|
Post by Anathemata on Mar 3, 2021 15:51:36 GMT -6
Perhaps the more scholarly on these boards can correct me, but I've had a wild thought that won't go away lately: that Paladins were really the second draft of the Cleric.
I often wondered how they made it into the very first supplement with the Thief; that while the Thief is often easily a contender for the "Core Four" classes, or even the "Core Three", people act as though the Paladin doesn't even exist. And I think I get it: Paladins, at least the way they have been often presented, are lame, do-goodey heroic types, maybe fun to draw on for an Arthurian sort of campaign feel, but redundant with the Cleric.
But the Cleric is, as many have noted, an uncertain archetype. A kind of miracle-performing holy warrior in the vein of a fantastical Templar or Hospitaller or something, but in practice the Cleric becomes a kind of divine spell-casting foil to the MU, who gets to play some combat defense as well. Whereas the Paladin MUCH more closely meets the description above. But, coming later than the Cleric, rather than replacing the Cleric they emerge as the first sub-class, or really kind of a Prestige class (to use some later terminology) and are tied to some pretty serious Ability Score requirements. And I don't know how much those requirements should really matter.
So my thought is to try and replace the Cleric with the Paladin. Fewer spells, a more clear archetype, and perhaps the potential for many more "kinds" of Paladins to reflect differing deities and moralities. I think I read an idea somewhere on here about Clerics being allowed only the divine weapon of choice of their patron. Which would certainly make the Paladin a class that was easier to re-skin for different deities and faiths. Being immune to magic with a magic sword (?) and able to "dispel all evil" around 8th level seems a bit much--but I don't know at all how these things would work out in play, because I haven't run a Paladin in OD&D before. Maybe "Turn Chaos" or something?
So those are my thoughts. What are yours?
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Mar 3, 2021 23:53:00 GMT -6
I've always felt that the cleric was mislabeled. In my understanding of the word, I had always expected more of a priest type, like a "divine MU", a healer, and alternative to the "regular" MU. The way clerics are presented, I feel like they fit better into what I understand a paladin is, a religious warrior. As presented, the paladin is more like a godly avatar with all their immunities and other special abilities.
I liked the ideas from the Complete Priest (AD&D 2e) that used a less martial priest as basis and added other abilities according to the worshiped deity. If it's a war deity, you pretty much end up with the regular cleric, but a priest of a life/healing deity won't be running around in plate mail, wielding mace and shield. They might use a scythe because that's a symbol of an agricultural deity, or a staff, maybe a dagger/scalpel. Additionally, the deity would grant only a limited amount of spells, similar to how it's done in 3.xE, I believe, where the deity grants divine domains.
We have played games with the cleric as "divine MU" and as AD&D priests and it worked fine. Why wouldn't it?
Replacing the cleric with a toned-down version of the paladin should work as well.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Mar 4, 2021 7:11:56 GMT -6
I've come to a very similar conclusion as the two of you. My ideal cleric is more of a prophet or mystic, like Jesus of Nazareth or the Buddha. The paladin can encompass the holy warrior role.
|
|
|
Post by Anathemata on Mar 4, 2021 9:35:00 GMT -6
I liked the ideas from the Complete Priest (AD&D 2e) that used a less martial priest as basis and added other abilities according to the worshiped deity. If it's a war deity, you pretty much end up with the regular cleric, but a priest of a life/healing deity won't be running around in plate mail, wielding mace and shield. They might use a scythe because that's a symbol of an agricultural deity, or a staff, maybe a dagger/scalpel. Additionally, the deity would grant only a limited amount of spells, similar to how it's done in 3.xE, I believe, where the deity grants divine domains. This is what I used to do in my 3x days. I also like the idea of Cleric more as a mystic or sage. But I'd rather have fewer straight-up spell-casters in my OD&D game, even if those spells are somewhat limited like with the classic Cleric. And a toned-down Paladin--let's call him the Hospitaller--makes more sense to me in a dungeon underworld, fighting the good fight against Chaos and recovering lost religious relics (or destroying those of a rival sect!).
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Mar 4, 2021 10:03:52 GMT -6
I've always felt that the cleric was mislabeled. Yes, I think the name "cleric" was unfortunate, and not a terribly good fit for the original concept, which was more Van Helsing mixed with Knights Templar, right?
So by the time of AD&D Deities & Demigods clerics had become "clergy" which is IMO not as good of a fit as an adventuring class.
IMO the adventuring archetype is a monster-hunter, a knight of the faith sent out to battle chaos (or battle law, in the case of Anti-Clerics). Not a priest or minister responsible for religious observances. Very close to a paladin.
