Paladin/Cleric... Why Not?

[shaka gl]

A little argument grew between my DM and I. He says that, flavour-wise, the Paladin/Cleric combination cannot happen, as they are "two separete sides of the same thing". As for me, I think thats nonsense. What do YOU think?

PS: This is a discussion about the Flavour of the combo, not the Numbers.

[Yeti]

Umm a Paladin/Cleric crossclass couldn't happen simply because pallies can't multi-class.

[SITB]

I think your DM has a point. Clerics exist to serve their god and his ideals, a paladin exists to serve some abstract "good" idea. The cleric goals are much more well, selfish; as he does everything in the name of his god rather then by the aforementioned "good" cause.

On the other hand maybe if you take a cleric that doesn't believe in a god but rather in the abstract ideal of good and chivalrousness then maybe it could work...

[shaka gl]

Umm a Paladin/Cleric crossclass couldn't happen simply because pallies can't multi-class.
Ehm... Since When?

If I remember correctly, in the part where Deitys are listed in the FRCS, in the description of Torm, it reads: "Clerics of Torm usually multiclass as Paladins(...)"

Im wrong?

[Knight_Of_Twilight]

I can see what he means, but it seems kind of arbitrary. A cleric could decide to take up the mantle of paladin, or a paladin could decide to further devote himself the church.

Heck, if you want, take the knight training feat in the eberron book- He can study them both side by side.

[Yeti]

Ehm... Since When?

If I remember correctly, in the part where Deitys are listed in the FRCS, in the description of Torm, it reads: "Clerics of Torm usually multiclass as Paladins(...)"

Im wrong?

Well that could happen but Paladins who take levels in any more classes can't take more levels in Pally. I.E. you could have a Paly2/cleric1 but not a Paly1/cleric1/paly1. that would limit you at mid to high levels.

EDIT:/\Point

[ocato]

Well, you'd have to get all of your paladin-ing done in one shot, then go to Cleric, or vice versa, as Paladins cannot take other levels in between that I recall. However, I see Clerics as the wisdom and devotion of a deity and paladins as more of the sword and justice part. If I were a DM, I'd be okay with it. Imagine a Strength/War Cleric with levels of Paladin, that sounds so not-weird to me, I might do it. Granted, the paladin levels would be mildly unnecessary.

[Khantalas]

Well that could happen but Paladins who take levels in any more classes can't take more levels in Pally. I.E. you could have a Paly2/cleric1 but not a Paly1/cleric1/paly1. that would limit you at mid to high levels.

EDIT:/\Point

Well, see, freely means that Paladins can switch between classes. A lot of FR deities allow free multiclassing between classes for Paladins. Especially Arcane Devotee. Even though they don't allow free multiclassing into any arcane spellcasting class.

Can I get a "Huh?" moment?

[Sergeantbrother]

My personal opinion is that the distinction between a paladin and a cleric is just kinda arbitrary. What if you have a combat oriented cleric of a god of goodness? The cleric just knows a few more spells and is a little worse in combat than the paladin. If I were GM I'd let you multiclass paladin and cleric, I'd even let to get levels in paladin afer getting cleric levels, since they are so theoretically similar.

[Matthew]

It would work fine. Basically, the Paladin could take Holy Orders. the other way round is a little less intuitive, but it works fine. It all depends on your actual understanding of Paladins and Clerics. Too many people confuse the roles of these two Classes.

[FdL]

Ok, that's me, I'm his DM. And I'm really interested to know what the rest thinks about this.

His idea was to have a Paladin/Cleric/Gray Guard. Then I said "why the cleric levels?".

It strikes me as if having a paladin who's also a cleric is a little weird, because they're somehow overlapping in that they could be considered different options of the divine paradigm. That is, you have the divine magic oriented class, and the divine melee oriented class. A similar thing could be said about druid and ranger.

But that's only part of my opinion. I feel that the way religions are organized in Faerun, they are different paths to take in serving a deity (barring the fact that you can have a more tenuous affiliation to a church as both classes). And so, I feel that they kinda overlap.

I do know that as of FRCS there are religions that have these kind of combinations (eg, Torm). But it's still too linked to the nature of that deity and its policies.

I definitely think that a paladin or cleric character in a given written setting fit better with the material, but also restricted by it. Which is good because it's easier to play with the reference material in mind, helps RP and makes the character a part of the world. Either by affiliation or by opposition, of course, either way it's there.

[Matthew]

Forgotten Realms in particular blends these two Classes in people's minds, as the Paladin has to serve a particular Deity. As it stands, though, there would be nothing problematic in having a secular, if exemplary, Knight become a Templar (which is essentially what a move from Paladin to Cleric is). As far as Greyguard goes, I'm not familiar with that Class.

[ocato]

Paladin/Cleric/Greyguard almost sounds like the Divine Good God Gish. Granted that may not be entirely apt.

[FdL]

However, I see Clerics as the wisdom and devotion of a deity and paladins as more of the sword and justice part. If I were a DM, I'd be okay with it. Imagine a Strength/War Cleric with levels of Paladin, that sounds so not-weird to me, I might do it. Granted, the paladin levels would be mildly unnecessary.

That's the point. If you make a very melee oriented, war domain cleric, why not play a paladin? Both classes do overlap IMHO. That's why I say I see them as extremes of the same paradigm.

Besides, I guess it's possible to have a change of career in the life of a character, but doesn't sound so plausible. I tend to like more solid, coherent characters, and actually I see those "career changes" as related to meta gaming.


It would work fine. Basically, the Paladin could take Holy Orders. the other way round is a little less intuitive, but it works fine. It all depends on your actual understanding of Paladins and Clerics. Too many people confuse the roles of these two Classes.

Sure, that's why this happens. And that's why I bring the point about referencing the FR setting and understanding both classes as distinct roles within organized religions in Faerun.
To me a paladin is the enforcer of his deity's dogma, the pro-active agent, the soldier of a faith.
A cleric's role is somehow a little less defined in my mind, as it seems to depend more on the goals and dogma of the deity and his view of the world. A cleric can be a priest, a healer, someone who spreads the word of his deity and looks to convert people, or a magic using divine warrior too.


Paladin/Cleric/Greyguard almost sounds like the Divine Good God Gish. Granted that may not be entirely apt.

That was his idea, as he told me. He wanted to make a divine gish.

[ocato]

Well, a nonmelee cleric multiclassed with a paladin allows the Cleric to be all casterific and still get his melee powers. I mean, unless you want to let him Multiclass two different domained clerics.

I'm a War/Strength Cleric 4/ Good/Healing Cerlic 3, my name? Crazy McHuh?

[Lemur]

Well, why not? I don't see any particular problems with the combination flavor wise. There are weirder things you can make work that are still perfectly reasonable. I don't see the argument "they're too similar" as a good reason to disallow multiclassing.

That said, I'm going to ignore the OP for a moment and say, yeah, the crunch for it sucks. What's the point of doing it in the first place, anyway? As far as gish-types go, the cleric class is practically a gish already if you want it to be.

The setup isn't going to break the game, unless the other players have significantly more optimal builds, in which case the class is going to be a bit of a deadweight.

Grey Guard, however, I have plenty of problems with in terms of flavor, but that's not what the question is about. :smallannoyed:

[SpiderBrigade]

It seems to me that if you see the classes as very similar, that would be more of a reason to allow the multiclassing, rather than banning it. A paladin might gradually come to focus more on the less-combat-oriented magical side of the religion, while a cleric could easily get inspired with the divine fervor to go out and Smite some Evil. It would be very organic. Note that this doesn't mean you should allow free back-and-forth multiclassing. It's still very plausible that once you stop taking Paladin levels, that represents a certain loss of focus, and you cannot go back. But a one-time-only switch makes perfect sense to me.

You mentioned that you have some doubts about all multiclassing, and consider it somewhat metagamey. I disagree, but I can somewhat see where you're coming from, especially for some builds which go all over the place to fit a certain concept. I'd say that this particular case is just about the least metagamey you can get. As others have said, from a mechanical standpoint it's just not very practical. So it really would be about the character's changing priorities as he grew more experienced.

[Tokiko Mima]

A little argument grew between my DM and I. He says that, flavour-wise, the Paladin/Cleric combination cannot happen, as they are "two separete sides of the same thing". As for me, I think thats nonsense. What do YOU think?

PS: This is a discussion about the Flavour of the combo, not the Numbers.

"Two separete sides of the same thing" "cannot happen?" Umm.. I would show him a coin, and point out that it has two seperate, similiar but unique sides, and it yet exists in complete defiance of his logic.

The fact that they're similar only makes them MORE likely to happen, not less. You're right, if that is what he said it's a load of bunk.

