Paladins, Crusaders, and Clerics

[Daverin]

Hey everyone! Lately, I've been pondering what class I will play whenever I next am in a session, and I am certain that I want to be a holy warrior of some kind. The thing is, I am not sure if I want a paladin, crusader, or cleric. While thinking about them, I realized I thought it would be really cool to see how the other playgrounders viewed them!

Now, of course, I know of the mechanical differences, and I'd probably pick up some paladin fix if i went that way. This thread, although allowing for these differences to be pointed at, is not aimed at this. Rather, this is a discussion about the differences between them in terms of fluff, implied role, and image.

In other words, when you hear the name of each class, what kind of image is invoked? What differences do you see between the three, and what similarities? What kind of image do you think is strictly given or implied by Wizards proper, and what do you believe is a spin you have either taken outside of the game or created yourself? I want to say now that I am not too concerned with anything involving "good vs deity" unless you are certain it contributes to the rest of your image. I guess. Then again, this is pretty much because I like to hear ideas, so you know what, screw me, talk about it all you want! :smalltongue:

I will be divulging my own thoughts as the discussion progresses, as they likely would take up too much space for one post... :smallwink:

EDIT: To perhaps make this clearer (which, knowing me, is desperately needed), I am basically asking how do you 'roleplay' these classes, and what roleplaying distinctions do you place between them (if any), as opposed to "gameplay" them. If that makes any sense...

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Crusader = tank, or excellent lead-in for a more diverse build.
Paladin = good at melee damage but almost nothing else (unless prestige paladin is used), or a good 2-level dip in a more diverse build.
Cleric = Tier 1, the pinnacle of diversity and capability, can be whatever it wants to be.

[Bovine Colonel]

Crusader = paladin.

Cleric = paladin with (ideally) less combat training and more magical ability.

[ragingrage]

Crusader: A man how fights for a cause. Though this cause can be a god, it doesn't have to be. They are usually less religious, and more focused on the Ideals they wish to spread and those they wish to exterminate.
Paladin: A direct warrior of a God. Though in many ways they are similar to a crusader, they focus more on the Divine aspect then the Martial
Cleric: A priest of a god. Usually less martial then a Crusader/Paladin, they feel the closest connection to they're god and often act as missionaries.

[Cog]

I've had this idea stuck in my head - maybe I'll lose the association if I finally get to play the matching character - that Crusaders are a very good representation of fallen Paladins. They still have the Cha-focus force of personality, they've lost the serenity of their Wis-focused abilities (and the supernatural abilities to match), but they're still very much personally dedicated to a cause, and they've got the toughness to throw off whatever's piled on them. More skilled martially, too - the result of more time training with a sword rather than in prayer.

As for Cleric, I agree with the first response - there's just too much variability for it to call up a single image.

[Daverin]

... And that was not really what I was looking for. Maybe I should start out with what I mean, by examining the cleric vs the crusader.

When I think of a cleric, I think of an adventurer who is uniquely gifted, in that he has a real connection with his source of devotion. In some ways, he is a chosen figure, although how "chosen" he is depends on the cleric in question. When in a party, he is both a source of guidance and a source of leadership. For those who respect his source of devotion, he is an undisputed leader; he knows more than anyone else the will of his deity or cause, and whenever he endorses a course of action, it is knowing that some being far greater than him or any of his comrades is in their corner, an invisible ally who can strengthen and inspire them as much as, if not more than, any warlord or commander.

Meanwhile, the crusader is more, in my mind, and outright zealot. He may not be able to recite every scripture of his deity, but he does not need to. In place of full understanding of his faith, like a cleric would have, he has a deep, burning zeal that, partly divine influence, partly pure will, allows him to take inordinate amounts of pain, dish it out against he who would dare oppose his faith, and perform moves that can only be described as moments of inspiration. Many a crusader may lack the cooler head a cleric might have (then again, adventurers are nothing if not diverse and hard to stereotype), making him less of a leader in a strict sense, but he also has a kind of leadership all of his own, as his fiery passion and seeming invincibility, especially if combined with the right mindset on the crusader's part, are likely to inspire his comrades. Of course, that belies the fact that the crusader can easily become a great leader in every sense, as he can become a master of the White Raven discipline and become a tactical mastermind. But even then, a crusader is going to appear to have these insights as something of a inspiration, and not the level-headed practice of a regular marshal.

