Let's face it, they're pretty similar archetypes. This is something I tend to get a bit of a block on, so I'd like to hear your thoughts on how they're different.
One is more militarized than the other. This is explicitly the case in the Warcraft material, where priests in the Church of the Holy Light do not use heavy armor or weapons (as opposed to D&D) and they noticed that maybe they needed people who could defend the community and not just heal it. ;)
JG
I think the Paladin should be an advanced or Prestige class, something you work towards or earn as a result of your deeds and not something start off as at level 1.
Or to put it other terms, for all the other classes the sentence "Yes, he is a cleric/thief/wizard/fighter, just not a very competent one." works fine. The same does not work with Paladins.
Paladins use swords, Clerics use morningstars.
A paladin is a holy warrior. A cleric is an adventuring holy man.
Quote from: jadrax;680678Paladins use swords, Clerics use morningstars.
This is a non-answer.
For me a Cleric is primarily a Priest who has had some martial training along with his divine studies, a Paladin is a Holy Warrior who has had some magical and priestly training alongside his martial studies.
Cleric
(http://anotherplotdevice.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/equilibrium_21.jpg)
Paladin:
(http://www.blogcdn.com/wow.joystiq.com/media/2010/12/tlahtsi-colbert-paladin.jpg)
A cleric is primarily a priest, a holy man and theologian that has some battle training, maybe experience but their primary focus is serving their god/church in a non military fashion. A paladin, otoh, is a warrior who's great faith and dedication has earned them the favor of their deity and a position of authority and honor in the church.
Edit:IMO and my general default when I do a classical fantasy setting
For me, the Cleric is the Militant arm of the Church. Defenders of the Faith
Instead of the Paladin, it should have been the Priest class. Healers, and shepherds of the flock as it were. A lot of the Paladin abilities make more sense for a Priest.
My ideas:
Hit Dice: Same as Magic User
Divine Casting from Level 1
Lay on Hands
Protection from Evil
Detect Evil
Turning
Limited Melee Weapons: Staff, Club, Sling
No Armor
The Priest would rely more on Charisma than Wisdom.
These are just rough ideas.
A cleric is the equivalent of any old priest who can fight (Friar Tuck), but a paladin is akin to a member in a military religious order (Templars, Hospitaliers, Teutonic Knights). The classic D&D equivalent of a Paladin was Sir Galahad, and the equivalent of an ex-Paladin was Sir Lancelot.
Clerics ought to be a prestigue class as has been pointed out.
Either you get to be a paladine becuase you started as a fighter and were good and true and just etc or you get to be one becuase you were a pirest who took a martial path.
The idea that clerics arer priets and paladins are warriors doesn't really work as clerics are very martial priests, certainly my local imman and vicar don't don armour and smite infidels.
the 2e priest where you get more priestly priests who are closer to wizards and more martial priests who are closer to Holy order knights works far better then you get a continum from Non military priest with weak combat and more spells all the way through the druid type to martial priests with good combat and few spells to Paladins at the top end.
I also don't mind Paladins being of any god, so a martial unholy warrior of Tiamat, or Hades work for me provided they fit with the setting.
Clerics are the will and Paladins are the way.
Clerics are the scalpel and Paladins are the knife.
Clerics are the voice and Paladins are the hands.
Clerics are the shepherds and Paladins are the sheep-dogs.
Clerics are the missionaries and Paladins are those on a mission.
Clerics are the defenders and Paladins are the attackers.
and loads more stuff that is starting to sound more pretentious the more i write. Anyhoo, that's how i see the patron God as viewing the difference between the two and how they are used. :)
Quote from: LibraryLass;680695This is a non-answer.
No, honestly it is the only real difference between the two.
They are both heavily armored spell-casting holy warriors, the only actual substantial difference is the weaponry.
Quote from: One Horse Town;680707Clerics are the will and Paladins are the way.
Clerics are the scalpel and Paladins are the knife.
Clerics are the voice and Paladins are the hands.
Clerics are the shepherds and Paladins are the sheep-dogs.
Clerics are the missionaries and Paladins are those on a mission.
Clerics are the defenders and Paladins are the attackers.
and loads more stuff that is starting to sound more pretentious the more i write.
If you say so, I'm still going to steal it as a litany for a hawkish new faith spreading downwards in my neverending valley campaign though.
Quote from: The Traveller;680710If you say so, I'm still going to steal it as a litany for a hawkish new faith spreading downwards in my neverending valley campaign though.
Glad to be of service. :hatsoff:
Quote from: noisms;680685A paladin is a holy warrior. A cleric is an adventuring holy man.
This works for me.
I tend to play a lot of Paladins and Clerics.
I would add that I have no problem with a Cleric that acts like a warrior, or a Paladin that acts like a holy man.
A Paladin is a knight in shining armour. He's Lancelot, Charlamagne, Joan of Arc, and Prince Valiant.
A Cleric is a priest who's first and foremost devoted their life to the service of a God. She's Aleena, Brother Cadfael, Friar Tuck, and Van Helsing.
A cleric is a holy adventuring priest of a particular faith.
Clerics may be of varying alignments and serve a plethora of different higher powers. In other words, the cleric is a generic archetype.
The paladin is a shining bastion of lawful goodness. The paladins code is narrow, unwavering and very specific. The paladin is also slightly more militant than the adventuring cleric.
Now that I think about it, I view them more as the same thing, with the mechanical differences haveing little to do with the actual character.
For 'Good' clerics and Paladins anyway.
Quote from: Soylent Green;680676I think the Paladin should be an advanced or Prestige class, something you work towards or earn as a result of your deeds and not something start off as at level 1.
Or to put it other terms, for all the other classes the sentence "Yes, he is a cleric/thief/wizard/fighter, just not a very competent one." works fine. The same does not work with Paladins.
I'm with you here--not Prestige per se, but like the Druid in BECM D&D. Oh wait that's what it is...actually a Lawful fighter can be become a Paladin.
In my own "D&D OSR" hack, They're two levels of fighter one level of cleric, then "Paladin."
Most classes that aren't the four iconics (Cleric, Mage, Thief, Fighter) are "Secondary Path" characters.
Quote from: LibraryLass;680657Let's face it, they're pretty similar archetypes. This is something I tend to get a bit of a block on, so I'd like to hear your thoughts on how they're different.
Paladins are warrior champions of their religion serving as an example. They will be called to deal with a challenge or threat and then move on.
Clerics are most pastoral in that they minister to a flock even if it is a adventuring party. Their jobs is to hold the fort, stick with the group, etc.
Another way of thinking about it is that cleric are franchise holders of the deity and paladins are the roving troubleshooters going where they are needed or to act as backup to the clerics already present.
Depending on the religion there could be little difference in their skill sets but always a big difference in what their duties entail.
Paladins are held to a high standard because when they are called on to act people must be able to trust them on a short notice. Which is why those with high charisma are favor over pure weapon skills. Why they are held to the highest standards of the deity's moral code.
The Cleric is a Fighter/Mage specializing in healing, defense, and turning undead and who can't wield swords.
The Paladin is a Fighter with some special abilities and a bunch of behaviour restrictions.
I don't mind either allthough neither really makes me crazy happy either.
I have a huge soft spot for 2e's variant priests, whether the Legends & Lore kind or the Priest's Handbook kind, allthough in the latter case, those times I've created AD&D gods & religions I've generally mixed and matched a bit and changed stuff around a bit while maintaining the general balance idea. Sure they're generally a bit weaker than Clerics and Druids, but I've found that juggling some powers etc around makes them better. I use Faiths & Avatars as inspiration in this regard, allthough I know F&A priests are overpowered.
Now to describe this in the appropriate manner:
On my right hand, the Priest's Handbook.
On my left hand, Faiths and Avatars.
In front of me Legends and Lore*.
I would make them stronger than they are in the Priest's Handbook;
Yet never as strong as in Faiths and Avatars, as it is unseemly;
To keep the priests balanced and on the Golden Way between;
To keep the priests flavorful as in Legends and Lore, always.
*=or the book of the non-human deities, wich is a SEEMLY book.
So says the Ent.
And yes there's ":D" involved here but seriously, I think I just gave some decent advice right there. I think the Faiths & Avatars idea of giving priests various spells at 1/day or similar use on this or that level is pretty good and helps reinforce the priest's role better than many of the generic abilities in the Priest's Handbook, allthough some of the latter are very cool, and F&A does get unholy with the overpowering.
