What does "Crusader" mean to you?

[LTwerewolf]

Third in a series of threads about redesigning all the classes. For the purposes of discussion, all of the classes are scrapped and things are starting entirely from scratch. Therefore "well a cleric can already do that" or "why not just play a duskblade" doesn't apply. Thus far I've only actually created the ranger base class, but have gathered notes from the threads for when I get around to making the next ones. I already have an idea of what I would like to do for several classes, but discussion allows me to make things far more inclusive of more concepts, not just the ones I like. It will ultimately lead to a completely new system. If there is enough interest I'll make a website or something that has all the stuff I do.

The first two can be found here:
Ranger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?493915-What-does-quot-ranger-quot-mean-to-you)
Monk (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?494795-What-does-quot-monk-quot-mean-to-you)



Things the thread is for:
Discussion of the concept presented in terms of what you associate with it, and the things you think of when nothing else is provided.
Discussion of literary and other representations you feel are good examples of the topic.

Things the thread is not for:
Homebrew charts and specific mechanics
"This class already does that" discussion

[Zanos]

Honestly when I hear the term Crusader it inevitably evokes the Crusades in my mind, so I think of a devout warrior dedicated to a religious order.

[legomaster00156]

A crusader in the fantasy sense is a powerful agent of the divine. Whereas a cleric is a god's voice, a crusader is a god's sword. They are militant church members, often trained from a young age to bring the fight to their god's enemies. They likely have limited divine blessings, ones which will be useful in their militant mission as opposed to "utility magic", but the majority of their strength is in their martial training.

[squiggit]

Armor. A shield and a flail (or sometimes just one weapon). The implacable blade of their god.

In settings where a church might have both crusaders and paladins, the crusader differentiates itself by being more offensive. Less a paragon or champion of virtue and more just unbridled holy wrath. If they are magical, they likely have very little healing ability and probably wouldn't have the charm a paladin does either.

They also compare pretty well to inquisitors: Similar role as darker, less glamorous agents of their religion, similar flexibility, but instead of finesse and guile they're just juggernauts.

So I guess they sort of fit between the two of them.

[Troacctid]

"Crusader" is not a resonant fantasy archetype at all for me, or, I think, for most people.

[squiggit]

"Crusader" is not a resonant fantasy archetype at all for me, or, I think, for most people.

I dunno. Most people I know get some pretty strong imagery out of that word and if someone says they're playing a 'crusader' most people seem to get the idea, so I can't agree.

[Beowulf DW]

As has already been said, "Crusader" evokes the Crusades to me.

A person, likely a commoner, giving up everything-profession, home, savings-all for the sake of taking up arms for a cause that he or she believes in.

The original Crusaders were typically peasants that sold everything they had to join the cause, or warriors that turned away from their former lives in the hope of forgiveness. Already, we have the themes of self-sacrifice, the giving of one's all, and redemption.

Add in faith, for better or worse. A crusader can inspire and protect at best, and at worst is an example of the ugliest forms of blind hatred.

[Knaight]

I'd go with a fanatical warrior attached to some sort of religious organization and carrying out warfare in their name. With that said, the term can be used much more broadly than that and still be recognizable - for instance, a lot of the 2nd generation crusaders in the actual Crusades weren't all that fanatical.

[AnimeTheCat]

Ooh, I like dis! I think of two things when I invision a crusader. First I imagine the standard templar knight; horseback, sword and shield, highly trained, overall bada** knight of a holy order. The other side of the coin is a church conscripted convict (say that three times fast!) That is told to go fight in order to attain redemption and atonement of their sins and that if they came back alive they would be free men. That's what I've got in mind when I think crusader.

[Troacctid]

I dunno. Most people I know get some pretty strong imagery out of that word and if someone says they're playing a 'crusader' most people seem to get the idea, so I can't agree.
I won't say it doesn't have any particular imagery associated with it, but if I were brainstorming archetypal fantasy high concepts, I would not be gravitating towards it. And if you showed people the top Google Image results for Crusader, I think most people would say "Oh, that's a knight," or maybe "That's a Templar Knight," not "That's a crusader."

I'll grant that it is more resonant than Warblade. However, it is orders of magnitude less resonant than Knight while filling mostly the same space. So in the context of reworking the system from the ground up with entirely new classes, I don't think it makes sense to include Crusader at all. Use Knight instead.

[Gildedragon]

Martial class
Devoted to a cause, perhaps to a fault
Unstoppable, implacable, powered by their belief that their cause is correct

[LTwerewolf]

Use Knight instead.

