|
|
Post by librarylass on Aug 13, 2013 0:09:11 GMT -6
Those of you that use them, that is. Let's face it, they're pretty similar archetypes. This is something I tend to get a bit of a block on, so I'd like to hear your thoughts on how they're different. Flippant answers like "Paladins get to use swords and have a mount", while technically accurate, are not what I'm looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Aug 13, 2013 1:03:20 GMT -6
For me, Paladins are not centered around the religious element; they are increase fundamentally based on the principles of Law. The paladin is an instrument of law to fight back against the chaotic legions.
The cleric on the other hand, receives blessings and spells from a deity or pantheon in exchange for worship and vows/rites of devotion. They may follow the principles of Law, but more because their patron God or Goddess will it than because of these principles in and of themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by librarylass on Aug 13, 2013 1:26:58 GMT -6
For me, Paladins are not centered around the religious element; they are increase fundamentally based on the principles of Law. The paladin is an instrument of law to fight back against the chaotic legions. The cleric on the other hand, receives blessings and spells from a deity or pantheon in exchange for worship and vows/rites of devotion. They may follow the principles of Law, but more because their patron God or Goddess will it than because of these principles in and of themselves. That's interesting, but to me it raises the question of what's causing them to have the special abilities they have. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 13, 2013 6:04:24 GMT -6
For the cleric, I tend to think about Friar Tuck from the Robin Hood stories. Or VanHelsing from Dracula, where he hunts the vampire with cross in one hand and wooden stake in the other. Or one of those guys from The Omen who do a ritual to exorcise demons from possessed people. They can fight, but their principal role is not combative.
Paladins, to me, are King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Clad in shining platemail with a heraldric shield and great sword, riding a huge metal-clad war horse, perhaps jousting before the king, and maybe trying to slay a few dragons and rescue a few damsels.
Paladins are all about attack in the name of all that is Holy and smiting that which is not. Clerics are about healing the sick and defending them against bad things.
Just my two coppers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Aug 13, 2013 6:42:05 GMT -6
For the clerics, I would add the Prophets of the Ancient Testament in the mix for good measure(the Cecil B. DeMille version).
And, yes, the paladin is more a Knight of Honor and not a servant of (the) God(s).
He can, of course, have a special devotion to some kind of patron, be he Hieroneous, or Sir Huma, or St Georges; but that is because this holy patron port-folio coincidates with the values of Law and Honor that the paladin follows; not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 13, 2013 6:54:27 GMT -6
Paladins are knights a la Holger Carlson from Three Hearts and Three Lions. They are concerned with honor, doing good, and fighting for the side of Law. They are naturally associated with the church, the main institution of Law, but they are not holy.
Clerics are monster hunters a la Abraham Van Helsing from Dracula, wrapped in a medieval crusader package, with rank in the church. They are less focused in their goals than paladins and can use any means allowed to their alignment. They are not primarily priests; they are holy warriors.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Aug 13, 2013 8:28:31 GMT -6
The Greyhawk Paladin is not a spellcaster. They have a weak healing ability, a cure and resist disease ability, and at Superhero level, can dispel evil.
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Aug 13, 2013 11:37:06 GMT -6
I've always considered paladins the muscle of a religion and the clerics the heart. The former do battle with and smite the enemies of the church/religion/deity he serves, while the cleric tends to those injured by such enemies. Blurring the two is what tends to confuse the issue, which is why I do not like the concept of clerics as "holy warriors" nor paladins as just "knights with a purpose".
|
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 13, 2013 11:54:47 GMT -6
There was a thread about this somewhere else... perhaps STory Games, and I think one of the dudes from Mule Abides posted a bit about it there. The general idea was that paladins and clerics really are the same thing. Some folks argued that the cleric was probably unpopular from the beginning (using the favorable XP progression, and other powers to claim that people had to be bribed to be clerics), and that eventually the cooler paladin was introduced. In practice, the paladin has become sort of a cleric/fighter multi-class, but it's sort of weird because the cleric is already a fighting class, capable of wearing armor, taking similar damage to the fighter, having a similar to hit progression, and so on. I guess the main thing is that clerics can't use swords (if you do a WaysoftheEarth style analysis, you might come up with some other interesting details). That has grated on people for a long time, and I think the paladin is one answer to that problem. Considering a lot of the inspiration for the cleric, it seems that the paladin is really a pretty good answer, but we don't treat it that way because it comes across as imbalanced; you either have to tone down the fighty side of the paladin or the cleric side of the cleric.
