4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Balesir]

A thought on the paladin. Here's a question:

If a paladin detects evil on a human subject, and that subject is evil, is the paladin obligated to either kill or take that target into custody? Or can he ignore that target, knowing, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the target is, indeed, evil?​

Now, prove it using only the PHB.

And, for bonus points, does the paladin have to detect evil on every creature s/he intends to "associate" with, since they have a proscription against associating with evil creatures?

 

[JustinAlexander]

And there is absolutely nothing in the fighter archetype preventing them being brutal and dishonourable.

Great. I'm glad you agree with me when I say that pemerton is wrong in claiming that the mechanics inherently create a theme of "that fighter as a dogged, unflabbable, quintessentially dwarven devotee of Moradin".

The rest of your post is full of irrelevant nitpicks, but ironically only serves to reinforce my point and undermine pemerton's claims.

Last time I looked the joker doesn't use a halberd. In D&D, that's a pretty big difference.

Thanks for admitting that the theme you claim is inherent in the Come and Get It mechanic isn't actually inherent in the Come and Get It mechanic. Glad you've gained a greater understanding of how the game actually works from this discussion.




Good discussion, folks! Glad to have been a part of it.

This post comes over as condescending. Please try to avoid such a tone in the future. Thanks.

Lwaxy

 

[JamesonCourage]

But, let's not forget, you're talking about one power out of the dozen or more that this character is going to have.

I didn't forget that. In this thread, and others, this power has been brought up as strongly encouraging the Paladin to be "valiant" since it forces people to act in such a way to gain the bonus. My point is "that's not necessarily the case." I'm speaking within the context given, here, which is this power.

Let's not get too focused on one thing. Most of the powers a paladin can choose to take follow along this theme that he should be "brave" ((or perhaps arrogant)) but, you are right, the powers in and of themselves do not tie themselves to a very specific notion to the exclusion of anything else.

I strongly agree that the set of abilities a class has as a whole helps set the tone for the class. You're right, it's not really a vacuum. And, yep, I totally agree that the individuals powers don't inherently set a "theme" for themselves (though people seem to be positing that).

So, yes, your paladin could be any of the above you listed. The player would decide that, rather than having a code handed down to him on high. But, once he makes that determination, the powers he chooses should likely follow from that decision.

That makes sense.

In earlier editions, the player got very few choices. All paladins were pretty much mechanically the same. Granted feats were where the class was customized in 3e, but, apart from that, one paladin was going to look very much the same as another.

I mean, just in the PHB, there are two very distinctly different playing paladins, one melee and one ranged. That, right off the bat, is one more paladin than ever existed in the game previously.

This is one of the "other" conversations I mentioned. We're now on "class flexibility" rather than "abilities of a class enforcing a particular theme." The Paladin class in 4e is definitely more broad than in 3.5. If that's your point... I agree. The alignment restrictions being lifted did that alone, unless you can't "Paladin of Freedom", etc., in which case I'm not sure, since I'd never use a non-LG D&D Paladin. As always, play what you like

 

[Bedrockgames]

However, we're not really talking about my or your table though BRG. Is there a more problematic class in D&D than a paladin? Has any class caused anywhere near as much drama at tables? About the only thing I can think comes close is the party stealing thief. And even that's usually not as big of an issue. Maybe a Kender thief might come close to causing as much table drama.

But a paladin? Good grief, I would think that the paladin should be the poster child for how NOT to design classes in a class based game. Anything that causes that many problems at a table should not be part of the game.

I am only talking about my table to show this isn't a problem for everyone and that a lot of people didn't like this change. You are speaking in very absolute terms: there is something bad about the paladin's design and the 4E remedy is clearly superior. I am just saying this remedy seems to be meeting with a good deal of resistance. In my opinion both approaches are indeed viable. I just prefer the approach that previous editions took to them. T me it is more interesting and more fun.

