Cleric & Paladin: really, what's the diff?

edited February 2012 in Story Games
Twitter didn't give me the discussion of this important issue that I wanted, so here we are.

Really, why do we have both? I mean, in a game like 4e, they can have different roles in all the important stuff (combat), but fictionally, I cannot place these two in distinct niches. Fighter, Thief, Wizard, Cleric: yes, distinct fictional archetypes. Fighter, Thief, Wizard, Paladin: yes, distinct fictional archetypes. But Cleric & Paladin: no, not distinct fictional archetypes. Thinking about the Paladin confuses me on what a Cleric's supposed to be about, and thinking about the Cleric confuses me on what a Paladin's supposed to be about.

I'm interested in historical reasons why these both exist, but also in actual-play help. Like, if I play Dungeon World or something: What's the Cleric supposed to be that the Paladin isn't? And vice-versa.
«1

Comments

  • What about the paladin and the fighter?
  • Posted By: mease19What about the paladin and the fighter?
    That would be a fantastic topic for another thread, my friend. ;)
  • Just saying, between the fighter and cleric, who needs the paladin? Lets lose the paladin.

    Back on topic:
    If you're going to have a cleric and a paladin, the cleric needs to be about followers and the paladin needs to be more an agent of faith (and by agent I mean warrior/assassin/guardian).
  • So, the way I see it, the Cleric is a priest. A proselytizer and converter. She's more sagely and wise than her Paladin cousins. She's able to fight, sure, because the world is a dangerous place. That's a given. She doesn't always get a friendly reception. She casts spells to aid folks, to mend wounds and heal harm and communes with her god directly, in a way. The Cleric is a tool of the Church as the holy organization upon which her god grants blessing. She's not always about dogma and orders, though, sometimes you just do what you know in your heart that your god would want.

    A Paladin is a gun. A paladin is a sword or a bomb to wipe out evil. They don't make nice - they don't bless marriages or births. They spill blood. They're designed to follow the codes of their order but those codes are about questing - about glory and blood and honour and yeah, there's a god behind them, but more often than not, there's a worldly order telling the Paladin what to do, as Interpreted by the Protocols of the Elders, right? Most Paladins, by default, are a step removed from their god, in a way. They have to earn the ability to commune directly. It's just not as much a priority as honing their sword arms and crushing the unrighteous.

    A fighter is just a dude or dudette who solves problems with weapons. They fight for all kinds of reasons. Maybe some goodly fighters would be indistinguishable from Paladins from the outside, but a Paladin never questions why he does a thing - it's for Law and for Order and for the righteous Light of their God. You know?
  • edited February 2012
    Posted By: mease19Just saying, between the fighter and cleric, who needs the paladin? Lets lose the paladin.
    I wholeheartedly disagree. By that logic, let's lose Rangers and Druids, too.

    Plus, class identification is fun. It's cool to be able to say "I'm not just a Good Fighter, I'm a Paladin." or "I'm not just a Magic-User, I'm a Sorcerer" or what have you. Distinction of class elements is a fun way to say "This is my guy and what my guy does."
  • For me, cleric = holy man with a big stick, paladin = warrior with faith. There's a strong overlap, but I don't consider them identical. In my ideal world, you could make a Paladin by multiclassing Fighter with Cleric, and "cloistered clerics" would be more the norm.

    I assume you would have the same issue with the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock?
  • Adam,

    I'd play a game about Paladins by your understanding of them. Especially if it's about how they deal with being called upon to be Clerics, because no one knows the difference.

    Also! It'd be a great use for this rule I have floating around in my head:

    Detect Evil 1st Level Paladin Spell - At Will
    Name an NPC. Say if that person is evil or not. Whatever you say, it's true.
  • edited February 2012
    Posted By: Simon CEspecially if it's about how they deal with being called upon to be Clerics, because no one knows the difference.
    Totally! I envision a moment in every adventurer who ends up on one of those three paths where they decide, internally or by some decree or whatever; "I am a Fighter / Paladin / Cleric" or how much would it suck if your Paladin was a failed Cleric or your Fighter always wished he could have been a Paladin instead? How much would that change your relationship with those classes in the party?