In the end, I don't find any of the cleric/paladin stuff convincing, so I generally don't have clerics in my game. Paladins are fighters that act like paladins. Priests are fighters or magic users or combinations of the two that act like priests. Mechanical complexity ends up getting you into nonsensical situations.
My own take, trying to take the game literally, is that paladins and clerics are really the same basic thing, but one emphasizes weaponry more than miracles, and the other emphasizes miracles more than weaponry. It's hard to take the game literally, because I can't understand why:
1) clerics don't want to shed blood, but they will use a mace, which is a horribly brutal weapon.
2) why all gods seem to grant the same powers to their clerics. Why wouldn't some gods give their clerics the power to blow things up and encourage them to use swords or scythes or bows and arrows? So you are a cleric of Satan? Here is your mace and plate armor, and your cure light wounds spell. Enjoy!
3) Why magic must be divided into arcane and divine; why magic users can't heal people and turn the undead, etc.
And so on.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Aug 13, 2013 12:12:28 GMT -6
For me, Paladins are not centered around the religious element; they are increase fundamentally based on the principles of Law. The paladin is an instrument of law to fight back against the chaotic legions. The cleric on the other hand, receives blessings and spells from a deity or pantheon in exchange for worship and vows/rites of devotion. They may follow the principles of Law, but more because their patron God or Goddess will it than because of these principles in and of themselves. Pretty much my opinion, except that, while Paladins are aligned with Law, I don't interpret them as getting powers from or being commanded by Law; instead, they treat Law as the ideal and tailor their actions to meet that ideal. Also, I don't interpret a Cleric's powers as coming from an outside source at all, but the Cleric does. That's interesting, but to me it raises the question of what's causing them to have the special abilities they have. Faith. Actually, that's my explanation for where Clerics get their powers, too, but for Paladins, it's explicitly their conviction that they are doing what's right that enables them to heal others and drive out evil. Which is why, if they are obviously not living up to the standards of a paladin, they lose their powers; their actions prove that they don't really believe. |
|
|
|
Post by librarylass on Aug 13, 2013 12:27:07 GMT -6
For me, Paladins are not centered around the religious element; they are increase fundamentally based on the principles of Law. The paladin is an instrument of law to fight back against the chaotic legions. The cleric on the other hand, receives blessings and spells from a deity or pantheon in exchange for worship and vows/rites of devotion. They may follow the principles of Law, but more because their patron God or Goddess will it than because of these principles in and of themselves. Pretty much my opinion, except that, while Paladins are aligned with Law, I don't interpret them as getting powers from or being commanded by Law; instead, they treat Law as the ideal and tailor their actions to meet that ideal. Also, I don't interpret a Cleric's powers as coming from an outside source at all, but the Cleric does. That's interesting, but to me it raises the question of what's causing them to have the special abilities they have. Faith. Actually, that's my explanation for where Clerics get their powers, too, but for Paladins, it's explicitly their conviction that they are doing what's right that enables them to heal others and drive out evil. Which is why, if they are obviously not living up to the standards of a paladin, they lose their powers; their actions prove that they don't really believe. Hm. Works for me, but what about the sort of arrogant type that has obviously strayed from the path of Law/Good, ala Miko from Order of the Stick? |
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Aug 13, 2013 14:33:12 GMT -6
I think the archetypes (or quasi-archetype for the cleric) here resist any attempt to distinguish "devoted to Law" and "divine power" quite simply because these are basically Medieval Christian archetypes. That is, both classes evoke something of a Christian world-view, however much they have departed from that over the history of the game. The cleric's power is clearly evocative of miracles from the Bible and the lives of the saints, and while his precise power to turn the undead has a Hammer horror vibe to it, the power to drive off evil and unclean spirits is also part of this same Biblical/hagiographical lore. Don't forget that there were no "holy symbols" in the old equipment lists, only crosses (and vampires, specifically, are held at bay by crosses, not generic "holy symbols"; in Holmes' Basic it is explicitly stated that the cross is "sovereign against" vampires "regardless of religious background", and in the AD&D Monster Manual, while "holy symbols" are mentioned in talking about the vampire, one of the ways to kill it is explicitly Christian, indeed Catholic: If a wooden stake is driven through a vampire‘s heart it is killed, but only for so long as the stake remains; to finish this task the vampire‘s head must also be cut off and its mouth filled with holy wafers.)
