D&D 5E Faith and oaths

[Blue]

Thinking back about all of the character portrayals and stories I've seen in over 30 years playing, paladins are almost always considered extremely strong and narrow in their faith - many could be considered zealots. There are tales of non-traditional paladins, but those tales are notable mostly because how much they go against the grain.

On the other hand, I've seen clerics all over the spectrum, from that paladin-like devotion to fairly laid back.

These are both chosen of their church and god, given the power to perform miracles for their deity. So why do we see such a cluster of paladin at "outspokenly and sternly pious" but see clerics all over the axis from that to "quietly spiritual who shows through actions not proselytizing". Is it just a matter of the archetypes that we've come to expect? Is it that for many editions clerics were "needed" so hand to be approachable from more RP directions, while there are plenty of positions in the paladin design space so you'll only play one if you want that hard-core oath action?

 

[jaelis]

My recollection was that the 1st edition rules specifically required paladins to be narrowly and zealously lawful good. Clerics never had such a requirement.

 

[Ath'kethin]

The cleric class is much older than the paladin, and I think that plays into it. Original D&D had no gods at all, so a cleric was basically a religiously unaffiliated healbot.

Paladins, once introduced, were described as (and required to be) zealots.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

3E and Pathfinder both require paladins to be lawful good, but Pathfinder allows a lot of leeway in what that means; even the paladin oath by deity varies quite a bit.

5E doesn't seem to have that requirement.

I think if it's showing up in 5E, it's mostly an artifact of prior editions.

 

[Nevvur]

Let's be honest here. It's because people who play paladins lack imagination.

 

[jaelis]

Let's be honest here. It's because people who play paladins lack imagination.

Compared to people who play clerics?

 

[Sacrosanct]

My recollection was that the 1st edition rules specifically required paladins to be narrowly and zealously lawful good. Clerics never had such a requirement.

Actually, they kinda did. If you read the spell section, clerics had to be pretty devoutful in order to even have their spells granted. Sure, most players ignored that, but RAW, it was there.

 

[Azzy]

I think it has a lot to do with seeing clerics through the lens of the real world—where priests, pastors, rabbis, highly religious lay people, etc. (especially in modern times) run the gamut of being extremely uptight and intolerant to far more laid back and accepting. Whereas paladins are often equated with crusaders and other (typically self-righteous) zealots.

Personally, I always try to keep the cleric or paladin's deity/religion in mind before deciding how they act towards others.