I mean, say I'm creating a priesthood of a fire god, I'll follow the Priest's Handbook's priest of Fire but might well add say spell-like abilities or spell/day stuff like level 3: Flame Blade 3/day, level 7: Fireball 1/day etc. However the important things would be to 1) have the priests' abilities be appropriate for their god(s)/religion, 2) keep it playable (no totally useless or monstrous killbeast priest classes) and 3) KEEP IT FUN AND INTERESTING. :)
Paladins are less magical, more martial, and paragons of their deity.
They're a variant cleric.
Conceptually, there really isn't a difference - though people try to justify one. It's a pure D&Dism. In my version of D&D, I scrap clerics altogether and leave the holy warrior role to the paladin/holy knight.
Quote from: estar;680731Paladins are warrior champions of their religion serving as an example. They will be called to deal with a challenge or threat and then move on.
Clerics are most pastoral in that they minister to a flock even if it is a adventuring party. Their jobs is to hold the fort, stick with the group, etc.
Another way of thinking about it is that cleric are franchise holders of the deity and paladins are the roving troubleshooters going where they are needed or to act as backup to the clerics already present.
Depending on the religion there could be little difference in their skill sets but always a big difference in what their duties entail.
Paladins are held to a high standard because when they are called on to act people must be able to trust them on a short notice. Which is why those with high charisma are favor over pure weapon skills. Why they are held to the highest standards of the deity's moral code.
If we're going to break down the holy warrior into such specific roles, then magic-users/wizards should be six or seven sub-classes. And thieves/rogues should be at least three.
Quote from: noisms;680685A paladin is a holy warrior. A cleric is an adventuring holy man.
Who also happens to wear full plate mail and a mace ;)
Quote from: Haffrung;680744Conceptually, there really isn't a difference - though people try to justify one. It's a pure D&Dism. In my version of D&D, I scrap clerics altogether and leave the holy warrior role to the paladin/holy knight.
Yeah, pretty much. I'm all for the "make a paladin a prestige class" that both a fighter and a cleric could join. The level of specifics you need to distinguish a paladin from a cleric pretty much implies that there should be at least another dozen other classes. Really, the core difference between a paladin and a cleric is that one gets all weapons and less spells than the other, along with a couple special abilities.
There's really no need. The paladin was created to represent the "chivalrous knight" class before the cavalier was thought up.
It depends on how you interpret them. I see them the same way I imagined them in my old AD&D days.
My interpretation:
Paladins are not a champion of a God, they are a magical order of knighthood, with their own private rituals and traditions. Paladins never worship any good god, or any god whatsoever; they do respect deities that are good and lawful though. An adult Paladin chooses his own a squire, a young person of a certain quality. The paladin can tell who has what it takes to be a paladin. If the person accepts, he leaves his old life behind to and dedicates himself fully to the ways of a paladin.
A Cleric is the champion of a God, and is granted his abilities directly from their patron deity.
For me, attaching a Paladin to a specific god was a mistake and it has caused confusion between concept of a cleric and a paladin, and it has invented the different alignment paladins (3rd edition I believe). Paladins are always Lawful Good or they are not a Paladin I say.
The Cleric is part of the main hierarchy of the religion who takes up arms, swears never to shed blood, and goes in the world to find adventure in the name of his deity. He is a priest first, a combatant if need be.
The Paladin comes from opposite origins: he is a combatant, a knight first, who then takes an oath to use his military skill and faith in the service of the poor, the innocent, and of course his tutelar deity. He is a warrior first, who happens to have become the instrument of his deity's justice in the world.
Quote from: hamstertamer;680752It depends on how you interpret them. I see them the same way I imagined them in my old AD&D days.
My interpretation:
Paladins are not a champion of a God, they are a magical order of knighthood, with their own private rituals and traditions. Paladins never worship any good god, or any god whatsoever; they do respect deities that are good and lawful though. An adult Paladin chooses his own a squire, a young person of a certain quality. The paladin can tell who has what it takes to be a paladin. If the person accepts, he leaves his old life behind to and dedicates himself fully to the ways of a paladin.
A Cleric is the champion of a God, and is granted his abilities directly from their patron deity.
For me, attaching a Paladin to a specific god was a mistake and it has caused confusion between concept of a cleric and a paladin, and it has invented the different alignment paladins (3rd edition I believe). Paladins are always Lawful Good or they are not a Paladin I say.
I dislike the 'Paladin of whaterver god as a champion' thing.
Without the Lawful Goodness (And I really think Paladins should be Neutral Good) a paladin is just a cleric.
It's the difference between Archbishop Turpin, Friar Tuck and the likes of Lancelot and Galaad, basically.
I think I consider the essence of a Paladin how they act, and not so much their precise powers.
I have played fighters that acted more like a Paladin than some players with actual paladins :)
Quote from: Bill;680768I think I consider the essence of a Paladin how they act, and not so much their precise powers.
I have played fighters that acted more like a Paladin than some players with actual paladins :)
Totally. My longest running character Merdock (funny enough, I just posted an old lost character sheet in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=27421)) was a LG fighter who didn't qualify for a paladin. Didn't keep me from running him that way though.
the first thing I created in my earlier games was versions of the Healer and the cloistered monk. The Cleric as originally written was not a priest, he was a warrior priest, a fighting holy man.
The Paladin came later, and was, as some have noted, a holy fighting man...(hence the OP, this was razor thin), a lesser priest but very much a magnification of the original Cleric. Sometimes viewed as a zealot.
By the use of heavy armor and the High hit dice and the weapon restrictions, they kept the Cleric inferior in fighting to the Fighting man while still better than anyone else.
As many have pointed out the difference lies less in rules and more in roleplaying.
Last D&D campaign I played I was a thief that got mixed up in a group of holy rollers, which was funny after awhile b/c the group was actually a bunch of paladins, but the toughest character in the group was the cleric. It was quite a large group, about 6 players that time, and I would say only one person was actually a paladin.
As essentially a criminal, my thief spent a tremendous amount of time lying, stealing, and trying to use the group as a band of marauders so I could steal from villages after I told the group about "the evil demon summoners that resided there". The one actual paladin roleplayed an intelligent virtuous warrior that was devout in his belief that his god could bring justice and whatever other crap to the land. The other "paladins" (only by class) spent all their time trying to justify killing people under the banner of "we're on a crusade"...
I would go as far as to say that another similar argument would be a shadowknight/dark knight and a necromancer - which often enough is clearly defined in rules and character creation, though roleplaying them is actually more similar than roleplaying a paladin/cleric while the character creation for them is unbalanced and vague.
So, maybe it has to do with priest+hybrid versus caster+hybrid?
So the main difference I see is a good roleplayer versus a bad one.
Paladin: a literary archetype. The saintly knight, whose faith in God is so strong they become walking miracles who can directly confront and protect others from EVIL.
Cleric: a D&Dism, a kludged together class to deal with a player who insisted on playing a vampire, resulting in the ridiculously artificial, and completely unsupported by fantasy literature, limit on MUs not being able to heal.
My solution: drop the Cleric, let MUs heal, and replace the Paladin as the ideal of the Christian knight with a more general holy warrior who can act as the chosen champion of any deity in a more typical polytheistic fantasy setting.
You already know my position from my recent blog post. I disagree with all but a couple people in this thread. A paladin isn't a holy warrior; a paladin is a righteous knight. It may be religion that prompts the paladin to be righteous; that was certainly the case for knights in Arthurian romance. But it could also be Patriotism, or Reason, or who knows what. The driving force of the paladin is based in role-playing. The only real requirement is that a paladin must put what's right ahead of their personal desires.
Clerics, on the other hand, are actual holy warriors. They serve their religion.
Quote from: Soylent Green;680676I think the Paladin should be an advanced or Prestige class, something you work towards or earn as a result of your deeds and not something start off as at level 1.
Totally. When I heard of prestige classes, "Paladin" was the first thing that came to my mind. I was very disappointed that they didn't do it that way.
In a couple of Old School games I played, the Paladin was basically treated as a prestige class - something you earned - as it was pretty much just additive to the Fighter, anyway.