Was the problem as problematic as you say? I don't think it was. I think there were always players who took issue with that, and with other potential issues of fairness stemming from GM adjudication on such matters (magic item and XP distribution being another). It is just there are lots and lots of people who really do see this aspect of the game as a feature and not a bug.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think you might be projecting your own preferences here.

the last sentence or two there may have been a bit much. I see nothing wrong with taking the approach you describe to D&D. But I also do think my table is closer to the norm in this instance, which is really my point. Which isn't to say you can't deviate from that, but most games of D&D I have been in, work off the alignment assumptions of the system and approach morality in a simplisitc wya because it is a feature of the genre

I am an academic who teaches and researches in philosophy and law. Questions of personal and political morality tend to be pretty central to the fantasy RPG games I run.

In my last Rolemaster campaign, for instance, the players ended up allying with a dead god and an exiled god against the rest of the heavens, in order to prevent the souls of many innocent people being destroyed despite their being an ancient pact between the heavens and the lords of karma preventing such interference.

Nthing wrong with that. But I will point out, your example here is a rolemaster campaign, not D&D, and that this is, at least in my view, a bit outside how most people would approach alignment in D&D. I am not arguing here that you shouldn't play the game the way you do, or that you can't dislike paladins and alignment in D&D. Just saying not everyone shares your preferences and many of us dont encounter any of the problems you've described.

One of the PCs was a paladin - a Buddhist warrior monk - who, in the course of play, took the view that the emperor of heaven and the lrds of karma were morally misguided, and that true compassion required him to turn against their dictates.

Another PC was a fox spirit, exiled from heaven and progressing from fox to human form contrary to the terms of his banishment - when the constables of heaven came to capture and punish him, the PCs defended their friend and fought the constables, the first of their steps on an indendent path contrary to the dictates of karma.

Other PCs were samurai, in various complicated relationships to one another, their families, the daimyo to whom their families owed fealty, etc. One of these spent most of the campaign courting a celestial dragon who was caught between the politic conflicts of her parents, one a sea lord and the other a storm lord, as well as the complexities of romancing a mortal when your loyaties are to the heavens.

This game was driven by questions of loyalty, duty, authority, legitimacy, freedom and justice. The application of pre-4e paladin code mechanics, or AD&D Oriental Adventures honour mechanics, would have killed it stone dead for no benefit at all.

?

Sure. again though, you were playing rolemaster and the campaign you describe is not a very typical D&D game. There is nothing wrong with doing this or taking an outside interest of yours and applying it to the game (and like I said, I am perfectly capable of running and enjoying such a game). Again, nothing wrong with that. But most groups tend to use the alignment system and paladins just fine.

Now i get that taking those out, enabled you to run D&D more like your rolemaster game, and that is good for you. But for someone like me it took out something vital and interesting to the game. Not just the flavor of the paladin, but the idea of a class that is a bit better than average, being balanced out by a behavioral code. This is somethign I really enjoy.

 

[Manbearcat]

<snip> I say that pemerton is wrong in claiming that the mechanics inherently create a theme of "that fighter as a dogged, unflabbable, quintessentially dwarven devotee of Moradin".

<snip>

Thanks for admitting that the theme you claim is inherent in the Come and Get It mechanic isn't actually inherent in the Come and Get It mechanic. <snip>

I cut out the snark to distill the essence of the post. I'm not sure its particularly fair to deconstruct a coherent whole into its individual parts, focus like a laser beam on one or two specific parts and then assert that by proxy of your deconstruction and zoom-in focus on specific parts, its clear that the zoomed-out, aggregated, mechanical whole don't inherently create a theme. That being said, the keywords and the mechanical impact of Come and Get It certainly promulgate the play of "martial master of the battlefield" by way of its mechanics.

This post here that I wrote a few hours ago (focusing on the general, default paladin/knightly themes and how this is actualized by the mechanics of the 4e class) might be relevant. "Fighter as a dogged, unflabbable" martial archetype is easily enough shown to be true by the mechanical bearing of the default features and a default martial exploit assemblage. My guess would be that if @pemerton re-created my post in the vein of his home game's Dwarven Fighter PC, it would be very evident how the "quintessentially dwarven devotee of Moradin" manifests mechanically alongside/together with the "fighter as a dogged, unflabbable" portion. There are a number of Dwarven feats, racial powers, themes, and Paragon Paths that promote just such a thing;

- Stone Stubborn, Mountainborn Tenacity, Dwarf Battle Priest, Delzoun Trueborn, Immovable Mountain Fighter Utility & Shield Bash Fighter Exploit feats and powers
- Earthforger Theme
- Dwarven Defender/Firstborn of Moradin/Earthheart Defender/Master of the Forge & Soulforger Paragon Paths (specifically the Weapon of the Dwarf-Father Path Feature)

That is just a few among many and they all synergize with Fighter. I suspect the pemerton's player's character has one of more of those amidst his build. And, of course I'm not a mind-reader, clairvoyant, or seer. Its just extremely intuitive.

