Blog: Paladin vs. Cleric, fight!

[Kannik]

I personally have no issue seing a place in the game for Priests, Clerics and Paladins... they're just three classes with the positions set differently on a sliding scale between Magic Use and Fighting Use: Priest = heavy magic, Paladin = heavy fighting, Cleric = in the middle.

Another way to (loosely) look at it might be the difference between Mages and Sorcerers: the paladin, like the sorcerer, is much more of an 'innate' divine user, more directly channeling divine providence into fighting abilities, wheras clerics and priests use the more fancy and precise framework of spellcasting. Give paladins access to nifty abilities -- smite evil, auras, marks, holy blasts, rough curing, etc -- that they use in conjuction to their "up close and personal" way of dealing with evil.

As for the alignment restrictions and chivalry and all that -- I say keep that as part of a background or theme. Let 'em be that way if they want but don't force them, and keep the class (like all other classes) pure and without any style, profession or attitude trappings. (Anti)Paladin = weapon user who is bolstered by holy/unholy energy; Templar = knight of the church and paragon of goodness, for example.

peace,

Kannik

 

[jsaving]

Can we please have the Paladin be a crusading champion of virtue without using alignment mechanics?

I'm always surprised by the number of people who argue alignment should have no mechanical consequences except when their favored trope from editions past was alignment-specific. My view is, it is perfectly OK to have the paladin crusade against evil without requiring him to be LG or indeed any G. If a follower of Helm sees evil as the key threat to order, let him be a paladin who crusades against evil yet happens to be LN. If a follower of Selune sees evil as the key threat to art and creativity, let her be a paladin who crusades against evil yet happens to be CG. These individuals may not be "typical" followers of Helm or Selune, but that's fine -- it isn't as if a LG paladin of Tyr or Torm is "typical" either.

But how could a LN or CG paladin be an exemplar of chivalry? Well, chivalry is defined as courage against foes, loyalty to comrades, facility with arms, graciousness toward all, and the protection of those too weak to protect themselves. It doesn't have anything to do with key lawful concepts like following traditions, respecting rulers, or valuing social order over individual freedom. Indeed, one can make a pretty good case that being a paladin is about flouting traditions and rulers who won't toe the chivalrous line, and even freeing people from said traditions and rulers. So it's hard for me to see how a blanket LG alignment requirement for chivalrous characters makes much sense.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I'm always surprised by the number of people who argue alignment should have no mechanical consequences except when their favored trope from editions past was alignment-specific. My view is, it is perfectly OK to have the paladin crusade against evil without requiring him to be LG or indeed any G. If a follower of Helm sees evil as the key threat to order, let him be a paladin who crusades against evil yet happens to be LN. If a follower of Selune sees evil as the key threat to art and creativity, let her be a paladin who crusades against evil yet happens to be CG. These individuals may not be "typical" followers of Helm or Selune, but that's fine -- it isn't as if a LG paladin of Tyr or Torm is "typical" either.

But how could a LN or CG paladin be an exemplar of chivalry? Well, chivalry is defined as courage against foes, loyalty to comrades, facility with arms, graciousness toward all, and the protection of those too weak to protect themselves. It doesn't have anything to do with key lawful concepts like following traditions, respecting rulers, or valuing social order over individual freedom. Indeed, one can make a pretty good case that being a paladin is about flouting traditions and rulers who won't toe the chivalrous line, and even freeing people from said traditions and rulers. So it's hard for me to see how a blanket LG alignment requirement for chivalrous characters makes much sense.

if he's lawful neutral, he should crusade against Chaos. He is "neutral" on the good-evil scale. In theory, he wouldn't care about the good-evil divide.

 

[Quickleaf]

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'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."

I like both of these approaches - they resonate with how I think of a paladin.

Wouldn't mind seeing a return to the Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic division of paladins in BX Rules Cyclopedia at 1st level instead of name level; I would prefer the paladin be limited to good alignments like someone mentioned earlier.

