Iconic D&D Clerics (Blog)

[TwinBahamut]

Here's a question I've been meaning to ask:

What is the thematic/story difference between a paladin and a cleric? Aren't these both essentially holy warriors?

I know this question has been answered already by a few people, but it is an interesting one that I felt like answering too.

For me, a Paladin and a Cleric are very different concepts. The Cleric is defined at its very core by being a member of the clergy, but that idea is not at all a part of the Paladin. The Cleric is an intellectual who studies in order to lead a holy life, but the Paladin is more a warrior who lives a holy life without even needing someone to guide them on that path. The Cleric studies divine teachings in order to become more good, but the Paladin is naturally good. The Cleric's powers come from study and diligence (really not that different from a Wizard's), but the Paladin's powers are holy blessings that arise from their natural goodness. The Cleric serves a community as an intermediary between people and gods, and the Paladin is the "chosen hero" selected by the gods to undertake holy quests.

Overall, I think a Paladin's powers should represent that idea of "innate holiness". Evil powers dissipate upon contact with a Paladin leaving them unharmed, and they serve as a "shield of light" to protect their allies from evil effects. Their swords (and other weapons) shine brightly to smite foes with punishing attacks. They heal, bot not necessarily through spells. They have innate divine powers, but are not spellcasters who gain abilities through acquired knowledge.

On the other hand, Clerics are spellcasters who gain abilities through acquired knowledge. They learn rituals and doctrines as part of their religious duties, and use this knowledge to cast protective spells. They are magic-users, different from Wizards only in the nature of the spells they use. They offer up praise and offerings to the gods, and receive divine power in return. Armor and weapons are an option for them, but I don't think it is essential to the class.

In addition to Paladins and Clerics, there are two more really strong archetypes of divine class relevant to this discussion.

One would be the monk, the regular clergy different from the secular clergy embodied by the Cleric. Unlike the Cleric, who acts as the intermediary between their community and the gods, the monk simply seeks personal holiness and a life dedicated to praising the gods. This leans towards a mix of the "innate holiness" of the Paladin and the knowledge of the Cleric, but lacking in the physical discipline and heroism of the former and the social role of the latter. This, of course, is somewhat separate from the basic concept of the classic Monk class, but is still somewhat connected...

The other archetype is the prophet who conveys the direct will of the gods, embodied by figures like Moses or by the Invoker class in 4E. This kind of character is aided by true miracles and calls down angels to help him and his allies. Basically, it is the other sort of "divine calling" than the Paladin archetype...

In summary, the Cleric is the secular clergy, the monk/cloistered cleric is the regular clergy, the Paladin is the saintly warrior, and the Invoker is the saintly prophet.

To bring this all back to mechanics and the original article, I'll say that I don't think a Cleric/Priest split really works. You need to define one or the other more clearly than that to properly differentiate them. A Cleric/Invoker split works better. A cleric doesn't need to have heavy armor for its concept, but I think it works fine to leave it in as a domain benefit or some other choice with opportunity costs. After all, "wearing armor or not" is a fairly trivial character concept difference, so it shouldn't be the key thing to separate two different classes. A Fighter who doesn't wear armor is still a Fighter, after all.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Bruce Cordell's last blog post about clerics for a while, and whether they should be split up into mace-wielding and armored iconic cleric, and robe wearing divine caster priest.

Isn't the latter hella similar to the wizard?

That said, if there was any class in the game I felt had outstayed its welcome, it would be clerics. They're just weird, lacking in literary precedent and only keep going thru weight of tradition.

My choice for core classes would be fighter, rogue and wizard, except my wizard is really a sorcerer. The sorcerer lets you make any sort of caster you want - healer, enchantress, necromancer, shapeshifter, elementalist, oracle, Tim the Enchanter - if you give them access to all spell lists, but each instance of the class is flavorful because the number of spells known is quite limited.

You can make all the other classes by sub- or multiclassing the base three. Paladin is a subclass of fighter with some cool magic powers, though no spellcasting (that was always a crap idea imho). Barbarians are fighters with rage. Bards are rogue/wizards. You can even make a cleric if you really want to, they're fighter/wizards just like they've always been. But you shouldn't, because they're weird.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=21169]Doug McCrae[/MENTION]
I do remember Lè Morte d'Arthur as well as The Once and Future King having holy hermits who heal badly wounded knights over a few days. Not instant healing but pretty close. Though they were just bit roles.

Maybe you're right that the cleric as we know it should get the axe (or the mace). IIRC the literary underpinnings for the class were Templars, which seems to have been subsumed by paladins.

 

[Doug McCrae]

A cleric doesn't need to have heavy armor for its concept, but I think it works fine to leave it in as a domain benefit or some other choice with opportunity costs. After all, "wearing armor or not" is a fairly trivial character concept difference, so it shouldn't be the key thing to separate two different classes. A Fighter who doesn't wear armor is still a Fighter, after all.