Maybe he's trying to argue that fighters don't become casters, but that's kinda what multiclass is all about.

Then I guess you could explain to him that Succubi Paladins are technically legal in D&D even though they have an Evil Subtype and watch his head spin.

[FdL]

Well, why not? I don't see any particular problems with the combination flavor wise. There are weirder things you can make work that are still perfectly reasonable. I don't see the argument "they're too similar" as a good reason to disallow multiclassing.

For me the fact that they are "similar" weakens the point for multiclassing them. That said from fluff, of course.



That said, I'm going to ignore the OP for a moment and say, yeah, the crunch for it sucks. What's the point of doing it in the first place, anyway? As far as gish-types go, the cleric class is practically a gish already if you want it to be.


I said the same thing to him about the cleric being already a divine gish. :p



The setup isn't going to break the game, unless the other players have significantly more optimal builds, in which case the class is going to be a bit of a deadweight.


I'm not measuring the character in terms of power. I do strive to keep some kind of balance and I usually don't allow min/maxing and weird stuff.
My main objection to this character, even if it's just a suggestion, comes from the fluff flavor.

The idea was for the players to make a "backup" character, but it ocurred to me that it would be better if they were more integrated to the setting and the region, as not to have another random adventurer from afar or two joining them out of the blue to complete their ranks.


Grey Guard, however, I have plenty of problems with in terms of flavor, but that's not what the question is about. :smallannoyed:

I don't dislike it, but it seems to be one of those classes that doesn't necessarily fit every campaign or party.



"Two separete sides of the same thing" "cannot happen?" Umm.. I would show him a coin, and point out that it has two seperate, similiar but unique sides, and it yet exists in complete defiance of his logic.

The fact that they're similar only makes them MORE likely to happen, not less. You're right, if that is what he said it's a load of bunk.


Hey, Tokiko Mima, I'm here. You can talk directly to me.

What I said was more in the lines of being two different extremes within a common category of classes, that of divine. More than a coin, think about a rod with its two opposite poles. On one there's the more melee oriented paladin and in the other there's the more casting oriented cleric, though both feature elements of each other.
Then I consider that making a character that has both ends of this same paradigm is redundant and overlapping also in the fluff.



Maybe he's trying to argue that fighters don't become casters, but that's kinda what multiclass is all about.

Then I guess you could explain to him that Succubi Paladins are technically legal in D&D even though they have an Evil Subtype and watch his head spin.

No, sorry, that's not what this discussion is about. It seems to me that you've not read all that's being said in this thread and I suggest you to do so before posting, thank you.

[Raistlin1040]

Meh. If you wanted a better healing than a paladin but better fighting than a cleric, why not go Cleric and cherrypick a few fighter levels? Maybe like Cleric 10/Fighter 4-5?

[FdL]

Meh. If you wanted a better healing than a paladin but better fighting than a cleric, why not go Cleric and cherrypick a few fighter levels? Maybe like Cleric 10/Fighter 4-5?

Personally I don't like this kind of pick and mix multiclassing. I could allow it but I don't like its spirit. Besides, considering that the cleric already is in part a fighter, I tend to dislike it, even more because it's certainly all for the crunch.
I mean, almost every class IS a fighter in part. Except for Wiz/Sorc, where it would bring something new into the mix that the original class doesn't feature in any degree. So I tend to see multiclassing with fighter as a metagaming way of adding melee power.

[Little_Rudo]

If you're worried about how much the mechanics of the two classes overlap, then you might consider using the Cloistered Cleric (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#clericVariantCloistere dCleric) variant. He'll lose some BAB, but he'll gain the Lore ability, a third domain (Knowledge), and an additional 4 skill points, while the Paladin will provide more BAB and Medium and Heavy armor proficiency. I'm not sure if this is what you want, but it would give him a bit extra for taking Cleric.

To be honest, I've always felt that the cleric's martial skills (medium/heavy armor, high BAB) somewhat impede on the paladin's role. Granted, the cleric is devoted to a deity (sans clerics of causes), while the paladin is devoted to Good, but it's always kind of rubbed me the wrong way. This is why I love the Cloistered Cleric so much. :smallsmile:

[SpiderBrigade]

For me the fact that they are "similar" weakens the point for multiclassing them. That said from fluff, of course.Again, why? Wouldn't the very similarity of the two make it easier to go from one to the other?

I'm trying to think of a realistic example to demonstrate what I mean, but it's difficult because multiclassing in D&D is a lot easier than picking up a similar skillset in any kind of "realistic" world. But for instance, think of a university math department. All of the professors are going to have a solid grounding in higher-level mathematics in general, but they'll have different specializations. There will likely also be many who are also physicists, using the math practically. Isn't it quite plausible that as he explores the field, one of them might find that his interests are tending away from, say, n-dimensional vector calculus, and more towards complexity theory? Or, similarly, might not a pure theorist get more interested in applying his knowledge to a "real-world" problem? In my opinion, the shift from Cleric to Paladin would be similar in nature.

[Roderick_BR]

Yes, it can happen. Paladins can follow deities (actually, I think they do it more than clerics) and clerics can be "abstracts". I think that female paladin from PHB is a follower of Heronius, the deity of valor and heroism, and you can have clerics of Heronius too.
You can gain levels as paladins, then multiclass into cleric, though you face the normal paladin's multiclassing rules, unless you play in a setting that allow a paladin to multiclass without penalty. Forgotten Realms has a lot of examples.
The only real requisite, is that you need to worship only one god, and he must be lawful good, or neutral good, or lawful neutral, and you channel positive energy as a cleric. Btw, your turning level will be your cleric level plus your paladin level -2

[Matthew]

Sure, that's why this happens. And that's why I bring the point about referencing the FR setting and understanding both classes as distinct roles within organized religions in Faerun.
To me a paladin is the enforcer of his deity's dogma, the pro-active agent, the soldier of a faith.
A cleric's role is somehow a little less defined in my mind, as it seems to depend more on the goals and dogma of the deity and his view of the world. A cleric can be a priest, a healer, someone who spreads the word of his deity and looks to convert people, or a magic using divine warrior too.

...and that's the problem. Paladin's are not Soldiers of God in the same sense that Clerics are. A Paladin, whether he worships a single Deity or is devoted to a cause or whatever is a secular figure, he is not usually ordained, unlike the Cleric. The difference is important, because what it means is that a Paladin is an exemplary secular figure, a Lancelot or a Roland or even a Godfrey of Bologne, but he isn't a Templar.
There are literary examples of Paladins becoming Clerics, many medieval stories basically depict a Paladin who becomes a Cleric (Cloistered or not). Le Morte DArthur is a particular case in point (some Knights could be said to go from Fighter to paladin to Cloistered Cleric to Cleric, if you're willing to ignore the magic aspect...). If you can get a clear definition in your mind of what distinguishes a Paladin from a Cleric (who is not simply a Priest, by the by, but a Warrior Priest), the rest of this will slot into place.

[Renegade Paladin]

But that's only part of my opinion. I feel that the way religions are organized in Faerun, they are different paths to take in serving a deity (barring the fact that you can have a more tenuous affiliation to a church as both classes).
Hilariously enough, that's exactly the position of one of the most orthodox branches of Tyr's church in-universe. :smallbiggrin: But they have this position precisely because there are some more liberal temples that allow the mixing of the cleric and paladin or paladin and monk traditions, so it's obviously possible. Really, it all has to do with whether his church and sect tell him that he may not do it, and for a divine caster in the Realms, that does matter very much.

[Lyran Greymoore]

(Hey-oh, first post!)

Something I feel the need to point out, is that you are confusing the character's class with the character. A character is a person, with his own abilities, ideals, and personality. A character's class is merely a predefined set of themed skills and abilities that have a name. A class is an arbitrary way of defining a certain amount of abilities that the character has. It's got no bearing, except possibly in the case of certain prestige classes, on the character in a roleplaying sense. It's totally a metagame concept, and it should be left as such.

Put another way, I could play a straight up fighter class character, who worships Torm and holds himself to a paladin's code of honor as well as the tenants of Torm. He's got more fighting ability, but less divine spiffyness. He's certainly not a paladin by class, but he's a paladin in spirit.
Or, I could play a paladin with all paladin levels. Then I'm getting paladin abilties, and I'm a paladin by class. But I'm not necessarily a paladin in spirit.

If the OP wants his character to be a paladin, but wants to have better casting at the cost of fighting ability, why can't he? He's not his class. He's a person with abilities defined by a class. And abilities are just an arbitrary way of solving problems.

Alright, I better stop before I get further into rant mode. Just my thoughts on the matter.