The paladin for his part is the flowering of chivalry, and as such, he is pious, devoted to God and King. The name may be from the Matter of France, but the archetype (with the eventual power to dispel evil or cure wounds) is decidedly Arthurian, seen especially in Galahad.
The point, however, is that Law, the right order of things, just is equatable with fidelity to God on this view. One cannot, on even the "fairy tale Christianity" view of things, be for Law rather than for God, or more than for God. To stand with right, justice, the king, Arthur or Charlemagne, courtesy, fair play, and the rest just means to stand for God, for righteousness, for mercy and all that is holy. On the other side stand Hell and Faerie, barbarism, the Paynim, and heathendom, i.e. Chaos. The paladin's source of power is thus not simply because he has chosen a side, as though the two sides are equal, neither more right than the other. He has chosen the right side, as evidenced by the graces he enjoys.
So, a cleric is, more or less, a saint in the manner of the judges of the Old Testament, or tough-as-nails prophets like Elijah and Elisha. The paladin is a man who, so devoted to chivalry, is thus also devoted to God.
What you do with these archetypes outside of pseudo-Christianity is less than clear to me. Neither the cleric nor the paladin as such is a great match for the eventual D&D-style polytheism that emerged over the years, and the lack of that fit is seen in the varied attempts for, e.g. cleric spells, weapons, granted powers, etc. to be adjusted to match various gods and the desire by some to have "paladins" of each alignment.
If I didn't want a (pseudo-)Christianity in my D&D, I probably would not use paladins or clerics, but your mileage may vary, of course!
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Aug 13, 2013 21:04:48 GMT -6
In campaigns I've played in, the cleric - which nobody wanted to play as - was mostly a healer. Most of the people I played with (this would be back in the 2e days) opted for weapons and armor themed to match their deity; I remember an elf cleric who worshiped a nature-god and wore leather armor and wielded a bow - it seemed to fit. The idea of a cleric in plate armor armed with a mace must have been roundly unappealing to a bunch of teenagers in the 90s.
The paladin - which everybody wanted to play as - was a knight dedicated to a deity (and, more to the point, dedicated to kicking butt). They presented a much more inviting vehicle for the unabashed power-mongering that characterized those 2e games. Deciding to play a paladin basically meant signing up for the 10k race to unearth a Holy Avenger or die trying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 13, 2013 21:35:35 GMT -6
In campaigns I've played in, the cleric - which nobody wanted to play as - was mostly a healer. No one wants to be the ex hospitaller knight turned vampire hunter? I think the cleric's arsenal of crosses, flails, and silver stakes is just about the most badass a class can get. Anyone who plays the cleric as a goody two shoes healer instead of a demon-slaying fanatical chaplain hasn't been reading enough dark fantasy. |
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Aug 14, 2013 7:10:57 GMT -6
In campaigns I've played in, the cleric - which nobody wanted to play as - was mostly a healer. No one wants to be the ex hospitaller knight turned vampire hunter? I think the cleric's arsenal of crosses, flails, and silver stakes is just about the most badass a class can get. Anyone who plays the cleric as a goody two shoes healer instead of a demon-slaying fanatical chaplain hasn't been reading enough dark fantasy. ...well then, I guess me and my 14-year-old friends hadn't been reading enough dark fantasy. We were pretty busy with school. |
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Aug 14, 2013 10:53:49 GMT -6
When I started to DM, I was eleven years-old, and my players were my cousin and my little sister. Most adventures I designed were solo adventures.
