Attention Paladin, Monk, Cleric, Druid and Other Players!

[steeldragons]

This is an eye-opening thread. So here's another question for those of you who chose option 1 or 2:
-snip-
Is this a) a good solution, b) a tolerable compromise, or c) a possibly patronizing sham?

This sounds like a tolerable compromise edging on a good solution. I would go so far as to, for those characters, like Paladins or Druids (and even certain "extreme" or exceptionally powerful/organizied churchs), who I would consider to be part of an order/organtization, that the penalty be applied across the board for that order/organization...whereas other groupings or individual paladins or clerics or druids might not.

See also: bards, warlocks, 'thieves cannot be LG,' 'rangers must be Good,' and others. One of my pet peeves is the haphazard way that D&D applies alignment restrictions...-snip-

That is a matter of personal campaign/game. In my own world, I have a general attitude that "sub-classes" receive alignment restrictions...which, makes sense to me given their extra abilities/powers. On examination, in retrospect, perhaps that's where/why they were originally part of the game.

Base classes can be any alignment in my games. But if you want to be a Barbarian or a Ranger instead of Fighter, then you have a certain outlook or philosophy that you adopt to be able to acquire all of the bells an' whistles of that class.

Well, except Thieves/Rogues. To my mind/in developing my world, I reason that stealing is basically frowned up in any society/community, even among "evil" creatures. So a Thief PC in my campaign must be non-lawful. But can readily be NG or CG, since while I do subscribe to there being "no honor among thieves" they are not summarily "bad people" [i.e. "evil].

Case in point. A lot of gamers seem to have this special reverence for the paladin, but to my mind he's just a cleric who's better at smiting than turning undead.

AH! See, this may be where we are differing. I, in my world/game, view the Paladin as a subclass of Fighter. They are fighter who just have more of a connection to the "divine" side of things (like a ranger is a fighter who has more experience/connection to the "nature" side of things) VS. a Cleric with more connection to fighting stuff. Their role is, primarily to fight not to support/bolster.

But, again, that's my world/game, just a personal matter of perspective in the game-setting flavor...which is well conveyed for players in character creation before the dice hit the table.

This is why I prefer 4e's way of handling divine classes. (Even if I find the ritual endowment thing somewhat silly.) The paladin is more restricted than other classes, but it doesn't matter because all of the restrictions are equally toothless.
-snip-
That said, I've played with DMs where playing another class isn't really an option. Take core-only 3e games, which seem to be popular among DMs; the players know that having a dedicated healer in the party will vastly improve their chances of survival, so somebody volunteers for that role. Unfortunately, his options are limited: there's the cleric and the druid. That's it; opting out of restrictive classes in such a game isn't possible unless the party's willing to rough it without a healer.

A couple of things here, if you'll indulge me

1) I do not, in any way, consider Cleric to be a restrictive class. There is always a god for the player to make a cleric to be any alignment they want. (or close to it, in my world. i.e. The cleric of a "True Neutral" deity need not be "true neutral" (it's best if they are, they'll go further in the order/organization), but one could certainly be a NG of CN and follow a True Neutral god (or LN or even NE -though I would not think a NE character would want to be part of such an organization unless it were NE itself. The way I interpret the alignment, "organizations" aren't a NE tenet/specialty).

But, point is, I do not consider Cleric a restrictive class. That's what makes it a Base class versus a Sub-class.

2) I incorporated/developed a "Shaman" sub-class of Cleric.

Clerics, to my reasoning/in my setting, are the members of established/"organized" religions.

Shamans exist as the spiritual/magical authority for those societies in which no "organized religion" exists. They have certain "spirit/totem" powers and can use a few "pointy" weapons. But we needn't get into that here...Point is, a player wanting a "divine" character/class might be a Cleric or Druid or Shaman.

So there is really no less option than telling the player who wants to hit stuff (a "martial character" if you will) they can be a Fighter or Paladin or Ranger.

I just throw that out there as something you might want to consider to give the divine-player something else to work with.

As always, play what you like and, again, I think your idea to apply alignment restriction/consequences to a particular player is a good one.

Have fun and happy restricting
--Steel Dragons

 

[Hussar]

Um....cuz they're a paladin and not "any other priest"? They aren't a "priest" at all. They are an "enforcer" or a "defender" or "chosen one" or whatever other flavor/color spin you want to put on it. They run around with big swords (something clerics should NEVER have been allowed to start doing, imo!) and detect evil just by looking at stuff! They don't have to "cast" anything, just "lay" their "hands" on ya!

