D&D-ism: Cleric vs. Paladin

[Necrozius]

Is there a well-regarded explanation of the conceptual difference between a Paladin and Cleric?

They're both heavily armored, faithful, with the ability to turn undead. Clerics can't use cutting weapons and get more spells. That's about all I can say.

Like, explaining this to newcomers... what is the difference? And why are they not just one class?

Yes, I know that Paladins can now be less about loyalty to a deity, but to a cause or monarch. But why couldn't a Cleric do the same?

Is this just some SACRED COW of D&D?

Why the hell aren't they just ONE class? Or why isn't Paladin just a Fighter / Cleric multiclass concept?

 

[Gringnr]

I prefer to call them, "smashy priest" and "stabby priest", just to keep things clear.

 

[JAMUMU]

In the early days there was a deal more distinction between the two. The Cleric was a war priest/battle bishop, donning armour and taking up (smashy) weapons to defend their Church and/or flock. And only with smashy weapons, as bladed weapons "spilled blood" and were too secular.

The Paladin was the archetypal Holy Knight, a champion of their God(s), possibly a member of a Holy Order, and more akin to a freelance troubleshooter for the forces of Good. While the Cleric was beholden to their Church, the Paladin had a direct relationship with their divine patron. And there was significantly less overlap as the Paladin didn't start picking up Cleric spells until much later, and when they did unlock them they were very limited in what they could learn.

Nowadays there's really not so much between them and the implied setting that latter-day D&D evokes is bullshit so thick you could spread it with a knife, so I'd be much less willing to come to a defence of the modern cleric/paladin paradigm.

 

[VisionStorm]

They're a sacred cow. Clerics are a "war priest" archetype derived more from knightly orders, like the Knights Templar than actual regular clergy or priestly class (as in "social class" rather than RPG class/profession), which themselves are more akin to paladins than proper priests or "clerics", making them redundant.

Old school paladins do have a heavier combat focus and somewhat better combat abilities than clerics, though, so there's that. But conceptually, paladins are basically a specifically "Lawful Good" version of what clerics were intended to be.

 

[Moonglum]

I feel like a Cleric is modeled off of the christian martial orders that emerged during the crusades, and the Paladin is modeled off of the pious knight archetype from Arthurian romance. But neither of them are well developed for that purpose in the rules, and they aren't really very differentiated either. So, my preference would be that they had been merged into one class concept, and that a second class focused on non-martial clergy were added for a taste of real diversity.

 

[Tulpa Girl]

​

The original version of the Paladin was pretty much directly lifted from this novel. Although the character class would change and evolve over time and editions, its base DNA comes directly from Anderson - a holy warrior who was primarily a fighting-man, but also had some divine abilities, as opposed to the cleric, which was a spellcaster who was also not too bad at fighting.

(this story is also directly responsible for D&D's version of the troll, plus the swanmay, and of course the original depiction of Law vs Chaos - Moorcock gets most of the credit for this, but D&D's take with Law mostly being Good and Chaos being Evil draws much more from Anderson than Moorcock - Anderson, along with Vance, is one of two authors who were a heavy influence on both D&D and Traveller)

 

[Voros]

Paladins can turn undead? I must of forgotten that. Shows how often they appear in my games, lol.

I mean I dig the idea of Paladins but if you want to go down that road Pendragon is right there so...

 

[robertsconley]

Is there a well-regarded explanation of the conceptual difference between a Paladin and Cleric?

Paladins are knightly divine champions. A shining exemplar of everything that is lawful and good.

Clerics are Van Helsing mashed with Charlemagne's Bishop Turpin. A martial order of priests who work for the church vanquishing the undead and other enemies.

 

[Silverlion]

Paladins are knightly divine champions. A shining exemplar of everything that is lawful and good.

Clerics are Van Helsing mashed with Charlemagne's Bishop Turpin. A martial order of priests who work for the church vanquishing the undead and other enemies.

To be fair later editions of D&D have sort of set the latter on their head, notably 5E which follows (for me) 2E's specialty priests even further down the lineage to something else.