Knight is one of the overarching class types, which includes crusader and a few others, but you're welcome to talk about it in general if you would like.

[Troacctid]

I think Crusader is at best a subclass of Knight or Paladin—like the kits in 2e, archetypes in PF, and subclasses in 5e. If you're not using subclasses in your new system, I don't think it's worth including Crusader as its own class; it's not iconic enough to deserve a slot.

If you have overarching archetypes with different classes within those archetypes, then Crusader would be one of the classes, not one of the archetypes.

[LTwerewolf]

Underneath knight (for now) includes armor masters, crusaders, paladins, and dark/death/evil/bad knights (obviously name needs work).

[Troacctid]

Underneath knight (for now) includes armor masters, crusaders, paladins, and dark/death/evil/bad knights (obviously name needs work).
Seems reasonable. I think there's room for a distinction between Death Knights and Black Knights. The Black Knight is a dark foil to the Paladin's "White Knight" and represents cruelty and tyranny, while the Death Knight incorporates themes of necromancy, death, and undeath. I'm not sure what you mean by Armor Master—is that like a Tank or Juggernaut? That might be more of a Fighter thing. I think you're also missing an obviously mount-focused Cavalry/Cavalier subclass.

If this were the lineup, I would expect the Crusader to be similar in feel to 5e's Paladin of Vengeance: a more aggressive subclass focused on seeking out and destroying the bad guys.

[LTwerewolf]

I'm not sure what you mean by Armor Master—is that like a Tank or Juggernaut? That might be more of a Fighter thing. I think you're also missing an obviously mount-focused Cavalry/Cavalier subclass.



I base the armormaster on the concept of the english knight (as opposed to the mainland knights), which is not typically a mounted unit, but an infantry unit. If you've ever read Armor of the English Knight 1400-1450 by Tobias Capwell it goes into a lot more detail about it. I wasn't sure if I was going to include a very mount specific because of how niche and specific it would make the class (useless for a great many campaigns that take place in tighter cooridors). If there's significant call for it, it can be included though. I intend to do more threads about the other knight classes, this one intended to be specific about the crusader.

[Milo v3]

Paladin without the alignment stuff.

[weckar]

Crusader and Templar are nearly synonymous in my mind. Religious devotion, Teamwork and Influence through Reasoning come to mind as core concepts. On the darker side, intolerance and self-righteousness are common traits too.

As for call for a mounted class; I think the few times I picked up the Pathfinder Cavalier were the most fun I've ever had with that game.

Is this thread with the aim to write your own d20 system game?

[Eldan]

Uhm, honestly, Crusader doesn't bring anything fantasy to mind at all. Just the crusades. Especially the first and the forth. So crusaders are middle ranked nobility or peasants who go off on ostensibly holy warfare to get rid of their sins in the eyes of the church. Then they rape a few dozen allied cities, set fire to some unrelated religious groups, slaughter some of the population in the target area, then wander off to find themselves a nation they can assassinate the ruler off and make themselves king.

It's a very specific name for a very specific group of real life people. I'd bring up some modern day equivalents, but that would get very political. Paladin is different, to me, because I heard of fantasy Paladins before I knew that the German word "Pfalz" means the same thing, or that it was a name for the bodyguards of a Roman Caesar or even knew much about La Chanson de Roland.

[Spore]

My definition: In a fantasy RPG context Crusader is differentiated to a Cleric or a Paladin by not having any real spells. They are mundane unmounted warriors who fight for their god. Although not limited to they use their blade and knowledge of war to conquer lands and bring them their own religion. Sometimes by force.

[Zombimode]

They are mundane unmounted warriors who fight for their god.

Why unmounted? The Crusader class is mount neutral.


Crusader for me in a D&D context has the same traction as, say, Ardent or Incarnate have: it is a name of a D&D class. Characters with levels in the Crusader class would probably call themselves "knights". If I would tie the Crusader class to an in-world concept/profession, I would definitely not call it "crusader". As Eldan said, the term refers to a very specific class of people in the real world. Even worse the german translation "Kreuzfahrer" contains a blatant reference to a very specific real-world religious symbol. Yes, "crusader" has that too, but it is at least a tiny bit concealed.
Really, how could anyone proclaim with a straight face "Torm, grant me strength, for I am your Crusader!"?

[Eldan]

Why unmounted? The Crusader class is mount neutral.