Despite the fact that they both receive "gifts" from their divine source of choice, paladins are not priests. SO they have different "rules"/mechanical considerations and restrictions to be allowed (by their deity) to wear the mantle of "paladin"....instead of just "fighter guy with a strong personal sense of spirituality."



Again, 1) "Paladin" does not equal "Cleric" (just repeating).
/snip

Meh. The guy who is granted the ability to warp reality itself is given virtually no restrictions, but because I can use a sword, suddenly I'm Dudley Doo Right?

As I said, I never really understood why clerics didn't have major restrictions. Heck, it would be quite realistic. Look at pretty much any real world religion and the strictures that come with being a leader of any given faith.

But, it's apparently perfectly acceptable that my cleric is a figher with some healing magic, never actually utters a word of prayer outside of casting spells and basically does whatever the heck he wants, but, as soon as I'm a paladin, whoo boy, look out.

------
/edit for later thought

I think the problem is one of archetypes. Paladins have a pretty strong archetype - Knight of the Round Table, Age of Chivary and all that jazz. You get a very specific image of what a paladin is, just from that. So, the strictures make sense - after all, the Knights of the Round Table had the same sort of strictures, so why wouldn't the class based on that archetype not also have them?

Clerics, OTOH, never really had a good solid archetype. What, exactly, is a cleric? Is he a preacher? Is he a holy warrior? What? And, no strong archetypes really jump out for the class. ((Yes, I am aware of the Crusades underpinnings of the class, but, they aren't really all that strong - after all, since when were Knights limited to maces?)) So, because no one has a really strong image for what a cleric actually is, no one really worries too much about how the cleric acts. So, when your LG priest does something that's a bit dodgy, he gets the pass, because, well, it's not too bad, it's justifiable, and he doesn't have a code of conduct hard wired into his archetype.

IMO, he should. But, then again, getting someone to fall on the cleric grenade is hard enough without making it even more difficult.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But, it's apparently perfectly acceptable that my cleric is a figher with some healing magic, never actually utters a word of prayer outside of casting spells and basically does whatever the heck he wants, but, as soon as I'm a paladin, whoo boy, look out.

I understand what you're saying, and here's where I lay the blame: Gary did a good job of modeling the source material with he Paladin, but he conflates a LOT of different things into the Cleric, making it much more than it should have been.

The loss of powers for violations of the code is actually in many of the source legends about paladins. They got that right.

However, the actual priests of medieval Europe were (mostly) men who were not trained to fight at all. Sure, a wandering friar might have a weapon and know how to use it, but he would have learned such skill by himself as opposed to it being part of his training in the priesthood. And even he would be lightly armored...if at all. IOW, the Cleric class should have more closely resembled the magic-user.

In combat terms, the closest things to D&D Clerics in the Western Euopean RW were knights- actual trained, lifelong warriors- who had sworn certain vows. While not fully priests, they were able to act as deacons, not full priests at all. In D&D, that would mean spell-like abilities or half-casting at best.

This could have been modeled by a less restricted version of the paladin (Paladin of the Lesser Rite? Knightly Brother?) or in 3.XEd, by a Feat with a BAB requirement.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

IMO, "noble" priests are the closest thing Medieval Western Europe had to clerics.

As noblemen, many trained in combat from age 7 as pages, before growing up and deciding (as the second son or some such) that they wanted to be a priest rather than a knight. Some even went into battle, but I couldn't tell you how common this was. Presumably they carried flails so they "wouldn't shed blood", even though a spiked whirling flail certainly will if it hits

 

[Hussar]

That's my point basically. Sure, if you're up on your medieval history, great, you can point to places that might serve as inspiration, but, by and large, there isn't really a whole lot to go on. And, it makes sense. You don't want to get too close to real world religions, cos, that might cause some issues down the line when you're trying to sell your game in the mid-70's. Besides, it might not even fit that well because the pantheon of gods you're using in this particular campaign have virtually nothing to do with European faiths.

 

[Pentius]

Again, 1) "Paladin" does not equal "Cleric" (just repeating).

Huh. I always thought that the Cleric should, if we're doing restrictions, be more restricted, since he is getting more power from his god than the paladin is. The paladin always has a strong sword arm to fall back on, but regardless of later-e clerics getting sword, non-magical melee was never their strong point.