[Cybren]

Isn't there a PRC based around this very idea in the Book of Exalted Deeds?

[Matthew]

(Hey-oh, first post!)

Something I feel the need to point out, is that you are confusing the character's class with the character. A character is a person, with his own abilities, ideals, and personality. A character's class is merely a predefined set of themed skills and abilities that have a name. A class is an arbitrary way of defining a certain amount of abilities that the character has. It's got no bearing, except possibly in the case of certain prestige classes, on the character in a roleplaying sense. It's totally a metagame concept, and it should be left as such.

Put another way, I could play a straight up fighter class character, who worships Torm and holds himself to a paladin's code of honor as well as the tenants of Torm. He's got more fighting ability, but less divine spiffyness. He's certainly not a paladin by class, but he's a paladin in spirit.
Or, I could play a paladin with all paladin levels. Then I'm getting paladin abilties, and I'm a paladin by class. But I'm not necessarily a paladin in spirit.

If the OP wants his character to be a paladin, but wants to have better casting at the cost of fighting ability, why can't he? He's not his class. He's a person with abilities defined by a class. And abilities are just an arbitrary way of solving problems.

Alright, I better stop before I get further into rant mode. Just my thoughts on the matter.
That's one way of looking at it, but particularly in the case of the Cleric and the Paladin it doesn't hold up. These two Base Classes are very closely integrated with their fluff, a Paladin who is not a paladin in spirit loses his Paladin status. A Cleric who is not faithful loses his ability to use Cleric Class Features. There's no getting away from this with these Classes.

[Droodle]

That's one way of looking at it, but particularly in the case of the Cleric and the Paladin it doesn't hold up. These two Base Classes are very closely integrated with their fluff, a Paladin who is not a paladin in spirit loses his Paladin status. A Cleric who is not faithful loses his ability to use Cleric Class Features. There's no getting away from this with these Classes.A Paladin of a lawful good warrior deity is actually more likely to embody the tenets of his deity than a cleric would, wouldn't he?

[Matthew]

A cleric of a lawful good warrior deity is actually more likely to embody the tenets of his deity than a cleric would, wouldn't he?
Do you mean Paladin? Anywho, no. Paladins aren't religious figures, they are secular. Even if there was a 'God of Paladins', a Cleric would still be better suited to serve as a Cleric of that Deity...

[FdL]

...and that's the problem. Paladin's are not Soldiers of God in the same sense that Clerics are. A Paladin, whether he worships a single Deity or is devoted to a cause or whatever is a secular figure, he is not usually ordained, unlike the Cleric. The difference is important, because what it means is that a Paladin is an exemplary secular figure, a Lancelot or a Roland or even a Godfrey of Bologne, but he isn't a Templar.
There are literary examples of Paladins becoming Clerics, many medieval stories basically depict a Paladin who becomes a Cleric (Cloistered or not). Le Morte DArthur is a particular case in point (some Knights could be said to go from Fighter to paladin to Cloistered Cleric to Cleric, if you're willing to ignore the magic aspect...). If you can get a clear definition in your mind of what distinguishes a Paladin from a Cleric (who is not simply a Priest, by the by, but a Warrior Priest), the rest of this will slot into place.

This is an interesting contribution. I have to do more research to sort this out, but within the official D&D FR material, just to be sure. I'm not sure where I got the idea that a given church or cult of a deity has paladins in its ranks, just like clerics. Actually it doesn't sound like something crazy to me, but now I need some factual reference.

[Cybren]

I think Matthew would confuse less people by clarifying Paladins as "lay people", not secular so to speak, but lacking any official connections to a church, much in the way nuns are. Except nuns don't have any other similarities to paladins.

[Tor the Fallen]

It could totally work.

Cloistered cleric's monastery gets burned, his friends slaughtered, by the forces of evil. Disturbed that he was powerless to prevent the raiders, he picks up the sword.

[fractal_uk]

...and that's the problem. Paladin's are not Soldiers of God in the same sense that Clerics are. A Paladin, whether he worships a single Deity or is devoted to a cause or whatever is a secular figure, he is not usually ordained, unlike the Cleric. The difference is important, because what it means is that a Paladin is an exemplary secular figure, a Lancelot or a Roland or even a Godfrey of Bologne, but he isn't a Templar.
There are literary examples of Paladins becoming Clerics, many medieval stories basically depict a Paladin who becomes a Cleric (Cloistered or not). Le Morte DArthur is a particular case in point (some Knights could be said to go from Fighter to paladin to Cloistered Cleric to Cleric, if you're willing to ignore the magic aspect...). If you can get a clear definition in your mind of what distinguishes a Paladin from a Cleric (who is not simply a Priest, by the by, but a Warrior Priest), the rest of this will slot into place.

This is an interesting contribution. I have to do more research to sort this out, but within the official D&D FR material, just to be sure. I'm not sure where I got the idea that a given church or cult of a deity has paladins in its ranks, just like clerics. Actually it doesn't sound like something crazy to me, but now I need some factual reference.

I totally disagree with what Matthew said there, especially for a game in the Forgotten Realms. In FR, as Paladins have to have to worship a deity of close to Lawful Good alignment in order to receive divine powers they are anything but secular figures. They are Holy Warriors their God is championing to spread their beliefs.

Secular warriors, even lawful good ones are Fighters or Warriors, etc. To take a real world analogue the Paladin draws much of its influence from Military Monastic Orders, the Knights Templar, the Order of St John, etc.

The Paladin is just as likely as a Cleric to be fiercely devoted to his religion - perhaps even more when you consider the temperament required to become a Paladin. I don't see the multiclass as a problem at all, it is just a matter of how the character wishes to serve his or her God.

You might, for example, start out as a priest spreading the word of your God and healing the sick only to decide you want to take a more active role in bringing justice to the world so begin taking Paladin levels.

That said however, I do think that by the core rules a Cleric is too much of a Holy Warrior - Generally Priests do not go around in Full Plate beating their God's enemies over the head with a mace but by the rules you'd be stupid not to take the heaviest armour you can find.

[lared]

Personally I don't like this kind of pick and mix multiclassing. I could allow it but I don't like its spirit. Besides, considering that the cleric already is in part a fighter, I tend to dislike it, even more because it's certainly all for the crunch.
I mean, almost every class IS a fighter in part. Except for Wiz/Sorc, where it would bring something new into the mix that the original class doesn't feature in any degree. So I tend to see multiclassing with fighter as a metagaming way of adding melee power.

Eh, that's a very old-school perspective that I think is evidence people are still having trouble wrapping their head around 3 edition's attitude towards multiclassing. I actually think that most of the really interesting characters from an RP perspective are, in fact, multiclass. Real people don't devote themselves to a specific "path" or "discipline" of knowledge to the exclusion of learning anything else, which is how the linearity of pre 3e-classes was justified flavor-wise. It's amusing to me how calcified this obvious and lame "hack" the designers used to justify why their system was so linear has become in the minds of RPers. A bunch of players looked at the system and asked "Why CANT my wizard lay off the books and learn how to swing a sword for a while?" and that was the only answer they could come up with. The real reason, of course, was "We're still figuring out how to properly balance classes." (Which, btw, I find entirely understandable - it takes time and experimentation for game designers to figure out how to make things work.)

As a good benchmark, look at all of the marquee characters in FR. (I don't like FR very much, but it makes a good point of reference.) Drizz't is a Fighter 8/Barbarian 1/Ranger 8 or something. He spent years and years training and fighting as a Drow House Warrior, then spent a few years in the wilderness as a instinct-driven hunter, then discovered his goddess and became a ranger. I submit to you that the old, 2e-statted Drizz't (as a Ranger 18 or whatever) could not represent the character nearly as well. Elminister as statted in the FRCS has a fighter level or two in there somewhere too, apparently because he spent some time learning how to swing a sword in his youth. (I loathe FR books and have never read them).

And really metagaming your class gain to achieve a specific effect isn't inherently contrary to creating a character background. Say I wanted to create a ECL 3 chararacter who is a rogue that was then captured and forced into the armed forces. A rogue level 3 would represent that reasonably well, since he can still swing a short sword well enough, but a rogue 2/fighter 1 would represent that better, as it reflects that he neglected his rogue skills during his time in the army. The fighter level represents a tradeoff of more melee for less of something else. A cleric or what have you that dips a level of fighter is simply a reflection of the fact that at some point that character emphasized his martial skills over the skills of his original class.