 

[JAMUMU]

Didn't the Cleric start life as the Vampire Hunter character Gary of Gygax needed for his initial campaign? I seem to recall it was a class created for/given to one player so they could hunt down the guy who'd become Vampire Player X.

 

[robertsconley]

Didn't the Cleric start life as the Vampire Hunter character Gary of Gygax needed for his initial campaign? I seem to recall it was a class created for/given to one player so they could hunt down the guy who'd become Vampire Player X.

The original Blackmoor campaign run by Dave Arneson was different in that Dave didn't run a lot of the NPCs. Instead both the good guys and bad guys were players.

One of the good guys, I believe the first Baron of Blackmoor, was played by Dave Fant and got bitten by a classic Dracula style vampire. His character was renamed Sir Fang and was run by another player on the bad guy team.

The character was pretty powerful and it was pointed out that if Dracula style vampires existed then it only logical that there will be van Helsing types to fight them. Dave mashed up a couple of tropes and came up with the cleric. Which Gygax adapted as one of the three classes for his Greyhawk campaign.

 

[AsenRG]

The Paladin is what a Templar should be, the cleric is an armed churchman with some combat training, at least in my games.

 

[TJS]

The way I always use to parse it was through certain medieval debates.

The Lawful Good cleric wants to do good because it's his god's will

The Paladin follows the Lawful Good god because that god wills what is Lawful Good.

Or in other words the Cleric reveres the god first, while the Paladin reveres the principles first.

These days I'd just ditch the Paladin.

 

[Jetstream]

I reckon it's the difference between an armsman and a knight, but with church associations?
And, yeah, Paladins are pretty clearly modeled after holy knight orders, like the Templars.

 

[T. Foster]

D&D clerics were originally holy knights (though the class concept later got broadened to include all priestly-types, leaving the martial element as sort of a weird vestigial outlier that was still universally applied to the class but shouldn’t be). Paladins are literally Sir Galahad - not a formally ordained minister or member of a religious order but a direct living embodiment of religious ideals. Clerics belong to an organized brotherhood, paladins are singular legendary heroes. Clerics are part of civil society, paladins are living symbols, too perfect to exist in regular life due to their impossibly perfect and high standards.

 

[Bunch]

Paladin is a fighter first with better combat progression with weaker spellcasting.
Cleric is a spell caster first with weaker combat progression but better spellcasting.

It does seem like splitting hairs and a hold over from 1st edition.

 

[AsenRG]

D&D clerics were originally holy knights (though the class concept later got broadened to include all priestly-types, leaving the martial element as sort of a weird vestigial outlier that was still universally applied to the class but shouldn’t be). Paladins are literally Sir Galahad - not a formally ordained minister or member of a religious order but a direct living embodiment of religious ideals. Clerics belong to an organized brotherhood, paladins are singular legendary heroes. Clerics are part of civil society, paladins are living symbols, too perfect to exist in regular life due to their impossibly perfect and high standards.

Yes, in theory, and according to what the AD&D2e PHB said, it is so. But in practice, I've found them to be a lot more like "priests with secondary combat training" vs "Templars" (or "Hospitaliers", if you prefer).

 

[Bunch]

D&D clerics were originally holy knights (though the class concept later got broadened to include all priestly-types, leaving the martial element as sort of a weird vestigial outlier that was still universally applied to the class but shouldn’t be). Paladins are literally Sir Galahad - not a formally ordained minister or member of a religious order but a direct living embodiment of religious ideals. Clerics belong to an organized brotherhood, paladins are singular legendary heroes. Clerics are part of civil society, paladins are living symbols, too perfect to exist in regular life due to their impossibly perfect and high standards.

I'm looking through my OD&D books and it seems like clerics started out as priests with access to martial abilities but we're not holy knights. The level title advancements are acolyte, adept, village priest, vicar, curate, bishop , etc.

Paladins seem to be the holy knights. That concept seems reenforced with their warhorse ability

 

[Ravenswing]

+1 vote for sacred cow, as with more than one early character class. (What makes "illusionist" the only valid alternate mage role, for instance?)