2) My mind boggles at this statement. They are compensated for their potential risk. They do have special magic! It's called being able to be a Paladin or a Cleric and all of the abilities and powers thereof! If you don't want the risk, then go be one of those other classes where you don't have to worry about it.

This is a very system dependent statement. It isn't really being compensated if the wizard can just handily out-do them without all those pesky codes of ethics. In AD&D it worked out alright. In 3e, wizard vs paladin, well, I wouldn't want to be the paladin.

The cleric and paladin don't need nor do they deserve "extra compensation" for being/doing/acting/following a code that they, as clerics and paladins, are supposed to do/be/act/follow!

Put another way. I give my dog an extra biscuit/treat because she has done something especially good/well. I do not give my dog a biscuit simply because it is a dog.

This is actually more or less where I'm coming from when I argue against mechanical restrictions. Follow the code because it's the right thing to do, not because you might get swatted with the newspaper if you don't.

Whew. That was a lot for so little coffee.
GOOOOOD MORNIN' ENWORLD!!!
--Steel Dragons

Good mornin', Steel!

 

[steeldragons]

Meh. The guy who is granted the ability to warp reality itself is given virtually no restrictions, but because I can use a sword, suddenly I'm Dudley Doo Right?

If you're referring to magic-users (mages/wizards, I mean) as the reality warping guys...then I would say a d4 Hit Points, no armor and hardly any useful weapon are quite the restrictions. Whether they offset to/balance against the extent of a paladinic code is up to debate, I suppose.

But...to answer your question, Yes! Because you take up a sword in the service of this deity with these tenets and receive (not to mention the mortal hubris of "expect"!) these additional powers to other guys who just "take up the sword", you are supposed to be Dudley Do-Right (if that's what/how the tenets of your god and faith prescribe).

And if you [meaning the paladin/character] don't like it, then go be a mercenary or swordsman or soldier....or one of those guys who warp reality. The deity can always pick another champion.

As I said, I never really understood why clerics didn't have major restrictions. Heck, it would be quite realistic. Look at pretty much any real world religion and the strictures that come with being a leader of any given faith.

I agree. And I do so in my games.

As with almost anything else in RAW, if you don't like it...change it! Talk to your DM and work something out or if you are the DM then develop your religions (which your cleric players must adhere to) and make it work/make sense for you.

But, it's apparently perfectly acceptable that my cleric is a figher with some healing magic, never actually utters a word of prayer outside of casting spells and basically does whatever the heck he wants, but, as soon as I'm a paladin, whoo boy, look out.

If it's perfectly acceptable for your DM, then I guess it is. But if that's all your cleric is/is doing...from where I'm sitting, that seems to be more on you, as the player (not "you" specifically), than any fault of the system or DM.

Just my copper there. No insult intended.
--SD

Oh wait! There's more. I saw the dashy line and just figured it was your sig. hahaha. Apologies...continue.

------
/edit for later thought

I think the problem is one of archetypes. Paladins have a pretty strong archetype - Knight of the Round Table, Age of Chivary and all that jazz. You get a very specific image of what a paladin is, just from that. So, the strictures make sense - after all, the Knights of the Round Table had the same sort of strictures, so why wouldn't the class based on that archetype not also have them?

Clerics, OTOH, never really had a good solid archetype. What, exactly, is a cleric? Is he a preacher? Is he a holy warrior? What? And, no strong archetypes really jump out for the class. ((Yes, I am aware of the Crusades underpinnings of the class, but, they aren't really all that strong - after all, since when were Knights limited to maces?)) So, because no one has a really strong image for what a cleric actually is, no one really worries too much about how the cleric acts. So, when your LG priest does something that's a bit dodgy, he gets the pass, because, well, it's not too bad, it's justifiable, and he doesn't have a code of conduct hard wired into his archetype.

IMO, he should. But, then again, getting someone to fall on the cleric grenade is hard enough without making it even more difficult.

I think you are right here. There are very few archetypes for the "cleric" in the fantasy genre. Elves? Dwarves? Wizards? even Rangers (thanks to Tolkien...well, and Robin Hood, maybe)? We've got that covered. Conan and Fafrd (sp?) took care of the Barbarian shtick.

I, myself, very much liked when 2e changed the "cleric" to "priest". Yes, one might default to modern religions, and that works. But it is more evocative of, say, Fransiscan monks/early Christianity or Rabbinim or the priests of ancient Egypt or even Gaulic Druids than "cleric."

