Blog: Paladin vs. Cleric, fight!

[satori01]

You know what I think when I think Paladin? The questing knight.



So I'd like to see the Paladin as a Knightly type. He's got the skills, the heavy armour and martial weapons. He's got some access to the martial action system. He might have minor devotional powers. But when he swears himself to a quest, that's when the good stuff happens. Mess with the Paladin personally and that's one thing, seek to bar him from the object of his quest and that's when he gets that holy fire gleaming in his eye, that's when fate guides his hand and honor shields his soul.

DING, DING , winner!

Paladin class is inspired by the French, Gnostic inspired Courtly Love chivalry .
Nothing better epitomizes the essence of the genre than the questing knight.

The great thing about going that quests route is you can switch up themes.
Tristan, of Tristan and Isolde is a Knight of Love, - UNSTOPABLE.
In the tale of course his true love is betrothed to his King, and he steals her for a time, and is still in effect a Paladin, in defiance to his king and with the kings woman, because his love is pure.

I'd play that.

There are Paladins of justice, righteous war etc, and you could even allow changes in theme with different quests (if you want). The Champion class from Arcana Evolved was very modular, and very flexible in terms of concept.

I'd rather more abilities, and less to no spells.

 

[kevtar]

I love the idea of a paladin being the master of mounted combat, but as people have mentioned, it doesn't always pan out well in actual game play. I think I'd like the "mounted combat" paladin to be a theme.

While Paladins were the military arm of Christianity in Charlemagne's court, I'm not real crazy about calling them crusaders - that's just a really politically charged term (for me at least). I think I'd rather stick with paladin.

As far as what features paladins should have, I'd be open to a list of new ideas and to have those exist in an upcoming poll, but I couldn't think of any while reading the blog post. As far as features, here are a few things I think are appropriate:

Lay on hands

Smite (but maybe it could be smite foe & not necessarily smite evil, i.e. smite anything that is an obstacle to the paladin completing a quest or protecting someone).

Bonuses to saves, resistances or damage reduction (there should be something about a paladin that makes him/her hard to put down. For example Lancelot in the old 1960s musical Camelot. His strength and skill came from his virtue and faith. He couldn't be defeated and he even raised a man from the dead, lol. I'm not arguing that a paladin needs to be religious per se, but there should be something about the paladin's commitment to an ideal, his/her uncompromisable integrity, that should be communicated in some kind of game mechanical (in addition to the player's RPing).

Detect "X" Where "X" is either evil, or the object of a paladin's quest, or the BBEG he/she is sworn to defeat, maybe even it's the person the paladin is sworn to defend - but in any case, I'm partial to the idea of having the paladin open to "revelation" if you will - but not necessarily in a religious sense.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I think at its core the Paladin is about being a paragon of chivalry. The very best of the Knights of the Round Table such as like Arthur, Lancelot & Galahad being the prime examples. Although I think the concept could branch out to include the dashing musketeer or honourable samarai. I don't have a singular focus on the fighting style, rather the demanding code they live up to and exemplify.

Lancelot was included above because the fall from grace is a constant possibility, present even at the moment of greatest glory. As such I think a paladin must always be lawful good - the best of the best both morally and physically. Loosening the alignment restriction is losing focus on what the paladin is about imo.

The Cleric? They advance their Deity's cause with prayers granted through faith. The Paladin lives their code of chivalry and advances it through martial prowess and virtue granted by exemplary behaviour. If the Cleric & Deity are LG they could well look something similar. Hang around them for a while you'd soon spot the difference.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

There's a lot that indicates the Paladin will remain the Lawful Good archetype, and I hope they offer support later for other types of Paladin. In fact, the 'Crusader' role could be applied to any of the extreme alignments and I remember 3rd edition rules supporting this quite well (I loved the Liberator prestige class).

I have also come around to the idea of the Paladin having significant bonuses when pursuing a certain goal or quest. Depending on the cause they champion, the details of this could vary. As a standard LG crusader, you are 'fired up' when you accept a quest from a figure of legitimate authority which can be considered a benevolent act. Rescue the princess, kill the evil dragon, but if nearby orcs are causing trouble then killing every single one of them might not be the most good solution. The key to deciding when bonuses will be awarded is whether or not the quest involves a reward - you forfeit any mercenary activity in exchange for the literal moral authority to perform better in your quest.

More on the CG side, your quests come from individuals in need and may very be against non-evil authority. You're much more likely to find solutions to problems rather than just eliminate them through force. Then, on the evil side, CE is the most likely to quest directly for a higher power, to slaughter and destroy with the aim of causing trouble (CE works the worst, of course). LE is a Darth Vader figure, or an assassin. You have no moral requirements for your actions, but there are causes (Power/Authority/Wealth) that you do quest for.