... So yeah, something like that. Thinking on it, I realize the essence of my question is, how do you ROLEPLAY them? What kind of character, as in actions, beliefs, and thoughts, do you treat them as. And what, if any, unique ways do you take each and play them?

EDIT: Gah! And now I get responses! I guess here is this, then, and I'll post a note of some kind in the op. Also, on the cleric, it is definitely true that they are a VERY diverse lot, but I still see them, in general, as as more... er... initiated into the faith sort of class than the other two? Although they can be well versed in the mysteries, secrets, and more complex teachings of their devotion, this is par for the course for a cleric. So, yeah.

Keep them coming, guys! Perhaps these archetypes are pretty set in stone, but I still would love to see how others see them and work with them. :smallsmile:

[Acanous]

Crusaders are the boistorous militant right wing of the church. they more often personalize the church's message, making the scripture fit their cause.

Paladins are held to the highest moral standard, and are expected to know not only the religeon, but also the law of the land they preach in. Further, they are seen as a reprisentative of the church and of the deity. A paladin sacrifices some of his sense of self to serve the will of his god.

Clerics are the center to left wing of the church, they enjoy the most completitive time to themselves, but do not lack for duty or companionship. A cleric has much more freedom than a paladin, and much more connection to his god than a crusader.

[Kyberwulf]

To me, Crusaders push the Boundries and reach of the Churches they Worship,.. more Zealotry then anything else.

Paladins Strike me as Police-esq Units that gaurd the People in the faith as a whole .. withen the boudries set.

The Clerics are more stationary... often watching over the people in a town,..

[Coidzor]

Crusader is a warrior first and foremost that tempers his discipline with faith and divine inspiration that lend him a purpose and cause to advance. To know dedication and discipline and drive is to know the Crusader.

Paladin is a warrior who is infused with the divine and channels its magic as a result of that infusion. But has many limitations placed upon them by being suffused with the divine. To know the Goodest of Goods is to know the Paladin.

Cleric is a direct servant of the divine, having a personal connection with it that allows him or her to make miracles manifest and serving in many capacities as directed. To know the master is to know the Cleric, as they are the most highly dependent upon their personal deity/cause/philosophy for the kinds of drives and personalities.

So, basically, cleric is the most open-ended, define your character for yourself, followed by crusader.

Then again, with the way the Paladin is laid out for you, this is not saying much...

I'm rather fond of the Ruby Knight Win-er-Vindicator, despite it being specific to a given deity, combining the crusader and the cleric together.

And, of course, it's generally pretty easy to discard the inherent fluff of cleric or crusader to a point.

[Divide by Zero]

I am basically asking how do you 'roleplay' these classes

The answer to this question is always "however you want."

[Retech]

It's probably easier to be a cleric. The thing about Tier 1 classes is that you can afford to be slackish with your optimization and still be effective, which allows you to be creative and choose whatever feats that you want.

Compared to a Crusader or Paladin, that might need a selection of good feats to stay even in the running. I used to play a druid that was roleplayed as a ranger. Then I took up a cleric, and roleplayed it as a druid. :smallsmile:

[Saintheart]

It's possible to have the best of all three worlds. Crusader 1/Cleric 4, then Ruby Knight Vindicator to the wazoo, which thematically amounts to all three IMHO :smallsmile: and kicks butt harder than the Paladin could dream.

[Ravens_cry]

Personally, I think the Cloistered Cleric represents the common priest better. While less martially trained than a Paladin or Crusader, the PHB cleric is still very much a Warrior Priest by default, with the Cloistered variant being the Man (or Woman) of the Cloth you are likely to meet in a typical parish or shrine.
That is my opinion on how I would fluff it anyway.