Quote from: talysman;680854You already know my position from my recent blog post. I disagree with all but a couple people in this thread. A paladin isn't a holy warrior; a paladin is a righteous knight. It may be religion that prompts the paladin to be righteous; that was certainly the case for knights in Arthurian romance. But it could also be Patriotism, or Reason, or who knows what. The driving force of the paladin is based in role-playing. The only real requirement is that a paladin must put what's right ahead of their personal desires.
Clerics, on the other hand, are actual holy warriors. They serve their religion.
I would totally agree with you except that many of the paladin's powers come from the divine. You simply cannot divorce the AD&D paladin from holy warrior because of this. That's why a lot of people view paladins as a hybrid between fighter and cleric. You are describing the cavalier class, not necessarily the paladin.
Quote from: estar;680731Paladins are warrior champions of their religion serving as an example. They will be called to deal with a challenge or threat and then move on.
Clerics are most pastoral in that they minister to a flock even if it is a adventuring party. Their jobs is to hold the fort, stick with the group, etc.
Another way of thinking about it is that cleric are franchise holders of the deity and paladins are the roving troubleshooters going where they are needed or to act as backup to the clerics already present.
Depending on the religion there could be little difference in their skill sets but always a big difference in what their duties entail.
Paladins are held to a high standard because when they are called on to act people must be able to trust them on a short notice. Which is why those with high charisma are favor over pure weapon skills. Why they are held to the highest standards of the deity's moral code.
That... makes perfect sense. That's what I wanted to hear, I think. And it applies equally well to antipaladins/blackguards/myrmidons/what have you. Thank you.
Quote from: hamstertamer;680752It depends on how you interpret them. I see them the same way I imagined them in my old AD&D days.
My interpretation:
Paladins are not a champion of a God, they are a magical order of knighthood, with their own private rituals and traditions. Paladins never worship any good god, or any god whatsoever; they do respect deities that are good and lawful though. An adult Paladin chooses his own a squire, a young person of a certain quality. The paladin can tell who has what it takes to be a paladin. If the person accepts, he leaves his old life behind to and dedicates himself fully to the ways of a paladin.
A Cleric is the champion of a God, and is granted his abilities directly from their patron deity.
For me, attaching a Paladin to a specific god was a mistake and it has caused confusion between concept of a cleric and a paladin, and it has invented the different alignment paladins (3rd edition I believe). Paladins are always Lawful Good or they are not a Paladin I say.
This is also good... it does make me wonder a little just where they're getting their magic from but I can buy it being a learned/inherent thing much like arcane magic.
Quote from: talysman;680854You already know my position from my recent blog post. I disagree with all but a couple people in this thread. A paladin isn't a holy warrior; a paladin is a righteous knight. It may be religion that prompts the paladin to be righteous; that was certainly the case for knights in Arthurian romance. But it could also be Patriotism, or Reason, or who knows what. The driving force of the paladin is based in role-playing. The only real requirement is that a paladin must put what's right ahead of their personal desires.
Clerics, on the other hand, are actual holy warriors. They serve their religion.
Yeah, that's actually what got me thinking about it. Your explanation was mostly good but it left me struggling to justify where they're getting all this smiting evil and free ponies and stuff from.
Quote from: LibraryLass;680657Let's face it, they're pretty similar archetypes. This is something I tend to get a bit of a block on, so I'd like to hear your thoughts on how they're different.
Edged weapons and number of spells per day.
Of course, most of the paladins I've seen played were of alignment Lawful Stupid instead of coming from a holy warrior mindset. That is a Player problem and not a character class problem, though.
Quote from: talysman;680854You already know my position from my recent blog post. I disagree with all but a couple people in this thread. A paladin isn't a holy warrior; a paladin is a righteous knight. It may be religion that prompts the paladin to be righteous; that was certainly the case for knights in Arthurian romance. But it could also be Patriotism, or Reason, or who knows what. The driving force of the paladin is based in role-playing. The only real requirement is that a paladin must put what's right ahead of their personal desires.
Clerics, on the other hand, are actual holy warriors. They serve their religion.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;680858I would totally agree with you except that many of the paladin's powers come from the divine. You simply cannot divorce the AD&D paladin from holy warrior because of this.
No, they don't. They have a bunch of powers that
you choose to interpret as coming from the divine. I don't.
But then, my clerics don't require the actual existence of gods for their powers, either. It's all about faith. Paladins have faith in themselves, that they know what's right. Clerics have faith in something else.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;680858You are describing the cavalier class, not necessarily the paladin.
Don't get me started on the cavalier. I considered it a pointless munchkin class until I rewrote them, took away almost all their powers, and added a couple limitations. They are now just elite horsemen with a lot of arrogance.
Quote from: talysman;680886No, they don't. They have a bunch of powers that you choose to interpret as coming from the divine. I don't.
But then, my clerics don't require the actual existence of gods for their powers, either. It's all about faith. Paladins have faith in themselves, that they know what's right. Clerics have faith in something else.
Certainly you can see how your interpretation is in the minority, and that most people viewed the paladin's special abilities as divine based on passages in the PHB like this:
If they ever
knowingly perform an act which is chaotic in nature, they must seek a high
level (7th or above) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess their sin, and
do penance as prescribed by the clericAn immediate tithe (10%) of all income - be it treasure,
wages, or whatever - must be given to whatever charitable
religious institution (not a clerical player character) of lawful
good alignment the paladin selects.Add to that their abilities are described as clerical, and clerics are described as
This class of character bears a certain resemblance to religious orders of
knighthood of medieval times. The cleric has an eight-sided die (d8) per
level to determine how many hit points (q.v.) he or she has. The cleric is
dedicated to a deity, or deities, and at the same time a skilled combatant
at arms. The cleric can be of any alignment (q.v.) save (true) neutral (see
Druid hereafter) alignment, depending upon that of the deity the cleric
serves. All clerics have certain holy symbols which aid them and give
power to their spells. All are likewise forbidden to use edged and/or
pointed weapons which shed blood. All clerics have their own spells,
bestowed upon them by their deity for correct and diligent prayers and
deeds.There's really no other way to interpret it unless you houserule a different version. So I'm afraid that yes, yes they are divine powers, as described in the PHB.
QuoteDon't get me started on the cavalier. I considered it a pointless munchkin class until I rewrote them, took away almost all their powers, and added a couple limitations. They are now just elite horsemen with a lot of arrogance.
My point was, is that the cavalier class represented everything that the paladin did in the context of a classic knight. With the cavalier (albeit with it's wonky class progression), you really didn't need a paladin class at all. If the cavalier class came out before the paladin, you very well might not have ever seen the paladin become a core class
Quote from: apparition13;680789Paladin: a literary archetype. The saintly knight, whose faith in God is so strong they become walking miracles who can directly confront and protect others from EVIL.
Cleric: a D&Dism, a kludged together class to deal with a player who insisted on playing a vampire, resulting in the ridiculously artificial, and completely unsupported by fantasy literature, limit on MUs not being able to heal.
My solution: drop the Cleric, let MUs heal, and replace the Paladin as the ideal of the Christian knight with a more general holy warrior who can act as the chosen champion of any deity in a more typical polytheistic fantasy setting.
That's my solution as well. But it would never be adopted for official D&D: makes too much sense.
Quote from: talysman;680886No, they don't. They have a bunch of powers that you choose to interpret as coming from the divine. I don't.
But then, my clerics don't require the actual existence of gods for their powers, either. It's all about faith. Paladins have faith in themselves, that they know what's right. Clerics have faith in something else.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;680891Certainly you can see how your interpretation is in the minority ... There's really no other way to interpret it unless you houserule a different version. So I'm afraid that yes, yes they are divine powers, as described in the PHB.
Well, yes, as I mentioned in my post, I disagree with just about everyone in the thread. Certainly you didn't respond to my post just to tell me something I already stated?
I don't have gods give clerics their powers because I see no need to do that. And it makes it much more interesting if clerics are operating on faith alone, and their gods might not even be real. Much more in keeping with an uncertain, swords & sorcery-ish world.
As for your justifications from the PHB: those are post-OD&D. The OD&D paladin is not specifically a divine servant, but a Lawful warrior. There's no reference to choosing a deity or serving a church, and they don't tithe, they simply donate their excess wealth "to the poor or to charitable or religious institutions". In OD&D, you could be a paladin with no ties to any church.
