Blog: Paladin vs. Cleric, fight!

[Klaus]

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

This?

 

[am181d]

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.

Boo! Why on earth is that knight going to start casting spells at later level??? That has never made sense to me. If you want a knight to start casting spells at later level, they should multi-class into cleric.

I want a paladin class that strips out spellcasting and replaces it with specific, synergistic abilities that maintain the flavor of the class without requiring them to get all spellnerdy*.

Can somebody start a thread with a poll about whether paladins should be able to cast spells at later levels? (To be fair, maybe the options should be: never gets spells, gets spells at 1st level, gets spells at a later level.)

(*This is a real word, but it's only in the really big dictionaries.)

 

[Steely_Dan]

I've never been that keen on Paladins and Rangers casting spells, though being able to blap someone with a magic missile as a 1st Ed Ranger did have a certain panache.

 

[WheresMyD20]

It's interesting to note that the OD&D paladin wasn't able to cast spells or turn undead. Those abilites didn't show up until 1e. Even then, spellcasting was reserved for high-level (9+) paladins and was pretty limited. It was more of a nice little extra for high-level paladins rather than a significant source of power for the class. It wasn't until 3e that paladin spellcasting started at low/mid level (4th).

 

[Greg K]

Personally, I would rather see this handled by multiple classes

Paladin: Galahad, Percival, Bors, Lancelot (in some stories before his "fall"). Granted abilities simply by their faith and virtue

Holy Warrior (Green Ronin's Holy Warrior's Handbook): Divine warriors of good granted powers and spells directly by and customized to represent the deity they serve. Technically, the D&D Palaldin would fall here (and the Holy Warrior from Green Ronin could duplicate it. However, I would prefer the Paladin not cast spells, but gain abilities through faith and virtue.

(Note: while Green Ronin's Holy Warrior was supposed to be good, there is not reason it could not be expanded to neutral deities as well)

Unholy Warrior (Green Ronin's: Unholy Warrior): Evil divinely powered warriors who's granted powers and spells are customized to the demon, devil or evil deity it serves.

Cavalier (Green Ronin's Cavalier's Handbook): Lawful Non Divine powered knight that enforces a chivalric code (or its equivalent). Examples: Lancelot, Gawaine, Ivanhoe, Bowen from Dragonheart, Questing Knights, Samurai that uphold Bushido, etc.

Knight: The generic knight that does not uphold/enforce a chivalric code. This could just be a fighter with a theme.

 

[Sunseeker]

Personally, I would rather see this handled by multiple classes

Paladin: Galahad, Percival, Bors, Lancelot (in some stories before his "fall"). Granted abilities simply by their faith and virtue

Holy Warrior (Green Ronin's Holy Warrior's Handbook): Divine warriors of good granted powers and spells directly by and customized to represent the deity they serve. Technically, the D&D Palaldin would fall here (and the Holy Warrior from Green Ronin could duplicate it. However, I would prefer the Paladin not cast spells, but gain abilities through faith and virtue.

(Note: while Green Ronin's Holy Warrior was supposed to be good, there is not reason it could not be expanded to neutral deities as well)

Unholy Warrior (Green Ronin's: Unholy Warrior): Evil divinely powered warriors who's granted powers and spells are customized to the demon, devil or evil deity it serves.

Cavalier (Green Ronin's Cavalier's Handbook): Lawful Non Divine powered knight that enforces a chivalric code (or its equivalent). Examples: Lancelot, Gawaine, Ivanhoe, Bowen from Dragonheart, Questing Knights, Samurai that uphold Bushido, etc.

Knight: The generic knight that does not uphold/enforce a chivalric code. This could just be a fighter with a theme.

I'd rather not see half the book wasted on a bajillion different types of Paladins. Holy, Neutral and Unholy could all be compressed into "Divine Warrior", your alignment and your diety would just determine if you're good or evil. Cavaliet and Knight are basically the same, one just has a code and the other doesn't. If the code doesn't provide you any bonuses in the same way a divine-paladin would, it doesn't have any mechnical significance and might as well just be some cool fluff.

So we can really sum these all up as

"Divine Champion(I think it sounds cooler than warrior)" who has the more traditional trope of getting spell-like abilities through divine power.
"Knight": a non-divine fighter-variant(probably a good place for a Theme on top of Fighter)
"Paladin": most likely a flavorful variant of the divine champion.