[Feytalist]

A small point: you might have left out the Favoured Soul. Despite it being a much maligned class, it might fit a bit better with the "direct connection to the deity" than the common cleric. I get the feeling that the cleric must actively work for his abilities/spells, rather than just receiving them.

[Username_too_lo]

Why not chuck a couple of levels of Knight in there as well? An underused class when pure, due to its non-magical nature, but as a second class it's got that whole Holy-Avenger-causing-evil to quali before it thing going on.

IMHO, clerics suffer from tank-creep. I reckon that making them proficient with heavy armour and all martial sent out the wrong signals. Signals that should have been picked up by Paladin figures (with PHB II variant - no inconvenient magic horse)

[Alleran]

In other words, when you hear the name of each class, what kind of image is invoked? What differences do you see between the three, and what similarities? What kind of image do you think is strictly given or implied by Wizards proper, and what do you believe is a spin you have either taken outside of the game or created yourself?
I think my perspective is best summed up by examples.

Crusader: A cross between an Arthurian knight and a Witch Hunter (less of a zealot than, say, the Warhammer Fantasy variant).

Paladin: Michael Carpenter (Dresden Files), Optimus Prime (if I have to say where he's from then you have no soul).

Cleric: Saint Magnus, Paul, and similar disciples (though of a more martial bent).

Honestly, I think the cleric is the hardest one for me to think of a specific example for. With the Crusader, I can think of some, and of those three, "Paladin" was the absolute easiest one to think of an example for by a large margin. Cleric, though... it bugged me for a while. Maybe because there are many varieties of priest. You can have peaceful ones, warlike ones, and everything in between. They don't fit into any one single mold.

[Eldariel]

They're just different scales of archetypes IMO.

Cleric and Crusader overlap in part (holy warrior) also covering distinct areas (Crusader can just as well be basically a pure martial warrior á la Fighter, while Cleric can also be a pure spellcaster without a hint of martial prowess), while Paladin is in the shared subset of both.

Basically, Paladin is a pigeonholed holy warrior while Cleric/Crusader can be holy warriors, but cover a bunch of other archetypes too.

[Username_too_lo]

In the interests of answering the OPs question

Cleric: Magic Monk in robes; maybe a Norman chain shirt and a dagger for self defence.

Crusader: Richard the Lionheart in full armour storming through the middle East with a mighty sword and shield killing the Saracens because God told him to.

Paladin: Samuel L Jackson in Jumper. "You can teleport - Only GOD should teleport."
Wait, what?

Paladins don't really have a real-world counterpart, especially with Crusaders, Knights and Clerics filling the whole armoured-guy-smiting-evil niche.

I suppose they get a nice horse.

[Vangor]

Depends entirely on how you would prefer to play each. Crusaders are more combative and emotional, probably independent. Clerics are concerned with deities or ideals, groups are created to further those deities or ideals (complete with schisms, heresies, disenfranchisement, sects, etc.). Paladins should be highly organized (note I provide the means to play all alignments with adjusted codes of conduct) and unwavering.

But, you could play each as the other and with other archetypes or basic traits. Clerics are generally the best base for magical aspects and Crusaders are the best base for melee aspects.

[Feytalist]

Paladins don't really have a real-world counterpart, especially with Crusaders, Knights and Clerics filling the whole armoured-guy-smiting-evil niche.

Perhaps a nitpick with regards to your choice of words, but Paladins are the ONLY class mentioned with an actual real world counterpart. That's why they're called Paladins.

One can make the argument that the Knights Templar were analogous to crusaders (they were even called "crusaders"), but paladins were most certainly lifted from the Holy Roman Empire.

[Username_too_lo]

Touche, sir, touche.

Although what I was trying to say was that the archetype sheltering under the name "Paladin" in D&D is covered by other real world epithets. Exactly the same archetypes can be found in the tales of Charlemagne as in Morte D'Arthur.

What we tend to have in D&D regarding tin cans on horseback are the more Ronin/Knight Rider types. Not devoted to a single noble Lord or King, but Gods or causes (Because Gods can travel).