Quote from: talysman;680886Don't get me started on the cavalier. I considered it a pointless munchkin class until I rewrote them, took away almost all their powers, and added a couple limitations. They are now just elite horsemen with a lot of arrogance.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;680891My point was, is that the cavalier class represented everything that the paladin did in the context of a classic knight. With the cavalier (albeit with it's wonky class progression), you really didn't need a paladin class at all. If the cavalier class came out before the paladin, you very well might not have ever seen the paladin become a core class
*My* point was, the cavalier goes well beyond what I think the paladin should be, even if you are only considering the role-playing aspects. A paladin is Righteous, self-sacrificing, devoted to Truth, Justice, and the Arthurian Way. Some knights of the Round Table are paladins, but there's no need for a paladin to be an actual knight; Superman is a paladin. A cavalier has a bunch of social and other aspects that really aren't required to make a good paladin.
For the record, my version of the cavalier is here (http://9and30kingdoms.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-cavalier-class.html).
Well, really a paladin is one of the twelve foremost warriors of Charlemagne's court.
In play, it seems to me that the line is pretty fuzzy - both clerics and paladins fight; and both clerics and paladins heal. (It gets even fuzzier if you consider the case of a multi-class cleric/fighter - what is the difference between a cleric/fighter and a paladin.)
As I've usually seen it interpreted, a cleric is a vested member of the church hierarchy - while a paladin - even though holy - is not. This presumes a Christian-like church hierarchy, though, as opposed to religions where there is no formal difference between a holy man and a priest.
In the DRAGONSTAR (D&D in space) setting, the Cleric is depicted wearing a loose cape-and-jumpsuit outfit and holding his holy symbol.
The Paladin is depicted in riot armor and cradling an assault rifle. :D
JG
Somebody probably already said this, but I'm weighing in anyway.
A Paladin is a representative of Good and (to a lesser extent) Law. Or the ideals of an alignment, in the case of Anti-Paladins and alternate and 4E Paladins. Paladins might gain their powers from a deity, but the archetype does not begin and end at worship.
A Cleric, by contrast, is the servant of a deity first and foremost. A Cleric of a Lawful Good deity might further the cause of Law and Good, but specifically his deity's methods and interests of furthering this.
Additionally, a Cleric's code of conduct is different than a Paladin's.
In settings where divine magic can be obtained without a deity's assistance, a Cleric is someone who is a manipulator of divine magic. Much like a Wizard manipulates arcane magic.
A cleric is a dual-class fighter/ magic user , a Paladin is a fighter Prestige Class.
In my campaign -- which is not remotely D&D and not remotely connected with D&D campaign settings -- I have religions. Those religions have (usually) priests. Several of those religions also have ecclesiastical fighting orders. For the most part, knights of those orders are ordained priests.
And, really, that's as far as the distinction goes. The priests and the knights don't "worship" differently, any more than ecclesiastical fighting orders and non-order priests used different Masses in Catholic history. They certainly serve their faith in different ways, and need different skill sets ... but that applies within every priesthood as well: someone devoted to pastoral care needs a different skill set than a priest involved with church administration.
Have any of you read "The Deed of Paksenarrion?"
Quote from: Silverlion;681227Have any of you read "The Deed of Paksenarrion?"
Yes.
And it was a pretty good story about "fighter -> paladin" :)
(I still think the druid dude who healed the heroine is cool. And also, cudos to the author for making a pacifist dude cool in what's basically a military fantasy series. :) Or rather started as military fantasy - the first book is plain military fantasy while the later ones aren't, I guess.)
It's got a very D&D setting, too, in a good way.
Quote from: The Ent;681235Yes.
And it was a pretty good story about "fighter -> paladin" :)
(I still think the druid dude who healed the heroine is cool. And also, cudos to the author for making a pacifist dude cool in what's basically a military fantasy series. :) Or rather started as military fantasy - the first book is plain military fantasy while the later ones aren't, I guess.)
It's got a very D&D setting, too, in a good way.
Yeah, its one of the reasons, I've got the opinion I have. (The whole Girdish order trains as yeomen first, which gives them probably level 1 fighter qualities.) Still, Paks went a bit beyond that.
Quote from: Silverlion;681227Have any of you read "The Deed of Paksenarrion?"
No, but I'm now intrigued. I just may have to. I'm almost done with my current book and am looking for new books, so I may have to check it out.
I thought about this for a surprisingly (to me) long time before deciding what I thought, because in my head there certainly is a distinction but I'd never before thought about what it might be. So I'll offer this: to me, it's zealotry. The cleric is a studied, solemn, follower of the god(s) who is willing to take up arms as necessary but intends to further the interests and ideals of her deity.
The paladin is a studied fanatic who wants to take up arms to further the reach of her deity.
The cleric teaches the principles of the religion. The paladin seeks more followers (or at least to sway the proportion by slaughtering non-believers).
Quote from: Silverlion;681227Have any of you read "The Deed of Paksenarrion?"
Too Rapey. It should be boycotted.
Quote from: CRKrueger;681389Too Rapey. It should be boycotted.
If I didn't think you were channeling the worst of RPG.net filtered through sarcasm as a joke, I'd have facepalmed so hard, I'd have broken my nose and glasses.
One (the cleric) is a religious warrior like the Templar or Knights Hospitaler
One (the paladin) is the literal and proverbial knight in shining armor.
I think most of this confusion comes from not being familiar with the legends involving Charlemagne. A paladin was basically equivalent of a knight of the round table, only for Charlemagne, not King Arthur.
I gotta say, to me at least, the paladin is less about the religion and more about the Lawful Goodness - a knight in shining armor, but also an old-fashioned/classic superhero a la Superman or Captain America, fighting for what's right, never "adapting" his ideals and ethics during difficult situations but staying true to them no matter what, and so on.
So I'm kinda positive to paladins being allowed to be Neutral Good as well as Lawful Good, if Neutral Good is seen as "much the same as Lawful Good but caring only about the Good part", but only kinda as it's somewhat easier to get away with anti-heroic behaviour as a NG character than as a LG character. Under no circumstances would I allow a Chaotic Good paladin though. Sure, I tend to play dudes of that alignment more often than not, but it's not a paladin-friendly alignment since Chaotic Good is basically the "tough independent antihero dude who does cool antihero stuff and moves on" Clint Eastwood/Conan*/Wolverine/etc etc etc alignment, and that's not how a paladin behaves - a paladin behaves like Superman/Captain America/the Phantom/Shane**. If one wants to add a "Champion" class that's like a Paladin but of any alignment and closely tied to a god, well that's 100% fine with me but that's not a Paladin and not really what a Paladin's about either IMHO (also it's what Fighter/Clerics are for. Allthough only demihumans get these, obviously.).
I wouldn't mind the paladin being divorced, somewhat, from religion. Galahad, the perfect knight, was hardly a Knight Templar after all (allthough he'd probably rise pretty far in that organization - I think he might've preferred the Hospitallers though). "Knight who sticks to the Chivalric Code*** no matter what" is what it is to a great extent about, after all. Allthough sure the Cavalier's like that too (and I don't mind the Cavalier, well as a 2e kit, and as a kit it's pretty damn hard to get (physical stats all 15s, mental stats all 10s and if you wanna be a Paladin Cavalier then add Cha 17 etc...). I also like that the author of Fighter's Handbook went on to say that while the Cavalier is very much the "knight in shining armor" Paladin, that's not the only way for a Paladin to be, wich is also true and shouldn't be forgotten about.
*=the Marvel Comics and various pastiches' version of Conan, anyways, allthough the original version mainly acted as a Chaotic Good kinda dude once he got into his late 30s/early 40s, became king, etc. He's certainly no longer an amoral adventurer (N or CN alignment) at that point.
**=just to add an appropriate Western character. Several oldschool Western heroes would make for good Paladin material I'd say, though.
***=well the romantic version, of course, actual knights mainly being dicks.
Quote from: Silverlion;681227Have any of you read "The Deed of Paksenarrion?"
The first part, but I've been waiting to afford the rest. Which doesn't help me any because it doesn't get into the part where she's a Paladin yet.
Edit: Fuck, quoted the wrong post.