And yet, throughout D&D's history, armour worn and weapons used have been of fundamental importance in defining classes. 3e may be somewhat of an outlier here, but it's very much the case in OD&D, 1e, 2e and 4e.

I think I know why, too. It's all because of D&D's roots in the medieval wargame, Chainmail. Equipment is key to defining troop types on the battlefield - heavy infantry, light infantry, archers, cavalry, etc. That concept hung around into OD&D, even though all of the troops on the Chainmail battlefield were technically the Fighting Man class in OD&D terms.

 

[Gundark]

I liked the idea of a cleric and a priest being separate classes. Won't be core though.

 

[TwinBahamut]

And yet, throughout D&D's history, armour worn and weapons used have been of fundamental importance in defining classes. 3e may be somewhat of an outlier here, but it's very much the case in OD&D, 1e, 2e and 4e.

I think I know why, too. It's all because of D&D's roots in the medieval wargame, Chainmail. Equipment is key to defining troop types on the battlefield - heavy infantry, light infantry, archers, cavalry, etc. That concept hung around into OD&D, even though all of the troops on the Chainmail battlefield were technically the Fighting Man class in OD&D terms.

I think the lack of armor or not is only a defining class trait for older editions because older editions simply didn't have major mechanics that defined classes other than spellcasting or equipment choice. In a game more in the mold of 3E or 4E, where classes are better defined by their class abilities than their equipment (and and lack of equipment is easily remedied by feats), then equipment limitations are much more minor.

Put differently, two random 4E classes (such as, say the Warden and the Fighter) would be very, very different classes even if they did not have any equipment choice differences. Two characters of the same 4E class would be quite similar in basic ability, even if they had very different types of equipment.

In general, I think equipment choice is something that should be an option that should be made in addition to class choice in many cases, not merely as a product of class choice. This is partially why I favor a removal of the strictly tiered armor system (an opportunity cost armor system would be better) and a movement towards weapon choice having more impact. But that is a different topic.

 

[KesselZero]

Forex, let's say all these classes ware generalists who have an option to slightly specialize. Your fighter can be slightly better with swords than with axes if he wants, but he's better with both than anyone else is. Your wizard can be slightly better at illusion than abjuration, but she's still better with both than anyone else is. Your rogue might be better at sneaking than at lock-picking, but she's still better at both than anyone else is. Your cleric might be better at healing than at calling down divine fire, but he's still great at both.

This whole post is a great description of exactly what I want. I don't like classes being pigeonholed into one specific role, and the huge proliferation of weird niche classes that that creates. I would XP ya but I can't.

EDIT: I should add that I was also very much agreeing with the whole subclass/optional specialization part. I just didn't want to quote the whole dang post.

 

[Leatherhead]

Isn't the latter hella similar to the wizard?

Yes, it is. In it reminds me most of the black mage/ white mage split in final fantasy games. Two generic casters who cast black magic or white magic respectively. At that point I though, I think the classes are a bit too generic to stand as full classes in their own right.

That said, if there was any class in the game I felt had outstayed its welcome, it would be clerics. They're just weird, lacking in literary precedent and only keep going thru weight of tradition.

Heck, the entire concept of a "combat healer" role is arbitrary and possibly outdated. Just change the pacing of combat a bit and let the paladin cover some healing with an out of combat miracle or two. Then you have the holy warrior archetype up and running full speed.

I, for one, would love to see clerics codified as exorcists and anti-supernatural combatants. It would finally give them a niche

 

[Hassassin]

For me, a Paladin and a Cleric are very different concepts. The Cleric is defined at its very core by being a member of the clergy, but that idea is not at all a part of the Paladin. The Cleric is an intellectual who studies in order to lead a holy life, but the Paladin is more a warrior who lives a holy life without even needing someone to guide them on that path.

Heh, that's almost exactly the opposite of what I think the classes represent.

Paladins are always a part of one of their deity's Orders. Even when they are traveling without contact with their church, they have a place in the rigid hierarchy, superiors they would theoretically have to answer to etc.

A cleric, OTOH, can be any ordained (or not, depending on god) character. They often find remote villages where they live their lives protecting it from minor threats and acting as a healer. They can even be expelled from the formal structure of their church (that depending on the deity might not even exist) and still practice their trade as long as the god approves.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

See, Paladins started out as a very specific case of a combat-heavy, lawful good, reduced magic Cleric. They became more generic, and frankly rather vague, in 4th Edition.

This is a golden opportunity to make the distinction clear. Either Paladins fight for their gods or they fight for some metaphysical concept (Good, Evil, Quantum Physics..). If they fight for their gods, then they are the warriors and clerics/priests are not.

(Sidenote: even a priest of peace and love might want a warrior, to destroy undead for instance, but might impose a nonlethal rule on their activities).

I prefer Paladins of Gods. Both they and Clerics are therefore God-influenced, not generic. Clerics are less combative, and although a God of War might have battle-ready Clerics, they would have brutal Paladins.