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Mar 4, 2021 10:52:07 GMT -6
I've long championed replacing the cleric with a revised paladin. I'd expect an actual adventuring cleric to resemble Friar Tuck.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Mar 4, 2021 11:16:19 GMT -6
Yes, I agree that the "cleric" class is named infelicitously.
I explain to folks IMC that "clerics" are "knights of a religious order."
Which means they are basically paladins. Just paladins without edged weapons! I supposed they could joust with a blunt end?
Priests, etc., are clerics, proper. They are not adventuring classes, but NPCs. They can "cast spells," but only through long elaborate rituals and, potentially, significant sacrifices. And sometimes the magic doesn't work!
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Mar 4, 2021 11:16:40 GMT -6
The Cleric class has never sat right with me, and I've always felt the Paladin was a far more appropriate class to the genre. However the Paladin is too restrictive. I wrote an article on my blog about that with a set of classes called Monastic Knights: Templars, Knights Hospitallar, and Teutonic Knights. Unfortunately by tying it so closely to real world orders of knights the history buffs savaged the idea. I'm working on a more fantasy and generalized version that is almost done. If you're curious here is the original Templar version: dungeoneering.blogspot.com/2020/05/monastic-knights-templar.html
|
|
|
Post by Anathemata on Mar 4, 2021 12:44:21 GMT -6
Thanks for the class, thomden! I like your take, but I think I'll work up something tending more towards healing. I like "Lay on Hands" as an ability. "Hospitaller" is a good name for it, possibly. I'd expect an actual adventuring cleric to resemble Friar Tuck. A local monastery that provides hireling friars who all seem to have a bit of a drinking problem could be an epic resource. They can heal you, but there is always a 1-in-6 chance they will wander off in the wrong direction and a 2-in-6 chance to mis-translate important religious texts, including warnings written on doors and such.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2021 13:17:44 GMT -6
I think a campaign is well served by both classes. For a lot of reasons, the paladin, for example, refuses to capture the Cardinal in the Three Musketeers both as milieu exalt and active player.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Mar 4, 2021 15:42:08 GMT -6
I think a campaign is well served by both classes. For a lot of reasons, the paladin, for example, refuses to capture the Cardinal in the Three Musketeers both as milieu exalt and active player. I get it that a lot of people like the cleric. I seem to be in the minority on my general distaste for them. I will give credit to 2nd edition for going a long way towards making the class more interesting. I'll still take the paladin over the cleric any day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2021 18:05:52 GMT -6
I've always felt that the cleric was mislabeled. In my understanding of the word, I had always expected more of a priest type, like a "divine MU", a healer, and alternative to the "regular" MU. Kind of like the White Mage archetype in Final Fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 5, 2021 6:35:08 GMT -6
Replace paladins and clerics with templars: Lawful (or chaotic) fighters of high charisma. Lawful templars are per GH paladins in all respects excepting they have no missile weapons, may never strike the first blow (that would be unjust!), and (possibly? I haven't thought about it) have use of clerical magic items.
Clerics, healers, diviners and whatnot are an NPC function found at towns and villages, or hired into service to the real heroes of the campaign.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2021 8:31:42 GMT -6
If I had to NPC either the cleric or the paladin, I would NPC the cleric (perhaps for richer milieu consequence).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2021 9:02:04 GMT -6
Here's an idea taken from BECMI that could be backwards-welded onto OD&D.
Or a slight variation thereof. Imagine there are exactly two classes, like in Arneson's original Blackmoor games.
There's Fighting-Men and there's Magic-Users.
Every other character begins as one of these two and becomes that class later. Including the Thief (maybe more of a Scout or Skirmisher in this milieu) being a Fighter subclass and the White Mage being a Magic-User subclass.
(Interestingly, the first Cleric in Blackmoor was specifically "a Van Helsing type", implying a high base Intelligence as that character was a professor.)