    In a lot of ways, I see a Paladin as being too closed-minded to be a Cleric. Snapped up by an Order, that single-mindedness (or cruelty or viciousness or however it comes out) is honed into a fine point and aimed at the "bad guys".
  • As I see it...

    In a Fantasy Adventure Delves into the Unknown...

    A Holy Warrior or Inquisitor has lots of reasons to go out into the unknown, and risk life and limb. Slaying "evil things" and eradicating dangerous cults. Why send a priest when you can send a crusader?

    I do NOT like the Cleric has a "holy dude of the cloth", unless we are playing a game were Religion and Religious community matters, then by all means include that...but that isn't D&D to me. Thats totally something else, and way cool.
  • I feel like it'd be wise for every Paladin to have a Cleric around as a "minder" or "watcher". The Paladin is more martially capable, but needs the guidance of the Cleric to be like "Okay, Lux, maybe we don't have to immediately put these villagers to the sword just because some of them are cultists. Let's try a different approach." but then, you know, let the Paladin off his leash when the big bad comes calling.

    You could totally do a Buffy / Giles thing with a Paladin and a Cleric.
  • Maybe its a chance for PC-PC combos. For example, if paladins only have a secondary connection to their faith, then a paladins' powers are amplified when they are spurred on my clerics. Maybe fighters don't know what they're fighting for but are inspired by paladins. Maybe clerics can draw on the rest of the players, if they're faithful.
  • Hans,

    The short version is that the Paladin stole the Cleric's niche sometime in the late 1970's. They're almost identical conceptually, the only difference is that one is a little more fight-y and the other is considerably more cast-y. The primary differences are mechanical.

    The Cleric shows up in OD&D supposedly because in early battles with the Chainmail war-game, a vampire named Sir Fang was accumulating an unstoppable undead army. So somebody whipped up the Cleric as a way to neutralize large amounts of undead. The Cleric is a fighty guy who casts spells, and (in OD&D) had a fighting ability curve halfway in-between the Fighting-Man and the Magic-User. (Also, back in the earliest days, Clerics had spellbooks same as the Magic-User.)

    So the Cleric at this point isn't necessarily a heal-bot: he or she is a Holy Warrior who beats the crap out of undead, and is also a compromise between the two extreme strategies of play. To sweeten the deal, they also have a crazy-generous XP curve and can get castles for half-price, which to me suggests that even back in the very earliest days people had to be bribed into playing the Cleric.

    By 1975's Supplement I: Greyhawk, Gygax introduces the Paladin as a kind of prestige class for Lawful Fighting-Men with 17 Charisma. You get some minor healing powers, a warhorse, immunity to disease, etc., but it's pretty much a few minor situational glosses on the Fighting-Man. Though the text sometimes refers to the Paladin as a separate class, as Jeff Rients points out it's probably best to think of it as a temporary gig because it's so easy to fall off the path. (The Frank Mentzer BECMI version of the rules also treats the Paladin as a special career choice for Lawful Fighters who hit 9th level and don't want to become property owners.)

    In 1979 AD&D introduces the Paladin class as its own separate thing from the start. And here's something interesting, or at least interesting to me as a D&D nerd:

    The AD&D Paladin is conceptually a lot like a Fighter/Cleric multi-class, except:
    * Only humans can be Paladins; only half-elves or half-orcs can be Fighter/Clerics
    * The Half-Elf hits level caps in Fighter/Cleric pretty quickly, whereas the Paladin has unlimited advancement
    * Paladins are extremely difficult to qualify for, whereas Fighter/Cleric is pretty easy
    * Paladins have a pretty strict moral code with lots of Lawful Goodness; Fighter/Clerics don't come with that baggage
    * Paladins are slightly more durable (due to save bonuses) and hit enemies slightly more often
    * Paladins also get fun situational bonuses, like the warhorse, the holy sword thing, and an aura of protection
    * But Fighter/Clerics gets full casting--until they slam into the level cap

    So basically if you want to play a Warrior type with a little bit of divine oomph, you're going to pick a Fighter/Cleric or a Paladin. If you're thinking purely in terms of mechanics, the question is whether you want to play this guy long-term (i.e., longer than approximately 50,000 XP) and whether you see the Paladin's Code as more of an RP opportunity or a nuisance. Otherwise the two classes are extremely competitive. Assuming, of course, you qualify for Paladin to begin with.