Crusader for me in a D&D context has the same traction as, say, Ardent or Incarnate have: it is a name of a D&D class. Characters with levels in the Crusader class would probably call themselves "knights". If I would tie the Crusader class to an in-world concept/profession, I would definitely not call it "crusader". As Eldan said, the term refers to a very specific class of people in the real world. Even worse the german translation "Kreuzfahrer" contains a blatant reference to a very specific real-world religious symbol. Yes, "crusader" has that too, but it is at least a tiny bit concealed.
Really, how could anyone proclaim with a straight face "Torm, grant me strength, for I am your Crusader!"?

Ooh, I didn't even think of the German translation. Luckily, I don't think Feder & Schwert (or anyone else) ever translated the Tome of Battle, did they? Having a class called the "Traveller of the Holy Crucifix" would just not work.

[Red Fel]

What does "Crusader" mean to me? A convenient pawn that thinks it's a knight.

Joking aside, to me it simply means "knight tasked with a Crusade." More generally, it means a knight - full-plated violent sort, not magical - given a specific task by a religious order. It does not imply divine magical powers (although some particularly rare ones may have them, see e.g. Percival/Galahad), but simply a divinely-inspired - or mortals-proclaiming-the-voice-of-the-divine-ly-inspired - objective.

Which in my mind, is basically a Knight with a religious code, and a terrifyingly zealous adherence to a particular religious order. And that's pretty much it.

[khadgar567]

What does "Crusader" mean to me? A convenient pawn that thinks it's a knight.

Joking aside, to me it simply means "knight tasked with a Crusade." More generally, it means a knight - full-plated violent sort, not magical - given a specific task by a religious order. It does not imply divine magical powers (although some particularly rare ones may have them, see e.g. Percival/Galahad), but simply a divinely-inspired - or mortals-proclaiming-the-voice-of-the-divine-ly-inspired - objective.

Which in my mind, is basically a Knight with a religious code, and a terrifyingly zealous adherence to a particular religious order. And that's pretty much it.
again red fel explains major part why most of holy people are epic dunces(their int is probably on 3 mark with optimized as look much higher) damn it guys your book says dont fight and you understand as until jesus comes prepare the world by creating stupid holy wars then they ask why chaos gods like khorne born that's
why you morons
as crusader fell to me int and wis dumped (until 3 mark) holy warrior with wrong alignment dedication ( they worship evil and thinking themselves are most goody good ones)

for forum admins I take full responsibility for creating new flame war

[ExLibrisMortis]

A "crusader" is a heavy (mounted) warrior, with strong ecclesiastical motivation to conquer and convert foreign lands. That is, a crusader is an invader and a zealot, associated with a religious organization. Unlike the paladin, a crusader doesn't protect the innocent or break the mayor's curse; a crusader is always away from home, laying the groundwork for later (diplomatic) missions through martial might. A crusader isn't as in-tune with their deity as a paladin; a crusader is interested first in spreading the religious organization they are associated with, and does not always have the deity's blessing.

In terms of class abilities, I would suggest fighter proficiencies/chassis, Lawful requirement, mounted combat support (bonus feats, special mount), rushed diplomacy/in-combat intimidate support (like Naberius, CW samurai), commander support (marshal, bard, White Raven), and some sort of favoured enemy/organization support (FE (alignment) or FE (deity)).

[Barstro]

A "crusader" is a heavy (mounted) warrior, with strong ecclesiastical motivation to conquer and convert foreign lands. That is, a crusader is an invader and a zealot, associated with a religious organization. Unlike the paladin, a crusader doesn't protect the innocent or break the mayor's curse; a crusader is always away from home, laying the groundwork for later (diplomatic) missions through martial might. A crusader isn't as in-tune with their deity as a paladin; a crusader is interested first in spreading the religious organization they are associated with, and does not always have the deity's blessing.

In terms of class abilities, I would suggest fighter proficiencies/chassis, Lawful requirement, mounted combat support (bonus feats, special mount), rushed diplomacy/in-combat intimidate support (like Naberius, CW samurai), commander support (marshal, bard, White Raven), and some sort of favoured enemy/organization support (FE (alignment) or FE (deity)).

I second all the above except for the requirement of being mounted.

Instead, I suggest that "mounted" is a particular type of Crusader. Aside from the above, I suggest that a primary characteristic is that a Crusader is part of a strict organization. Very rarely will a Crusader be alone; (s)he will be part of at least a unit, and more likely a battalion. All but the most chaotic of Crusaders will be using (heavy) armor and weapons from their homeland and would never dirty themselves with "local" garb or weapons. These are the ones who swarm through an area and destroy all evidence of the overthrown society. They gladly raze all libraries, churches, town halls in the name of purification.

Much like with the Ranger, I have trouble seeing my idea of a Crusader being part of a PC party. About the only motivation I can see is if a Crusader is the last of his group and either trying to get back home or helping the rest of the party continue the Crusader's mission.

