4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Sunseeker]

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)??

WORD. I just built a new 4e paladin for game and they're quite far from a defender.

Maybe when 4e launched, a valiant, noble, defender paladin was all you could play, but now, even without considering the Blackguard options. Even if you are limited to playing within a variance of paladin tropes(defender paladin, healing paladin, holy-wrath paladin) there's still a good range.

And I agree that when a player decides on the paladin class, in any edition, they automatically get some of the baggage with it. Now very skillful players may be able to lighten that load and create some interesting concepts that push the boundaries of what it means to be a Paladin, but on the whole I agree you are limited to the presented range. 4e just presents the range differently than previous editions, it doesn't encourage deviation because deviation is less necessary than it was in previous editions. For the most part the "paladin tropes" are all pretty effective.

 

[D'karr]

Wait, so a paladin can't be defined by a narrow ethos?? I'm sorry 4e must have not gotten that memo either since some of it's paladins are defined by a "narrow" ethos as well... valiance, sacrifice, domination, fury?

What narrow ethos is described in the character writeup. It is broad and can encompass quite a bit.

Unless you use one of the various options found in 3.5 that allows you to play a non-LG paladin...

I'm not aware of these particular options so I'll take your word for it. There are quite a bit of options for the 4e Paladin, and it is not as restrictive as the previous editions as regards alignment.

I love how you just declare it "not punishment" and it's so... even though I have demonstrated how you are punished (if you consider the loss of powers due to alignment violation a punishment) if you try to play the paladin as anything but a melee defender guardian type.

I can't see what demonstration you speak of. Nothing you have pointed to has demonstrated a punishment, that I can think of. Or our definition of punishment is not the same.

Not being rewarded mechanically, is not the same a punishment. At best is the status quo. All characters get a ranged basic attack. If I have high DEX my bonus damage is higher than somebody that selected not to invest in DEX. If I'm the player with the low DEX, I don't use my ranged basic attack because it does not reward me mechanically. Is that a punishment?

The player has made a conscious decision to select a class that has specific theme elements and mechanics tied to those elements. If he chooses to play against that theme and mechanics he's NOT AS effective as if he has played to the theme and mechanics, but he's still as effective as the average guy (everyone has RGA and MBA). If a player chooses a class that is not proficient in heavy armor and then wants to reflavor it as heavy armor, he gets no mechanical support. Is that a punishment? No that is the system doing what it has already done as part of the class balance.

That is NOT the same as, "you've violated what I believe (the DM) are the tenets of your ethos, you are no longer a Paladin".

One at best has a zero effect on the class's viability. The player can choose to start "acting" the part that is mechanically rewarded and the reward is immediate. The other is a hammer to the head, because your vision and the DM vision don't align, and your class effectiveness past that point is entirely subject to the whim of the DM.

Then how is loosing your powers because you chose to go against one of the key tenets of the class archetype any different? Your character doesn't keel over and die or get taken out of the game... he looses effectiveness for making that choice to play against archetype.

One loses effectiveness, but is still viable, the other loses all aspects of the class based on a whim. What happens to a 1e Paladin that is no longer LG, based on the subjective appraisal of the DM? How long does that "effect" last? What happens to a 4e Paladin that chooses to attack with RBAs, instead of getting into the thick of things? How long does that effect last?

If you can't see how these two things are very different then I don't know what else to explain.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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)??

The word 'striker' has literally no mechanical meaning. So the 'only some Paladins become strikers' comment is irrelevant.

The way the Essentials Paladins/Blackguards work is that Paladins are exemplars of a virtue, and Blackguards are the exemplars of a vice.

The only two virtues they've written up are Sacrifice (LG only) and Valour (Neutral or better - bullying and trampling on the weak is not showing valour). All Essentials Paladins get Valiant Strike and a Defender Aura, and are therefore encouraged to to wade right into the middle of the enemy. They all gain an encounter ability to take damage instead of one of their allies, reinforcing the Paladin's self-sacrificing theme, and their first two encounter attack powers are 'Holy Smite' to buff their at will attacks (extra damage and a daze). Paladins of Sacrifice are classic LG Paladins and can use their second wind to take on an ally's wounds, so the ally restores the hit points, and their second at will hands out temporary hit points. Paladins of Valour on the other hand are dragonslayers - an initiative boost, a boost to their healing surge value, and on their specialist at will they do extra damage if they hit and get a bonus to hit next time if they miss. Close to strikers here.

Blackguards on the other hand have writeups for the vices of Wrath (neutral or worse - anyone can get angry but good people are never defined by their wrath) and Tyrrany (Evil). As tough as Paladins, they focus on hurting people - and also like diving into the enemy and laying waste (Vengeance strike gets +2 damage per adjacent enemy).

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...

Hah! Doesn't surprise me. Which is why they fixed it to only reward the behaviours it was meant to so you behave like a Paladin. That said, they brought it back twice over - once with the Frost of Laetherna power (which promptly got errata'd so you couldn't immobilise someone indefinitely) and once with Hybrids (which are a complete mess).

 

[Sunseeker]

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

No, it doesn't. An early-edition paladin LOST their powers if they did something outside their alignment. As in: had to take part in a huge paladin-centric questline to get their powers back, IF the DM even allowed such a thing. A 4e Paladin only loses their powers if the DM table-rules that's what happens when a Paladin actsoutside of their alignment, which is no longer LG, but whatever their god is. By RAW, a 4e Paladin never loses their powers ever, no matter how evil a deed they commit.