Quote from: The Ent;681530I gotta say, to me at least, the paladin is less about the religion and more about the Lawful Goodness - a knight in shining armor, but also an old-fashioned/classic superhero a la Superman or Captain America, fighting for what's right, never "adapting" his ideals and ethics during difficult situations but staying true to them no matter what, and so on.
So I'm kinda positive to paladins being allowed to be Neutral Good as well as Lawful Good, if Neutral Good is seen as "much the same as Lawful Good but caring only about the Good part", but only kinda as it's somewhat easier to get away with anti-heroic behaviour as a NG character than as a LG character. Under no circumstances would I allow a Chaotic Good paladin though. Sure, I tend to play dudes of that alignment more often than not, but it's not a paladin-friendly alignment since Chaotic Good is basically the "tough independent antihero dude who does cool antihero stuff and moves on" Clint Eastwood/Conan*/Wolverine/etc etc etc alignment, and that's not how a paladin behaves - a paladin behaves like Superman/Captain America/the Phantom/Shane**. If one wants to add a "Champion" class that's like a Paladin but of any alignment and closely tied to a god, well that's 100% fine with me but that's not a Paladin and not really what a Paladin's about either IMHO (also it's what Fighter/Clerics are for. Allthough only demihumans get these, obviously.).
I wouldn't mind the paladin being divorced, somewhat, from religion. Galahad, the perfect knight, was hardly a Knight Templar after all (allthough he'd probably rise pretty far in that organization - I think he might've preferred the Hospitallers though). "Knight who sticks to the Chivalric Code*** no matter what" is what it is to a great extent about, after all. Allthough sure the Cavalier's like that too (and I don't mind the Cavalier, well as a 2e kit, and as a kit it's pretty damn hard to get (physical stats all 15s, mental stats all 10s and if you wanna be a Paladin Cavalier then add Cha 17 etc...). I also like that the author of Fighter's Handbook went on to say that while the Cavalier is very much the "knight in shining armor" Paladin, that's not the only way for a Paladin to be, wich is also true and shouldn't be forgotten about.
*=the Marvel Comics and various pastiches' version of Conan, anyways, allthough the original version mainly acted as a Chaotic Good kinda dude once he got into his late 30s/early 40s, became king, etc. He's certainly no longer an amoral adventurer (N or CN alignment) at that point.
**=just to add an appropriate Western character. Several oldschool Western heroes would make for good Paladin material I'd say, though.
***=well the romantic version, of course, actual knights mainly being dicks.
That's pretty much how I like my Paladins.
It's about doing what's right even when that is not easy.
There is a great line from Captian America that says it better than I can:
"Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree besides the river of truth, and tell the whole world----No you move."
I've always thought that, as written, these two classes were utterly redundant.
If a cleric is a priest, he shouldn't be going around armed an in armour. If he's a religious holy warrior, then there's no need for a paladin.
In my Dark Albion game, the "priests" of the world are characters with no spellcasting powers and who don't go around (usually) with weapons and armor (no one has ever played one so far, but they could, as a specialist).
Clerics, on the other hand, are a religious knightly order capable of doing miracles (clerical magic) charged with fighting against Chaos.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;682184Clerics, on the other hand, are a religious knightly order capable of doing miracles (clerical magic) charged with fighting against Chaos.
RPGPundit
Which is pretty much exactly how they are described in the AD&D PHB
If Clerics follow a God, that suggests being lawful, even if they follow a god of chaos.
I prefer Paladins to serve 'doing good' first, and following a god if that does not conflict with doing good.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;682187Which is pretty much exactly how they are described in the AD&D PHB
Thus largely eliminating the need for Paladins.
Quote from: RPGPundit;682623Thus largely eliminating the need for Paladins.
Yep! That's why I am pretty convinced that the paladin was only created to replicate the knight in shining armor, and if the cavalier class came first, the paladin would not be considered a core class today.
Quote from: RPGPundit;682623Thus largely eliminating the need for Paladins.
Or Clerics. After all, shouldn't the Priests be at the temple tending to the flock, and the knightly orders ordered on the battlefield? While it's the lone champion who's poking around in the dark underground looking for the lich's heart.
Paladin-like PCs make a lot more sense to me than Cleric like ones. Frankly the only reason I see Clerics being retained is to have a healer class. I'd rather roll that into MUs.
On the other hand, I'd have no problem with all MUs actually being Clerics either.
Quote from: apparition13;682718On the other hand, I'd have no problem with all MUs actually being Clerics either.
I agree. Divine magic could be just another category of magic use without any interesting ramifications. A fighter that spends a feat to be able to use divine magic is a paladin. A magic user that specializes in divine magic and spends a feat for weapons and armour is a cleric.
Quote from: RPGPundit;682184I've always thought that, as written, these two classes were utterly redundant.
If a cleric is a priest, he shouldn't be going around armed an in armour. If he's a religious holy warrior, then there's no need for a paladin.
In my Dark Albion game, the "priests" of the world are characters with no spellcasting powers and who don't go around (usually) with weapons and armor (no one has ever played one so far, but they could, as a specialist).
Clerics, on the other hand, are a religious knightly order capable of doing miracles (clerical magic) charged with fighting against Chaos.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;682187Which is pretty much exactly how they are described in the AD&D PHB
Quote from: RPGPundit;682623Thus largely eliminating the need for Paladins.
Unless Paladins aren't defined as holy warriors.
The problem isn't that the classes
as originally written are redundant. It's that the classes were re-written by people who couldn't grasp the distinction.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;682672Yep! That's why I am pretty convinced that the paladin was only created to replicate the knight in shining armor, and if the cavalier class came first, the paladin would not be considered a core class today.
Not sure about that. Paladins were introduced with the lawful Good being essential.
Clerics and Knights can be any alignment, and can wear armor just fine.
"So the Lawful Goodness" seems to be the core concept.
a cleric is a commonplace warrior priest, one amongst many. a paladin is a champion chosen personally by his god to represent the whole of a religion, one of a select few.
Quote from: Bill;682822Not sure about that. Paladins were introduced with the lawful Good being essential.
Clerics and Knights can be any alignment, and can wear armor just fine.
"So the Lawful Goodness" seems to be the core concept.
It wasn't so much lawful-good, as it was "let's emulate king Arthur, Lancelot, and his knights." And of course they were everything that was good and pure as a knight.
Lawful good just so happened to help that vision as part of an alignment mechanic. If they had the cavalier class, it very easily could have been "here are some lawful good examples"
Additionally, if the didn't have the cleric weapon restriction and let them use all weapons, the paladin also wouldn't be necessary. Thematically, what can a paladin do that a cavalier/cleric multiclass not do?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;682824It wasn't so much lawful-good, as it was "let's emulate king Arthur, Lancelot, and his knights." And of course they were everything that was good and pure as a knight.
"And then- the oral sex!"
"Well, I suppose I could stay a little longer..."
QuoteLawful good just so happened to help that vision as part of an alignment mechanic. If they had the cavalier class, it very easily could have been "here are some lawful good examples"
Additionally, if the didn't have the cleric weapon restriction and let them use all weapons, the paladin also wouldn't be necessary. Thematically, what can a paladin do that a cavalier/cleric multiclass not do?
Special mount.
In AD&D, that's the main thing I remember, but they get Smite Evil and various lay on hands variants in 3rd and Pathfinder.
JG
Quote from: James Gillen;682844Special mount.
In AD&D, that's the main thing I remember, but they get Smite Evil and various lay on hands variants in 3rd and Pathfinder.
JG
Thematically. Not necessarily mechanically.
Paladins are warriors whose sheer existence is in such adherence to the tenets of their god that the gods have gifted him with powers. Should they stop being this paragon, the gods will rescind their favor. Think Achilles. Or Green Lantern.
The cleric is a devotee of the gods. Their power comes from their devotion, from their rituals, from prayer and sacrifices. They're more like Batman, really: single-minded in their devotion to a concept.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Quote from: JonWake;682912Paladins are warriors whose sheer existence is in such adherence to the tenets of their god that the gods have gifted him with powers. Should they stop being this paragon, the gods will rescind their favor. Think Achilles. Or Green Lantern.
The cleric is a devotee of the gods. Their power comes from their devotion, from their rituals, from prayer and sacrifices. They're more like Batman, really: single-minded in their devotion to a concept.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Not a bad take on it at all.