[Chronikoce]

I agree with those saying it evokes images of the crusades for me.

To translate that feeling to d&d terms I'd say a martial warrior with a devotion to a religious order who brings the fight to enemies of the church. I'd actually avoid giving them any special divine powers and instead focus on emphasizing their martial abilities.

They could be a crusader because of belief in the cause, fear of God if they were to refuse, or even a love of battle and this particular religious order gives them an outlet.

In any case the martial aspect of the class/archetype would be paramount with the religious aspects relegated to fluff rather than crunch.

[Gildedragon]

I would disagree with needing to belong to a holy order (which is more or what I think with stuff as Templar or the like) (after all the most famous crusaders -see Bob Lion heart- were lay folk)
But do think it ought be guided by a "Higher" purpose.
Not only because of the historical Crusades but because of more modern usages of going on a crusade against (crime/drugs/corruption) or being a crusader for (equal rights/the environment/etc)

Martial class
CHA centric (indicating their reliance on their convictions)
I figure can't be TN; needs to hold to an ideal
Probably has archetypes based on different ideals
Horse might be good but not needed
Might have something like CHA to AC (at least in an archetype)
Maybe something akin to a favored enemy?

[Barstro]

I would disagree with needing to belong to a holy order (which is more or what I think with stuff as Templar or the like)
Frankly, I consider a Templar to be a crusader.

Would you agree that it still requires one to be a zealot?

[Gildedragon]

Frankly, I consider a Templar to be a crusader.

Would you agree that it still requires one to be a zealot?

For me the difference between Templar and Crusader is in a couple things
Templar: more urban and more religious, it can be either temple protectors (I'd put say standard D&D cleric or a non LG-only paladin, with their martial prowess hereish), OR underhanded (think foucault pendulum/Dan Brown/Assassins' Creed type Templars-Illuminati here) OR a fiery to a fault zeal, willing to do Evil for the greater good: think the L-stupid Knight Templar archetype, or Miko...
In either case if one looks at it historically the Templars' land management in peacetime and pilgrim protection is less... "Crusadery" and more "Stewardlike"

To me a Crusader class isn't so much for a religion but a cause (to make it less structured). There's zeal there but it isn't so hierarchical. Anyone could become a crusader as long as they heard the call.

We have there the difference between a hierarchical (generally L) martial/divine caster; probably Wis based
And an "same alignment as their cause" "non TN" predominantly Martial type with Cha derived powers

[BWR]

Skirting all the stuff that will get me a warning: someone who is willing to spend a ridiculous amount of time and effort to achieve a single goal.
I don't think of them in any particular role or concept in RPGs, however. There is only the one class that I wasn't fond of in a book of mechanics I found almost entirely annoying. Basically, unlike the ranger or monk, when a class is very specific and has only a single incarnation, it's hard to have a vision of it being anything but what it already is. What is it that a paladin or cleric or a really dedicated Fighter isn't? Nothing but mechanics.

[Zaq]

I love WotC's Crusader class, both in concept and in execution. I hate the name "Crusader." The Crusades were not fun times, folks. For anyone involved, though especially for the people being crusaded against. I think we can probably come up with a term for the concept that doesn't call back to that sort of real-world ugliness.

[Peat]

"Crusader" is not a resonant fantasy archetype at all for me, or, I think, for most people.

I would second this.

[LTwerewolf]

Since there is a significant resistance to the specific word "crusader" would the word "zealot" evoke a different reaction/acceptance?

Also to clarify my earlier comment about dedicated mount classes: I intend all knights (except for the armor master as they are based off a specific non-mounted concept) to have some mechanics dealing with being mounted and having a mount. I am just resistant in the hyper specialized class concepts. A pathfinder cavalier without their mount is not very good, so any area where the mount was unavailable/unusuable makes the entire character mediocre at best and a hinderance at worst.

[Red Fel]

Since there is a significant resistance to the specific word "crusader" would the word "zealot" evoke a different reaction/acceptance?

Probably. A zealot is a more general term for a person possessed of a mindset; a crusader evokes a particular image from history. It's like the difference between calling someone a "soldier" and a "stormtrooper" - the latter carries a particular baggage.

Namely, that he can't fire a blaster to save his life.

[squiggit]

Zealot I think is too generic a term, it doesn't have the same direct imagery that I think crusader tends to. So not a fan.

[Zaq]

Zealot I think is too generic a term, it doesn't have the same direct imagery that I think crusader tends to. So not a fan.

