Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What Paladin's do and what Cleric's do is fairly different. One is a priest willing to put on some armor and go on adventures whereas the other is a chosen champion of a deity; the difference lies in their role. There are lots of clerics, though most aren't adventurers, but there are only a few Paladins. This isn't to say one is better than the other, just that they are different.

Clerics aren't unspecific as they have to pick a deity.

Good points. I tend to think of Paladins as knights and Clerics as priests. A knight is not just a priest under arms, obviously.

I love the channel divinity for Clerics btw. Extra healing every combat is great.

 Ahtman wrote:
What Paladin's do and what Cleric's do is fairly different. One is a priest willing to put on some armor and go on adventures whereas the other is a chosen champion of a deity; the difference lies in their role. There are lots of clerics, though most aren't adventurers, but there are only a few Paladins. This isn't to say one is better than the other, just that they are different.

Clerics aren't unspecific as they have to pick a deity.

Oh I never minded that.

I was always annoyed that they were both champions of a god, but yet the Paladin was restricted only to Lawful Good.

And yet the only other Paladin archetype for evil was Blackguards..Which were nothing but Fallen Paladins (in fluff)

Paladins play off the ancient trope that a hero is fueled by righteousness ("a pure heart") rather than brute force or will power. They aren't just champions of some deity or another. I would guess pure-heartedness is not so highly valued by moral relativists, however, so the Paladin (along with objective alignment generally) has become increasingly bizarre to players over time.

I was OK with the Paladin existing 'as is' even in terms of race and alignment, as maybe something that is special to that combination.

They are incredibly hard to play 'correctly', even in a world where good and evil are oftentimes obvious, and black and white.

If people want something along those lines - similar but not identical, make something called "Champion of the Gods" or some such?

I know it is partially because in many ways my RPGing IS trapped in amber, but I have a hard time with 'non-good', non-human Paladins!

As to paladins, I remember an interesting quote somewhere that a core 'idea' for D&D (which means probably something Gygax, Arneson, or someone else read in a book and liked) was that Law vs. Chaos (or later Good vs. Evil) could also be described as 'single powerful entities vs. hordes of less powerful but more numerous foes.'

I don't think I've seen this concept really ever stated in any D&D publications, but it does explain why Paladins were essentially overpowered superheroes in these editions. You had to be lucky to qualify for the class n the first place in 2nd and earlier, but if you did you got a ton of benefits to dungeon-crawling like immunity to disease, some healing, etc.

I feel like there's been some sort of 'alternate paladin' for every edition of D&D. I remember some semi-official 'Anti-Paladin' stuff for 1st or 2nd, which combined a goofy name with basically flopping the class's alignment and power descriptors. I think there was a 3rd edition book that did equivalents for each alignment that was interesting: A Chaotic Good Paladin-equivalent might be more of a 'Robin Hood' type that works under the radar, but is still empowered by a deity.

 Alpharius wrote:

If people want something along those lines - similar but not identical, make something called "Champion of the Gods" or some such?

I know it is partially because in many ways my RPGing IS trapped in amber, but I have a hard time with 'non-good', non-human Paladins!

Or, break it down into two different classes??

Paladin: heavy/plate armor wearing, blunt object wielding knight who views the Law and/or a Deity as being above all else.

"Crusader": heavy/plate armor wearing, military weapon wielding knight, empowered by their deity to cleanse the world of a taint brought on by other forces (this could mean that they aren't necessarily Lawful Good, as they could align with Gruumsh, or some other "evil" deity)

 Manchu wrote:
Paladins play off the ancient trope that a hero is fueled by righteousness ("a pure heart") rather than brute force or will power. They aren't just champions of some deity or another. I would guess pure-heartedness is not so highly valued by moral relativists, however, so the Paladin (along with objective alignment generally) has become increasingly bizarre to players over time.

I don't find the paladin to be odd...


... I guess that might indicate my stances on most philosophies that advocate moral relativism though

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:

If people want something along those lines - similar but not identical, make something called "Champion of the Gods" or some such?

