D&D 5E Cleric vs Paladin: Concepts and Mechanical realisation

[Illithidbix]

So the “Why ever play a cleric? “ got me thinking about the Cleric/Paladin stepping on each others toes issue.

At a glance they both seem very similar, pious warriors in clanky armour, imbued with the ability to invoke divine magic striking down enemies of the faith.

However I've noticed that some people are very much drawn to the idea of playing a cleric, but not at all to playing paladins, and visa versa. Some people do like them both.

They obviously always run on different rules and had different roles in every edition, the cleric is the stronger spellcaster and the paladin is the stronger fighter, but have these differences felt so clear when conceptualising a character?

So
What is the difference, in your mind between the archetype of the Cleric and a Paladin?
Does one or both interest you as character concepts?
And
Do you feel 5E does a good job of mechanically supporting the identity of the Cleric vs/and/or the Paladin?
Also unusual directions that people have taken the concept of their clerics and paladins is interesting to.

For me:
The 2E AD&D PHB shaped my conception of D&D, even though I didn't play it much. I found it interesting that it specifically mentioned the Knights Templar were listed as inspirations for the Cleric, not the Paladin. And the 2E DMG mentioned that Paladins are too rare for organisations to exist bigger than the Knights of the Round table.

The Cleric is a priest, a holy man of a faith, even if that holiness is corrupted and decadent.

The Paladin is a knight or rather the Arthurian ideal of what a knight should be as a champion of honour, chivalry and virtue. For this reason a Paladin could not be a Paladin if they fell from grace.

With less emphasis on explaining concepts in relation to real world history and mythology, I think 3E making the paladin a more generic "holy warrior of their chosen god" drew the cleric and paladin closer together in concept. It was just that Paladins could fall... for some reason... despite seemingly having less divine mojo than the cleric.
Likewise in 4E with the concept of the "Divine Investiture" for both clerics and paladins meant they were primarily defined by their roles and powers, not concepts. The idea the gods couldn't actually strip a cleric or paladin of their powers if they misbehaved was one I actually rather liked.

Of course these archetypes can be taken far from their base, with Clerics being followers of abstract concepts rather than gods and paladins being Quixotic drunkards (literally perhaps!) or Holy Assassins.

In this way the concept of the Paladin's Oath I think greatly reinforces this, as it moves the paladins slightly further away from the gods of the world, whilst acknowledging that a paladin might well swear their Oaths before a god. Similarly I see the three Oaths as different takes on “Good” beyond Alignment: Crudely summerised as Honour (Oath of Devotion), Beauty (Oath of the Ancients) or Justice (Oath Of Vengeance).

The Cleric domains meanwhile provide a great deal of customisation such that the trickery and knowledge clerics feel quite distinct from a Tempest or War cleric, despite sharing a similar spell list and class abilities.
Oddly although the Paladin Oath and Cleric Domains are actually very similar in how they alter their primary class, this serves to make them feel quite distinct.

(Had fun in a recent short campaign with an Oath of Vengeance Paladin who was an ex-gang enforcer who received a divine vision from Saint Cynthia the Flayed as his family burnt alive for his crimes he committed and his service as her champion in a hopeless quest for redemption. The creed of his god is simply "Injustice exists because of weakness and cowardice" "No injustice is ever forgiven", so he is fully aware he can never find atonement by his god.)

 

[sunrisekid]

You make a lot of good points. I myself, after many years, noticed that clerics were consistently the least popular class, with frrequent confusion as to their separation from the Paladin. Frankly, I see one or the other but not both. Other players have had very different experiences, of course, judging by the other thread.

Personally, I have never liked the cleric, largly because of the closeness to the paladin. I can't think of a notable story or film that has D&D style clerics. In my opinion, the cleric-as-templar was displaced by the better-conceived paladin. Clerics of "all those other domains" just don't have any narratively consistent place that isn't simply a creative shoe-horning of concepts to get players to play clerics. That's a ridiculous statement for a lot of people, I know. The cleric, which entered canon almost immediately after the game was invented, itself became a template class imported into video games and such for several decades, and has cemented itself into the foundations of gaming normalcy for a great many players. I don't disagree with other players enjoyment of the class.

Personally, in my game, I would rather the cleric was simply gone. Paladin takes the role of theological/fanatical conduit of the gods who slays non-believers, or is the Lancelot or whatever. Give healing spells to some sort of wizard-variant. Remember the shaman character from the 1982 Conan film? Somehow that guy makes way more sense, to me, as someone who does "magic healing". But that's just own personal opinion, and is huge departure from the core game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I like them both. And for reasons you've said. I've always held that that classes are more than just mechanical bits. They are also flavor and role-playing. For me, that's one of the reasons why I play D&D and not just a boardgame--I enjoy the RP parts of it.

Clerics are the holy servants of their deity, and do what they can to do the deity's will (in most cases try to spread the faith, etc). Paladins are more personal. They don't try to go around converting everyone, but live by a personal code tied to their personal beliefs, and their devotion is based on how they act personally.

And their roles are a bit different. A cleric's role is largely support. They have a ton of versatility, and many options to make the party more effective. Paladins, again, are more focused on improving themselves with their primary role: holy warriors. They have some things that help the party, but are more focused on handing out the wrath/punishment of those who threaten his or her deity. They are built for battle, while clerics can do well in it, but are more focused on utility and support.