That's kind of the point. The specific imagery associated with Crusader (i.e., the Crusades) is kind of problematic, which is why I'd like to see us moving away from that term.

[ComaVision]

I get the same mental image from zealot, crusader, and paladin. They're all holy warriors, and all make me think of the romanticized version of historical crusaders.

[Renen]

http://i.imgur.com/fXue2IW.gif

[squiggit]

That's kind of the point. The specific imagery associated with Crusader (i.e., the Crusades) is kind of problematic, which is why I'd like to see us moving away from that term.

I don't really see why it's any more problematic than half a dozen other terms or themes (like druid or paladin). 'Zealot' isn't exactly an unproblematic term either. Though in general I think the idea of abandoning a word because several hundred years ago(or even more recently than that in the case of other words) it was associated with a war seems kind of silly.

[Renen]

I don't really see why it's any more problematic than half a dozen other terms or themes (like druid or paladin). 'Zealot' isn't exactly an unproblematic term either. Though in general I think the idea of abandoning a word because several hundred years ago(or even more recently than that in the case of other words) it was associated with a war seems kind of silly.

Im not too well versed in history, but isn't the crusader the guy that went on crusades? As in the words isnt just associated with war, but was literally made for those wars. For example the nazi's symbol used to mean something else, and then they took it for themselves. But in this case did anyone "take" crusader or did they invent the word to describe the guys that went crusading?

[Troacctid]

The thing about the current Crusader class in D&D is that it was very much a bottom-up design. The writers didn't go, "Hey, let's come up with a class that represents the archetype of a crusader!" They had an idea for a mechanical niche they wanted to fill and needed a name for it, and probably someone suggested "Crusader" and it stuck. But it's not really an iconic flavorful archetype any more than Wilder or Totemist.

[Eldan]

No, the word crusader means "one who goes on a crusade".

As for crusade... middle French Croisade, Spanish Cruzada, in the end from "Crux", the Christian cross. So yes, it's very specific. Crusaders are "crucifix travellers".

TO me, calling a class of religious zealots "crusaders" in a fantasy context is like calling a group of disciplined fighters "Navy Seals", to take one of the least political examples I can think of.

[Renen]

To be fair, I think if something is far enough in history you get to use it out of context alot. In 500 years maybe navy seal or spetsnaz really will be a name for elite troops.

Nowadays we have gladiator mean fearless Warrior, or something similar.

[Psyren]

Did we already do Paladin? If not, I move to change this one to discuss that. Because I personally see terms like Crusader, Templar, Vindicator, even Knight as largely interchangeable offshoots of that core concept. You can have slight variations like this one avoids magic while that one is more dedicated to Law than Good, but the overarching principle that connects them is the same.

[Peat]

To be fair, I think if something is far enough in history you get to use it out of context alot. In 500 years maybe navy seal or spetsnaz really will be a name for elite troops.

Nowadays we have gladiator mean fearless Warrior, or something similar.

We do?

I thought Gladiator meant someone who appeared on a 90s tv show :smalltongue:

I've no particular problem with the usage of the name Crusader - just the name has no resonance for me in a fantasy sense. And there's so many things occupying the general ground of religious/ideological warrior in D&D as it is.

[LTwerewolf]

Did we already do Paladin? If not, I move to change this one to discuss that. Because I personally see terms like Crusader, Templar, Vindicator, even Knight as largely interchangeable offshoots of that core concept. You can have slight variations like this one avoids magic while that one is more dedicated to Law than Good, but the overarching principle that connects them is the same.

Paladin has not been done, because I intend it to be a separate class.

[Renen]

Paladin has not been done, because I intend it to be a separate class.

I think that's his point though. It night be a different class, but conceptually it's pretty much the same stuff.

[weckar]

The problem a lot of people here with the term Crusader is the same problem I have with the term Paladin, historically. A paladin wasn't just a holy knight, but a very specific type in a very specific point in history...

[Red Fel]

Paladin has not been done, because I intend it to be a separate class.


I think that's his point though. It night be a different class, but conceptually it's pretty much the same stuff.

This. In fact, the 3.5 Crusader was meant, in many ways, to be ToB's answer to the Paladin. In terms of concepts, they're identical; the only difference was a mechanical one arbitrarily imposed. If the original Paladin class had been called Crusader, and ToB's Crusader had been called Paladin, nobody would have batted an eye; there is nothing but the name to distinguish the two.

My point is, don't do both; do one class that captures the concept, and move on.

[Gildedragon]

Paladin has not been done, because I intend it to be a separate class.

well then you sorta already have an answer there:
what do you see in Crusader and Paladin that merit being separate classes and not just different ways to talk about the same Holy Knight type class?

