Clerics vs Paladins (Design question)

[Maquise]

To put it succinctly, what is the difference in role between a cleric and a paladin? Where does one end and the other begin?

I mean this from a design perspective, in the event I wish to do some homebrewing or anything similar. What kind of powers do people usually associate with one or the other, etc. Feel free to leave any opinions on the manner.

[Reluctance]

To answer that, we have to go back to the days when mundanes, especially fighters, had roles in the party that weren't easily trivialized by magic. Back then, a fighting man with a bit of a holy twist had his own niche, while the utility/support religious type had hers.

In 3.5, the cleric has grown to fill most any divine niche out there. Paladins are known for self-righteousness and falling.

[Shpadoinkle]

This is more or less how it breaks down:
- Clerics are priests and kick ass in the name of their god when they need to.
- Paladins are the polar opposite, in that they primarily kick ass on behalf of their god and/or church and serving non-martial purposes around the church is secondary. They're templars.

[Gavinfoxx]

You need to step back and think about what sorts of roles people associated with an organized church might have that would need to give them superpowers. When you figure that out, you will be able to parse things into however many classes you want.

[jackattack]

There is also a socio-economic factor.

In general, paladins are wealthy, if only in terms of their gear. They typically have a high-quality steed, high-quality gear, heavy armor, fine weapons, and so on. Just being a paladin may also grant access to royal court.

Clerics are often expected to be poor, and to donate their treasure to their churches. They are not as well-equipped as paladins, and their position carries no particular social advantage.

[Belril Duskwalk]

There is also a socio-economic factor.

In general, paladins are wealthy, if only in terms of their gear. They typically have a high-quality steed, high-quality gear, heavy armor, fine weapons, and so on. Just being a paladin may also grant access to royal court.

Clerics are often expected to be poor, and to donate their treasure to their churches. They are not as well-equipped as paladins, and their position carries no particular social advantage.

I would hesitate to say any of those things being default assumptions of the classes. A paladin, over the course of his career, will undoubtedly amass a decent amount of powerful gear, but at the start of his career there's no reason he would be particularly better off than a fighter. In at least one rule system (2nd edition AD&D) Paladins are required to donate a tenth of their earnings from any endeavor to their church, and if they have a sizable pile of cash on the side they need to have a reason to be holding it (saving for new armor, barding etc) or they are expected to donate a large portion of it to the church. Standing at court may come with the title, but only if the court is respectful of the god he follows, and a cleric could easily benefit similarly.

By contrast, a cleric might well be poor, but that can only be assumed if he follows the merciful, benevolent kind of gods worshiped by the likes of paladins. Clerics can also follow scheming, greedy gods who might encourage people to hold wealth. Or gods of luck, who might say that if the cleric wins big at the dice tables, they should be allowed to keep most of it. And clerics can easily gain standing as well. Where paladins are largely wanderers always seeking new evils to thwart a cleric might well spend years attending a single shrine or temple. He could become a pillar of the community and widely respected, even by those who follow another god.

In terms of their role in the church, I think Shpadoinkle said it best. Paladins are warriors for god first, and holy-men second. Clerics are holy-men first and warriors second.

[Mando Knight]

To put it succinctly, what is the difference in role between a cleric and a paladin? Where does one end and the other begin?

Here's where the classic line is drawn:
Paladin:

Cleric:

[Shadowknight12]

Clerics are the result of the conflation of two very distinct archetypes. The frail, scholarly cleric and the martial war-priest. The former is very much like a wizard: unarmoured, frail, terrible with weapons, wise, knowledgeable and primarily a supportive, back-of-the-party role, occasionally unleashing divine fury or performing miracles when it was truly necessary. WoW went with this route for their Priest class.

The latter overlaps heavily with the paladin, what with both being divine agents, fully armoured and possessing a mixture of martial prowess and offensive divine powers, with a smattering of supportive powers to round them up.