I know it is partially because in many ways my RPGing IS trapped in amber, but I have a hard time with 'non-good', non-human Paladins!

Or, break it down into two different classes??

Paladin: heavy/plate armor wearing, blunt object wielding knight who views the Law and/or a Deity as being above all else.

"Crusader": heavy/plate armor wearing, military weapon wielding knight, empowered by their deity to cleanse the world of a taint brought on by other forces (this could mean that they aren't necessarily Lawful Good, as they could align with Gruumsh, or some other "evil" deity)

I like these ideas!

I will bet you can play a "Crusader" like that in 5E using a War Domain or something.

Lots of confusion between Paladins and Clerics ITT. The Paladin is not defined by worshiping this or that deity but rather commitment to moral principles (a.k.a. chivalry).

I'm fine with Clerics not having alignment restrictions but Paladins should be the alignment of their respective deity. A devotee is more likely to have moments of doubt or just not be as pure, but the champion of a deity should embody their god. It also does away with "anti-paladin" as a Champion of an evil god would still be a Paladin, just one of an evil alignment.

Paladins need not devote themselves to any particular deity.

 Manchu wrote:
Paladins need not devote themselves to any particular deity.

That isn't how I feel about Paladins, and when I run D&D I don't go for those kinds of shenanigans. I also don't allow atheist Clerics in my games either.

I'm not talking about peculiar homebrew takes on classes or alternative class options lurking in the back of splat books published late in a product cycle. I'm talking the up front, normative standards for these classes.

Clerics are priests. Worshiping a deity is what they do as a matter of course. That is not true of Paladins. By contrast, they are knights errant. I'm not saying they are necessarily non-religious, just that their religion or relationship with a specific deity or pantheon is not what makes them Paladins. Rather, adhering to a code of righteous conduct is what makes them Paladins.

Paladins are sort of like Monks in this respect. Monks can certainly be religious but it's not what makes them Monks. They are Monks thanks to their pursuit of spiritual enlightenment through rigorous physical training.

Are you talking post 1E Paladins here?

 Alpharius wrote:
Are you talking post 1E Paladins here?

I wasn't.


@Manchu: I don't disagree that the rules as written will allow that, I just don't. It is one of the perks of being the DM. UNLIMITED POWER.

 Alpharius wrote:
Are you talking post 1E Paladins here?

Nope.

 Ahtman wrote:
It is one of the perks of being the DM. UNLIMITED POWER.

That's too arbitrary for my tastes. Do you also require Monks to worship/be the champions of a specific deity?

 Manchu wrote:
That's too arbitrary for my tastes.

Unless they changed the meaning of the word arbitrary I don't see how it is arbitrary at all. It isn't on a whim and it isn't without reason, it just isn't to your personal taste. It also isn't something I cram down others throats and tell them it is how they have t approach it either, but it is how I generally feel about it. I'm open to other iterations and ideas.

 Manchu wrote:
Do you also require Monks to worship/be the champions of a specific deity?

Depends on the type of Monk I would think. European? Asian? Western Fantasy? Wuxia? In 4E they are a Psionic, not divine, and 5E seems to have moved them more toward martial with maybe a hint of Arcane if you take the elemental path. That isn't to say they can't be religious, as any class can be, but they derive no powers whatsoever from deities whereas Clerics and Paladins gain all theirs from deities.

 Ahtman wrote:

Depends on the type of Monk I would think. European? Asian? Western Fantasy? Wuxia? In 4E they are a Psionic, not divine, and 5E seems to have moved them more toward martial with maybe a hint of Arcane if you take the elemental path.

4E monks are closer to a martial class than a psionic one... Which is weird because PH3 does say they derive their powers from Psionics... But basically all of their combat abilities are martial in nature (I know this because I've played a monk for a good while) They sort of derive a combat bonus, or other "fringe benefits" from the Psionic realm (such as the centered breath, and that sort of stuff)

 Manchu wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Are you talking post 1E Paladins here?