[Cog]

Paladins are the ONLY class mentioned with an actual real world counterpart.
"Cleric" and "crusader" only see use in fantasy settings? :smallconfused:

[subject42]

I've had this idea stuck in my head - maybe I'll lose the association if I finally get to play the matching character - that Crusaders are a very good representation of fallen Paladins. They still have the Cha-focus force of personality, they've lost the serenity of their Wis-focused abilities (and the supernatural abilities to match), but they're still very much personally dedicated to a cause, and they've got the toughness to throw off whatever's piled on them. More skilled martially, too - the result of more time training with a sword rather than in prayer.

This is awesome. I may have to use it.

[erikun]

I am basically asking how do you 'roleplay' these classes, and what roleplaying distinctions do you place between them (if any), as opposed to "gameplay" them.
What if I'm playing a Crusader/Cleric/Prestige Paladin? :smallbiggrin: (/Ruby Knight Vindicator)

[Daverin]

Wow, this got some responses while I slept, awesome! It seems weird, but I'm always interested in other people's ideas; heck, I like ideas so much, I'm a poly sci and philosophy dual major (and wish I could add history to that... grr time and money.)

Also, I will agree that there cleric especially is anyone's game, since, well, they are slightly odd. Instead of the robed minister or priest of a parish, they seem somewhat like a kind of armored missionary, at least as far as what there few class features suggest. Of course, as someone said, you can roleplay anything as anything you want, with enough effort, but in some ways that is why asking the question is so fruitful, since it means someone may have a really unusual take.

Also, given some of the associations that seem to be made in this thread, does anyone find that the abilities of the paladin and the abilities of the crusader, in some ways, do not match up with the image of the two presented? Of course, they share roles, but insofar as the paladin has a variety of features, his usual iconic feature (besides the much maligned horse) is smite, which is somewhat more associable, I feel, with the warlike zealot type, whereas the paladin is, by now more typically associated with his protective and healing capabilities. The crusader, meanwhile, whose fluff and namesake imply some fanatical desire to kill the enemies of his cause, is more known for his tanky and support disciplines; he does have smite, but much more as an afterthought. Just something weird to me, given my perceptions of the two.

Also, as for favored soul, the only reason I did not bring it up is because I did not think of it! :smalltongue:

Given my view of the cleric as a direct intermediary of the deity, I suppose you could say the favored soul is a step beyond that even. He needs no prayer, for the deity pretty much literally has chosen (or, if you prefer, favored :smallwink:) this one to wield his power as he sees fit, because he is like some living avatar of the deity.

Also, weird as this sounds, is there any prestige class that might emphasize some sort of charismatic prophet sort of role for a cleric, kind of like Mohammad or, for those who have played DOTA, Chen? It would be very easy to do with just the cleric, but I can't think of prestiges off the top of my head that could bolster that.

Also, looking at Ruby Knight Vindicators, there lore seems to be basically crusader who knows how to be discreet and yet just as passionate, which means they will be crusaders who learn to live a long time. :smalltongue:

[Acanous]

You just compared Mohammed to a DOTA character.

Korea's now at war with the middle east.

:p

There IS an oracle prestige class, in the Book of Exalted Deeds. Can't recall the name of it offhand, but from what I recall it was very hard to find a niche for.

[Agrippa]

A paladin or crusader would be a lay (non-priestly or monastic) holy warrior. Think of the Peers of Charlemange if you will. Clerics however are best thought of as warrior-monks or priests along the lines of the Knights Templar or Hospitalier. Or for more modern examples Paladin Alexander Anderson (yeah I know his title is paladin, but he's more of a really fantical cleric) or Ivan Isaacs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest_(manhwa)#Ivan_Isaacs) from the manhwa priest.

[Daverin]

Oh, Paladin Anderson. Definitely have him in mind as a character to draw from for my next char. My only thing is, what makes you say he is cleric? In many ways, I find his regeneration, zealous charge and stab methodology, and skill with weapons to actually be very much like the crusader.