For me/my games, I have always adhered to the cleric as a "priest" or "bishop" or "brother" or whatever title you want to ascribe them (and I ascribe plenty). Beign a cleric does not, in my games, mean you are a "fighter who heals".

Seems an easy thing to me to alter one's perspective and come up with one's own archetype for the class instead of saying "I'm a 'holy warrior' (as many early editions described). All I do is fight and heal and my god just lets me do that all of the time without doing anything else." The cleric class can have a lot of depth and differing pursuits, dependent on the deity for whom the cleric serves and how developed the religion in the game world is.

And make no mistake, the cleric IS a servant as surely as any paladin. The cleric of a CG deity who acts in LE ways is definitely going to get the immortal "smackdown". I'm not aspousing the paladin should and the cleric shouldn't! They are the member of a religious order...and that order needs thought and development in the game world as sure as any paladinic code. That's something for you and/or your DM to work out.

The fact the books did not specify that in a listed code of conduct never mattered, for me. It was clearly implied, for me. Don't serve your god the way they want you to, you're not gettin' diddly.

That's the class. If you don't like it, not to sound crass but, play something else/a different class.
Ok. That's really the end.
--SD

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Besides, it might not even fit that well because the pantheon of gods you're using in this particular campaign have virtually nothing to do with European faiths.

One thing 2Ed did better than any other edition- after you take into account all of the expansions- was make the priest customizable to better model faiths from around the world. Even 3.X doesn't do it as well.

And make no mistake, the cleric IS a servant as surely as any paladin.

This is true, but with crucial differences. A cleric is expected to minister to the flock. That's why they have spells like Attone, Bless and Ceremony. But anyone who chooses to take the vows of the priesthood and passes the initiations can become a priest.

A Paladin is chosen by his god, with the specific duty of being that god's exemplar of physical might. He is the living embodiment of the divine's vengeful side. He or she may not even be willing to serve in that capacity (see Jeanne D'Arc).

Follow the code because it's the right thing to do, not because you might get swatted with the newspaper if you don't.

A person can go out tomorrow and buy a handbook and a copy of the oaths the police officers in his city abide by. Even if he swears to follow that oath and all the rules in the book, that doesn't make him a cop. He doesn't get the right to carry a firearm everywhere, he can't pull people over with flashing lights & sirens, etc. And if he doesn't follow those rules in the book and oath, he suffers no penalty. The vow isn't to anyone else but himself; there is no impartial judge to evaluate the severity of the violation and impose sanction if a violation occurs.

If and only if he formally swears that oath before his sovereign (the city's duly appointed officer) after passing through the academy does he become an officer. And if he violates the rules that he has sworn to follow, he can lose his job, his pension, and if the violation was severe enough, he could even go to jail. The city's Internal Affairs administration, the state's or country's judicial system stand over this person to impartially judge his actions, and have power to impose penalties and enforce judgements.

It is an exchange of powers being granted for an oath of obedience.

Similarly, the Paladin must pass muster with his god (presumably taken care of when the deity utters The Call), then swear the vow. He gains abilities to heal, to cast spells, to turn back the undead, and to carry arms in his god's service (Jeanne D'Arc was a farmgirl with no training before she helped lead the French to numerous victories). If he falters in his faith in particular- major, not minor- ways, the divine being to whom he swore the vow decides if he loses those powers.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

There was some mention that literature (old non-DnD literature) supports paladins losing their powers for not following their code. Where is that from?

My own experience with literature actually written back then is pretty limited. Mort d'Arthur and that's that. No special powers for most characters (Lancelot was super-human, but none of his powers "map" onto the paladin class) and even jerks like Mordred and Agravaine could be knights of the Round Table.

 

[steeldragons]

This is a very system dependent statement. It isn't really being compensated if the wizard can just handily out-do them without all those pesky codes of ethics. In AD&D it worked out alright. In 3e, wizard vs paladin, well, I wouldn't want to be the paladin.

Well then, I really hope this doesn't come across bitchy cause I don't mean it too but...then don't play a paladin.

I really don't see the problem/conflict here. "I want to be a paladin, but I want to be a paladin on my terms/without restrictions"...Well...No. Something people don't like to hear, but it really is that simple.

Good mornin', Steel!

Mornin', Pentius!

Evenin' now, here (I'm 6 hours ahead of EST). But still thanks for the salutation.

--SD