Even when comparing a cleric of war to a paladin, the cleric is the soldier, while the paladin is the special forces.

Deity: "Cleric, here are a bunch of powers to help you spread my gospel. Paladin, here are a bunch of powers for you to take out my enemies."

 

[Sacrosanct]

I can't think of a notable story or film that has D&D style clerics..

Moses (Ten Commandments)
Constantine
Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins version)

Just off the top of my head.

OH, and Imotep from The Mummy.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Z. H. Darkstar]

I think that the easiest way to differentiate the two is to strip the fluff and look at them from a purely mechanical view.

The Cleric is a full caster that dabbles in martial abilities.

The Paladin is a full martial that dabbles in casting abilities.

The fluff of each one can be made virtually identical via adding the Acolyte background to a Paladin.

Then again, I'm more of a powergamer than a role-player.

Yo soy munchkin...

 

[sunrisekid]

Moses (Ten Commandments)
Constantine
Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins version)
OH, and Imotep from The Mummy.

This is what I'm getting at. None of those characters resemble D&D clerics, in my opinion. Moses wears robes, might resemble an angry Gandalf. Van Helsing... I don't remember, he wore glasses and had a suitcase full holy water and crosses? Imotep, not sure who that is. None of them wore heavy armor and carried a mace.

Maybe it's all the Basic D&D art that overly influenced how I imagine clerics (see other thread). I, personally, remain unconvinced of their interestingness as a character concept, that isn't better executed through other means. The paladin, as stated earlier. Using 5E rules, I woould rather see any reference to religiousness, or conduit of the gods, simply be represented by, say, the Acolyte background. Eg, cleric of nature as ranger with acolyte background. Cleric of trickery as rogue with acolyte. I'm sure many would disagree, citing background as insufficient to convey such deific relationships as the cleric enjoys. Now that I think of it, I also never liked all those gods/pantheons either - for reasons that escape me it just never came up often in the games I played. Not really sure where the bias comes from but I'm sure it's there (for no great reason).

(Stepping out of the conversation briefly, I'm sure I am not the only player who approaches the game books as containing rules "for a game", rather than as "rules of the game". Now that I reflect a bit over the years, the games I've been in were all very house-ruled for certain themes/tropes. Hm.)

 

[ninjayeti]

I think the distinction was much clearer in 1E when paladins had a very a specific character conception (including being extreme lawful good and having a high charisma). 5E has implemented classes that allow for a wider number of concepts and builds and this has created overlaps for many classes. Yeah a "divine warrior" concept could potentially work as a paladin or as a cleric, just like a "swashbuckler" concept could be build as a rogue, a fighter, or monk; or a "nature mage" could be built as a druid, nature domain cleric, or fey pact warlock, etc. But I don't think that the fact that character concepts can work with multiple classes undermines the individuality of the classes.

From a conceptual standpoint clerics are largely defined by the god they worship. In the past I have played two clerics - one was a follower of a god of luck, another a follower of a goddess of love and beauty. Neither would have been mistaken for a paladin. Conversely, paladins will likely be defined by their particular oath - classic shining armor/white horse, dark avenger, or fey touched green knight.

Mechanically I think they are reasonably distinct. The paladin is a better melee combatant than a cleric, and the cleric is a better caster than the paladin. Each has unique abilities like smite or divine intervention that no other class can use. Sure there are some overlaps with their spell lists, but clerics share some spells with druids, wizards and the other casters just as paladins share fighting styles with fighters. I'd say that 5E wizards and sorcerers have much greater mechanical overlap than clerics and paladins do.

 

[Carny]

To mee the distinction is quite clear.

A paladin is a holy warrior in service to a cause. He is (usually) a member of some sort of order. he is the servant of the cause(and his order) first and his deity second. His relationship with the magic is
institutional

A cleric is closer to a prophet. he may work with the church hierarchy, but he might just as well be considered a heretic by his own "church". His relationship to the deity and to his magic is personal.

 

[Tony Vargas]

At a glance they both seem very similar, pious warriors in clanky armour, imbued with the ability to invoke divine magic striking down enemies of the faith.

However I've noticed that some people are very much drawn to the idea of playing a cleric, but not at all to playing paladins, and visa versa. Some people do like them both.

Clearly, one might like both if simply drawn to the idea of a pious hero who derives power from Faith or from a personal pact with a deity.

Why like one and not the other, though?

In the early game, both often came off as being pseudo-/quasi-/vaguely Christian, but the Paladin more so with his LG requirement and strict code. If you didn't care for that feel so much, the Paladin might appeal even less than the Cleric.

By the same token, the Paladins requirements might make it seem like a superior, 'advanced' class (which, compared to the fighter, it was, a fallen paladin simply lost abilities to become a mere fighter), while the Cleric just needed a modest WIS, and there was a deity for every alignment.

|'m sure there's more. But, one of the more strangely ironic things I've noticed about gamers over the decades is their attitude towards Charisma. Maybe high CHA suggests the popular kids in school who could make a nerd's life hell, or maybe the kinds of oily/handsome used-car-salesmen types who are sometimes obstacles for the protagonist in the movies, or maybe the rich or classist or something. Whatever the source of it, there's a subtle distaste for the high CHA character, a tendency to play it as a superficial conceited slimeball or bimbo. Even though we all know that's not what CHA represents. Anyway, the pally suffers from high CHA.