Another idea, using Arnesonian language - this divides the player's choices into two broad but descriptive categories. The character is Brainy or Brawny. Body and Mind. Everything else in the game falls into one of these two categories. It's very neat and balanced. I like it. I'll toy with it for my FKR houserules sometime.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Mar 5, 2021 11:58:09 GMT -6
Another idea, using Arnesonian language - this divides the player's choices into two broad but descriptive categories. The character is Brainy or Brawny. Body and Mind. Everything else in the game falls into one of these two categories. It's very neat and balanced. I like it. I'll toy with it for my FKR houserules sometime. As in HeroQuest! Incidentally, the Broadsword RPG (based on HQ) uses these exact stats and the "base" character classes are Fighter, Caster and Hybrid (Fighter/Caster). Eache base class has variations like Ranger, Barbarian, Berserker in the Fighter class, Aero-, Pyro-, Necro-, Whatevermancers in the Caster class and Clerics and Druids are the Hybrids.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Mar 5, 2021 14:39:58 GMT -6
Personnaly, I tend to consider that the Paladin and the Cleric do fill a different niche. The paladin is less "holy warrior" than "knight in shining armor". The cleric is more the "badass preacher" type.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Mar 5, 2021 14:44:33 GMT -6
Here's an idea taken from BECMI that could be backwards-welded onto OD&D. Or a slight variation thereof. Imagine there are exactly two classes, like in Arneson's original Blackmoor games. There's Fighting-Men and there's Magic-Users. Every other character begins as one of these two and becomes that class later. Including the Thief (maybe more of a Scout or Skirmisher in this milieu) being a Fighter subclass and the White Mage being a Magic-User subclass. Fighting Men can become Paladins (Lawful) or AntiPaladin (Chaos) Magic Users : White Mages (Law), Druids (Neutrality) or Necromancers (Chaos) Thiefs can become Monks (Law), Bards (Neutrality) ot Assassins (Chaos)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2021 15:42:03 GMT -6
Another idea, using Arnesonian language - this divides the player's choices into two broad but descriptive categories. The character is Brainy or Brawny. Body and Mind. Everything else in the game falls into one of these two categories. It's very neat and balanced. I like it. I'll toy with it for my FKR houserules sometime. As in HeroQuest! Incidentally, the Broadsword BrodeSode
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2021 16:37:53 GMT -6
Here's an idea taken from BECMI that could be backwards-welded onto OD&D. Or a slight variation thereof. Imagine there are exactly two classes, like in Arneson's original Blackmoor games. There's Fighting-Men and there's Magic-Users. Every other character begins as one of these two and becomes that class later. Including the Thief (maybe more of a Scout or Skirmisher in this milieu) being a Fighter subclass and the White Mage being a Magic-User subclass. Fighting Men can become Paladins (Lawful) or AntiPaladin (Chaos) Magic Users : White Mages (Law), Druids (Neutrality) or Necromancers (Chaos) Thiefs can become Monks (Law), Bards (Neutrality) ot Assassins (Chaos) Ah, see, that's another route. Making the Thief a core fantasy class. I feel this moves a bit beyond the genre I was thinking of, but it's also perfectly fine. In fact, outside classic D&D and Ultima, the Cleric is absent in most fantasy trifecta. Except, strangely enough, for the mid-nineties fantasy shooter Hexen, featuring the Fighter, Cleric and Sorcerer. Perhaps because the Cleric was a better fit for a fast-paced fps than the stealthy Thief?
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Mar 5, 2021 22:11:12 GMT -6
I agree this topic highly depends upon how you run your game and what you think the focus of the game is about. But I will try and present a dissenting opinion to give you another point of view.
Each core class is an entire game which a player focuses on and scores points within. When they switch core classes they are playing a separate game with a separate score. This is why players cannot multiclass subclasses within a core class. Multiclassing is about switching games, the focus of play and what you're scored for.
The Paladin is a specialist, a subclass of the much larger fighting-man game. The Fighter game is about combat. Largely. The cleric game is about Alignment. The Paladin may have elements which stretch Beyond The Fighter game but it is designed to be about combat First and Alignment secondarily. The Cleric class is given all of the elements to explore all of the alignment game. The Paladin is much less so equipped.
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Mar 5, 2021 22:57:54 GMT -6
Replace paladins and clerics with templars: Lawful (or chaotic) fighters of high charisma. Lawful templars are per GH paladins in all respects excepting they have no missile weapons, may never strike the first blow (that would be unjust!), and (possibly? I haven't thought about it) have use of clerical magic items. Clerics, healers, diviners and whatnot are an NPC function found at towns and villages, or hired into service to the real heroes of the campaign. "Templar" would IMO have been a better name for the class - even if it was mechanically identical to the Men & Magic cleric, the lack of the name "cleric" would probably have prevented it from being transformed into "clergy" from AD&D Deities & Demigods on.
This model would probably make paladins a bit redundant, so one could pick one or the other, or fuse the two into one class.