 

[Obryn]

Great. I'm glad you agree with me when I say that pemerton is wrong in claiming that the mechanics inherently create a theme of "that fighter as a dogged, unflabbable, quintessentially dwarven devotee of Moradin".

The rest of your post is full of irrelevant nitpicks, but ironically only serves to reinforce my point and undermine pemerton's claims.

What's amazing to me is that you have so internalized edition warring that you apparently think everyone who plays 4e has the same opinions in every sense and that it's somehow notable that [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] might have different opinions and that one disagreeing with the other could possibly reinforce your point.

This isn't the only thing you're getting wrong here, but it's the one that stuck out at me. It'd be like a 3.5 fan saying dissociametahorsepucky mechanics aren't real, and me saying, "See, George from Seinfeld, your point has been UNDERMINED! "

-O

 

[B.T.]

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.

Because 4e was not designed from an in-universe perspective; it was designed from an out-of-universe perspective. If you ask yourself about a design limitation in previous editions, you can probably explain something from an in-character perspective. In 4e, the answer to any question about a design decision is "because it's not balanced."

 

[Neonchameleon]

He also has limits on the magic items he can keep, he has to tithe, and he has a noticeably slower XP advancement table, on top of some other behavioral requirements. So it's not like he's really better in every single respect to a fighter. He's better in some ways but pays for it in others. It's not appropriate to try to say, from a game theoretic perspective, that the paladin dominates the fighter in every way because there are ways in which the fighter's lot is better than the paladin's.

Indeed. And there's one huge way a 1e Paladin is weaker than a Fighter that you haven't mentioned. The Paladin has a minimum Charisma of 17. If you get to put your stats in order then this is enormous. If you roll in order, a 17 charisma allows for ten henchmen with a strong loyalty base. A Paladin needs to track down ten Lawful Good henchmen - which, amongst other things, is is harder and places much bigger restrictions on the skill mix your henchmen can have.

Great. I'm glad you agree with me when I say that pemerton is wrong in claiming that the mechanics inherently create a theme of "that fighter as a dogged, unflabbable, quintessentially dwarven devotee of Moradin".

The rest of your post is full of irrelevant nitpicks, but ironically only serves to reinforce my point and undermine pemerton's claims.

Oh, nonsense. Whether I'm disagreeing with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] or not is a minor thing. I'm fairly sure I'm not other than on a technicality; but I'm almost certain that even if he said that the mechanics inherently create the theme he'd agree with the clarification that mechanics reinforce, support, and encourage a theme - and that there are many consistent ways to play e.g. a Lazy Warlord - but in almost all those cases the lazy warlord powers and a refluff support the theme.

As for my post being irrelevant nitpicks, it demonstrated that you (a) didn't understand what was needed to reskin a power (the new skin must remain consistent with the mechanics) and (b) don't understand which thematics powers reinforce or how they reinforce them (or you'd never have suggested the Joker). Thus demonstrating that you aren't even on the same page as the rest of us.

To take another Batman example, in 4e it's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you. Powers (and especially combat powers) are about what you do where the rubber meets the road - the things you fall back on (your at will powers), your signature choices, moves, and situations (your encounter powers), and what you do when the chips are down (your daily powers).

 

[FireLance]

A big thank-you to Neonchameleon, pemerton, shidaku, S'mon, AbdulAlhazred, Balesir, Fox Lee, Hussar, D'karr, and of course Evenglare (for starting this thread in the first place) for sharing their insights into 4e, both in this thread and the "scene-framing" discussion.

I am certainly biased, but IMO, one of the best arguments in favor of 4e is the quality and class of its proponents.