Cleric was very popular because of the "auto-heal" (I realise now that I was a little stingy with the potions)
Edit: I might add Chaotic clerics were popular
|
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 14, 2013 11:44:49 GMT -6
I'm always interested in the folks that always liked clerics, even from an early age (like Porphyre). My gaming history is the opposite; no one ever wanted to play clerics, or paladins for that matter. Play good healy/holy/righteous types? Nah... We want to play thieves and bad-A warriors! That's how my players saw it. Personally, as a youngster I was a pretty serious Christian (atheist now), and I really dug the paladin. Never cared for the cleric though. I remember when I was 12, basically strong-arming one of my players into being the paladin. Later on (when he had a free-choice!) he always played thieves.
To once again address the original post, hopefully more clearly this time, I'll say that I truly don't understand the difference between the cleric and paladin outside of rules-discussions.
|
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Aug 14, 2013 12:42:38 GMT -6
I'm always interested in the folks that always liked clerics, even from an early age (like Porphyre). My gaming history is the opposite; no one ever wanted to play clerics, or paladins for that matter. Play good healy/holy/righteous types? Nah... We want to play thieves and bad-A warriors! That's how my players saw it. Personally, as a youngster I was a pretty serious Christian (atheist now), and I really dug the paladin. Never cared for the cleric though. I remember when I was 12, basically strong-arming one of my players into being the paladin. Later on (when he had a free-choice!) he always played thieves. To once again address the original post, hopefully more clearly this time, I'll say that I truly don't understand the difference between the cleric and paladin outside of rules-discussions. I think this is one of those great divides of the D&D world! I loved clerics from my first game in 1977, and it wasn't because I could heal. Admittedly, I rolled really well for a cleric (Wisdom of 15, Charisma of 17 --- we had Holmes, so no paladins!), but the idea of an adventurer who could work miracles and drive off evil was, to me at any rate, really cool. Different strokes... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2013 0:16:15 GMT -6
Paladins are knights a la Holger Carlson from Three Hearts and Three Lions. They are concerned with honor, doing good, and fighting for the side of Law. They are naturally associated with the church, the main institution of Law, but they are not holy. Clerics are monster hunters a la Abraham Van Helsing from Dracula, wrapped in a medieval crusader package, with rank in the church. They are less focused in their goals than paladins and can use any means allowed to their alignment. They are not primarily priests; they are holy warriors. This. The Cleric was invented so Sir Fang didn't take over Blackmoor. It started as a "Vampire Hunter" and then other things that the game needed were added on until it looked vaguely more like a priest than Peter Cushing. The Greyhawk Paladin is not a spellcaster. They have a weak healing ability, a cure and resist disease ability, and at Superhero level, can dispel evil. And this. A Paladin is a fighter with some added abilities. To these aged eyes, the Cleric and the Paladin look virtually nothing like one another. I assume this must have changed in later editions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2013 0:18:33 GMT -6
Clerics were pretty popular in Greyhawk, mostly because you got your stronghold earlier than anybody else.
|
|
|
|
Post by librarylass on Aug 15, 2013 3:13:49 GMT -6
And this. A Paladin is a fighter with some added abilities. To these aged eyes, the Cleric and the Paladin look virtually nothing like one another. I assume this must have changed in later editions. I don't know. In some respects. Please, go on, because I think my answer may well be locked in your vision of them. How do those classes look to you, respectively? |
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Aug 15, 2013 5:37:50 GMT -6
To these aged eyes, the Cleric and the Paladin look virtually nothing like one another. I assume this must have changed in later editions. Yes this happened in first edition. The OD&D paladin makes much more sense. |
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Aug 15, 2013 7:58:58 GMT -6
I honestly hadn't really given this much thought, but the conversation got me thinking. While on the surface the paladin and cleric look similar it is the intent of the class that varies. Clerics are direct intermediaries with their gods. Paladins are not, though they are granted some divine given powers as they progress. Clerics are the immediate eyes and ears of their deity on the material plane. They intercede for those who suffer on behalf of their deity. Paladins may or may not be members of a clerical order. Clerics are taught to be clerics, while paladins may or may not be trained by a clerical order. Clerics can be followers of any deity, while paladins serve Law in whatever manifestation they believe in.