One of the ways to look at what your saying is a A cleric is a servant of the god and so they gain power given by the gods through that service. While a Paladin champions good, and because of his sacrifices (devotion, duty, guardianship) he is exalted by the god(s).
I like seriously how Deed handles it. A priest teaches people, helps them worship, and be a good flock. A paladin is called to champion others and even sacrifice his or her life to serve the greater good.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;682824It wasn't so much lawful-good, as it was "let's emulate king Arthur, Lancelot, and his knights." And of course they were everything that was good and pure as a knight.
Lawful good just so happened to help that vision as part of an alignment mechanic. If they had the cavalier class, it very easily could have been "here are some lawful good examples"
Additionally, if the didn't have the cleric weapon restriction and let them use all weapons, the paladin also wouldn't be necessary. Thematically, what can a paladin do that a cavalier/cleric multiclass not do?
Nothing; it's the alignment that makes the difference.
Quote from: ICFTI;682823a cleric is a commonplace warrior priest, one amongst many. a paladin is a champion chosen personally by his god to represent the whole of a religion, one of a select few.
There was no such thing as the "Commonplace" warrior-priest.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;683415There was no such thing as the "Commonplace" warrior-priest.
RPGPundit
Sure, but warrior-priests were more common than paladins in all the old AD&D and 3e stuff I played in - sure that's just my campaigns though :D
Warrior-priests are more varied than paladins wich is another way to see your post...I mean in 2e especially, a Fighter/Priest (God of Animals) and a Fighter/Priest (God of Hunting) would be very different (albeit Ranger-y in both cases. And of course great for Half-Elves...).
(I mean I played a NE warrior priest once---it was fun---)
Of course in 2e the priest class gets divorced a bit from "warrior priest". A priest of a god of Plants, Love, Magic, or especially Peace or Healing, is not a warrior priest (well okay the Plants God worshipping dude is essentially a druid). Allthough most of them would still have d8 hp and cleric attack bonus. BTW while I know many hated the Priest's Handbook (and it could've been better), I miss that stuff myself.
Quote from: JonWake;682912Paladins are warriors whose sheer existence is in such adherence to the tenets of their god that the gods have gifted him with powers. Should they stop being this paragon, the gods will rescind their favor. Think Achilles. Or Green Lantern.
The cleric is a devotee of the gods. Their power comes from their devotion, from their rituals, from prayer and sacrifices. They're more like Batman, really: single-minded in their devotion to a concept.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
So a paladin is a guy chosen by a god and given magical powers and a cleric is a guy who chooses a god and in return gets magical powers.
If a paladin breaks his coverant with god their powers are recinded and is a cleric fails to maintain his covernant with god their powers are lost?
They sound quite similar :)
As has been stated the problem is that Paladins are a clear archetype looking for a class and clerics are a critical class in D&D lookign for an archetype.
If we think of Clerics as martial orders like Hospitalers and templars, which is how they are often sold, the difference between them an a paladin is waffer thin and a paladin can really only be seen as a paragon of the cleric class.
2e Complete Priest really solves this dilema. Priest can be anything from the peaceful hermit with d4 HD and MU thaco to a Templar with limit casting d8 HD and access to all weapons.
In that type of setting Paladins do indeed become a prestige class for certain types of priests. You might even put in new prestige classes for other priest types, say Prophets, Yogis, Marabouts or whatever. In effect each priest archetype has a paragon archetype they strive towards. The Templars are seeking Paladinhood, the Friars are seeking to be Inquisitors, etc now a prestigue class works realy well for Paladins because not all Templars can become Paladins, the Lord Commander Abbot or whatever will be a high level Priest not a paladin and the criteria for paladinhood are more about purity and devote adherance to faith than about combat prowess or whatever.
Quote from: RPGPundit;683415There was no such thing as the "Commonplace" warrior-priest.
RPGPundit
Good point.
JG
Quote from: The Ent;683416Sure, but warrior-priests were more common than paladins in all the old AD&D and 3e stuff I played in - sure that's just my campaigns though :D
I meant historically.
RPGPundit
Quote from: jibbajibba;683440So a paladin is a guy chosen by a god and given magical powers and a cleric is a guy who chooses a god and in return gets magical powers.
If a paladin breaks his coverant with god their powers are recinded and is a cleric fails to maintain his covernant with god their powers are lost?
They sound quite similar :)
As has been stated the problem is that Paladins are a clear archetype looking for a class and clerics are a critical class in D&D lookign for an archetype.
If we think of Clerics as martial orders like Hospitalers and templars, which is how they are often sold, the difference between them an a paladin is waffer thin and a paladin can really only be seen as a paragon of the cleric class.
2e Complete Priest really solves this dilema. Priest can be anything from the peaceful hermit with d4 HD and MU thaco to a Templar with limit casting d8 HD and access to all weapons.
In that type of setting Paladins do indeed become a prestige class for certain types of priests. You might even put in new prestige classes for other priest types, say Prophets, Yogis, Marabouts or whatever. In effect each priest archetype has a paragon archetype they strive towards. The Templars are seeking Paladinhood, the Friars are seeking to be Inquisitors, etc now a prestigue class works realy well for Paladins because not all Templars can become Paladins, the Lord Commander Abbot or whatever will be a high level Priest not a paladin and the criteria for paladinhood are more about purity and devote adherance to faith than about combat prowess or whatever.
Shit, man, what's the difference between an Assassin and a Thief? Or a Barbarian and a Fighter? You get outside of the core 4 and it's all kinds of blurry.
Quote from: RPGPundit;684228I meant historically.
RPGPundit
I see---you're absolutely correct, then.
Quote from: JonWake;684238Shit, man, what's the difference between an Assassin and a Thief? Or a Barbarian and a Fighter? You get outside of the core 4 and it's all kinds of blurry.
Well, in 2e Assassins and Barbarians were just Thieves and Fighters, respectively, with fairly underwhelming kits :D
(And really, I think that's in a way how it should be. Assassins and Barbarians don't really differ enough from Thieves and Fighters (or Rangers) to be their own thing imo. The Cleric/Paladin thing I'm more divided on, mind, allthough, just like the Barbarian is a bit silly for basically being a cultural class rather than a professional one, the Paladin is a bit silly because it's a very specific archetype, at least as usually written - "shining knight".
The strength of the core 4 classes is that they can be so many different things. The Thief can be a scout, a spy, an assassin, a fairy-tale trickster/lucky peasant kid, a bandit/desperado, a gentleman burglar, anything that involves stealthyness and wits; the Fighter can be all sorts of, well fighters from samurai to vikings to shining knights to cavemen with clubs; the cleric can be all kinds of holy man and worship all kinds of gods; the m-u can be all sorts of magic using dudes that aren't clerics.
Barbarians, Assassins, Paladins etc are way more specific. Wich isn't really good. Also they kinda restrict what the generic guys can be - a Fighter obviously isn't a Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian etc., so what is he then? Joe Average Man-At-Arms? That's not good either really.
That said I do like all the pre-3e classes. It wouldn't feel like D&D* w/o Rangers, Paladins, Druids etc. But it doesn't need a couple dozen more classes added onto that. That's one other thing that got silly in 4e. I mean, adding psionics? Fine with me, I'm an old Dark Sun fan. Adding half a dozen psion classes with dorky names? Not as cool to put it like that. The 2e kits were a much superior way to add diversity than creating a bunch of extra classes, even if many kits were either over- or underpowered some were pretty fun.
*=yes, I know, Basic's got 4** classes + 3 races and that works well in Basic.
**=I tend to pretend the Mystic doesn't exist, it really doesn't mesh well with the rest.
The Cleric is a warrior-priest, who goes about fighting evil in the name of their God and being an example of why that god is worth following.
A Paladin is a gimmicky fighter with a few tricks shackled with an easily broken code of conduct and hated by fucknugget players and GMs who love to stick them in no win situations. And usually played by idiots.
A Paladin, as a knight in shining armor is a LG Fighter. Or should be, anyway.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;680858I would totally agree with you except that many of the paladin's powers come from the divine. You simply cannot divorce the AD&D paladin from holy warrior because of this. That's why a lot of people view paladins as a hybrid between fighter and cleric. You are describing the cavalier class, not necessarily the paladin.