 

[PolarBlues]

Whatever they were meant to be, they still all meet in a tavern and accept jobs from shady figures to rob some grave in return for a bag of coins.

 

[Necrozius]

What throws me off is the occasional illustration of a Cleric in templar or crusader armor.

 

[Chris Brady]

Is there a well-regarded explanation of the conceptual difference between a Paladin and Cleric?

They're both heavily armored, faithful, with the ability to turn undead. Clerics can't use cutting weapons and get more spells. That's about all I can say.

Like, explaining this to newcomers... what is the difference? And why are they not just one class?

Yes, I know that Paladins can now be less about loyalty to a deity, but to a cause or monarch. But why couldn't a Cleric do the same?

Is this just some SACRED COW of D&D?

Why the hell aren't they just ONE class? Or why isn't Paladin just a Fighter / Cleric multiclass concept?

The Cleric converts for his religion. He's often a Priest as well as a Man of Action. He's is the 'Mouth' of his religion.

A Paladin does not convert, he seeks out the evils (Assuming a basic, AD&D style Pally) and puts an end to them. He does not proselytize, that is not his purpose. He is the 'Arm' of his religion.

 

[Necrozius]

Concept-wise, everything everyone has said could easily be a Fighter with a High Concept (or subclass in modern parlance).

In 5e particularly. Paladin is almost an Eldritch Knight: a few spells, some healing ability, an attack power…

In older D&D I can see it being more distinct, I guess.

 

[Necrozius]

In Japanese Anime takes on D&D (eg Record of Lodoss War, Goblin Slayer…) the Cleric is depicted as wearing robes, not plate armor, and very much like a priest, not a militant warrior pope. Interesting.

 

[VisionStorm]

Concept-wise, everything everyone has said could easily be a Fighter with a High Concept (or subclass in modern parlance).

In 5e particularly. Paladin is almost an Eldritch Knight: a few spells, some healing ability, an attack power…

In older D&D I can see it being more distinct, I guess.

That's pretty much the way I see it, TBH. But since Paladins were already their own class since early on, they were treated as its own class, with weird iffy subclasses trying to make up for the fact that "Paladins" were already a specialized role, instead of folding them onto Fighters as a subclass along with Barbarians and Rangers (though, Rangers could easily be a Rogue subclass instead), and do the same with all the mage variants (Sorcerer, Warlock and maybe Bard at this point, since they're full casters now) folded onto Wizards, etc. But sacred cows can never die.

In Japanese Anime takes on D&D (eg Record of Lodoss War, Goblin Slayer…) the Cleric is depicted as wearing robes, not plate armor, and very much like a priest, not a militant warrior pope. Interesting.

Yeah, this is more how I envision clerics/priests as well. But since the class is based on earlier quasi-Templar "war-priest" role, ALL D&D "priests" are "war-priests", despite war priests being a very specific non-universal offshot in real life.

 

[Necrozius]

Yeah, this is more how I envision clerics/priests as well. But since the class is based on earlier quasi-Templar "war-priest" role, ALL D&D "priests" are "war-priests", despite war priests being a very specific non-universal offshot in real life.

It gets really weird when you consider Asian fighting monks. Devoted to a religion (usually Buddhism, Shinto or whatever), trained to fight (hand to hand and with weapons). But we have a seperate class for that too (Monk).

AND it gets weirder now that you can have a Paladin or Cleric (or even a Warlock) who's not devoted to a deity, but an ideal or philosphy.

In short, D&D's pervasive, ubitquitous sacred cows are completely ludicrous and arbitrary. I kind of hate them for their impact on almost ALL RPGs since.

 

[Chris Brady]

What throws me off is the occasional illustration of a Cleric in templar or crusader armor.

That's what Second Edition AD&D said Clerics were. Knights Templar, an order of dedicated, hammer wielding warrior priests.

 

[JAMUMU]

It gets really weird when you consider Asian fighting monks. Devoted to a religion (usually Buddhism, Shinto or whatever), trained to fight (hand to hand and with weapons). But we have a seperate class for that too (Monk).