Nope.

You're going to make me go look up the Paladin description in my 1E AD&D PHB when I get home!

 Ahtman wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Do you also require Monks to worship/be the champions of a specific deity?

Depends on the type of Monk I would think. European? Asian? Western Fantasy? Wuxia? In 4E they are a Psionic, not divine, and 5E seems to have moved them more toward martial with maybe a hint of Arcane if you take the elemental path. That isn't to say they can't be religious, as any class can be, but they derive no powers whatsoever from deities whereas Clerics and Paladins gain all theirs from deities.

Eberron has monks associated with the religions. I kind of liked that aspect too. It let you have more verity of monks and more verity of the priest character.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Depends on the type of Monk I would think. European? Asian? Western Fantasy? Wuxia? In 4E they are a Psionic, not divine, and 5E seems to have moved them more toward martial with maybe a hint of Arcane if you take the elemental path.

4E monks are closer to a martial class than a psionic one... Which is weird because PH3 does say they derive their powers from Psionics... But basically all of their combat abilities are martial in nature (I know this because I've played a monk for a good while) They sort of derive a combat bonus, or other "fringe benefits" from the Psionic realm (such as the centered breath, and that sort of stuff)

To my understanding they wanted to do a 'ki' power source, but they had a guideline that every power source had to have several classes, and couldn't think up interesting variants for the roles.

Although, if they had done a book with a 'ki' source for multiple asian-themed classes, so the ki-defender might have been a samurai that used the point-mechanic in a slightly different way from the monk, etc.

@Ahtman: Since we're both native speakers of English I'm not going to get into a dictionary battle. The point is, I don't think the DM's personal take on a given class should override the established archetype. I don't even care for it when Ed Greenwood does it TBH, which is why I don't play paladins in FR.

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm open to other iterations and ideas.

But

 Ahtman wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Paladins need not devote themselves to any particular deity.

That isn't how I feel about Paladins, and when I run D&D I don't go for those kinds of shenanigans.

So as a DM do you require Paladins to be the champions of a certain deity or not?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Do you also require Monks to worship/be the champions of a specific deity?

Depends on the type of Monk I would think. European? Asian? Western Fantasy? Wuxia?

The D&D kind.

Whether you file Monks under "Divine" or "Psionic" mechanically, the archetype remains the same: warriors who pursue spiritual enlightenment through rigorous physical training. The same is true of Paladins. Slap on whatever mechanical labels you need for Xth Edition, Paladins remain warriors who derive special powers from the strength of their righteous moral conviction.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
4E monks are closer to a martial class than a psionic one... Which is weird because PH3 does say they derive their powers from Psionics... But basically all of their combat abilities are martial in nature (I know this because I've played a monk for a good while) They sort of derive a combat bonus, or other "fringe benefits" from the Psionic realm (such as the centered breath, and that sort of stuff)

As did I. I think they went with Psionic in 4E to a) justify their extra attacks and movement and b) give PHB3 another Psionic class.

 Alpharius wrote:
You're going to make me go look up the Paladin description in my 1E AD&D PHB when I get home!

The older iterations, besides having impossible to roll stat requirements, very much were more of the chivalrous code/knight type by their description. It wasn't until 3E that they were their own separate class and not considered a Fighter variant.

 Balance wrote:


To my understanding they wanted to do a 'ki' power source, but they had a guideline that every power source had to have several classes, and couldn't think up interesting variants for the roles.

Although, if they had done a book with a 'ki' source for multiple asian-themed classes, so the ki-defender might have been a samurai that used the point-mechanic in a slightly different way from the monk, etc.

Yeah, and the weird thing was, a Ki Focus took up a "hand slot" except that when you were fighting, you weren't armed, so you still got your unarmed bonus, even though you were "armed" I actually kind of envisioned it as being sort of like a rosary, or those buddhist prayer beads (I don't know what they call them, but they arent a rosary, since that's catholic ) to where they were more wrapped around the users hand, and didn't hinder using any items (even two handed ones like a quarterstaff)

So it basically broke down to a "free magic item slot" on the personal inventory. And there were no penalties or disadvantages to having a Ki on you.