I honestly wonder if the real reason why a lot of people conflate the archetypes is because in 3.5, the clerics domain abilities and spells made them better warriors than the Paladin.
PF returned to sanity a bit, with the cleric being more of a group buffer/protector and less of a self buffing fighter.
As an aside, I'll take this opportunity to pimp Fantasy Craft to folks who think the Paladin should be a prestige class, because it is in that game.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;684463As an aside, I'll take this opportunity to pimp Fantasy Craft to folks who think the Paladin should be a prestige class, because it is in that game.
FC is very cool - probably the best d20/3e type game I guess.
(still nightmarish to GM, though, I'm fairly certain! :D)
Paladin should be read as "knight" - there's no crossover with a cleric. I think people are just getting caught up in the abilities they share in common. No one would mistake Lancelot for a priest. The cavalier class is redundant. They were both classes that randomly appeared in Dragon, and then the most popular alternate classes were thrown into UA. Cacalier is basically just a 'neutral paladin'.
I'd get rid of both and just have a 'Knight' class (no class should have anything to do with alignment, which should be a highly mutable reaction to character's behaviour, not an inherent aspect of the char that determines game effects. 'Detect Evil' was always a rather ambiguously disassociative ability).
Cleric is just a warrior-priest. A cleric isn't a knight.
Quote from: TristramEvans;684562No one would mistake Lancelot for a priest.
Lancelot was a priest.
Quote from: jadrax;684564Lancelot was a priest.
Nobody literate.
Quote from: jadrax;684564Lancelot was a priest.
Monk. Eventually.
Quote from: jadrax;684564Lancelot was a priest.
Quote from: The Ent;684575Monk. Eventually.
Yep. More specifically, in D&D terms, he became a cleric after losing his paladinhood, i.e. when he was caught with Guinevere and was effectively stripped of knighthood.
T. H. White had a nice bit where Lancelot is asked to heal someone, but he's torn apart internally because he knows he lusts after the wife of his friend and liege lord. He figures there is no way he will be able to heal because he has fallen from grace.
The film Excalibur addressed the same theme by having a trial by combat for the queen, with Lancelot named as champion. Lancelot literally fights with himself overnight, because trial by combat is not just a matter of skill, but divine favor, and he thinks he's lost that and so will lose the battle. But Boorman didn't really include any explicit features of paladinhood, like the healing, so his Lancelot could be read as just another knight with a strong sense of right and wrong.
Quote from: The Ent;684575Monk. Eventually.
In Mort D'Arthur he is a full priest, even doing the funeral mass for Guinevere.
So he is essentially a fighter that multi-classes into cleric.
What he never is, is anything that resembles a D&D Paladin.
Quote from: jadrax;684582In Mort D'Arthur he is a full priest, even doing the funeral mass for Guinevere.
So he is essentially a fighter that multi-classes into cleric.
What he never is, is anything that resembles a D&D Paladin.
Yeah, he's basically an eponymous Paladin for most of his life. That he later became a hermit monk out of penance ( long after rtiring from adventuring) is really of no relevance, anymore than Guenivere becoming a nun. He certainly never becomes a 'cleric' in D&D terms.
Quote from: talysman;684581Yep. More specifically, in D&D terms, he became a cleric after losing his paladinhood, i.e. when he was caught with Guinevere and was effectively stripped of knighthood.
T. H. White had a nice bit where Lancelot is asked to heal someone, but he's torn apart internally because he knows he lusts after the wife of his friend and liege lord. He figures there is no way he will be able to heal because he has fallen from grace.
The film Excalibur addressed the same theme by having a trial by combat for the queen, with Lancelot named as champion. Lancelot literally fights with himself overnight, because trial by combat is not just a matter of skill, but divine favor, and he thinks he's lost that and so will lose the battle. But Boorman didn't really include any explicit features of paladinhood, like the healing, so his Lancelot could be read as just another knight with a strong sense of right and wrong.
In Camelot, Lancelot heals another knight he wounds in a joust by 'laying on hands. Pretty sure that's where the Paladin ability comes from.
And Excalibur was a really horribly written film. It had a nice soundtrack and some visualsbut the plotting and dialogue was on par with the Transformers films
Quote from: TristramEvans;684589And Excalibur was a really horribly written film. It had a nice soundtrack and some visualsbut the plotting and dialogue was on par with the Transformers films
B-b-but it's old school classic...
Quote from: Rincewind1;684590B-b-but it's old school classic...
Only in the minds of D&D players. Much like Hawke the Slayer.
"Look Kay, I couldn't find your sword, but here's Excalibur!"
And of course number one sin of modern Arthurian stories...Morgan la Fey WAS NOT Mordred's mom. Even THWhite got that right, though the adaptions of him don't.
Quote from: TristramEvans;684585That he later became a hermit monk out of penance ( long after rtiring from adventuring) is really of no relevance, anymore than Guenivere becoming a nun. He certainly never becomes a 'cleric' in D&D terms.
well yes, admittedly that was me just poking fun at your unfortunate choice of phrase, but I think there is a bigger point here.
Quote from: TristramEvans;684585Yeah, he's basically an eponymous Paladin for most of his life.
Your cycle seems to be:
Step One: Paladins are like Knights like Lancelot
Step Two: Actually Paladins are not like Lancelot
Step Three: We need to change Paladins so they are like Lancelot
The problem is, Paladins were not actually based on Lancelot and thus far from being eponymous, Lancelont has very very little in common with the paladin class in the first place.
You might be better of looking at Holger Carlson who the class actually was based upon. although I must admit I never could be bothered, so god knows what the connection is like. Also I am reminded that Gary apparently based Clerics of Victor von Helsing so the only thing you might learn is Gary smoked a whole lot of pot.
Quote from: jadrax;684593well yes, admittedly that was me just poking fun at your unfortunate choice of phrase, but I think there is a bigge
Your cycle seems to be:
Step One: Paladins are like Knights like Lancelot
Step Two: Actually Paladins are not like Lancelot
Step Three: We need to change Paladins so they are like Lancelot
What are you talking about? I said, and stand by the first statement. The other two are your inventions, nothing to do with what I said. And no, paladins don't need to be changed to be more like Lancelot ( or Galahad, the example of a Paladin in the 2e phb). I would ditch the class altogether.
Quote from: TristramEvans;684587In Camelot, Lancelot heals another knight he wounds in a joust by 'laying on hands. Pretty sure that's where the Paladin ability comes from.
It is possible, but I am pretty sure Charlemagne did the same, and possibly the Twelve Peers as well. The origins of the term are actually Jewish.
Quote from: TristramEvans;684594What are you talking about? I said, and stand by the first statement. The other two are your inventions, nothing to do with what I said.
Sorry I think I was unclear. I meant that was the cycle you had gone through to state that 'Paladin should be read as "knight" - there's no crossover with a cleric.' rather than a cycle you were explicitly advocating.
Quote from: jadrax;684596It is possible, but I am pretty sure Charlemagne did the same, and possibly the Twelve Peers as well. The origins of the term are actually Jewish.
Gygax never showed an inclination for that level of research. All of D&D seemed to come from 60s films and fantasy paperbacks. Fire ball spell - corman's Pit& Pendulum. Cleric class-hammer horror films D&DS races -Tolkien D&DS magic -Vance
But yeah, if were going to the origin of the term, Charlamagne's aurthurian proxies are it.
Quote from: jadrax;684598Sorry I think I was unclear. I meant that was the cycle you had gone through to state that 'Paladin should be read as "knight" - there's no crossover with a cleric.' rather than a cycle you were explicitly advocating.
OK. Still think knight best sums up the class. There's some -Christian -religious associations, just as there were with real knights, but Paladin is a pretty distinct concept from cleric. 'Holy warrior basically means 'military fighter that the church approves of.
Quote from: TristramEvans;684600OK. Still think knight best sums up the class. There's some -Christian -religious associations, just as there were with real knights, but Paladin is a pretty distinct concept from cleric. 'Holy warrior basically means 'military fighter that the church approves of.
The term you're looking for is Templar.
I think one of the huge problems is that because there was no 'Priest' class per say, all of the religious people in Homlet got shoved into cleric (well except the druid) an thus every priest in the game for ever more became a member of the 'vampire hunting elite warrior class we made up for that one campaign'.