[Matthew]

I totally disagree with what Matthew said there, especially for a game in the Forgotten Realms. In FR, as Paladins have to have to worship a deity of close to Lawful Good alignment in order to receive divine powers they are anything but secular figures. They are Holy Warriors their God is championing to spread their beliefs.
Well, that's your perogative, of course! Seriously, though, there is nothing in the Core Paladin fluff that would suggest this to be the case.
The Forgotten Realms is actually the only case in point where the lines become blurred (with reference to D&D). Even so, whilst Paladins can become ordained, it is my understanding that this is not typically the case, even in the Forgotten Realms. I only have access to (A)D&D Forgotten Realms material, so I can't be sure


Secular warriors, even lawful good ones are Fighters or Warriors, etc. To take a real world analogue the Paladin draws much of its influence from Military Monastic Orders, the Knights Templar, the Order of St John, etc.

Nope, Paladins were inspired by the 'Three Lions' book or whatever it was called. They are not modelled after Monastic Orders of Knighthood, but after exemplary Secular/Lay (a concession to Cybren, for those who think of 'opposed to religion' when hearing the word 'secular') Knights. They are perfect examples of how one should lead one's life as a Secular/Lay Knight, but there is no reason to suppose them to be members of religious orders by default.


The Paladin is just as likely as a Cleric to be fiercely devoted to his religion - perhaps even more when you consider the temperament required to become a Paladin. I don't see the multiclass as a problem at all, it is just a matter of how the character wishes to serve his or her God.

Only in the context of The Forgotten Realms does a Paladin need to support a particular Deity and even in that context there is no reason for him to be particularly zealous with regard to that Deity. He can be zealous about his cause and worship a Deity that has similar aims, but that's as far as the necessity goes.


You might, for example, start out as a priest spreading the word of your God and healing the sick only to decide you want to take a more active role in bringing justice to the world so begin taking Paladin levels.

Nope, a Character cannot choose to become a Paladin, according to the fluff, unless he is already called to it. Becoming a Cleric is a slightly different matter, as far as can be observed from the fluff.


That said however, I do think that by the core rules a Cleric is too much of a Holy Warrior - Generally Priests do not go around in Full Plate beating their God's enemies over the head with a mace but by the rules you'd be stupid not to take the heaviest armour you can find.
Again, it is your perogative to oppose this view of Clerics, but it's clearly the way they are imagined in D&D. Rather than trying to change the Class to suit your vision, consider changing your vision to accord with the Base Class. In short, a Cleric is not a Priest. He is a Warrior Priest or even a Warrior Monk, depending on how far you interpret the fluff.

[fractal_uk]

Nope, Paladins were inspired by the 'Three Lions' book or whatever it was called. They are not modelled after Monastic Orders of Knighthood, but after exemplary Secular/Lay (a concession to Cybren, for those who think of 'opposed to religion' when hearing the word 'secular') Knights. They are perfect examples of how one should lead one's life as a Secular/Lay Knight, but there is no reason to suppose them to be members of religious orders by default.


Even traditional Knights that nobles would regularly become, i.e not members of Military Monastic Orders, were made to swear oaths which included swearing allegiance to the church, to defend the faith, etc etc. Granted these would not be ordained but the assumption of doing what they do for their divine lord is there.



Only in the context of The Forgotten Realms does a Paladin need to support a particular Deity and even in that context there is no reason for him to be particularly zealous with regard to that Deity. He can be zealous about his cause and worship a Deity that has similar aims, but that's as far as the necessity goes.


Why would a deity grant a Paladin all sorts of powers to smite evil, heal the sick, turn the undead, cast divine spells - if the Paladin wasn't even particularly zealous about their deity? It makes no sense whatsoever. Even commoners have to do more than pay lip service to be considered a true believer - it does also say in the PHB that Paladins of a specific deity are likely to be very dedicated to their religious duties.

In the FR campaign setting it even provides examples of how Paladins of different Gods will behave differently. For instance Paladins of Helm with a more militant outlook and a foremost desire to stop evildoers, whilst Paladins of Ilmater would rather heal the injured left in the wake of the evildoer than hunt the perputrator down at the cost of the lives of the injured.



Nope, a Character cannot choose to become a Paladin, according to the fluff, unless he is already called to it. Becoming a Cleric is a slightly different matter, as far as can be observed from the fluff.


A character can ignore the call, said character may not have realised exactly what their God wanted of them or perhaps thought the life of the Paladin simply was not for them and therefore decided to become a Cleric instead. These cases are the exception rather than the rule, but there are perfectly reasonable explanations for the change to happen.

[Matthew]

Even traditional Knights that nobles would regularly become, i.e not members of Military Monastic Orders, were made to swear oaths which included swearing allegiance to the church, to defend the faith, etc etc. Granted these would not be ordained but the assumption of doing what they do for their divine lord is there.
Exactly, it's not the same thing. There is a world of difference between entering a Monastic Order of Knighthood and being a Knight. That difference is exactly what distinguishes the Cleric from the Paladin. It's also important to be aware that oaths of Knighthood changed over time, varied from place to place and do not translate well to Polytheistic D&D Mythology. Not to mention that such secualr oaths would equally apply to any Class [i.e. they are not particular to the Paladin].


Why would a deity grant a Paladin all sorts of powers to smite evil, heal the sick, turn the undead, cast divine spells - if the Paladin wasn't even particularly zealous about their deity? It makes no sense whatsoever. Even commoners have to do more than pay lip service to be considered a true believer - it does also say in the PHB that Paladins of a specific deity are likely to be very dedicated to their religious duties.

Sure, but what are those religious duties? Secular people have religious duties, charity, obedience, that sort of thing. Ordained religious have different duties.
I'm not talking about paying lip service, I'm talking about where the focus of a Paladin with a patron Deity lies. It is still with being a Paladin, rather than worshipping a Deity. The Deity supports that Paladin's ethos, not the other way around.


In the FR campaign setting it even provides examples of how Paladins of different Gods will behave differently. For instance Paladins of Helm with a more militant outlook and a foremost desire to stop evildoers, whilst Paladins of Ilmater would rather heal the injured left in the wake of the evildoer than hunt the perputrator down at the cost of the lives of the injured.

Yes, that's true, but no big deal either. No Paladin has to behave exactly like any other, it doesn't follow that a Paladin with a patron Deity can overlook his role as a Paladin in favour of the Deity. What I mean by this is that the Paladin worships a deity because it accords with his view of being a Paladin, rather than being a Paladin because it accords with his idea of worshipping that Deity.


A character can ignore the call, said character may not have realised exactly what their God wanted of them or perhaps thought the life of the Paladin simply was not for them and therefore decided to become a Cleric instead. These cases are the exception rather than the rule, but there are perfectly reasonable explanations for the change to happen.
Sure, and I'm not arguing against that. However, Paladins and Clerics are not interchangable or two sides of the same coin, which is what I am saying. A Paladin is an exemplary of the secular/lay community, a Cleric is a Warrior within the religious community (whether Priest or Monk).

As I said, though, The Forgotten realms is very much the exception in that it forces Paladins and other Divinely powered agents to receive Spells and other Divine aid from Deities. By default, this is not necessary. It's very odd that things work this way in Faerun, especially considering the religious organisation in Al-Quadim, which apparently has no Deities, but operates by way of a Philosophy. All to do with the Time of Troubles, I would suppose.

In any case, the point is that a Paladin does not need to be part of a Church to worship a Deity or receive spells from him, let alone be part of a Monastic Military Order.

[Lolth]

To me, at least, the fluff question is nonexistent.

The character is devoted to his/her deity, and follows that wherever it takes them. 'nuff said.

So it's really a question of crunch. Which there is not one rule I am aware of (other than limits on Paladin/Multiclass progression) that prohibits it (assuming a Deity who accepts LG Clerics, of course) so why not?

I mean, is the character walking around identifying themselves by their class names, or as a really devoted follower of (Insert Deity Name Here).

[Matthew]

Only in the Forgotten Realms does a Paldin need to worship a Deity. As far as that goes it does not mean following that Deity over being a Paladin, it just means worshipping that Deity and that's all.

To be clear, I'm not arguing against Multi Classing here, distinguishing between Paladin and Cleric is an argument in favour of Multi Classing.

[Lolth]

In my experience, it's a pretty common house rule to have Paladins follow deities, or Clerics not be allowed to just worship ideals.

So I don't want to make any assumptions about the OP's setup in that regard.

[Matthew]

Maybe so, but that isn't how the RAW works. Even then, having Paladins behave as Clerics is exactly where the confusion between the two Classes stems from. The OP is playing in the Forgotten Realms, so there's nothing to worry about in that regard. The point is that, even in the Forgotten Realms, Paladins are not part of Monastic Orders of Knighthood by default. Some may be, but it is not necessary to play that Class.

Al-Quadim is always my stmbling point for the Forgotten Realms' 'everyone worships a Deity' thing. Does anybody have an explanation?