The only true difference between a paladin and a war-priest is that the war-priest is considered to be substantially wiser and more knowledgeable than the paladin, due to the differences in their respective trainings. It's assumed that the war-priest has been taught more about religion, history, geography and the like, than the paladin, who probably only knows what's strictly necessary for him not to embarrass himself or his church.

[Shpadoinkle]

There is also a socio-economic factor.

In general, paladins are wealthy, if only in terms of their gear. They typically have a high-quality steed, high-quality gear, heavy armor, fine weapons, and so on. Just being a paladin may also grant access to royal court.

Clerics are often expected to be poor, and to donate their treasure to their churches. They are not as well-equipped as paladins, and their position carries no particular social advantage.

... Where exactly did you hear this? I can't recall reading anything like that ever.

[chadmeister]

Clerics are often expected to be poor, and to donate their treasure to their churches. They are not as well-equipped as paladins, and their position carries no particular social advantage.

The church traditionally had tremendous influence on Kings and other rulers. Clerics actually being able to use magic to show their god's displeasure are only going to get more influence.

Paladins can do some of the same, but are less likely to be quoting church dogma when they do so.

[TroubleBrewing]

Paladins carry all of the party treasure.

Clerics earn all of the party treasure.

[Cespenar]

My theory is that the Paladin was supposed to be the dual-class Fighter/Cleric.

Continuing that silly theory:

Ranger = Fighter/Druid,
Bard = Fighter/Rogue/Wizard,
Monk = Fighter/Rogue

And Barbarian = Fighter/Fighter.

[Beleriphon]

Functionally the paladin is the holy knight archetype. They are meant to represent the likes of Roland or any of the Peers of Charlemagne.

The cleric is more akin of the historical fighting bishops and priests of the Crusades.

[TroubleBrewing]

Functionally the paladin is the holy knight archetype. They are meant to represent the likes of Roland or any of the Peers of Charlemagne.

The cleric is more akin of the historical fighting bishops and priests of the Crusades.

Well, theoretically the Paladin is the holy knight.

Functionally, the Paladin is the impotent little brother to the Cleric, who was theoretically supposed to be the priestly-healy-friar-ish guy, but ended up functionally being Godzilla.

[Maquise]

I'm looking independent of any system. Assuming both are equal in power.

[erikun]

Functionally the paladin is the holy knight archetype. They are meant to represent the likes of Roland or any of the Peers of Charlemagne.

The cleric is more akin of the historical fighting bishops and priests of the Crusades.

I'd agree with this. Paladins were designed as holy knights, people who others would look up to as the ideal of virtues. This is why they received some of the best offenses, some of the best inate magical defenses, and attracted the greatest number of followers. This is also why they had so many restrictions on their class, from alignment restrictions to a code of conduct.

Clerics channeled the power of their deity, but were otherwise mundane people in heavy armor. This is why most Clerics didn't get anything beyond their spellcasting (and why Fighter/Clerics were such an attractive option).

[Cespenar]

I'm looking independent of any system. Assuming both are equal in power.

Well, in the end, I think it all boils down to:

Paladin: Leader.
Cleric: Supporter.

[Cerlis]

yes paladins get their power from being Good

while clerics get their power from stuff that is good (or evil)

[hamlet]

Well, theoretically the Paladin is the holy knight.

Functionally, the Paladin is the impotent little brother to the Cleric, who was theoretically supposed to be the priestly-healy-friar-ish guy, but ended up functionally being Godzilla.

That is only true in 3.x and, possibly, 4.0 (seeing as I haven't really devoted much time to 4.0). In AD&D and even BECMI and the original D&D, Paladins were exceptional characters, not only because the class restrictions were extreme (really, in practice, rolling according to the rules most commonly understood (3d6 in order), only about 5% or so of characters were eligible to be Paladins), but because the powers granted by the class made them naturals at certain tasks (leadership, pointman fighter against evil and undead, etc.). The class lent itself to a certain kind of play before it lost all its thunder with the transition to 3.0.

