4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Imaro]

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.

Given the above statement... how is it a punishment in earlier editions if you violate alignment... was this restriction hidden when you picked the class? If not didn't you plan to play a LG character, and he only becomes less effective when you violate alignment. But then again I think you know what you stated above is in no way a truthful representation of my argument.

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?

If you can claim a player picking a LG class and knowing he will looose his powers if he doesn't abide by the alignment is a "punishment"then yes that is a "punishment"for the wzard. In both cases this isn't a hidden factor, the player is aware of it and how violating the tenets of the archetype will make him less effective. Tis seems to boil down to Ï like 4e's method better"but I'm not seeing a difference in whether it's incentive or punishment for playing a certain way.

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.

Maybe because you're too busy trying your hardest to mis-characterize my arguments as opposed to understanding what I am saying. I'll break it down simply...

Either both editions mechanical incentives for playing to a particular archetype are incentives, or both are punishments as they effectively do the same thing... reduce the effectiveness of the character you are playing for not playing a certain way (whether that's as a melle defender or LG paragon doesn't matter).

 

[D'karr]

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

If the game defines, in the "kid" writeup, that they like pizza and then provides mechanical support every time they eat pizza, then it is a characteristic of "kid".

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.

So if you don't want to play a character that fits the description in the 4e Paladin Class writeup, you don't choose to play the 4e Paladin. Seems simple enough. Isn't that what has been said all along?

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.

Good for 3.x. I don't remember seeing any of those variants so I can't speak to their mechanics, or thematics.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Either both editions mechanical incentives for playing to a particular archetype are incentives, or both are punishments as they effectively do the same thing... reduce the effectiveness of the character you are playing for not playing a certain way (whether that's as a melle defender or LG paragon doesn't matter).

Doing well when you do something good is a reward. Having all your powers stripped from you and being turned into a strictly inferior version of another class is a punishment. I'm not sure how this is hard to understand or even something you can seriously question.

 

[Remathilis]

When did this become a paladin thread?!?

I recall back during Origins they had a 4e preview/playtest and there were reports that paladins would use their mark/challenge power on a foe and then run away, and the monster would slowly bleed divine damage trying to catch the paladin in some sort of Bennie Hill skit. They fixed it before 4e's release, but it appears 4e supported the "cowardly paladin" archetype at first...

 

[Imaro]

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.

Wait, so now my ethos defines what type of paladin as well as the combat style I should have (only non-good paladins ever become strikers)??

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

QFT.

Yet another reason to dump alignments.

 

[Imaro]

Doing well when you do something good is a reward. Having all your powers stripped from you and being turned into a strictly inferior version of another class is a punishment. I'm not sure how this is hard to understand or even something you can seriously question.

I do well when I play LG in the other editions... don't I? I am an inferior version of an archer ranger or rogue if I try to play my paladin as a ranged combatant, aren't I? I don't know why this is hard for you to understand.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I do well when I play LG in the other editions... don't I? I am an inferior version of an archer ranger or rogue if I try to play my paladin as a ranged combatant, aren't I? I don't know why this is hard for you to understand.

Going back to the top for the last time.

The punishment part of the equation is the Paladin Falling mechanic. You do not get this in 4e. Ergo 4e does not have the punishment part. You, I notice, have not argued against this.

The reward part is being rewarded and good behaviour being reinforced for behaving like a valiant warrior. Your abilities before 4e do not care how you approach the enemy - whether you do it in the same way as or differently from a generic fighter or ranger. The reward you get is for writing the word 'Paladin' on your character sheet, not for behaving as a paladin. Now you might sometimes be punished for not behaving as the GM thinks you should behave as a Paladin. But this is very different from things fitting together better if you behave valiantly. And this is a reward not a punishment because you don't lose access to anything for not behaving valiantly. It just works better, which is a more pleasing experience.

Or, to put it very simply:

• A class having abilities is not a reward. All classes have abilities and a Paladin's are not especially powerful (not even in 1e when you compare them to a Wizard or Cleric).
• A class losing its abilities and turning into a strictly inferior version of another class is a punishment.
• A class's abilities synergising when you behave in a way that fits the archetype so that what would be insane in a gritty world but the archetype encourages works well is a reward. More than that it is the best type of reward for encouraging a behaviour - minor but repeatable and with immediate feedback.

 

[Imaro]

So if you don't want to play a character that fits the description in the 4e Paladin Class writeup, you don't choose to play the 4e Paladin. Seems simple enough. Isn't that what has been said all along?

I'm not sure how this even relates to what you quoted?? Again, if you consider it a punishment to loose your powers because you violated the LG restriction that is part of the thematic archetype of paladin in every edition (except 4e) how is it not a punishment to loose effectiveness if you choose to play against the archetype of the 4e paladin? It's the same situation, again this seems to boil down to liking one version of the class more than the other as opposed to anything objective...

Good for 3.x. I don't remember seeing any of those variants so I can't speak to their mechanics, or thematics.

You are making sweeping generalizations about previous editions though...

 

[Imaro]

Going back to the top for the last time.

The punishment part of the equation is the Paladin Falling mechanic. You do not get this in 4e. Ergo 4e does not have the punishment part. You, I notice, have not argued against this.

So your effectiveness is diiminished when you fall (choose to play against the previous edition's paladin archetype), correct? Just like if you play against the 4e paladin archetype (say trying to be a striker or an archer), your effectiveness is diminished correct?

The reward part is being rewarded and good behaviour being reinforced for behaving like a valiant warrior. Your abilities before 4e do not care how you approach the enemy - whether you do it in the same way as or differently from a generic fighter or ranger. The reward you get is for writing the word 'Paladin' on your character sheet, not for behaving as a paladin. Now you might sometimes be punished for not behaving as the GM thinks you should behave as a Paladin. But this is very different from things fitting together better if you behave valiantly. And this is a reward not a punishment because you don't lose access to anything for not behaving valiantly. It just works better, which is a more pleasing experience.

So I am more effective if I play to the valiant archetype, just like if I play to the LG archetype, correct? Also if I choose to use archery as a valiant paladin... don't I loose the ability to use my melee based powers when I am attacking? Now granted one is player controlled and one is DM controlled.. but you are punished and loosing out on something in your character class either way.

Or, to put it very simply:

• A class having abilities is not a reward. All classes have abilities and a Paladin's are not especially powerful (not even in 1e when you compare them to a Wizard or Cleric).
• A class losing its abilities and turning into a strictly inferior version of another class is a punishment.
• A class's abilities synergising when you behave in a way that fits the archetype so that what would be insane in a gritty world but the archetype encourages works well is a reward. More than that it is the best type of reward for encouraging a behaviour - minor but repeatable and with immediate feedback.

Point 1- is a given

Point 2- happens in previous editions and 4e if you play against archetype... your main distinction seems to be DM decides in previous editions and player decides in 4e

Point 3- The previos editions paladins also had abilities that worked well as incentive to play to archetype as was brought up earlier in the thread, as to which are best that's subjective... 4e seems to resonate with your playstyle and what you want out of the paladin archetype better than previous editions, but that doesn't make it objectively better for other playstyles or for what other people want out of the paladin archetype.