[EvilElitest]

Forgotten Realms in particular blends these two Classes in people's minds, as the Paladin has to serve a particular Deity. As it stands, though, there would be nothing problematic in having a secular, if exemplary, Knight become a Templar (which is essentially what a move from Paladin to Cleric is). As far as Greyguard goes, I'm not familiar with that Class.

A greyguard is a very odd perstige class that is like a paladin, except doesn't have to follow the code, it is much like Miko
from,
EE

[fractal_uk]

Only in the Forgotten Realms does a Paldin need to worship a Deity. As far as that goes it does not mean following that Deity over being a Paladin, it just means worshipping that Deity and that's all.

I think the thing to consider, with regard to the Forgotten Realms and other games which use similar rules is where does the idea of being a Paladin comes from. We must conclude it is a task that specific God's call upon people to do.

Why do God's do this? Well, in the case of God's like Torm and Ilmater - they are Paladins themselves and so obviously wish to promote this kind of behaviour.



What I mean by this is that the Paladin worships a deity because it accords with his view of being a Paladin, rather than being a Paladin because it accords with his idea of worshipping that Deity.


Becoming a Paladin is, exactly as you said, a higher calling. So a FR Paladin worships a deity because said deity has called upon that person to become a Paladin in their name. A deity calls upon his followers to become Paladins because it advances that deities cause throughout the world.

Paladins represent the ultimate in devotion to a (lawful good) cause, so in campaigns like the Forgotten Realms, where they must have a deity - they are likely to be highly religious and are likely to attempt to emulate that deity as closely as possible.

Presumably another factor is the training of a Paladin. I would suppose that a commoner does not wake up one morning suddenly proclaiming he has become a Paladin overnight - he requires training in order to recognise the potential his higher calling offers. This is where Religious Military Orders step in, these being the ideal place to train a Paladin in the use of weapons and armour as well as how he is expected to behave.

If we are simply dealing with a warrior who was Knighted by a secular Lord and later swore to some sort of chivalric code and to serve a Lawful Good Deity - then you have a Lawful Good Fighter.

[Matthew]

I think the thing to consider, with regard to the Forgotten Realms and other games which use similar rules is where does the idea of being a Paladin comes from. We must conclude it is a task that specific God's call upon people to do.
Why do we have to conclude this? What's the evidence for it? I'm not saying it isn't a reasonable interpretation, but it's hardly definitive.


Why do God's do this? Well, in the case of God's like Torm and Ilmater - they are Paladins themselves and so obviously wish to promote this kind of behaviour.

Maybe so, but that rests firmly with the idea that Deities are responsible for 'creating' Paladins. Is this actually stated in the Forgotten Realms? D&D is fairly ambiguous about what the source of the Paladin's call is. As far as I can see, the only difference in the Forgotten Realms is that their divine power is sourced by a specific Deity (can it be sourecd by multiple Deities?). The whys and wherefores are as elusive as Ao himself...


Becoming a Paladin is, exactly as you said, a higher calling. So a FR Paladin worships a deity because said deity has called upon that person to become a Paladin in their name. A deity calls upon his followers to become Paladins because it advances that deities cause throughout the world.

Again, this rests on the notion that it is a Deity who calls the Character to become a Paladin. As far as I am aware, the only thing a Deity in the Forgotten Realms does is act as a source for the Paladin's Divine Power.


Paladins represent the ultimate in devotion to a (lawful good) cause, so in campaigns like the Forgotten Realms, where they must have a deity - they are likely to be highly religious and are likely to attempt to emulate that deity as closely as possible.

They may be, but not necessarily. Emulating a Deity is not strictly the best form of pious duty. Clerics usually go the whole way and devote their lives to specific Deities, Paladins do not have to. They have to worship a Deity in the Forgotten realms to receive Divine Power, but it doesn't follow that they behave like Clerics. If they did, there would be no real need (or place) for a Paladin Class at all (which is why the Original Poster's DM had a problem with Multi Classing between Cleric and Paladin).
Do we have any example Paladins in the Forgotten Realms on whom to test these ideas? I can only think of three off the top of my head and those are (A)D&D versions.


Presumably another factor is the training of a Paladin. I would suppose that a commoner does not wake up one morning suddenly proclaiming he has become a Paladin overnight - he requires training in order to recognise the potential his higher calling offers. This is where Religious Military Orders step in, these being the ideal place to train a Paladin in the use of weapons and armour as well as how he is expected to behave.

According to the PHB fluff, Paladins generally apprentice under other Paladins as Squires. There may be an Order involved, but it doesn't have to be Monastic or even connected to a Church.


If we are simply dealing with a warrior who was Knighted by a secular Lord and later swore to some sort of chivalric code and to serve a Lawful Good Deity - then you have a Lawful Good Fighter.
You could have a Lawful Good Fighter or you could have any other Class in this scenario. A Paladin could quite easily fulfil the above criteria / career path. Strictly speaking, he doesn't even have to be a Knight, just an exemplary and pious Warrior.

[Edit]
Some Orders of Paladins found in the Forgotten Realms Wiki.



Helm
Vigilant Eyes of the Deity
This is the order of the paladins who worship Helm. All Paladins may join this guild after squirehood.



Ilmater
Holy Warriors of Suffering
The church of Ilmater sponsors an order of paladins called the Holy Warriors of Suffering.



Tyr
Knights of Holy Judgement
The Order of the Knights of Holy Judgement tends to attract the paladins who emphasize the "lawful" part of their dedication to Tyr.
Knights of the Merciful Sword
The Order of the Knights of the Merciful Sword tends to attract the paladins who emphasize the "good" part of their dedication to Tyr.
Hammers of Grimjaws
The very elite of Tyr's paladins, members of the Hammers of Grimjaws are chosen from the best of the Knights of the Merciful Sword and Knights of Holy Judgment. The choosing of the order's members is in part done by Tyr himself; as part of the process of ascending to the order's ranks, a candidate must pray and receive a vision from Tyr. A vision of Tyr's warhammer shows the god's favor and permits immediate acceptance into the order. A vision of Tyr's sword, a traditional sign of the god's disfavor of the viewer, means that the aspiring Hammer has failed in some way and must go on a quest to atone before entering the ranks of the Hammers. (This does not mean that he has lost his powers as a paladin; he simply did not meet the far more stringent requirements to become a Hammer.) A successful atonement quest allows the aspirant to join the Order as though he had seen the vision of the warhammer. Currently, only 13 Hammers are in active service, a testament to the purity and power required to become one of the order.



Tempus
Order of the Steel Fang (Paladin membership?)
The Order of the Steel Fang is an elite fighting order within the church of Tempus, whose members are often assigned to the most hazardous duties. Steel Fang units are led by battle-hardened members of the clergy. Many mercenary companies and knightly fighting orders of crusaders also avail themselves of a connection to the Church. One badge of the god seen among his affiliated mercenaries is a rusty brown dagger, shown diagonally with its point to the upper right, dripping four drops of blood.

Order of the Broken Blade (Paladin membership?)
The Order of the Broken Blade honors those warriors and clergy who are injured in Tempus's service and can no longer fight in the front lines.Appeared in Popular Icewind Dale game.

You'd think Torm would have an Order, being the Deity of Paladins, but I couldn't find any information in the Wiki... likewise the Red Knight.

[Yvian]

Personally I don't like this kind of pick and mix multiclassing. I could allow it but I don't like its spirit. Besides, considering that the cleric already is in part a fighter, I tend to dislike it, even more because it's certainly all for the crunch.


So, out of curiosity, what type of multiclassing do you like? In my mind’s eye Paladin and Cleric is one of the more obvious choices.

Some people chose to be a HOLY warrior for their god. Other chose to be a holy WARRIOR? Where do you place the line. A lot of people are pointing to militant religious orders. What about religious orders that are militant. The Jesuits come to mind. After all, the top Jesuit is a General.

Personally, I do like multiclassing in 3rd ed. In 1st or 2nd you had to be an archetype. You had to be a wizard or a thief – to was hard to get away from the preset mold set out for you. I mean sure, Dragon magazine would come out with 100’s of base classes, but still. You were more or less locked into a single idea. With a paladin cleric mix you character can chose just the right amount of holy and warrior.

That being said, I am somewhat confused that you have an issue with the cleric and not the Grey Guard. To me, that is where the fluff really breaks down. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that one.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

The character combination actually reminds me a lot of some of the members of ancient knightly orders such as the Temple of Solomon, the Hospitaliers, and the Teutons. The ones that would start as a peaceful and generally un-warlike priest and then take up the mantle of knighthood. I could totally see a cleric turning into a paladin like that. Paladin to cleric is a little stranger, as it seems that would mean the warrior priest has decided to devote himself more to the peaceful aspects of his god instead of the hurty-bashy end.