[LTwerewolf]

well then you sorta already have an answer there:

I don't feel there is an overt "answer" to a discussion. The point is to discuss.


what do you see in Crusader and Paladin that merit being separate classes and not just different ways to talk about the same Holy Knight type class?

I see paladin as being a more specific version of the knight archetype, and the crusader/zealot/whathaveyou as a less specific, but still important concept. I personally see the crusader as not having a spellcasting mechanic, but having many passive abilities that increase their ability to deflect and deal damage. I see them as not having any alignment restriction at all whereas I see paladins needing to be good (though not necessarily lawful).


Is it really so strange to wonder how other people think of certain concepts that people have to constantly question the motive behind it? I already know what I think, I was simply looking to see what others think.

[StreamOfTheSky]

When I hear the term "Crusader," I think of religious, bigoted warriors murdering scores of innocent peasants who worship the "wrong god," pillaging and looting even other denominations of their own religion along with the "heathens" all while patting themselves on the back for being the morally superior warriors of god.

When I hear the term "Crusader," I hear a term that shouldn't be used for an RPG class.

[Milo v3]

When I hear the term "Crusader," I think of religious, bigoted warriors murdering scores of innocent peasants who worship the "wrong god," pillaging and looting even other denominations of their own religion along with the "heathens" all while patting themselves on the back for being the morally superior warriors of god.

When I hear the term "Crusader," I hear a term that shouldn't be used for an RPG class.

I don't see why that's wrong as an RPG class when there's stuff like Cancer Mage as an RPG class. To be honest, makes more sense to me than having Paladin as an RPG class.

[Psyren]

I think that's his point though. It night be a different class, but conceptually it's pretty much the same stuff.


This. In fact, the 3.5 Crusader was meant, in many ways, to be ToB's answer to the Paladin. In terms of concepts, they're identical; the only difference was a mechanical one arbitrarily imposed. If the original Paladin class had been called Crusader, and ToB's Crusader had been called Paladin, nobody would have batted an eye; there is nothing but the name to distinguish the two.

My point is, don't do both; do one class that captures the concept, and move on.


well then you sorta already have an answer there:
what do you see in Crusader and Paladin that merit being separate classes and not just different ways to talk about the same Holy Knight type class?

Yeah, that.


I don't feel there is an overt "answer" to a discussion. The point is to discuss.

Cool; I've said what I plan to then and will wait to discuss Crusader until you make the Paladin version.

[Eldan]

The problem a lot of people here with the term Crusader is the same problem I have with the term Paladin, historically. A paladin wasn't just a holy knight, but a very specific type in a very specific point in history...

Paladin is a bit broader, if you include it to mean "Roman official", "Imperial Bodyguard", "Legendary Knight of Charlemagne" and "Noble directly under the German Emperor".

[Eldan]

I don't feel there is an overt "answer" to a discussion. The point is to discuss.



I see paladin as being a more specific version of the knight archetype, and the crusader/zealot/whathaveyou as a less specific, but still important concept. I personally see the crusader as not having a spellcasting mechanic, but having many passive abilities that increase their ability to deflect and deal damage. I see them as not having any alignment restriction at all whereas I see paladins needing to be good (though not necessarily lawful).


Is it really so strange to wonder how other people think of certain concepts that people have to constantly question the motive behind it? I already know what I think, I was simply looking to see what others think.

But you are talking about rules here, not fluff concept. Do you want our rules suggestions?

[zyggythorn]

Welp, when I think Cleric I think of someone that believes in a Higher Power (not necessarily a god) enough that they draw strength from it.

I feel that Crusaders (who in 3.5 are what I like to consider paladin rebuilds) are someone who draws power from a Higher Power's (again, not necessarily a god) belief in Them.

This ties heavily to redemptive arcs, and to a lack of spell abilities, but the faith of... Something up above... May empower their strikes.

[Barstro]

When I hear the term "Crusader," I think of religious, bigoted warriors murdering scores of innocent peasants who worship the "wrong god," pillaging and looting even other denominations of their own religion along with the "heathens" all while patting themselves on the back for being the morally superior warriors of god.
I agree with this, except I would replaced the final word with "some sort of cause".

In contrast to Psyren's thought that Crusader and Paladin are the same (or similar enough), I suggest that the Crusader would never have Cure Light Wounds on a spell list. I'm not even certain they should have spells. If they do have spells, they are personal buffing spells or very short range debuffing spells and maybe the ability to personally regain hitpoints.


When I hear the term "Crusader," I hear a term that shouldn't be used for an RPG class.
As I said earlier, I think that what motivates a Crusader is something that goes against what most PC groups are.