I am not sure about the "never strike the first blow" thing - I think the archetype is as much a monster-hunter as anything else. Never striking the first blow against humans (and maybe demi-humans), sure, but I don't think that would make sense against inhuman monsters, especially undead etc.
|
|
|
Post by davidbrodeur on Mar 6, 2021 8:16:46 GMT -6
I have Templars (protectors of temple, i.e. paladins) in my campaign replacing Clerics. They have turn undead features, but the spells are relegated to artifacts and NPC clerics (hence acting as a cash sink also).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2021 8:29:22 GMT -6
One of the OD&D games I ran in my home town about three years ago used Templars. Basically mechanically Half-Elf multiclass characters from Greyhawk. Medieval Fantasy Navy Seal types who were leading a strike team deep into the deserts of Al-Qadim to recover some holy artifacts for the Holy Brotherhood of Saint Cuthbert. This was an atypical scenario with bad-ass high level pre-gens who all had magic rings and weapons, though. Very much a "Knights of the Round Table" bunch of characters, though ironically the only survivor that night was a hireling Caveman who converted to the faith and got a lucky shot in on the Balrog.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Mar 6, 2021 15:10:39 GMT -6
I have Templars (protectors of temple, i.e. paladins) in my campaign replacing Clerics. They have turn undead features, but the spells are relegated to artifacts and NPC clerics (hence acting as a cash sink also). Historically, Templars would be either chaplains (tonsurated priests who administered the sacraments), knights (noblemen who fought) and sergants (laymen who were the men-at-arms and craftsmen). You could imagine an order of Templars with Clerics (chaplains), Paladins (knights) and henchmen (sergants)
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Mar 6, 2021 20:02:46 GMT -6
In the dungeon environment, I think the Cleric class complements the Fighter and Magic-User classes well. Clerics have decent fighting ability and the ability to wear up to plate mail, which allows them to stand on the front line. Clerics also have a set of spells which complements the Magic-User and access to healing spells, which helps characters to recover from some of the hazards found in dungeons.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 7, 2021 6:15:04 GMT -6
I am not sure about the "never strike the first blow" thing - I think the archetype is as much a monster-hunter as anything else. Never striking the first blow against humans (and maybe demi-humans), sure, but I don't think that would make sense against inhuman monsters, especially undead etc. Mmm, good pick up. In my original conception (for a pseudo-historical crusades game) it was: never strike a Christian first. I guess to generalise for broader D&D use it could be: never strike a Lawful first, or something similar. The main point is to have some workable counterweight to the GH paladin advantages. The first strike business seems to be genuinely material in play because surprise and/or the first blow can be a huge big deal in OD&D. E.g., suppose the players surprise a bunch of Men in a forest or dungeon. Ordinarily, players might be tempted to fall on them in ambush to drive a quick defeat/surrender. However, with the no first strike rule, a Templar is (strictly) forbidden to attack until he is sure they are not Christians/Lawfuls. He might participate in the ambush without such certainty, in which case--if it turns out some of the slain were Lawfuls (they wore or carried wooden Crosses, cried out a Lawful prayer as they died...)--he must immediately seek atonement or else be ex-communicateded. I.e., the first strike rule can be more impactful than the GH paladin line: "always doing lawful deeds", or the cleric who hasn't even that restriction, because it's more specific. So it can more specifically drive player behaviour... which I thought was more or less what was required for the Templar. Edit: The bigger, campaign play can be about the political rivalry between Lawful and Chaotic Temples, with Templars of either side marauding across their opposite's Kingdom, razing villages and killing innocents like there's no tomorrow. This could even be central to the whole campaign.
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Mar 8, 2021 2:23:56 GMT -6
In the dungeon environment, I think the Cleric class complements the Fighter and Magic-User classes well. Clerics have decent fighting ability and the ability to wear up to plate mail, which allows them to stand on the front line. Clerics also have a set of spells which complements the Magic-User and access to healing spells, which helps characters to recover from some of the hazards found in dungeons. Yeah, I don't think a mechanical change is really needed (replacing the mechanics of the class with the Paladin's mechanics). But the name 'Cleric', and the role it implies as clergy, could use replacing with something more paladin-like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2021 12:29:49 GMT -6
Ah, but of course they write. Who do you think "Gygax & Arneson" were? Great Patriarchs who wrote down the history of great kingdoms and high adventure, I tell ya. Absolutely Clerical.
|
|
ThrorII
Level 4 Theurgist
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 117
|
Post by ThrorII on Mar 13, 2021 13:22:39 GMT -6
a quick fix is to ditch the OD&D-Greyhawk paladin, and just give clerics edged weapons.
|
|