Blog: Paladin vs. Cleric, fight!

[variant]

Historically paladins were holy warriors during the Crusades. They were knights, but much more than that. If you want a plain knight, then make a Knight class, but a Paladin in D&D has always been a holy warrior and should remain so.

 

[Andor]

Historically paladins were holy warriors during the Crusades. They were knights, but much more than that. If you want a plain knight, then make a Knight class, but a Paladin in D&D has always been a holy warrior and should remain so.

Meh. Historically all european knights were supposed to be holy warriors. That's why they sat in vigil in a chapel overnight before being granted their arms. The famous Knightly orders were also Monastic religious orders. Piety was considered a principle knightly virtue, right up there with strength and courage. Also historically the holiness was observed far more often in the breach than in the execution. The crusaders were not a lovely group of people.

Mounted noble warriors in other societies, Samurai or Parthians for example did not have the same religious connotations to their profession, but would you consider them Knights?

 

[am181d]

Historically paladins were holy warriors during the Crusades. They were knights, but much more than that. If you want a plain knight, then make a Knight class, but a Paladin in D&D has always been a holy warrior and should remain so.

Well, historically paladins didn't exist. "Paladin" is a term that was invented after the fact and first applied to the legendary knights of Charlemagne. They were "holy" in the sense that they were Christian, but not in that they had any supernatural powers.

Given that paladins in D&D have never been Christian knights WITHOUT supernatural powers, I don't know that this approach to defining paladins in D&D is really helpful.

You'll note that Dictionary.com gives three definitions for paladin:

1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.
2. any knightly or heroic champion.
3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.

#1 gives us a historical context. #2 is pretty broad but reintroduces the "knightly" meme. And #3 is very similar to what a lot of us have been advocating. When taken as a whole "knights who commit their allegiance to a particular cause" is a pretty faithful summation of the real world meaning of the word paladin.

That's why I advocating BROADENING the way that paladin is presented in 5e to allow for a range of "knights who commit their allegiance to a particular cause" INCLUDING the traditional God-worshipping paladin.

 

[GM Dave]

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.

Huh?

There are plenty of orders in Dragonlance, Greyhawk, and Forgotten Realms. There are even rules specifying how these orders are different from each other.

Greyhawk has orders going back to OD&D.

Dragonlance has orders going back 1st ed DnD.

If you look at back issues of Dragon magazine there was usually one issue a year that covered 'Paladin Orders' (or equivalents) for various settings in the game.

Further to this;

Something not being in the game 'before' has never stopped the designers from adding in something to the game or settings.

Priests did not have spheres and they designers created spheres for 2ed. They then created Domains for 3ed. Areas of influence was used in 4th ed.

4th ed even had two versions of the Paladin with the essentials version having different 'Vows' which is really the 'Order' idea expressed with a different word choice.

-----------------

Here is a book dedicated to Knightly Orders in Dragonlance.

Dragonlance Knightly Orders of Ansalon by Sean Everette - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

 

[Lwaxy]

Paladin's shouldn't be priests. They shouldn't be the ones evangelizing and proselytizing

And there I disagree. I love that the paladin is a mix between cleric and knight without the need for multiclassing.

 

[Dausuul]

I agree that there is a real danger of the paladin and cleric stepping on one another's toes. However, it's a mistake to focus on how the paladin can respect the cleric's boundaries. The cleric is the one who needs to respect the paladin.

Paladins have a shtick; they are holy warriors, heavily armed and armored, smiting evil in the name of their faith. That's a good solid concept for a class. It's not too big, it's not too small. The paladin stands alongside the fighter in the front line, but it's not hard to keep the two distinct.

Clerics, however, are a mashup. On the one hand, they are priests channeling their gods. On the other hand, they are armored warriors fighting in the front lines. The former is a strong concept in its own right, but the latter is muscling in on the paladin's turf.

I think the solution is for the cleric to put "priest channeling my god" foremost, and let front-line combat be secondary. It should be quite feasible to play a cleric who doesn't wear armor and never touches a weapon except to pull it out of some hapless fighter's innards. If you want to wear armor and bash heads, that's an option, but the class is not built on the expectation that you'll do that.

 

[Andor]

Clerics, however, are a mashup. On the one hand, they are priests channeling their gods. On the other hand, they are armored warriors fighting in the front lines. The former is a strong concept in its own right, but the latter is muscling in on the paladin's turf.

I think the way they are doing it is that Clerics might be able to step up a swing a sword with the best, but they will not have access to the martial manuevers system. So while they might hit as hard as a fighter, they won't be doing trips, disarms, multiple attacks or shoving people around the field with shield bashes, they just don't have the dedicated training to do it.

Paladins otoh will have access to the MM system, although a step behind the fighter as the price they pay for their mystic powers and poképony.

 

[Glade Riven]

"In brightest day, in blackest night,
no evil shall escape my sight!
Let those who worship evil's might,
beware my power.. Green Lantern's Pelor's light!"

Yep, that would work.

I'm fine with having Paladin disjunctioned from an alignment al la 4e, but still having to live by an appropriate code. Also, what worked well for a 3.5 campaign I played in was replacing Paladin spells (and another unused feature or two) with the Crusader's (Bo9S) martial maneuvers. On paper, it seemed it might be over-powered, but in practice it worked surprisingly well and balanced.

Oh, right, some people here hate Bo9S because a lot of the concepts were used for 4e. Well, you know what? I want the option. Players choose minor spellcasting or divine-charged martial maneuvers/powers. Smite already sets precedence, along with other, lesser paladin powers.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think the way they are doing it is that Clerics might be able to step up a swing a sword with the best, but they will not have access to the martial manuevers system. So while they might hit as hard as a fighter, they won't be doing trips, disarms, multiple attacks or shoving people around the field with shield bashes, they just don't have the dedicated training to do it.

Paladins otoh will have access to the MM system, although a step behind the fighter as the price they pay for their mystic powers and poképony.

I'm atlas concerned that we're not going to see a significant improment to the maneuvers system. On its own, maneuvers just aren't that great. "Controllers" have better effects, its what they're designed to do. So continuing to let the cleric not only step on the paladins toes, but the fighters as well, I think is dangerous to design. In 3e and to some extent 4e, the cleric is literally the every class. They can heal, they can defend, they can strike, they can cast with the best of them. Diversity in a class is good, but the incredibly wide design space of the cleric really runs the risk of making the game "Dungeons & Clerics."

 

[I'm A Banana]

"Controllers" have better effects, its what they're designed to do.

Within the timescale of an entire adventure, you can have the "better effect" happen once and be better, while the fighter is having their "lesser effect" every turn they have, all day long, in every combat that they're in.