 

[howandwhy99]

It's like if one rolls up a Paladin, then they feel they have to play it. I don't think that's the case. The Paladin is the most difficult class to play bar none, but for those who like it that's probably one of the reasons why.

That they are still so incoherent on why a Paladin is so very different from a Cleric makes me think they don't understand themselves. The Cleric is one of the core classes. It has an entire engine of the game devoted to engaging with just like magic and combat. The Paladin is a warrior who focuses on combat. They are a subclass of Fighter and ally with LG clerics in terms of their quests. However, their path is significantly different.

A Paladin is not really about her cool powers. She is greatly defined by the limited scope of action set forth in her Paladin's Code, something player defined with the assistance of the DM. She can take actions outside this scope, but she pays a steep and permanent penalty for doing so. In return for a more difficult game, she gets more benefits than many other classes. Like any class, all of these abilities are aimed at better enabling her at accomplishing her goals.

Without the alignment restriction and all the other strictures (representing a moral code) within which the player is exercising their fight against their enemy the Paladin is a significantly different class. I'd hesitate dearly from making it just another fighter, but with supernatural powers attributed to a deity. That's not even remotely the cleric, but I can read both classes as being currently understood that way at large.

EDIT:
My biggest issue with the Paladin is the same as with its nemesis of PC classes: the Assassin. Both tend towards solo play and a lot of moral situations that frequently lead to separations from the party. I know both classes can be played enjoyably, but their players should really step into these shoes with eyes wide open.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Yeah the paladin is, imo, an inappropriate class for old school sword & sorcery gold=xp 'Clark Ashton Smith-esque greedy treasure hunters getting their comeuppance' Gygaxian play. It's a lot more appropriate for the post-Gygax, PCs are the heroes, epic quest, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms-style D&D.

Mind you, the cleric is pretty inappropriate for the former style of play too, and he's been there since the beginning.

Holger from Three Hearts and Three Lions is an example of a Gygaxian, appendix N paladin.

 

[KidSnide]

A Paladin is not really about her cool powers. She is greatly defined by the limited scope of action set forth in her Paladin's Code, something player defined with the assistance of the DM. She can take actions outside this scope, but she pays a steep and permanent penalty for doing so. In return for a more difficult game, she gets more benefits than many other classes. Like any class, all of these abilities are aimed at better enabling her at accomplishing her goals.

Without the alignment restriction and all the other strictures (representing a moral code) within which the player is exercising their fight against their enemy the Paladin is a significantly different class. I'd hesitate dearly from making it just another fighter, but with supernatural powers attributed to a deity. That's not even remotely the cleric, but I can read both classes as being currently understood that way at large.

I think this is wrong in the details (alignment restrictions limit too much, as LG is just one example of a paladin), but right in the general concept. The paladin's commitment is the key story element that distinguishes a paladin from a fighter-cleric.

Of course, the commitment (or oath, or crusade, or other holy obligation) is far more about the concept than the mechanics. 50% of what a paladin does is tied up in being a pretty damn good warrior, and 25% of what a paladin does is tied up in divine powers that could probably be shared with the cleric class. (In the same way a ranger is 50% fighter and 25% skill-rogue.). The remaining quarter of the paladin is what makes the class unique, and it should be tied up with the paladin's commitment. In this way, the class is like the Champion from Arcana Unearthed, or the Cavalier from Essentials. The traditional Galahad powers would be tied to a traditional lawful good style commitment, but other types of commitments could be tied to other sets of thematically appropriate abilities.

Maybe paladins have commitments (not a good name, btw) in the same way that clerics and priests would have domains? Or, maybe a paladin gets a commitment and a domain, or gets to choose one or the other. Today's blog suggests that domains are themes, so it could be a wholly separate mechanic.

But to sum up - any divine class can smite or protect. It's the sacrifice, oath or commitment that makes a paladin different from the fighter or cleric.

