4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Hussar]

the orc baby dilemma is something I have only encountered online.

Really? You never played Keep on the Borderlands? Because there are young in nearly every single cave in that module. What did you do with the young after you had slaughtered your way through their parents?

Heck, this was enough of an issue that in the World's Largest Dungeon, there's a sidebar talking about why they included no young in the module, pretty much citing this exact problem.

So, there's two modules, spread apart by about twenty years or so, both with the same issue.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Really? You never played Keep on the Borderlands? Because there are young in nearly every single cave in that module. What did you do with the young after you had slaughtered your way through their parents?

Heck, this was enough of an issue that in the World's Largest Dungeon, there's a sidebar talking about why they included no young in the module, pretty much citing this exact problem.

So, there's two modules, spread apart by about twenty years or so, both with the same issue.

Never played KOTBL. This seriously never came up at my table. At least the idea of killing Orc babies was never seriously entertained by a good party in any game I played.

 

[Hussar]

So, what did you do? Adopt them? Or, did the DM just never have young at the table? Or just handwave the issue?

But, considering that KotB is by far the best selling module of all time, I'd say that it's probably a fairly common experience at least once or twice at many tables.

 

[Dragoslav]

The first time I played KOTBL was with the first DDN playtest packet. The player playing the sun cleric ran into the middle of the Kobold living chamber and used Channel Radiance to bathe the entire room in damaging radiance, frying to death every adult and baby kobold.

Of course, the fact that this was a one-off experimental session may have lowered the players' inhibitions just a smidge.

 

[Hussar]

If the scene-framing/character advocacy style of play is what you're interested in, you may prefer a game that is unequivocally designed for it rather than 4e.

What I'm still fuzzy about is why 4e would be a better choice for this than Burning Wheel (recently revised and released as a 600pg hardcover for $25!). In particular, Burning Wheel has two different combat systems, one simple and one complex, which would solve your issue about combat length (as I understand it being able to choose between quick and detailed resolution is generally considered to be an important feature for scene-frame-y games to have).

(Truthfully, I can think of a few reasons why someone would prefer to do this with D&D, and D&Disms, rather than try to take up a 600pg game that a lot of casual gamers have never heard of, but I'm bringing it up anyway because whenever someone expresses a preference for something simulation-y there's usually a 4e fan acting surprised that they're playing D&D at all instead of Harnmaster or some other ancient, hardcore process-sim game. Looking forward to DDN, I think it'd be awesome if it had focused advice/tools for this style, as long as this can be done alongside focused advice/tools for the more classic D&D sandbox exploration style, which I think could be possible actually.)

Why? 4e works perfectly fine for this sort of scene-framing/character advocacy style of play right out of the box without any need to adjust the game in any meaningful way. The game is built for it. That's been one of the primary criticisms OF the game since day one - that people don't want this sort of thing in D&D.

I do think you're off base in the comparison because other editions of D&D were never fine with process sim based play. The group had to do all sorts of hand waving and overlooking the rules all over the place to get the system to do process sim based play. The basic rules of the game have never supported process sim play out of the box. Hit Points, combat mechanics, economy, the exponential power curve of characters, on and on, the game will fight you every step of the way to try and do process sim play.

That would be the primary difference. People have internalized just how far they've drifted D&D into process sim play by all sorts of means, and then try to turn around and claim that these concepts have always been present. Which is why you get the comments asking why you would ever use D&D for this sort of play. OTOH, 4e works for scene-framing/character advocacy style of play right of the box and isn't shy about letting you know that. Dozens, if not more, meta-game powers, healing mechanics, hit points, combat, skill challenges, etc. Heck, even the whole "Say Yes" push in 4e supports this.

 

[Libramarian]

I think [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] is explaining the 1e paladin well within the gamist sandbox context and he's kind of getting dogpiled by people stuck in the 4e mindset. The 1e paladin gives you more power in exchange for conduct restrictions. It's a tradeoff. Yes, the object of the game is to kind of weasel your way out of them, or at least skirt them in such a way that they don't hamper your pursuit of power and treasure too much. Yes, the DM gets final say on what is and is not a violation in their game. The point is not to have everyone contribute equally to a game-mediated meditation on the nature of evil, it's just to be kind of an interesting wrinkle to the power/treasure hunting game. It does that pretty well, IMO. It could be explained more clearly, but I like the idea in general. It requires more clarity on agenda than most D&D mechanics to work, and the agenda in question has gone in and out of fashion over the years, but that doesn't mean it's objectively bad-old thinking.

I gather that some people think this is kind of a skewed and un-immersive way to play as a paladin, but tell me this...would not Kant say that following the rules is what's important, not whether or not you want to follow them? *undergrad philosophy minor*

 

[Libramarian]

Why? 4e works perfectly fine for this sort of scene-framing/character advocacy style of play right out of the box without any need to adjust the game in any meaningful way. The game is built for it. That's been one of the primary criticisms OF the game since day one - that people don't want this sort of thing in D&D.