Quote from: TristramEvans;684562No one would mistake Lancelot for a priest.
Well, you might in that one part of Excalibur where Percival runs into him ranting to a crowd of peasants how Jesus has forsaken the land.
Quote from: LibraryLass;684623Well, you might in that one part of Excalibur where Percival runs into him ranting to a crowd of peasants how Jesus has forsaken the land.
Yes, it was a bad example because Lance got his legends all mixed up with Tristan by Mallory, and then got himself to an abbotry or found Jesus in the woods can you tell Mallory school not my fav version of the legends?). Blar. Egg on my face.
Anyway, the 2nd ed player's hb ( only have that, first ed DMG, 2e mm, and the planescape line, and green books, so its the only d&d I have that mentions a paladin) gives several examples of heroes throughout legend and history who could be called paladins:
Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, and Sir Galahad.I no longer own UA, but I have the Dragon issue Paladins orig appeared in, and this jibes with that desc. I plyed in one short 3rd ed campaign, but that was the end of my association with woTC besides a game of Gamma World, so I don't know how much the class has been mangled from its origins. I have my pref'd ed, so I admittedly view the game thru that lens.
Quote from: Rincewind1;684603The term you're looking for is Templar.
That would be a mercenary/banker class;)
Quote from: TristramEvans;684643That would be a mercenary/banker class;)
Well touche, but the theoretical concept is something I always imagine a paladin as, alongside a good spicing of Teutonic Order stylistics/"holier than thou and got papers to prove it" behaviour.
Quote from: Rincewind1;684656Well touche, but the theoretical concept is something I always imagine a paladin as, alongside a good spicing of Teutonic Order stylistics/"holier than thou and got papers to prove it" behaviour.
Yeah, fair enough. Arthurian legends are to those as western movies are to real cowboys.
Quote from: TristramEvans;684657Yeah, fair enough. Arthurian legends are to those as western movies are to real cowboys.
There is a reason that my two favorite movies are Excalibur and Monty Python and the Holy Grail. ;)
JG
This issue always fascinated me ever since I started gaming. When I had buns in the oven and unhappy enuff not to play, I read the players books anyway. And it always lead to mre confusion.
The paladin is less based on legend more on a literary character ( i know I read the book but I dont remember it much, was it that bad or the hormones and spawn kicking that made it less than memorable? Lol)
The cleric was supposed to be warrior priests right? At least in 1st.
The Paladin was closer to an ideal of a knight.
Depends on edition and world setting. If a paladin is an ideal warrior, wouldnt mordred as seen in movie and popular literature fit the bill?
So after all the input how do you see the class now?
How I see it as a seminewbie, Paladins are special knights who dedicate themselves to an ideal or Deity, which allows them to grow in certain ways, healing and spells. Iirc, Paladins can only do magic ie spells at a certain level and to a certain level. Iirc the rational at least in first ed. Was up to 4th was actually done by force of will of the caster. I think. Have that right.
Much of the "purity" of 1st lvl was lost later when people tried to forcefit ideas into the classes.
Thanks for forcing thr mental exercise
Paladins are of St. Cuthbert. If you have no St. Cuthbert, kindly excise Paladins from your game.
That is all.
Quote from: Teazia;688353Paladins are of St. Cuthbert. If you have no St. Cuthbert, kindly excise Paladins from your game.
That is all.
Eff that noise. Cuthbert is half the reason paladins are assumed to be such awful sticks in the mud. The man himself is semidivine paraquat.
Quote from: LibraryLass;688373Eff that noise. Cuthbert is half the reason paladins are assumed to be such awful sticks in the mud. The man himself is semidivine paraquat.
Lol. The concept of Paladins from 0 to 3e was sprung directly from him, warts and all. Might as well play the real thing, otherwise a cleric is probably better. The UA cavalier was the obvious solution to the paladin problem, but it introduced a new realm of issues.
Quote from: Teazia;688403Lol. The concept of Paladins from 0 to 3e was sprung directly from him, warts and all. Might as well play the real thing, otherwise a cleric is probably better. The UA cavalier was the obvious solution to the paladin problem, but it introduced a new realm of issues.
If you get the Mace of St. Cuthbert along for the ride, sure I'll play ol' Cuth.
But the 1e Pally has more in common with Sir Galahad and Song of Roland than anything else. IIRC, the entire push to move the Paladin to being under the Cavalier was due to the Knight of the Round Table connection.
I like knights.
I just don't think a paladin needs to be a knight.
Quote from: Bill;688451I like knights.
I just don't think a paladin needs to be a knight.
Once a paladin always a paladin,
but once a knight is enough
?
Quote from: Bill;688451I like knights.
I just don't think a paladin needs to be a knight.
To me a paladin is a Knight. Notice: not a knight, a Knight. Capital K. He (or She) is Galaad, or Perceval, or Lancelot before his fall from grace, basically. Not all knights (little k) are automatically Paladins. That's something that is earned from (the) God(s), not just inherited with status.
Quote from: Benoist;688710To me a paladin is a Knight. Notice: not a knight, a Knight. Capital K. He (or She) is Galaad, or Perceval, or Lancelot before his fall from grace, basically. Not all knights (little k) are automatically Paladins. That's something that is earned from (the) God(s), not just inherited with status.
A knight can be a Paladin.
A Paladin need not be a knight.
That's how I prefer my Paladins.
Dnd have such a proliferatoon of classes. Sadly, harkening back to its wargame roots, ir cant really be resolved!!??
Is the only reason it isnt dropped is because it is an original class?
All the wonderful sage comments it is a question only a sphinx would understand,lol.
Quote from: TristramEvans;684589And Excalibur was a really horribly written film. It had a nice soundtrack and some visualsbut the plotting and dialogue was on par with the Transformers films
Excalibur is one of my favorite movies.
Simply in answer to the OP:-
- a cleric is a [warrior] priest... an ordained member of a religion [who has taken up arms];
- a paladin is specifically a holy knight... a warrior of such inherently pure soul that (s)he lives the code of faith and chivalry to the full; a paladin who falls from grace may well be driven into the arms of darkness (as an anti-paladin).
Clerics on the whole will tend to be more studious and more educated, to have a subtler knowledge of the theories of miraculous intervention and prayer and to have earnt the favour of their gods through long hours of religious ceremonies. As the god of even a prodigal cleric could forgive his cleric and intervene dramatically on his behalf, a cleric can perform powerful magic if his god permits, even if he has failed to keep to the tenets of his faith in some respect. A cleric could follow a benevolent or malevolent deity, or an in-betweener. They may have strictures of the faith imposing taboos as to the weapons they use, or other odd requirements, for instance as to dress.
Paladins on the whole will tend to be braver, more zealous, more chivalrous, more honour-bound, more heroic, generally speaking more restricted by their ethos/outlook (more difficult and dangerous to play) and altogether more combat-oriented. Their magic is likely to reflect their innate holiness rather than the intervention of their god, and they have not spent the long hours in religious ceremonies that a cleric has to earn their gods' favours to the same extent. Their magic is likely to be simpler, more direct, less often used and limited by the paladin's own innate holy power. Paladins are necessarily holy knights, and are likely to be in full armour, wielding sword, lance and shield to make their point.
Quote from: hamstertamer;689186Excalibur is one of my favorite movies.
And I like The Cannonball Run (the first movie), but it doesn't change the fact that it made Dumb and Dumber look like the work of Ingmar Bergman.
In a way, Excalibur and the Transformers flicks are a lot alike: they both have big special effects budgets and great individual scenes (and soundtracks), but the acting, dialogue, and plot leave a lot to be desired.
Quote from: hamstertamer;689186Excalibur is one of my favorite movies.
Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks I guess.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;689190And I like The Cannonball Run (the first movie), but it doesn't change the fact that it made Dumb and Dumber look like the work of Ingmar Bergman.
In a way, Excalibur and the Transformers flicks are a lot alike: they both have big special effects budgets and great individual scenes (and soundtracks), but the acting, dialogue, and plot leave a lot to be desired.
You obviously saw a different Merlin than I did.
JG
Quote from: James Gillen;689253You obviously saw a different Merlin than I did.
JG
I prefer the Merlin from Knight Riders to the Merlin from Excalibur.