I would also like to point out that doing this actually weakens the cleric abilities. As a DM, I'd allow it on that basis alone.

[Lemur]

Hospitaliers, huh? That reminds me, the Hospitalier prestige class from CD might be of interest for an alternate character design of what the OP is looking at.

[Matthew]

The character combination actually reminds me a lot of some of the members of ancient knightly orders such as the Temple of Solomon, the Hospitaliers, and the Teutons. The ones that would start as a peaceful and generally un-warlike priest and then take up the mantle of knighthood. I could totally see a cleric turning into a paladin like that. Paladin to cleric is a little stranger, as it seems that would mean the warrior priest has decided to devote himself more to the peaceful aspects of his god instead of the hurty-bashy end.

I would also like to point out that doing this actually weakens the cleric abilities. As a DM, I'd allow it on that basis alone.
Veh? That's not what happened! Those were Knights who joined Monastic Military Orders, not Priests or Monks who became Knights (though that could conceivably happen). The Knights of the Temple were established by Knights, the military arms of the Knights of Saint John and the Teutonic Knights were also drawn from knightly ranks, rather than priestly. Regardless, Knights and Priests tended to be drawn from the same families anyway, but the warrior arm of those orders were generally knights to begin with, though non combat members were common in the West.
Paladin to Cleric is by far the most intuitive progression. A Knight becoming a Warrior Monk (Cleric) or a conventional Monk (Cloistered Cleric) has plenty of historical precedent.

[Tokiko Mima]

Hey, Tokiko Mima, I'm here. You can talk directly to me.

What I said was more in the lines of being two different extremes within a common category of classes, that of divine. More than a coin, think about a rod with its two opposite poles. On one there's the more melee oriented paladin and in the other there's the more casting oriented cleric, though both feature elements of each other.

Then I consider that making a character that has both ends of this same paradigm is redundant and overlapping also in the fluff.

A rod with two different poles is still a rod. A coin with two sides is still the same coin. Just because two things are similiar does not logically make them exclusive.

Consider a Cleric who preaches in a church each day, then finds his community besieged by evil magic resistant outsiders, so he takes up a longsword and follows the path of a Paladin. How is that not a possible scenario? Would you find it more believable if the Cleric instead became a Barbarian?


No, sorry, that's not what this discussion is about. It seems to me that you've not read all that's being said in this thread and I suggest you to do so before posting, thank you.

I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to the discussion as raised by the OP; that is why I had the quote block in my post. I feel I adequately addressed the OP's concern, but I don't feel an obligation to respond to any one particular person, thank you. When someone makes an interesting argument and I have time, I answer.

As well, many times discussions will go completely off track. You wished to discuss your own take, and while that was presumably relevent to what the quoted OP said, at the same time I didn't feel the need to make my argument encompass BOTH points of view. If you wished to raise your own point of view and be sure people addressed it, make your own thread for it.

[DomarSaul]

So, in summary...

- Generic Paladin and Generic Cleric's default fluff make switching from one to the other seem perfectly reasonable, and the RAW has no problem with it.

Furthermore:

- If the DM chooses to disentangle the default fluff from the class mechanics, and substitute an even looser conception of devotion to goodness/a deity/a philosophy, then it becomes an absolute non-issue.

However:

- If the DM considers the character class mechanic to be tied exlusively to a particular in-game fluff reality, and the fluff does not allow changing from one discipline to another, then the character class mechanics tied to said fluff cannot be mixed. After all, it's his game, and his world.

[FdL]

So, out of curiosity, what type of multiclassing do you like? In my mind’s eye Paladin and Cleric is one of the more obvious choices.


I think multiclassing is a necessary evil when you need to combine different classes to make a character that adjusts to your concept. I don't like dipping for the sake of getting X benefit.
I also understand that to some extent characters can seek new paths along their lives, and this can be done by multiclassing.



Some people chose to be a HOLY warrior for their god. Other chose to be a holy WARRIOR? Where do you place the line. A lot of people are pointing to militant religious orders. What about religious orders that are militant. The Jesuits come to mind. After all, the top Jesuit is a General.


I understand what you say. But look at your own words, according to your description both are [holy] + [warrior], only in different proportions. When you combine both you are getting HOLY + WARRIOR.
Now this is what I'm referring to when I say that they are classes that are part of the same paradigm, and by using both IMHO you're being redundant (debatable, sure) and at the same time wanting to "have it all" in the divine category.



Personally, I do like multiclassing in 3rd ed. In 1st or 2nd you had to be an archetype. You had to be a wizard or a thief – to was hard to get away from the preset mold set out for you. I mean sure, Dragon magazine would come out with 100’s of base classes, but still. You were more or less locked into a single idea. With a paladin cleric mix you character can chose just the right amount of holy and warrior.

3rd offers even more customization within a same class to begin with, which I prefer to multiclassing. But anyway, yeah, it allows for more freedom. It's just that I don't think that this should imply an "anything goes" approach to character building.



That being said, I am somewhat confused that you have an issue with the cleric and not the Grey Guard. To me, that is where the fluff really breaks down. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that one.

Well, it's an unusual PrC but it's natural to have it as a progression from a paladin. If he took just that it'd be a simpler character, which doesn't detract from its playability at all, at least from my perspective.
My player, the OP, probably likes to play more complex characters and definitely has a different approach to character building, so I realized that I don't have to limit his options or imagination by making him stick to my understanding of things. As long as it can be justified reasonably from the concept and the roleplaying, I guess I'd allow it.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

I was refferencing a documented- though not so common- transition that was seen every now and then within knightly orders such as those. Certainly the vast majority of them began as knights of particular houses or countries that decided to dedicate themselves more to their religion than their nationality, but it wasn't unheard of for priests to join an order and take up arms. This was most common in the Crusades.

[Matthew]

Interesting. What documents are you referring to? Are these Priests or Monks joining Military Orders as Fighting Monks or as Non Combatants? There is a significant difference, of course. What about period?

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Second and third Crusades, primarily monks I believe. I've read a few accounts such as these in a handful of books about the Templars and Hospitaliers over the years. I'll attempt to find an internet-capable source.

[Gavin Sage]

Ehm... Since When?

If I remember correctly, in the part where Deitys are listed in the FRCS, in the description of Torm, it reads: "Clerics of Torm usually multiclass as Paladins(...)"

Im wrong?

SRD writes that Paladins may multiclass but if they take a level in another class then they cannot advance as paladins.

For starting in another class you can take paladin levels, but they would be all at once. So you'd have to do say Cleric for 5 levels, Paladin for the next 5, then go back to Cleric for the last 10.

[Matthew]

Second and third Crusades, primarily monks I believe. I've read a few accounts such as these in a handful of books about the Templars and Hospitaliers over the years. I'll attempt to find an internet-capable source.
I would be very interested in any such information, even if not sourced from the Internet, I can probably find it somewhere. I would love to know about a Monk or Priest who actually made the leap to Knight in a twelfth century Templar or Hospitaller Order. I have totally missed any such reference over the years and I'm reasonably well read in the history of these orders (if a bit forgetful!).

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Yes, they were remarkable Orders. I have a special affinity for the Templars, misrepresented though they are so often. The internet is proving rather difficult in searching for this information. I'll check back in at my library soon to seek out the books I originally read this from, and give you some titles and authors to search by.

NOTE: I don't believe these cases were counted as knights, however. Part of the military structure of the Templars, yes, but only nobility could be knights in the order. They'd have been counted in the black tunic ranks under the more ordinary (and popular) white tunic knights.

[Droodle]

Do you mean Paladin? Anywho, no. Paladins aren't religious figures, they are secular. Even if there was a 'God of Paladins', a Cleric would still be better suited to serve as a Cleric of that Deity...Yes, I did. And, uh, no they aren't. God's don't grant extraordinary divine powers to mere fighters. Do you really think that "Divine Grace" isn't divinely granted? Torm's Clergy consists of both Clerics and Paladins. Half of Azuth's clergy are actually wizards....and gain no divine magic at all. Over half of Milil's clergy are actually Bards. Most of Mielikki's clergy are actually Rangers and Druids. Clerics don't always typify their deities. At least not in Faerun.

[Matthew]

Yes, they were remarkable Orders. I have a special affinity for the Templars, misrepresented though they are so often. The internet is proving rather difficult in searching for this information. I'll check back in at my library soon to seek out the books I originally read this from, and give you some titles and authors to search by.

NOTE: I don't believe these cases were counted as knights, however. Part of the military structure of the Templars, yes, but only nobility could be knights in the order. They'd have been counted in the black tunic ranks under the more ordinary (and popular) white tunic knights.
Okay thanks.