AND it gets weirder now that you can have a Paladin or Cleric (or even a Warlock) who's not devoted to a deity, but an ideal or philosphy.

In short, D&D's pervasive, ubitquitous sacred cows are completely ludicrous and arbitrary. I kind of hate them for their impact on almost ALL RPGs since.

Myself I wouldn't go that far. Paladin is a holy questing knight of great virtue. If you remove the "holy" part and let them take their inspiration and calling from something more abstract than a god, nothing much breaks. Monks are the way they are because chop-socky movies and the TV show Kung Fu werepopular when the original D&D guys were playing, and someone wanted to play Grasshopper. If I was doing things by the book, Brother Cadfael and Friar Tuck would be Clerics (and it would work fine), but I use a separate Monk class for the "medieval investigator" archetype.

What I do lament though is the chronic hot mess of an implied setting the sacred cows create, which has sort of become the default for run of the mill modern fantasy.

 

[Fenris-77]

I prefer to call them, "smashy priest" and "stabby priest", just to keep things clear.

I think that the above answer, which I will call the deep thinking answer, covers most of what I have to say here.

 

[PolarBlues]

I like the D&D Rules Encyclopia approach wherein becomes an option for Name Level Fighter that qualify. Seems right to me that a paladin is a role you grow into once you have proven yourself time and time again.

 

[Bunch]

I like the D&D Rules Encyclopia approach wherein becomes an option for Name Level Fighter that qualify. Seems right to me that a paladin is a role you grow into once you have proven yourself time and time again.

I like that it moves complexity from chargen to down the road a little after you're already hooked.

 

[PolarBlues]

I like that it moves complexity from chargen to down the road a little after you're already hooked.

Very true. Also, by Level 9, D&D characters are presumably involved in more dignified Paladin-worthy tasks than killing oversized rats in a tavern basement for a few coins.

 

[Bunch]

Very true. Also, by Level 9, D&D characters are presumably involved in more dignified Paladin-worthy tasks than killing oversized rats in a tavern basement for a few coins.

I feel like that movement of where complexity lies was a huge pro for 5e. It let anyone jump in and play. Complexity was eased in at 3rd level and beyond.

 

[Dyrnwyn]

I like that it moves complexity from chargen to down the road a little after you're already hooked.

I think this is one that edition's greatest strengths in general -- start small and simple rather than throwing everything at the players at once.

 

[Necrozius]

Yeah Paladin, and even Warlock, would thematically work far better for me if they were "acquired" through play, not during character creation.

DCC ruined 5e Warlocks for me, because they have arcane patrons which any Magic User can acquire if they want to pursue that.

The idea of a Fighter consistently behaving like a Noble Knight, and eventually becoming a Paladin, is a far cooler concept to me.

Hence, sub-class at level 3. But there you go...

 

[JAMUMU]

I like the D&D Rules Encyclopia approach wherein becomes an option for Name Level Fighter that qualify. Seems right to me that a paladin is a role you grow into once you have proven yourself time and time again.

I'm a huge fan of the BECMI Avenger and I think that puts me in a club with one member.

 

[PolarBlues]

I'm a huge fan of the BECMI Avenger and I think that puts me in a club with one member.

That was another Fighter Name Level option? i can't remember what it does.

 

[JAMUMU]

That was another Fighter Name Level option? i can't remember what it does.

I'd need to go check for details but iirc it was the Chaotic option.

 

[Dyrnwyn]

That was another Fighter Name Level option? i can't remember what it does.

Yes, along with the Avenger for chaotic characters, there was also the Knight for fighters of any alignment.

The Avenger was basically the inverse of the Paladin, or an Anti-Paladin. The Knight didn't have any divine abilities, and instead was focused on service to a liege lord when they weren't adventuring.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yes, along with the Avenger for chaotic characters, there was also the Knight for fighters of any alignment.

The Avenger was basically the inverse of the Paladin, or an Anti-Paladin. The Knight didn't have any divine abilities, and instead was focused on service to a liege lord when they weren't adventuring.

Everything after the Paladin was an exercise in so I like that class, could I maybe play it, but like, you know, also be a psychotic monkeydick to everyone?