Also, just to get an idea, how many see the cleric as, well, a priest type figure, and how many are more prone to interpret them as more like holy warriors who have spells? I understand that previous editions were more prone to the latter, but I'm curious as to who feels that is or is not portrayed as strongly in 3.5.


You just compared Mohammed to a DOTA character.

Korea's now at war with the middle east.

:p

There IS an oracle prestige class, in the Book of Exalted Deeds. Can't recall the name of it offhand, but from what I recall it was very hard to find a niche for.

It is all secretly a part of my plot to throw the world into a religious world war! Bwahahaha! :smalltongue:

In all seriousness, let's not bring too many jokes/references there, lest it actually becomes about real world religion... I have not yet felt the steely gaze of the ever watchful, never sleeping Roland me (at least, not that I know of :smalleek:), and I'd hate for that to change!

As for the class, I read it. It literally just gives one level of spellcasting for some spell-likes, uses based on level, that also potentially allows for being possessed by evil. That's... uninspiring, to say the least. Can see the difficulty in finding a niche, though! :smalltongue:

[Agrippa]

Well Anderson is a warrior priest amd that's what clerics were originally supposed to be. Maybe cleric/crusader or cleric/psychic warrior gestalt.

[T.G. Oskar]

In the interests of answering the OPs question

Cleric: Magic Monk in robes; maybe a Norman chain shirt and a dagger for self defence.

Crusader: Richard the Lionheart in full armour storming through the middle East with a mighty sword and shield killing the Saracens because God told him to.

Paladin: Samuel L Jackson in Jumper. "You can teleport - Only GOD should teleport."
Wait, what?

Paladins don't really have a real-world counterpart, especially with Crusaders, Knights and Clerics filling the whole armoured-guy-smiting-evil niche.

I suppose they get a nice horse.

Actually, while already mentioned...
Cleric: the original intention was to make a Knight Templar, not a "magic monk". The best way to consider a cleric is a soldier ordained in both a religious order (thus being a Chaplain) and has a degree in medicine (thus making him a field medic).

Crusader: definitely NOT an Arthurian knight. It DOES fit the idea of the common crusader; not the ordained knight but rather the soldier that voluntarily fights for his beliefs and his faith (if applicable). It just happens that the Knights Hospitaller, the Knights Templar and the Teutonic Knights were known religious-military orders.

Paladin: as mentioned, the Peers of Charlemagne or the Palatinus Order of the Roman Empire (the defenders of the palace; eventually became a religious order under the Roman Catholic Church IIRC). The original archetype for the Paladin is actually those on chivalric novels; hence, fantastical paladins are Roland (both in his french Roland and his italian Orlando persona), Amadis of Gaul and other such knight-errants. Also, the Arthurian knight somewhat fits this persona, although the one that best fits the paladin archetype would be Sir Gawain (whom became the defender of the Holy Grail).

Knight: while the paladin is meant to be the epitome of the ideal knight or the knight-errant, the Knight is the representation of the actual knight (or should be). Modern day examples would be the cavalry units, which are usually meant to be better trained and heavier armored, even though they no longer mount.

There is a problem with overlap, though. The Cleric's original intention was to be the Knight Templar-ish character, when it should be somewhere between a field medic and a chaplain, with variants such as the cloistered monk, the celebrant and other such priestly archetypes. It's hard to see the cleric of a god of thievery wearing such heavy armor, and it's easier to simply consider that certain deities offer heavy armor training (probably warrior priests; gods of healing do fine with medium armor prof.) The Crusader and the Knight also have too much of an overlap with the Paladin, even though the Knight is much more mundane in its goals than the Paladin. Crusaders and Paladins ARE different, though, in terms of fluff; it's hard to make an undead hunter with a Crusader (the Crusader has the brute force to beat an undead, but not the specialties) or the Cavalier (which is the best way to deal with the Paladin, not just for the mount but because of the spells) or the fiend hunter.