In essence what you end up with, if we use Glorantha/Runequest as an example is a Rune Priest, and Rune Lord. One becomes more of an administrator at higher levels with more responsibility over a piece of territory. The other can remain a somewhat free agent for Law roaming at will, righting wrongs and so forth. I think the idea of a spiritual heart and spiritual hand is a very apt metaphor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2013 8:11:31 GMT -6
And this. A Paladin is a fighter with some added abilities. To these aged eyes, the Cleric and the Paladin look virtually nothing like one another. I assume this must have changed in later editions. I don't know. In some respects. Please, go on, because I think my answer may well be locked in your vision of them. How do those classes look to you, respectively? A Cleric is first and foremost a priest who puts himself in danger, a Paladin is a knight who dedicates himself to righteousness. Perhaps because of my interest in medieval history that makes them incredibly different from the get-go. They would THINK so very differently I can't imagine seeing them even close to each other, and they bear so little resemblance to each other in game terms that I can't imagine how people see them as similar. Understand I never STOPPED playing OD&D. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 15, 2013 8:21:42 GMT -6
Clerics were pretty popular in Greyhawk, mostly because you got your stronghold earlier than anybody else. Interesting. Most of the PCs that I've heard of from Gary's old campaign were human fighting-men or human magic-users. I assumed that clerics were rare as PCs in Gary's campaign, but I guess not! |
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 15, 2013 8:45:56 GMT -6
Great story  never knew that! What exactly did the cleric look like before it was D&D-ized? (and did Sir Fang eventually get staked?) |
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Aug 15, 2013 9:17:36 GMT -6
Thread hijack - I just love your avatar, redbaron
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Aug 15, 2013 11:21:29 GMT -6
I don't know. In some respects. Please, go on, because I think my answer may well be locked in your vision of them. How do those classes look to you, respectively? A Cleric is first and foremost a priest who puts himself in danger, a Paladin is a knight who dedicates himself to righteousness. Perhaps because of my interest in medieval history that makes them incredibly different from the get-go. They would THINK so very differently I can't imagine seeing them even close to each other, and they bear so little resemblance to each other in game terms that I can't imagine how people see them as similar. I think part of it is because people don't see the difference between someone who does something with belief in God as a motivator and someone who is able to do something *because* God gave them a power. To me, paladins get powers from their righteousness and their faith in themselves as knowing what is right; they don't get their powers from a god, even though righteous medieval knights would include "duty to God" as part of their view of "what is right". I've said that I'm perfectly OK with a paladin who is not a literal knight, who might even be a secular humanist, but who would have the exact same powers as a traditional paladin because it's that unbounded self-righteousness and certainty that gives them their power. The response is usually "But--but--HOW? How can a paladin have powers if God isn't giving them powers?" |
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Aug 15, 2013 14:38:40 GMT -6
I think part of it is because people don't see the difference between someone who does something with belief in God as a motivator and someone who is able to do something *because* God gave them a power. I think you're right. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that some players don't care about "the difference between someone who does something with belief in God as a motivator and someone who is able to do something *because* God gave them a power." The intricacies of these kind of theological metaphysics just aren't something I want to spend a lot of time thinking about when playing or preparing to play D&D. |
|
|
|
Post by librarylass on Aug 15, 2013 15:23:29 GMT -6
I think part of it is because people don't see the difference between someone who does something with belief in God as a motivator and someone who is able to do something *because* God gave them a power. To me, paladins get powers from their righteousness and their faith in themselves as knowing what is right; they don't get their powers from a god, even though righteous medieval knights would include "duty to God" as part of their view of "what is right". I've said that I'm perfectly OK with a paladin who is not a literal knight, who might even be a secular humanist, but who would have the exact same powers as a traditional paladin because it's that unbounded self-righteousness and certainty that gives them their power. The response is usually "But--but--HOW? How can a paladin have powers if God isn't giving them powers?" I can confirm that this is exactly what is giving me pause. Though in retrospect I don't know why, because I grew up in the 3.x days where Divine characters were assumed to be perfectly capable of getting by on faith in their cause alone. |
|
never knew that!