I do think you're off base in the comparison because other editions of D&D were never fine with process sim based play. The group had to do all sorts of hand waving and overlooking the rules all over the place to get the system to do process sim based play. The basic rules of the game have never supported process sim play out of the box. Hit Points, combat mechanics, economy, the exponential power curve of characters, on and on, the game will fight you every step of the way to try and do process sim play.

That would be the primary difference. People have internalized just how far they've drifted D&D into process sim play by all sorts of means, and then try to turn around and claim that these concepts have always been present. Which is why you get the comments asking why you would ever use D&D for this sort of play. OTOH, 4e works for scene-framing/character advocacy style of play right of the box and isn't shy about letting you know that. Dozens, if not more, meta-game powers, healing mechanics, hit points, combat, skill challenges, etc. Heck, even the whole "Say Yes" push in 4e supports this.

No I don't think 4e sufficiently explains and supports this style out of the box, and I think the fact that it doesn't is what the scene-framing thread is all about. This is why S'mon has to pick it up from pemerton's posts. Regardless of whether the game supports whatever style, I think it's kind of jerk-y to try to bump someone out of the discussion or nullify their opinion by saying D&D is not the right game for them to begin with. Unless you're at least partially actually trying to be helpful.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, what did you do? Adopt them? Or, did the DM just never have young at the table? Or just handwave the issue?

We would just leave the women and children alone. If it was a matter of not leaving them to die, just drop them off close enough to an Orc village for them to be picked up sooner or later.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, considering that KotB is by far the best selling module of all time, I'd say that it's probably a fairly common experience at least once or twice at many tables.

I don't know. Sounds like they made a big deal of it in that module which suggests to me they were drawing attention to it because they felt people were overlooking the possibility of the dilemma. I am sure it did come up in other groups, I just never personally have encountered it as anything more than a joke or in online debates.

 

[Fox Lee]

I can't really do that in 4e, can I? If I want to be a ranger; I better use a bow, two weapons, or an animal companion or else my powers are pretty much reduced to basic attack, aren't they?

If you insist on building it with the Ranger class, then yeah... but if you don't want to do any of those three things, you should be building your "ranger" with another class, and I don't see that as being a problem because the system is fine with you doing that.

A ranger is NOT just "good with a bow" class. I don't WANT to have to re-write 30+ levels of paladin powers because I want to be able to wear plate. (And explain how my Imposing Presence HEALS WOUNDS WITH A TOUCH? Wait, don't. Refluffers could justify making Orcus LG if they need to). It'd have been a lot simpler to have rogues use shortbows (as they did for 3+ other editions) than to have to rewrite another class to become a rogue (and sacrifice roguish powers like tumble for rangerish ones like Owl's Wisdom) with a bow.

I know lol, just imagine a martial battlefield commander who could heal allies purely with charisma and morale.

OH WAIT A MINUTE.

What's wrong with the idea of a Paladin being part of a Barbarian tribe? Do barbarian tries not have driven champions of causes? Or do the gods just hate them? The biggest problem I see with it is justifying why the Barbarians have plate armour.

Oh, that one is easy - Dragonplate. Ankheg Shell. Bulette Carapace. There's a long fantasy tradition of animal materials that are amazing enough to count as plate when compared to metal armour, which also by the by makes for some really cool visual character design.

Alternatively, if you want to focus on the divinity angle, you could have some kind of tribal ritual that imbues mundane hides or leathers with divine will of a wilderness deity/primal animal spirit/your ancestors/etc. Bonus, both suggest interesting roleplay/setting hooks, like describing how the ritual is performed, or having a whole tribe dedicated to hunting really scary shelled/scaled things for making said armour.

Interpretations of the paladin code in AD&D was a pretty common topic of discussion in the "Letters" and "Forum" sections of Dragon magazine. It may have worked well in your groups, and I never experienced any significant issues firsthand, but paladins seems to have worked poorly for many other groups due to differences of interpretation in how they should be played. From a modern perspective, with RPG design having been refined over the past 40 years, I think that it's a poor design in general. The AD&D ranger, druid, cavalier, and barbarian classes are marred by a similar design philosophy (to varying degrees).

Concur. Since BRG is using anecdotes, I might as well mention that I have never, in any group I played with in the last 15-odd years, seen a paladin played without a fight breaking out, with the sole exception of one who in all fairness was permitted to act as more "friend to all creatures" than "zealous evil-destroyer" (I mean he was a righteous crusader for sure, but there was zero chance he would have killed the Orc Babies or sided with the Corrupt Authority - it simply wasn't a question in his mind). In other words, the only time I saw a paladin not be the source of unenjoyable conflict was when he was houseruled such that the code was relaxed.