Also, it's kinda odd to reinforce the idea that the Paladin has a forced fluff but the Knight Vindicator has the most mutable fluff in existence (when it's meant to be a holy warrior of a death goddess). There are options for a variety of paladins, IMO (Paladin of Tyranny/Slaughter/Freedom, Blackguard and Holy Liberator, Grey Guard) and far too few for Knight Vindicator (kinda hard to mingle Shadow Hand with, say, Heironeous or even Hextor which are the front-liner type, and St. Cuthbert would probably benefit a bit more from Iron Heart IMO as well as Moradin).

Rather than discussing fluff, the idea should be to discuss it by splitting and analyzing all factors: for example, what is the original intention behind the classes, what is the fluff it should have based on your personal opinion, and how they match/don't match? What are the class features that shouldn't be there based on the "ideal" representative of each class based on your perception of it, which do fit, which could be replaced? Which of the class features of the Paladin, for example, could be retained with any positive degree of improvement (from none to a lot)? Things like that, since while proposing that "Crusader is a modded Paladin" or "Cleric is exactly what you're looking for on a Paladin" is not an improper opinion, it leads to gross exaggerations (because, while exaggerate, it isn't incorrect to claim that there's no need for any other class under Tier 1 because you can work up just about any archetype with them).

[Coidzor]

Just because you have heavy armor proficiency doesn't mean you should be traipsing around in it, especially if you don't want to be. :smalltongue:


Also, given some of the associations that seem to be made in this thread, does anyone find that the abilities of the paladin and the abilities of the crusader, in some ways, do not match up with the image of the two presented?

Yes. Paladins are too weak and don't properly reflect a divine-infused holy warrior well at all, because the things they get are casting which is mostly just bad until taking every splatbook that was printed and very low and weak CL-wise and Smite Evil, which doesn't really reflect being imbued with power by Good to kill Evil in the Face very well at all, unless one wants to say that Good is both Dumb and Weak.

Crusaders... Pretty much match up exactly with the sort of image I have of them, at least, as far as I've looked into them.


Also, just to get an idea, how many see the cleric as, well, a priest type figure, and how many are more prone to interpret them as more like holy warriors who have spells?

These are mutually exclusive? :smallconfused:

[Feytalist]

"Cleric" and "crusader" only see use in fantasy settings? :smallconfused:

The term cleric is fairly generic, as is crusader. And knight. "Paladin", however, has only one real-world application, that of the order of paladins. That is the point I was trying to make.

I think with the inclusion of all these classes, it seems as if Wizards themselves did not know which distinctions to make.

[Larpus]

I personally believe that their differences is more in "how they think" than anything else, such as:

Cleric: A man of devotion who also has some military training, his decisions are based on what his deity considers to be "good". Usually more focused on protection rather than aggression, leading wars against attackers, not against creatures who were "just existing" (unless the deity says otherwise).

Crusader: A military fighter with a unbelievable faith in an ideal or cause, to the point that he gets special abilities that, while not enough to be "divine magic" are quite beyond what is possible through physical prowess alone. Fights for his ideal for better or worse, however is still essentially a Fighter, so he could go ahead when a divine warrior says "this is enough"; similarly, is the one who does not get visions from his deity at all and when he does it's much more subjective and open to interpretation.

Paladin: A mix of military fighter and man of faith. He fights first and foremost for "Good", even if it somewhat clashes with his deity. Usually more focused on aggression of "Evil" since the Paladin is self-justified by being able to "see evil to banish it", as a result a Paladin would be very likely to attack a group of demons, even if said demons hadn't done anything wrong yet.

[subject42]

Yes. Paladins are too weak and don't properly reflect a divine-infused holy warrior well at all, because the things they get are casting which is mostly just bad until taking every splatbook that was printed and very low and weak CL-wise and Smite Evil, which doesn't really reflect being imbued with power by Good to kill Evil in the Face very well at all, unless one wants to say that Good is both Dumb and Weak.

Convert the Pathfinder Paladin back to 3.5. There is a statistically significant, quantifiable improvement in the daily amount of facekilling that the you'll be able to accomplish.