and it wasnt just an excuse to take the easy way out) he will be fine as long as he makes real efforts to repair any harm done by his actions and show his god he regrets having to make that choice.

 

[Imaro]

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.

3.5 is a past edition... you can use a bow as a paladin if you want.

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.

Yet not every kid in the world likes pizza... It's not a defining vharacteristic of "kid"

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

I disagree... if I don't want to be LG I would play a different type of paladin in 3.5. In other editions the paladin being LG is a defining part of the thematic archetype so you're choosing to be LG, just like you're choosing to be (for the most part) a melee combatant in earlier editions by choosing the paladin archetype.

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.

3.5 had variant paladins, a paladin of slaughter, a paladin of freedom, a paladin of tyranny, variant paladin abilities, and so on. So yeah unless we're speaking PHB only there was a nice bit of variety in 3.5 paladins as well.