Crusaders are like Greenpeace members.
They are just fine among themselves on their boat trying to take on a worthy (at least to them) cause.
If there is a horrible accident and only one survives without a boat, he certainly isn't going to just team up with The Cornelia Marie from Deadliest Catch and move on with his life; he'll do everything in his power to get back to stopping whalers.

[Psyren]

I agree with this, except I would replaced the final word with "some sort of cause".

In contrast to Psyren's thought that Crusader and Paladin are the same (or similar enough), I suggest that the Crusader would never have Cure Light Wounds on a spell list. I'm not even certain they should have spells. If they do have spells, they are personal buffing spells or very short range debuffing spells and maybe the ability to personally regain hitpoints.


As I said earlier, I think that what motivates a Crusader is something that goes against what most PC groups are.

Crusaders are like Greenpeace members.
They are just fine among themselves on their boat trying to take on a worthy (at least to them) cause.
If there is a horrible accident and only one survives without a boat, he certainly isn't going to just team up with The Cornelia Marie from Deadliest Catch and move on with his life; he'll do everything in his power to get back to stopping whalers.

You can have Paladins without spells too though. And in some games, "Crusaders" have MORE magic than "Paladins" (e.g. Diablo.) This is why I think any distinction between the specific terms is highly arbitrary and we're best off having one broad discussion about "holy warrior archetypes."

[Barstro]

And in some games, "Crusaders" have MORE magic than "Paladins" (e.g. Diablo.) This is why I think any distinction between the specific terms is highly arbitrary and we're best off having one broad discussion about "holy warrior archetypes."

Well, the OP is asking for everyone to give input as to what "Crusader" means to them. I have done so (as have you).

Personally, whatever one's view is of "Crusader", I think it can (not necessarily should, but can) be quite different from a Paladin. The phrase "Holy Warrior" does not sway me since such logic, without much stretching, can consider all mundane classes to be similar enough that we do not need Monks or Rogues.

Similarly, I do not think that someone hijacking the title "Crusader" and giving it abilities should necessarily cause any of us to simply accept the fact that those are the inherent powers. Diablo's mislabeling of classes does not sway my opinion on what I consider a Crusader to be.

To me (and perhaps only to me) Paladin and Crusader are not even sides of the same coin. In looking at a "good" version of the two;
A Paladin (EDIT: is a herald of his god's will and) strives to spread the word and cause of his deity and will take every opportunity to do so.
A Crusader (EDIT: is a zealot of his cause and) strives to eradicate anything that goes against his singular view and will never sway from that.

I feel that that abilities and spells necessary to carry out those two goals are not similar enough to warrant them being part of the same class. HOWEVER, I feel that the Crusader I envision would be a terrible PC class. In order for it to actually be playable, I do agree that it would become so similar to a Paladin as to be nothing other than an archetype.

[Psyren]

Personally, whatever one's view is of "Crusader", I think it can (not necessarily should, but can) be quite different from a Paladin. The phrase "Holy Warrior" does not sway me since such logic, without much stretching, can consider all mundane classes to be similar enough that we do not need Monks or Rogues.

On the contrary, I think you're stretching quite a bit. If you threw a randomized pile of every RPG class name out there and asked roleplaying gamers to group classes they consider similar together, I can all but guarantee that classes like "Templar", "Knight," "Crusader," and "Paladin" would end up in the same bucket most of the time. Just like I'd expect "Black Belt" "Martial Artist" and "Monk" to end up in one bucket more often than not too.

There would be some strange outliers like the ones you propose, sure, but they would be the exception rather than the rule.



Similarly, I do not think that someone hijacking the title "Crusader" and giving it abilities should necessarily cause any of us to simply accept the fact that those are the inherent powers. Diablo's mislabeling of classes does not sway my opinion on what I consider a Crusader to be.

Diablo 2 predates Tome of Battle by quite a lot, so I'd level the mislabeling charge in the opposite direction actually.


To me (and perhaps only to me) Paladin and Crusader are not even sides of the same coin.

I doubt you're the only one; it's a pretty big planet and all that. But again, I think more people would see a close relation/lack of immediate distinction between the two than not.

[Barstro]

I can all but guarantee that classes like "Templar", "Knight," "Crusader," and "Paladin" would end up in the same bucket most of the time.

Perhaps. And we saw a similar bucket with "Ranger". It seemed to me that the ideas for Ranger, while so different as to make it very difficult to have a consensus, had rather specific groups. Some thought a Ranger is "A", some say "B", and some "C". With such a result, I think a decent solution is to give "A" the title "Ranger", "B" "Hunter", and "C" "Druid - Martial Archetype", and assign abilities accordingly.