And you certainly don't lose your powers by playing outside the typical Paladin paradigm either unless, as above, the DM rules at the table that's what happens.

 

[Imaro]

No, it doesn't. An early-edition paladin LOST their powers if they did something outside their alignment. As in: had to take part in a huge paladin-centric questline to get their powers back, IF the DM even allowed such a thing. A 4e Paladin only loses their powers if the DM table-rules that's what happens when a Paladin actsoutside of their alignment, which is no longer LG, but whatever their god is. By RAW, a 4e Paladin never loses their powers ever, no matter how evil a deed they commit.

And you certainly don't lose your powers by playing outside the typical Paladin paradigm either unless, as above, the DM rules at the table that's what happens.

To me this is semantics... if I have no powers in the paladin class that work on ranged weapons... then I effectively loose my powers if I choose to be a bow paladin... The game just doesn't come out and tell you that.

EDIT: In other words previous editions say, you'll loose your powers if you play a non-LG base paladin. 4e says you'll loose your powers if you choose to play a bow wielding paladin. Both are a punishment for choosing to go against the particular archetypes of the game it's just one is explicit and one is implicit.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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?

If you play against the 4e archetype you do not lose any powers. You just don't use them as effectively. You still have all your powers. So there is absolutely no 'just like' about it.

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?

No. You still have all your melee based powers. You can use them. You are just choosing not to use them. Choosing not to use something is not remotely the same as losing something.

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

You never stop being a Paladin in 4e and you do not lose one single power by using a bow or sneaking around. So no you do not lose any abilities in 4e by playing against archetype. They are always right there and you can use them again as soon as you want to. This is absolutely and completely different from a fallen Paladin who needs to Atone.

 

[Sunseeker]

To me this is semantics... if I have no powers in the paladin class that work on ranged weapons... then I effectively loose my powers if I choose to be a bow paladin... The game just doesn't come out and tell you that.

It's not semantics, it's pedantics. From the latin: to childishly demand something that cannot be offered and throw a fit over it.

4e Paladin's don't support bow play. Alright, bit a bummer, but there's several other classes that do and at least one of them is holy-themed. This is not a punishment, this is a design. Earlier editions PUNISHED players for acting outside of alignment. 4e does not. You do not lose anything you have. And since you cannot GAIN a bow paladin, you cannot be PUNISHED by having it taken away.

And yes, the game DOES tell you that, if you take all of 3 seconds to look at the powers and notice that almost none of them are ranged.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To me this is semantics... if I have no powers in the paladin class that work on ranged weapons... then I effectively loose my powers if I choose to be a bow paladin... The game just doesn't come out and tell you that.

EDIT: In other words previous editions say, you'll loose your powers if you play a non-LG base paladin. 4e says you'll loose your powers if you choose to play a bow wielding paladin. Both are a punishment for choosing to go against the particular archetypes of the game it's just one is explicit and one is implicit.

You see the difference between "You are not able to use some of your class abilities until you pick up a sword again" and "You lose all of your class abilities until you track down a 9th level or higher cleric or druid and convince them to cast Atonement on you" (3.5) or "If they ever knowingly perform an act that is chaotic in nature, they must seek a high level (7th and above) cleric of lawful good alignment, fonfess their sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he or she loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably" (1e) as a purely semantic distinction? Seriously?

 

[D'karr]

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

I don't think it's a sweeping generalization to say that in previous editions a Paladin that was no longer LG is no longer a Paladin. It is also not a sweeping generalization to say that this was a punishment, and that it was pretty much based on subjective criteria (as alignment, and evil acts have always been). It is also not a sweeping generalization to say that "atoning" for this would also fall on subjective criteria from the DM, since NPCs are controlled by the DM and only appear at the DMs whim. Finding a cleric of 7th level or above in 1e, or of 9th level or above in 3.x to perform an atonement was DM purview. Unless there were other PCs in the party to do so, and at that point you are not only at the mercy of the DM, but another PC.

So if I've made any sweeping generalization in that I apologize, but generally those were the rules for Paladins. If there are variants to the paladin class, I don't recall seeing any in 1e, 2e, and 3e. You say that there were variants in 3.5 and I said I'd take your word for it. However, a variant is not part of the "general" rules so they are the exception rather than the rule. As such these general rules for paladins apply to all versions that had paladins, except 4e. I don't think that's a sweeping generalization.

 

[Remathilis]

4e Paladin's don't support bow play. Alright, bit a bummer, but there's several other classes that do and at least one of them is holy-themed.

4e was really bad at that. While 3e had classes for a variety of specialized roles (and bit of overlap) 4e was really good at making 4 or 5 classes out of what was once one class. Pre-Essentials, you had two options for ranged, martial PCs: Ranger (bow) or Rogue (crossbow) and that was it. Heaven forbid you want to be a bow-using rogue or a crossbow-using warlord (and not just make basic attacks)!

In some areas, 4e was nonsensically limiting. Why do fighters just get scale and not plate? Why can't rogues use their powers with bows? I get focusing weapons and armor to imply a theme, but sometimes it seemed like they limited weapons and armor for no other reason than to limit the number of miniatures they'd need to produce.