Yes, I did. And, uh, no they aren't. God's don't grant extraordinary divine powers to mere fighters. Do you really think that "Divine Grace" isn't divinely granted? Torm's Clergy consists of both Clerics and Paladins. Half of Azuth's clergy are actually wizards....and gain no divine magic at all. Over half of Milil's clergy are actually Bards. Most of Mielikki's clergy are actually Rangers and Druids. Clerics don't always typify their deities.
Who said they did? I said that Clerics are best suited to be Clerics. Anyway, yeah, in the Forgotten Realms Deities do grant Divine Power to Paladins, but in the default game that Divine Power doesn't have to come from a Deity.
However, as I said, Paladins can be clergy and ordained (just like everybody else), but it is not necessary to be so to be a Paladin (nor is it the default or normal state of that Base Class).

[Droodle]

Okay thanks.Who said they did? I said that Clerics are best suited to be Clerics. Anyway, yeah, Deities do grant Divine Power to Paladins, but in the default game that Divine Power doesn't have to come from a Deity.Given that Clerics don't need to draw their divine power from a Deity in the Default game, either, I fail to see your point on this one.

[Matthew]

Clerics are by default ordained members of the Clergy (though there are exceptions). Paladins are not. Anybody can be a member of the Clergy, however, without needing to be a member of the Cleric Base Class.

[i.e. A Paladin in the default game does not draw his Divine Power from a Deity. A Cleric may or may not, but if he serves a Deity he does. This does not apply to the Paladin, who may worship a particular Deity without receiving Divine power from him]

[Droodle]

Clerics are by default ordained members of the Clergy (though there are exceptions). Paladins are not. Anybody can be a member of the Clergy.

[i.e. A Paladin in the default game does not draw his Divine Power from a Deity. A Cleric may or may not, but if he serves a deity he does. This does not apply to the Paladin]Um.....then why, if a Paladin doesn't draw his power from a Deity, did Miko fall for committing what she did not consider an evil act? Was the Giant wrong? Why would Paladins fall at all?

[Matthew]

It's the Giant's gameworld, he can do what he likes. By the RAW, though, yeah he's wrong (at least insofar as that has to be the way they fall). There is no explicit mechanic for who decides a Paladin has fallen and strips him of his powers. The fluff in the PHB suggests that being a Paladin transcends religion.

[Droodle]

It's the Giant's gameworld, he can do what he likes. By the RAW, though, yeah he's wrong (at least insofar as that ahs to be the way they fall). There is no explicit mechanic for who decides a Paladin has fallen and strips him of his powers.I think I'm going to need to see a relevant quote taken from the Paladin's fluff to show that the Paladin's divine powers don't come from a divine source. After reading the PHB to find something, I've still got nothing coming even remotely close to supporting this viewpoint.

[Matthew]

A Divine source, yes, a Deity no. It's under Characteristics, Religion and Background in the 3.0 PHB, p. 41 (I assume the fluff remains the same):


Characteristics
Divine Power protects the paladin and gives her special powers. It wards off harm, protects her from disease, lets her heal herself, and guards her heart against fear. The Paladin can also direct this power to help others, healing their wounds or curing diseases.



Religion
Paladins need not devote themselves to a single deity. Devotion to Righteousness is enough for most.



Background
All Paladins, regardless of background, recognise in each other an eternal bond that transcends culture, race, and even religion.


Deities and Demi Gods expands on this:

3.0 Deities and Demi Gods, p. 9.



Forces and Philosophies
Not all cleric powers come from deities. In some campaigns, philosophers hold enough conviction in their ideas about the universe that they gain magical power from that conviction. In others, impersonal forces of nature or magic that grant power to mortals who are attuned to them may replace the gods. In the D&D rules, druids and rangers can gain their spell ability from the force of nature itself, rather than from a specific nature deity, and some clerics also devote themselves to ideals rather than to a deity. Paladins may serve a philosophy of justice and chivalry rather than a specific deity.
By their nature, forces and philosophies are not worshipped – they are not beings that can hear and respond to prayers or accept sacrifices. Devotion to a philosophy or a force is not necessarily exclusive of service to a deity. A person can be devoted to the philosophy of good and, as a result, offer worship to various good deities, or revere the force of nature and also pay service to the gods of nature, who might be seen as personal manifestations of the impersonal force. Few philosophies in a fantasy world deny the existence of deities, although a common philosophical belief states that the deities are more like mortals than they would have mortals believe. According to such philosophies, the gods are not truly immortal (just very long lived) and humans may be quite able to attain divinity themselves. In fact, ascending to godhood is the ultimate goal of some philosophies.
Generally, the power of a philosophy comes from the belief that mortals invest in it. A philosophy that only one person believes in is not strong enough to bestow magical powers on that person. A force, on the other hand, can have power apart from the belief in it or even apart from the existence of mortals.


Here's a Thread discussing the situation: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34312

[Droodle]

Paladins may serve a philosophy of justice and chivalry rather than a specific deity.This still doesn't prove your point. "May serve" and "does serve" have very different meanings. The fact that a Paladin may serve a philosophy of justice and chivalry rather than a specific deity, doesn't state, or even imply, that Paladins only draw their powers from a philosophy of justice and chivalry rather than a specific deity. It does, however, imply that a Paladin may not. Clerics, after all, may also serve a philosophy of justice and chivalry rather than a specific deity by the RAW. Again, this just shows that, even by the RAW, Paladins and Clerics are drawing their powers from the same type of source.

[Matthew]

Have updated above.

What exactly do you think my point is? It's not that Paladins cannot gain Divine Power from Deities, it's that they don't have to. More importantly, they can worship and follow a Deity and not be reliant on him for Divine power or aid. The fluff from the PHB above makes no mention of a Deity granting Divine power. That is only a stipulation in the Forgotten Realms. The section in Deities and Demi Gods refers to possibilities for game worlds.

Most important of all, though, is that Paladins are not ordained. They can be, but it isn't usual. For Clerics it is usual.

[Droodle]

What exactly do you think my point is? It's not that Paladins cannot gain Divine Power from Deities, it's that they don't have to.True. But clerics don't have to, either. A cleric can, for example, draw his power from a philosophy of justice and chivalry rather than a specific deity. Just like a Paladin. A Paladin could, for example, draw his power from a LG deity. Just like a Cleric. Both classes get their powers from either a deity or a concept. Other than the fact that Paladins are limited to LG concepts and/or deities, there just isn't a difference between where these classes draw their powers. This is the argument that I'm addressing.

[Matthew]

So, let's go back to the beginning of this discussion. Is there anything in the Paladin's fluff that indicates where his Divine Power comes from?

Now, compare with the Cleric's fluff. Clerics who do not devote themselves to a god are 'not associated with a religious institution or a particular practice of worship.' Here is where the Paladin differs, as he can be associated with these things and still not gain his Divine power from a Deity.

Now the question, where does a Paladin derive his Divine Power from and how does this interact with which Deities he worships? it doesn't. No matter which Deity a paladin chooses to worship, it has no impact on his Spell lists or powers, as it does with Clerics. Is the Divine Source the same for all Paladins in Greyhawk?

[Droodle]

So, let's go back to the beginning of this discussion. Is there anything in the Paladin's fluff that indicates where his Divine Power comes from?

Now, compare with the Cleric's fluff. Clerics who do not devote themselves to a god are 'not associated with a religious institution or a particular practice of worship.'

Now the question, where does a Paladin derive his Divine Power from and how does this interact with which Deities he worships? it doesn't. No matter which Deity a paladin chooses to worship, it has no impact on his Spell lists or powers, as it does with Clerics.That's because a Paladin is only allowed to be Lawful Good and also because he isn't a dedicated caster. He doesn't get a domain because his God or Cause grants him other attributes. Clerics are full casters who can draw their power from deities/causes from all over the alignment spectrum.....so their spell lists are rather more varied....and, instead of getting neat abilities like Smite Evil or Divine Grace, they get Domains.

[Matthew]

No, it's not, it's because 'the Gods... ...work mostly through their intermediateries - their clerics.' Find me anything like that in the description of the Paladin and I will concede the point. There is nothing in the Paladin's description that suggests he gains his Divine power from a Deity.

[Droodle]

No, it's not, it's because 'the Gods... ...work mostly through their intermediateries - their clerics.' Find me anything like that in the description of the Paladin and I will concede the point. There is nothing in the Paladin's description that suggests he gains his Divine power from a Deity.From my Dictionary:
Divine: 1. Of or belonging to God; as, divine perfections; the divine
will.
2. Proceeding from God; as, divine judgments. "Divine
protection.
3. Appropriated to God, or celebrating his praise; religious;
pious; holy; as, divine service; divine songs; divine
worship.
4. Pertaining to, or proceeding from, a deity; partaking of
the nature of a god or the gods.