If you'll forgive the B5 references, I think that the show really exemplified the differences in a way. A cleric/priest is an advisor, a supporter, etc. A Paladin was a focal point. He turns, and those around him tend to turn in the same direction. This was the intent and, in well done play, the result in AD&D and before. Afterward, you might as well be playing a Cleric anyway as the only thing you sacrifice is BAB.

[Endon the White]

Basically, there are many ways to do good.

Clerics are the wise priests and gentle healers. They are the elderly Father you go to receive advice from in a crisis. They are the determined Medic who keeps you on your feet in a fight. They heal the sick and defend the innocent.

So if clerics defend the innocent, Paladins slay the wicked and avenge the dead. They are the heroic, charismatic Knight in Shining Armor, who will kick down the door of the dungeon and tell all of those within to surrender, lest they taste the steel of his blade. Blessed by a god with special powers, he goes around wantonly destroying creatures of evil.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

The problem with Paladin in 3.0+ is that it was balanced against fighter giving up feats in favor of divine powers. They were designed to be mechanically balanced and all of the rp restrictions were deemed to have no negative value. In order to fulfill it's proper role it should start with something almost as good as fighter then add a bunch of divine powers you just need to trust your group to make rp restrictions matter.

[Achernar]

I find that clerics are highly versatile, coming in many different roles depending on their build. I can say no more, just experiment with building new character types. My favorite is the Summoning Cleric (I capitalize it like it's actually game jargon, but it isn't) who can modify the battlefield easily and support the party.

Paladins are heroic-type characters who are especially adept at fighting undead and demons. They have a respectable list of talents, including supernatural bravery, the ability to wear heavy armor AND heal (which makes them superb tanks), the ability to deal extra damage to evil creatures and turn the undead. They are exceptional front-line bashers and excellent party faces, when they aren't being played to stereotype (Miko Miyazaki comes to mind as a classically poor Paladin).

As a sidenote, the best pallie I have ever seen played has no clue in-character that he is a paladin, and is a fascinating and complex character for it. Kudos to his player, who went out of her way to make that happen.

Sooo... what is it that you want to do with Clr's and Pal's, considering this is a "design question?"

[SoC175]

A short quote of a longer article about the origin of the cleric class in D&D I once wrote down from Dragon Magazine:

Dragon Magazine, Issue 52 (August 1981)
The cleric-adventurer is not a meek priest; he is a warrior who has spells and magical powers to aid him as he destroys the enemies of his god. Like Archbishop Turpin, he can use his powers to bless and support his comrades, and he is an able fighter in his own right, second only to a professional warrior in skill.
[...]
Clericadventurers are trained warriors; they fight better than trained men-at-arms, are comfortable with armor, and are bold enough to enter places no cynical mercenary would dare come near. They are warrior-priests, and it should show in their outlook. This warlike outlook is evident in a properly motivated cleric player character. Why does a cleric-adventurer go on adventures? Certainly not just to play medic; he could do that where it’s safe — people get hurt everywhere.
[...]
His motives are basically aggressive: he wants to destroy his god’s enemies, wrest away their wealth, and accumulate personal experience in a rapid but risky manner; and all for his god’s benefit. This is a cleric worthy of Turpin’s approval. After all, how meek can you expect a person who fights terrible monsters to be? Just descending into a dungeon is an act of uncommon boldness. The cleric-adventurer isn’t, and really can’t be, a meek healer. His purpose demands that he be a bold killer, a champion of his god.

The article also stated that if more people had realized what the cleric truly is that the paladin class would not have been needed

The restriction to blunt weapons was originally also nothing but a mechanical balance act, the fluff was then added to justify it. A cleric was close enough to the fighter in AC, hp and THAC0 that they needed to restrict him to weapons with a smaller damage die to prevent him from out-fighting the fighter

Even in 2e clerics had the second best THAC0 group, worse than fighters but better than everyone else. They were better melee fighters than rogues.

[Shadowknight12]

A short quote of a longer article about the origin of the cleric class in D&D I once wrote down from Dragon Magazine:

The article also stated that if more people had realized what the cleric truly is that the paladin class would not have been needed

Wow, someone had a lot of hatred towards "meek" personalities.