You and I disagree very much on Crusader. I'd have no problem with those in charge naming mine "Zealot", calling it unplayable, and leaving it as a footnote in the history books.



Diablo 2 predates Tome of Battle by quite a lot, so I'd level the mislabeling charge in the opposite direction actually.
True. But my views of Crusader predate those by decades in playing earlier games and reading fantasy, and predate by centuries in reading history books.

[Psyren]

Perhaps. And we saw a similar bucket with "Ranger". It seemed to me that the ideas for Ranger, while so different as to make it very difficult to have a consensus, had rather specific groups. Some thought a Ranger is "A", some say "B", and some "C". With such a result, I think a decent solution is to give "A" the title "Ranger", "B" "Hunter", and "C" "Druid - Martial Archetype", and assign abilities accordingly.

And I'm totally 100% fine with that - but now we're talking mechanical distinctions. From a thematic/conceptual basis, which I gather is the point of this thread series, I don't see names like "Ranger," "Tracker," "Hunter," "Trapper," et al. being different enough to warrant wholly separate discussions.

So by all means, let's split them up when talking mechanics, but I don't see much benefit in doing so from a theme/concept basis.


You and I disagree very much on Crusader. I'd have no problem with those in charge naming mine "Zealot", calling it unplayable, and leaving it as a footnote in the history books.

True. But my views of Crusader predate those by decades in playing earlier games and reading fantasy, and predate by centuries in reading history books.

Agreed, no point in debating personal preference. I was just pointing out that many others could come into a game seeing Crusader differently (Diablo has an audience of millions, many of whom I would wager have not played tabletop D&D at all - or at the very least not Tome of Battle 3.5.)

[ComaVision]

If you threw a randomized pile of every RPG class name out there and asked roleplaying gamers to group classes they consider similar together, I can all but guarantee that classes like "Templar", "Knight," "Crusader," and "Paladin" would end up in the same bucket most of the time.

I definitely agree with this because any time I'm playing a new RPG (TT or C), I look for a class with one of these names because that's my preferred playstyle (heavy armour + a bit of magic). Knight is my last go-to out of the four because it's the least likely (IME) to have the "bit of magic".

[Satinavian]

For me "Crusader" invokes the picture of a knight of one of the religious orders, especcially a Knight of John, a Templar Knight or a Teutonic Knight. It does not invoke the picture of peasants joining the crusade or (even more removed) a member of a Child crusade.

So we have a knight (well armored and trained fighter) who is not part of the feudal hierarchy but sworn to a church/religious order. He fights for a nominally noble cause like (protecting pilgrims/ protecting temples/ protecting missianaries/ protecting believers from foreign heathen invaders or pillagers), but tries to solve the conflict via holy war, usually by taking controll of the whole pilgrimage route and the holy site or by conquering or converting whatever heathen invaders were the problem. As pretty much all the real crusades became an utter mess and didn't really live up to their nominal cause that well, he gets also some pragmatic worldview and tends to tolerate all the nasty sides of warfare and conquering for the "good cause".

Difference from the regular knight is the religious fokus. And he might have stronger convictions and thus an easier time with hardship. Maybe better saves or slightly more hp. He might be worse in combat experience.
Difference to a paladin is that a Crusader is not the one who decides what is right or wrong. Paladins make moral decisions to find the good cause all the time, crusaders follow the guidelines of their order or orders of superiors.



Now "zealot" is one i associate first with flaggelants. The word doesn't have any connection to knighthood for me, just the contrary.

[Zombimode]

Diablo 2 predates Tome of Battle by quite a lot, so I'd level the mislabeling charge in the opposite direction actually.

Diablo 2 did not have a class named "Crusader". It had a Paladin instead.
Diablo 3 has a Crusader.

[Albions_Angel]

To me, the Crusader and the Knight should have each others names. A Knight in my eyes is a guy in full plate, shield, longsword, defending his party for honour, using amazing martial prowess. Now, yes, I know knights in the middle ages were mounted mostly, but if you say "Crusader" and I am not in history mode (where I will talk at length about the use of Welsh and English longbowmen during the crusades), then I will think of a mounted man, white tabard, red cross, horse in its finery too, lance, small shield, faceless, shining, ready to die for his beliefs.

But the Knight is kitted out for mounted combat and one to one challenges, while the crusader gets all the "Dont hit him, hit me. We are in a tiny corridor, have fun getting past me. Look I can use my greatsword like a rapier." stuff.