Paladins get Divine Grace at level two. 'Nuff said.

[Matthew]

What on earth does the dictionary have to do with D&D terminology? Nuff said my ass. I take it you cannot find anything in the Class description of the Paladin to support the idea that they receive their Divine Power from a Deity?

Here's a fun game, look up Paladin in the dictionary.

[Edit]Okay, I'm getting snippy now. Sorry about that. I think I had better go to bed.

[Droodle]

What on earth does the dictionary have to do with D&D terminology?Because words mean things?

[Matthew]

Okay, I couldn't let it lie:


Divine Spells
Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells. Divine spells tend to focus on healing and protection and are less flashy, destructive, and disruptive than arcane spells.


Words do mean things, but they often mean different things in D&D than in conventional discourse.

[TheOOB]

Because words mean things?

The meaning of words in the english langauge are every changing, even more so when D&D is involved.

The thing you have to remember about a paladin is that yes, they can worship a god, they can be faithful to a god. They can be a lot of things, but one thing you always must remember is that a paladin is a paladin first, and everything else is secondary.

Keep in mind that the paladin code is identical reguardless of what dieity you follow, any paladin who violates the code losses their paladin abilities. Last I checked lieing wasn't something pelor punishes by stripping you of all your divine power.

Keep in mind that when a god has a paladin following them, the god doesn't make the paladin, they sponsor them (you'll see that word used alot in official D&D sources). A paladin can be a paladin with our without a god, but it certainly is easier to do so with the support of a good deity and their clergy. Just because a diety sponsors a paladin, however, doesn't mean that they grant the paladin their abilities or control them in any way, it just means that they give the paladin some help in the right direction. It also stands to reason that when a paladin falls, their god will be at least be present, if not forced by the esocentric "good" power that grants paladins their powers to strip the paladin of their sponsorship.

As for paladin/clerics, I see no logical reason why you couldn't be one. Yes there could be conflict when your devotion to the code goes agienst your devotion to your god, but theres no reason a paladin can't learn clerical magic, paladins can learn arcane magic, so why not other divine classes?

[FdL]

I'm with the idea that Divine Power comes from a deity.

[Matthew]

And so it may do in the Forgotten Realms (though that power comes from Mortal belief in an endless cycle. Weird, really. Belief creates effect, which creates belief...), but as the above quote from the PHB Magic Section makes clear, Paladin Spells are not powered by a Deity in the default game.

So, how goes your research into the nature of Paladin's in Faerun?

[Falkus]

A greyguard is a very odd perstige class that is like a paladin, except doesn't have to follow the code, it is much like Miko
from,
EE

Um, not in the slightest like Miko. A Grey Guard isn't bound by his oath. Miko clearly was bound, since she fell when she committed an evil act.

[Talya]

A Paladin of a lawful good warrior deity is actually more likely to embody the tenets of his deity than a cleric would, wouldn't he?

Yes.

A cleric of a lawful good Deity could be neutral good or lawful neutral and still be granted spells by her God. The Paladin MUST be lawful good.

That said, the reverse is also true...a paladin of a lawful neutral or neutral good deity (or in rare cases, Chaotic Good. Sune has an order of paladins)...is not going to represent her deity quite as well as a cleric might.

[Duskwither]

Okay, I was lazy, and didn't read all of the pages, but...

Flavor-wise, Paladin/Cleric works out fine to me, I mean heck, King Dragonsbane of Damara is a 20th level Paladin/5 Cleric of Ilmater.

Crunch-wise... Meh. Not the best. If I want to play a Paladin sometime, I like to just roll up a Cleric, Destruction Domain, and Persist Divine Power.

I don't like the Greyguard class, but that's not what was brought up.

[Matthew]

Yes.

A cleric of a lawful good Deity could be neutral good or lawful neutral and still be granted spells by her God. The Paladin MUST be lawful good.

That said, the reverse is also true...a paladin of a lawful neutral or neutral good deity (or in rare cases, Chaotic Good. Sune has an order of paladins)...is not going to represent her deity quite as well as a cleric might.
As we have been discussing, this can only hold true in Campaign Worlds in which Paladins receive Divine Power from a Deity (and even then depends on the Deity having the exact same mandate as the Paladin), which is not the case in default D&D. Regardless, chances are a Lawful Good Cleric is still going to serve a Lawful Good Deity better than a Lawful Good Paladin, if we use Alignment to decide such things (which is itself a flawed argument).

[Person_Man]

You can do it. But its generally not a good idea.

Clerics get their power from their spell progression. Screw their spell progression, and you severely weaken the class.

Multiclass Paladins traditionally go Paladin 4-5/full BAB Class X/Full BAB Prestige class Y. If you don't stay in a full BAB classes, you screw your To-Hit and Power Attack progression. Paladin 20 is also playable using the Spell Compendium, a Cohort Special Mount, and/or the numerous variant rules out there meant to buff them.

But if you're really into playing a Paladin/Cleric for whatever reason, I could see a Paladin 3/Cleric X/full caster progression Prestige class Y with the Divine Power spell working out. It's just that you'll suck until you get access to 4th level Cleric spells, and with your slowed progression, that will take a while.

[Serenity]

Whether or not Paladins must worship a diety is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that a large number do, including the archetypal Paladin in the PHB, a fierce devotee of Heironious. Why should a devoted servant of a diety be denied the opportunity to take up the mantle of a cleric?

Put another way, if the proposed character was a rigidly Lawful Good Fighter, wholly devoted to LG God of War X and adhering to a strict code of honor, no one would begrudge him being ordained.

I can't say it's advisable crunch-wise (would you make a wizard/sorceror?), but to deny it because the fluff doesn't match is simply ridiculous.

[Renegade Paladin]

I would like to point out that you probably don't have to be a cleric to be ordained as a minister of a deity. The cleric class in the PHB is meant for the elite clergy and warpriests. The way I typically run things, your average minister is probably not even a divine spellcaster; I've run experts as local priests of Gond and gleaners or even commoners for Chauntea, for instance; it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for those deities, among many others, to have warpriests as everyday clergy. In the newest campaign I'm playing in, my character is a paladin of Pelor and he started the campaign giving noonday mass at the temple! All it really takes is ranks in Knowledge (religion) and (for lawful churches) the approval of the heirarchy, really.

[Matthew]

Whether or not Paladins must worship a diety is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that a large number do, including the archetypal Paladin in the PHB, a fierce devotee of Heironious. Why should a devoted servant of a diety be denied the opportunity to take up the mantle of a cleric?

Perhaps, but the fluff in the PHB indicates that most actually don't. In any case, nobody in this thread appears to be any longer arguing that a Paladin should not be able to Multi Class to Cleric (or Cloistered Cleric) or vice versa.


Put another way, if the proposed character was a rigidly Lawful Good Fighter, wholly devoted to LG God of War X and adhering to a strict code of honor, no one would begrudge him being ordained.

I can't say it's advisable crunch-wise (would you make a wizard/sorceror?), but to deny it because the fluff doesn't match is simply ridiculous.

It's really more like making a Ranger/Druid or Bard/Sorcerer than a Wizard/Sorcerer. It's worth remembering, though, that it is a fluff heavy rule that prevents a Character freely Multi Classing out of Paladin.

The problem was in the blurriness between Paladin and Cleric in the Forgotten Realms. In default D&D this is not a RAW problem. The DM, in this case, perceived the Paladin as the military arm of the Church, which is a common, but technically incorrect, view by default. The Cleric is the military arm of the Church, the Paladin is an exemplar of secular/lay Knighthood (or warrior ethos or whatever).

A Paladin could be part of the military arm of a church, but this is not mandated by his Character Class. Similarly a Cleric need not be part of the military arm of a church, but it does appear to be the default role of his Character Class, unlike the Cloistered Cleric, who is the other side of the same coin.



I would like to point out that you probably don't have to be a cleric to be ordained as a minister of a deity. The cleric class in the PHB is meant for the elite clergy and warpriests. The way I typically run things, your average minister is probably not even a divine spellcaster; I've run experts as local priests of Gond and gleaners or even commoners for Chauntea, for instance; it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for those deities, among many others, to have warpriests as everyday clergy. In the newest campaign I'm playing in, my character is a paladin of Pelor and he started the campaign giving noonday mass at the temple! All it really takes is ranks in Knowledge (religion) and (for lawful churches) the approval of the heirarchy, really.

Absolutely, and this has already been addressed over the course of this thread.