 Alpharius wrote:
You're going to make me go look up the Paladin description in my 1E AD&D PHB when I get home!

The sub-class description starts on page 22.

As far as religion goes, here's the closest on-point directive the AD&D PHB offers: Paladins who have knowingly performed a chaotic action "must" confess to and accept penance from a 7th-level or higher LG Cleric. There is no requirement that said Cleric worship the same deity or deities as the Paladin. More interestingly, note the PHB does not say what happens if the Paladin doesn't confess/do penance.

I'd argue that is for three reasons: First, it is left up to the DM to make a circumstances-specific call. Second, it is a nice contrast to the definitive end of your Paladin career should you knowingly do evil and moreover a vivid example of Gygaxian Naturalism concerning objective alignment. Third, and most important, why would there need to be negative consequences? Anyone who wants to play a Paladin should want avoid chaotic actions and play out regretting having taken them. This is a key part of the archetype.

 Manchu wrote:
The point is, I don't think the DM's personal take on a given class should override the established archetype.

Besides the fact that I was just exaggerating for effect, I don't think I've seen a game that was 100% by the rules with absolutely no tweaks/home rules. I let Paladins have greater options in alignment, but I don't allow them to not have a deity. If you don't like it don't play in that game. When you run your game if you go 100% by the book that is fine and I wouldn't complain as it is not my game as I, unlike others it seems, don't have a problem with different people approaching things differently. To be fair this also depends on the setting as well, and I rarely run a game using the stock setting.

 Manchu wrote:
The D&D kind.

Which have never had divine powers nor derived a single class feature/ability from divine sources in any edition. The same is not true of Paladins or Clerics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Yeah, and the weird thing was, a Ki Focus took up a "hand slot"

In the character builder, either of them, it never took up a hand slot.

I can see the paladin as a non-religious moral knight, but I'm wondering where they get their divine powers from if not from a deity?

 Ahtman wrote:
I don't think I've seen a game that was 100% by the rules with absolutely no tweaks/home rules.

And yet they exist all the same. I am playing in one currently on Thursday evenings. Not tweaking/homebrewing is a specific point of our sessions because we are "testing out" 5E. And of course there is no reason to assume a given group playing "right out of the box" would do anything but go on the published material.

But that's all irrelevant to the issue of whether Paladins are champions of a given deity. PHB-standard Paladins are knights who can cast a few spells from the Cleric list and that's pretty much as far as it goes. In FR, all Paladins are the champions of a god, which muddles the issue.

 Ahtman wrote:
Which have never had divine powers nor derived a single class feature/ability from divine sources in any edition. The same is not true of Paladins or Clerics.

There are a few disparate ideas swirling around in there, but the argument from a mechanical label does not avail. Power Source is a 4E mechanic. Divine is a mechanical term of art from 3E carried forward. As I mentioned above, mechanics don't alter the underlying fundamental archetype:

 Manchu wrote:
Whether you file Monks under "Divine" or "Psionic" mechanically, the archetype remains the same: warriors who pursue spiritual enlightenment through rigorous physical training. The same is true of Paladins. Slap on whatever mechanical labels you need for Xth Edition, Paladins remain warriors who derive special powers from the strength of their righteous moral conviction.

 Melissia wrote:
I can see the paladin as a non-religious moral knight, but I'm wondering where they get their divine powers from if not from a deity?

Well, first, I am not arguing that Paladins are non-religious just that their powers are not bestowed on them in exchange for ritual worship, as appears to be the case with Clerics. Paladins wield special powers because of their righteous conviction. Remember, we are dealing with a universe where Law and Good are fundamental cosmic principles. Paladins align themselves with those cosmic principles so perfectly, through living lives of dedication to a strict moral code, that they can wield that very power. This is why Paladins who do evil immediately lose all their powers -- they have lost their alignment with the cosmic forces that empowered them.