So, really all we need is the Divine Champion, with a paladin theme and the Fighter with a knight theme.

 

[kevtar]

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).

You're right in that Lancelot wasn't a "Defender of the Faith," but it is generally accepted that he was granted his extraordinary skill due to his faith in God. As far as the adultery thing goes, the story of Arthur started out primarily as propaganda, but as the years went on, it became more romanticized and took on tragic tones. It was less about the "strength of a nation" and more about "the loss of a nation" (Lancelot falls, the table is forgotten, etc...).

[*and Christianity has interesting views on adultery depending on whether you're reading the old or new testament - but that's a topic for a different forum (;]

But I'm with you in that Paladin's shouldn't be priests. They shouldn't be the ones evangelizing and proselytizing - they should just be dedicated and, to borrow a religious term, perhaps "transfigured" through their dedication: a paragon of what they believe is good.

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.

I think of Galahad, Lancelot, and Charlemagne as well - but as the classic Paladin. These are the +5 Holy Avenger paladins with the aura of protection from evil (e.g. 1st ed AD&D). Don Quixote, is more of the latter version of a Paladin in that he isn't religious (far from it, in fact), but he was dedicated to an ideal. Jason could be a different kind of Paladin, one that is dedicated to a quest or even just the concept of "questing." His is a life of aspiring for the unachievable - so to speak.

I think all of these can fall under the category of a Paladin and could be expressed through different themes (either developed by the designers or by players and their DM). I think we just need a core Paladin that is flexible enough for players to accommodate those choices without losing a sense of verisimilitude in regard to the base, Paladin archetype. [/quote]

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.

I'm not crazy about Paladins casting spells, but I like the idea of them being able to do spell-like things or possess special abilities. For example, the "Galahad-esque" who is "righteous" may have the ability to receive revelation from his deity (augury, clairvoyance, divination, etc...). The "Don Quixote" type might be able to withstand more punishment than the typical warrior (e.g. endurance, resistance, or DR), or something along those lines.

 

[Blackwarder]

Boo! Why on earth is that knight going to start casting spells at later level??? That has never made sense to me. If you want a knight to start casting spells at later level, they should multi-class into cleric.

I want a paladin class that strips out spellcasting and replaces it with specific, synergistic abilities that maintain the flavor of the class without requiring them to get all spellnerdy*.

Can somebody start a thread with a poll about whether paladins should be able to cast spells at later levels? (To be fair, maybe the options should be: never gets spells, gets spells at 1st level, gets spells at a later level.)

(*This is a real word, but it's only in the really big dictionaries.)

Mainly to avoid bloating, I think that a paladin should be able to cast (pray) a limited number of specific spells. For example, protection form evil on his companions or bless, not the entire list of cleric spells.

I don't want the class to be bloated with special abilities that are exactly like existing spells.

Warder

 

[triqui]

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.

Pathfinder is free to add orders because they have their own world. D&D isn't free, because people will cry if WotC add fluff to their classes. If Mearls makes a "paladin of the order of the white rose" people will lynch him because there are no such order in "their" Forgotten, or Greyhawk or Dragonlance or homebrewn campaign.

Pathfinder is allowed much more freedom, because it is not bound by past and tradition. D&D has a much higher amount of restrictions. For example, it's almost impossible for D&D to include a pistoleeer like Paizo did with the Gunslinger.

 

[jsaving]

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.

This is where I disagree. Having a paladin that crusades against "people who aren't like me" dilutes the class beyond the point where it's useful, in my view at least. If there's a reason to have paladins in a 3e-style-multiclassing game at all, rather than simply having them be fighter/clerics, it's because all paladins in every game are united by a common core of chivalry -- courage against the strong, respect toward the weak, and the martial skill to effectively carry out both of these charges.

My only point is that defining the paladin as a chivalrous crusader against evil doesn't imply any particular alignment. You're surely right that the typical LN character won't see paladin as a particularly attractive career choice, because he'll view chaos as the more important foe. But there's plenty of precedent in 3e for guys like Helm, for example, to see evil as worth smiting because it's inherently corrosive to Law. To be sure, there isn't anything in the 3e alignment chapter to say this is "correct," and it isn't going to be an idea with which most LN character will agree. But if a LN character does happen to agree, and is willing to live in a chivalrous way, I don't see a need for the 5e ruleset to automatically tell him "no".