What sort of bonuses to give, well, more damage against the enemies of the quest sounds find (not necessarily all evil creatures), the old fashioned better defences, and yes I like the idea of these extending to those in your party (who also follow your path and act less mercenary). Auras are perfect for Paladins. Fundamentally, when you have a Paladin in the party they should be the guide for that party's actions, and yes this causes tension, but ultimately those who accept the guidance of the Paladin benefit from their abilities in exchange for forfeiting other rewards. It would be fun to roleplay a character who has problems with this sort of authority, eventually coming around, or at least to some agreement that they are both on the same side (I love CG, what can I say).

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I also want to write something about the difference between Clerics and Paladins. I've always seen it as a martial vs. spellcasting sort of issue, hence would be happy seeing clerical melee abilities toned down. However..

What if Paladins explicitly refused to worship a single god? Yes, there are lawful good deities whose teachings agree with their philosophy, but there are often more than one with relevant spheres of influence. If instead Paladins drew their power from within, from the very literal goodness inside them, then to dedicate to a single god would deny the potential of (demi-)humanity to be good and do good. This would set up an interesting conflict and separation between the clergy and paladins, and the latter would become champions of ANY good, rather than just Lawful Goodnessness.

 

[triqui]

I also think Paladinhood should be severed from Priesthood. Paladins are not the defenders of a god's faith. That's what Clerics (with the proper melee theme) are. Paladins are the epitome of knighthood, of the cavalier. Lancelot is a paladin, and he is not the defender of god (Galahad might be, but Lancelot is not, for sure. Christianity does not allow adultery).

When I think Paladin, I think about Galahad, Lancelot, Gawain, Charlemagne, even Don Quixote. One could argue that Miyamoto Mushashi, D'artagnan and Jason are also paladins, from diferent settings or ages.

They don't need spells. Give them abilities, sure. But no need for spells. Smites, auras, challenges, bonds with his weapon/armor/shield/mount (chosen by the PC maybe), Lay on Hands, sacrifice for the others, etc give more than enough room to make them interesting *and different* from level 1 to 20/30.

 

[Neonchameleon]

My view is that 4e Essentials has an excellent split. The cleric draws strength from his or her god. The Paladin draws strength from his or her ideals - and the two types of Paladin named so far are the Paladin of Sacrifice (the "classic" LG Paladin) and the Paladin of Valour (much more a dragonslayer or Lancelot type). Taking one virtue or set of virtues and revolving your whole life around it. (And the Blackguard is overwhelmed by a vice such as wrath).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I've always seen the distinction as:

Cleric = Protector, Defender, Healer

Paladin = Destroyer, Smiter, Crusader

While I don't necessarily need abilities keyed to the alignments of my enemies (too campaign-dependent), I would want paladins empowered to go forth and convert at the point of the sword. The paladins I want to play need to be more "leader/striker" in 4e terms, while the clerics are good as "leader/defenders."

 

[gyor]

The cavalier is the best way to handle alignment. Pick a virtue say Chivalry or Scarifice and you have your Paladin that can only be lawful good, pick Liberity and Love and you have your Holy Liberator Paladin Chaotic Good, want a Blackguard pick a vice instead like Fury, Lust, Greed, Terror, Domination, Insanity.

 

[GM Dave]

I agree with others that say that Wizards needs to re-think the Paladin.

The original Paladin was back in the days of the original Cleric when DnD had a more nebulous, monotheistic, overtone. Clerics worked to protect good and Paladins were fighters that had served good for most of their lives and been rewarded for that outlook.

DnD has become much more a polytheism system with gods for different races, different seasons, different items, different outlooks, different goals.

DnD has moved from the classic Cleric of 'good' where good is unspecified and the god served is mostly undisclosed to a Cleric of a specific faith and set of practices.

It has been proposed that the newer broader faith Cleric is really a separate class and should be called a Priest. The Cleric is a Priest but with a more specific 'kit' or 'sub-set' of abilities.

I think the same should happen with the Paladin. The classic Paladin doesn't have a religious tie in any more way then a classic Cleric. I think in 5e it would be better to have the Paladin be a sub-set or kit of a broader class which is the Crusader.

I do like the idea proposed that the Paladin's powers might come from a 'Vow' mechanic (or Goal mechanic). When the Crusader is working towards the vow or goal then all is fine and the Crusader is getting certain bonuses (avoids having to have the monsters pull out alignment cards to check if the Paladin is free to smash them ;> ).

Failure to follow a stated vow can cause penalties and hardship for the character. This fits with the theme of the Crusading Knights like Lancelot that went insane temporarily when they were frustrated from fulfilling their Vows.

I also think that the idea of Orders would be a good idea to borrow from Pathfinder and have the Crusaders choose variations of representing their Profession (this opens up plenty of game development territory along with the interaction of faiths). This would allow players more room to choose the Paladin/Crusader package that meets their wants and views instead of trying to go with a 'One Basket Fits All' approach which this thread has surely shown does not apply.