-KS

 

[Sunseeker]

I think this is wrong in the details (alignment restrictions limit too much, as LG is just one example of a paladin), but right in the general concept. The paladin's commitment is the key story element that distinguishes a paladin from a fighter-cleric.

Of course, the commitment (or oath, or crusade, or other holy obligation) is far more about the concept than the mechanics. 50% of what a paladin does is tied up in being a pretty damn good warrior, and 25% of what a paladin does is tied up in divine powers that could probably be shared with the cleric class. (In the same way a ranger is 50% fighter and 25% skill-rogue.). The remaining quarter of the paladin is what makes the class unique, and it should be tied up with the paladin's commitment. In this way, the class is like the Champion from Arcana Unearthed, or the Cavalier from Essentials. The traditional Galahad powers would be tied to a traditional lawful good style commitment, but other types of commitments could be tied to other sets of thematically appropriate abilities.

Maybe paladins have commitments (not a good name, btw) in the same way that clerics and priests would have domains? Or, maybe a paladin gets a commitment and a domain, or gets to choose one or the other. Today's blog suggests that domains are themes, so it could be a wholly separate mechanic.

But to sum up - any divine class can smite or protect. It's the sacrifice, oath or commitment that makes a paladin different from the fighter or cleric.

-KS

I vote for calling Paladin "domains" "Vows". Lets say you get 4 "Vow Features", so then you can either select 4 Vows, so you could go Law/Justice/Peace/Order, and get one Vow feature from each one, or you could only make a Vow to say, Tyranny, and get 4 Vow Features from that single one.

Which Vows you have open to you would depend on your deity.
EX:
A Vow to Law means you are duty bound to stop lawbreakers.
A Vow to Justice means you must deliver them to a higher authority(ie: no killing of the unlawful).
A Vow to Peace would mean you do not break laws yourself.
A Vow to Order means you don't interfere in other people's business.

Tyranny vows may look something of the reverse.
Follow laws provided they advance you.
Use others to get what you need.
Kill those who stand in your way.
Oppress those who are too weak to stand up for themselves.

I dunno, no real mechanical things here, but certainly they help define what kind of "Crusader" you are. As long as you stick to your vows, you get to keep your deity-granted powers. If you break your vows, you must atone(in a flavorful manner), ie: if you make a Vow of Justice, and kill a criminal instead of taking them to the authorities, you can turn yourself in, and if the Magistrate decides you were justified, you are atoned. And of course, the degree and manner of killing would matter too.

Through this sort of system we would establish a cooperative narrative between the DM and the player. That way the player doesn't feel overly burdened to "always do the right thing" and the DM, taking the role of the player's chose deity, can decide in if the Vow-violation was justified.

I dunno, this thread is fun, I love Paladins.

 

[Blackwarder]

I vote that we take this "vow" or "quest" idea, fold it to a paper plane and send it out of the window.

I don't think that a mechanic like that would do any good to the game or to the class.

I think that paladins should be a warrior subclass with some extra bonuses and restrictures and that is able to cast a small amount of divine spells at later levels.

When I think about a paladin the first thing that comes to mind is the drawing of the knight with the two handed sword and full plate mail standing on a clif vs the dragon... I'll post it if I find it.

Warder

 

[Klaus]

Holger from Three Hearts and Three Lions is an example of a Gygaxian, appendix N paladin.

Quoted for emphasis.

Three Hearts & Three Lions has the original strong, charismatic, chaste paladin questing for a holy avenger atop a special mount to fight against the hordes of Chaos.

Plus the high elf, flaming weapon, swanmay, gnome and troll, but that's beside the point.

As others have mentioned, the Essentials Cavalier is a class that is very close to what I'd like to see in a Paladin class. The Virtues have different alignment restrictions, meaning you can broaden the scope of the Paladin class, and not have it be a strictly deity-worshipping class.