[SamBurke]

In DnD:

Clerics trash everything standing in their way with ubiquitous spells and ultimate divine power.

Paladins stand at the front of the party and get trashed by the enemy clerics with ubiquitous spells and ultimate divine power.
While annoying the rest of the party with having an iron back as a class feature. (Unless done well, and they can be done well).

Honestly, if you want Paladin fluff, write it yourself and stick it on a cleric. If you don't like spells, don't use them overly often, or choose a Crusader. But for heaven's sakes, use something moderately optimizable. (Note: PF does a decent job of making an OK paladin.)

In the real world:

Paladins are the shining knights (as mentioned, the Rolands/Arthurs/Lancelots) of any civilization; the representation of chivalry, honor, and justified ass-kicking.

Clerics are those back there who close dead people's eyes and make sure the commoners don't revolt by preaching words of peace. They tell stories of the Paladins of the Bible [Insert religious book here], and talk about how EVEN BETTER Paladins are going to come later AND KICK EVEN MORE ASS in the name of Justice.

Paladins, if done right, can be the most awesome class ever. They aren't, usually, and so they get a bad name.

[Beowulf DW]

And Barbarian = Fighter/Fighter.

Barbarian=Fighter squared?

In all seriousness, the rest of what you said is a succinct if somewhat simplistic description of each of the classes.

Since I wholeheartedly prefer Pathfinder to DnD anymore, allow me to say this:

In the Pathfinder system, there certainly is the overlap that Cespenar is talking about. However, it would be a mistake to assume that this is all that there is to classes like the Paladin, Ranger, Bard, and now the Magus (Fighter/wizard). The folks over at Paizo have made the cleric a primarily support and healing class again (ignoring the archetypes), and have made the paladin the noble holy warrior.

In short, each class has unique abilities that give that class a unique role in a party. For instance, the Magus has a spellstrike ability to better incorporate spells into melee combat.

So, really, the difference between a paladin and a cleric depends on what system you're using. In systems like Pathfinder, the difference is a bit clearer, whereas in DnD 3.5, there's a great deal of overlap.

[paddyfool]

Conceptually, a Paladin is, as has been said, meant to be a front-line combatant, whereas a Cleric is meant to be more of a backer.

In mid-to-high-op 3.5, Paladin is a decent 1-level, or OKish 3-level, prestige class for a Cleric. And especially handy if you allow Paladin feats, e.g. Battle Blessing and Sword of the Arcane Order. (I'd also prefer to roleplay a paladin as a prestige class, anyway; something that someone's aspired to and attained, rather than started out as).

[Treblain]

I think clerics should be primary spellcasters that are nearly as frail as wizards. If you want to represent the warpriest/martial cleric archetype, you're free to multiclass to fighter or paladin.

[tyckspoon]

I'm with the Cleric is caster/holyman, Paladin is Righteous Warrior crowd- if I were building from scratch, the 'cleric' equivalents would have a base that looks a lot more like Cloistered Cleric, and the Paladin would.. well, the base abilities would look reasonably close to Paladin, but less suck. If you wanted a militant order of Clerics, you would do that by using whatever specialization options were in your system to bend them that way (in a D&D-like, for example, the more aggressive beat-face spells would only be available in Domain lists, and if you wanted extended weapon/armor proficiencies and maybe better BAB you'd get them as domain powers or feat expenditures. The Paladin would get.. oh, I'd start with expanding his casting to Bard level, move in Divine Favor/Divine Power/Righteous Might from the Cleric list, maybe invent a few more 'smash your enemy with holy judgement!' type spells and give him an option to channel those with his attacks instead of/as part of the bonus damage on a smite- really play up the "I am the champion of all that is Good, and you have been found Naughty!" angle.)

[kieza]

A cleric is a preacher who can fight
A paladin is a fighter who can preach.
(And then you have the actual priest, who is just a preacher. At least, that's how I do it.)