    So basically the Paladin = Fighter/Cleric, at least approximately. It's either an extremely martial member of a holy crusading order, or a spiritually gifted fighter.
  • Posted By: Colin_Fredericks
    I assume you would have the same issue with the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock?
    Ahh, this thread is going too fast for me! But that's good. I'll just answer this one now: No, I don't have a problem with them. I don't have a good justification for it, either.

    What Adam said upthread clarifies it a bit for me, enough for play, at least (for the record: DW does, too). it sort of seems, traditionally, that the Paladin stole the Cleric's thunder. The Cleric's a holy warrior (real weapons and real armor and real supernatural magic), and then the Paladin came along and was like, "I'm more holy and more warrior-er." Y'know?
  • An interesting division, to me, not based on how games have done it in the past, would be the opposite of how Adam framed it.

    Clerics are men of the cloth, part of a holy order - part of a structure made by men, in service of (a) God. There's books and rules and codes and social roles that are all part-and-parcel of being a Cleric. Pretty much anyone can become a Cleric, after all.

    Paladins are holy warriors in direct contact with their deity. They probably have some connection to the temporal orders, but not necessarily. They're touched (and, probably crazy). They are direct extensions of (a) Gods influence on the mortal plane. You have to be born with the right mental and physical equipment to channel that much power, that's why there aren't very many Paladins around.

    (i always liked playing both!)
  • Nathan's got a cool angle on Paladins, too. Jeanne D'Arc was totally a Paladin of that sort.
  • I don't have much to add, except to say that a) I agree with Adam that class identification is fun, and b) I really enjoyed James' historical D&D commentary.
  • Posted By: Hans c-oThe Cleric's a holy warrior (real weapons and real armor and real supernatural magic), and then the Paladin came along and was like, "I'm more holy and more warrior-er." Y'know?
    For me, it's like, Clerics are Holy Warriors and Paladins are Holy Terrors. A Cleric is the person you turn to when you're hurt, you're cursed, you're scared for your life and you need someone who will protect you. A Paladin is who you turn to when you are being ravaged by a demon or a vampire or something. Just don't be surprised if they judge you, next.

    Clerics are shields and Paladins are swords, ultimately. Sure, the Cleric can deal some damage and the Paladin might Defend pretty regularly, but on a philosophical level, a Paladin is there to excise the badness from the world.

    We left the two with a little bit of room around those philosophies so that players, in DW, can play around with the tropes. Rather than say "All Paladins are X" like I'm doing in this thread, we said, by way of the mechanics, "many Paladins are X" and then let the players decide what kind of person their character is and what they do with their divine power.
  • Posted By: Brian MinterI don't have much to add, except to say that a) I agree with Adam that class identification is fun, and b) I really enjoyed James' historical D&D commentary.
    James' post definitely deserves some kudos. Totally cool.
  • Posted By: Hans c-oThe Cleric's a holy warrior (real weapons and real armor and real supernatural magic), and then the Paladin came along and was like, "I'm more holy and more warrior-er." Y'know?
    Posted By: James_Nostack
    The short version is that the Paladin stole the Cleric's niche sometime in the late 1970's.
    I knew it!
  • World of Warcraft's split into Priests & Paladins works better than Clerics & Paladins. The 4e D&D laser cleric is more like a WoW Priest or a Final Fantasy White Mage than it is many 3.5 D&D clerics.
  • In the source material, there are 12 paladins in the world, total. They're all in the service of one King, and they're supposed to kind of be symbols of his divine right to rule. That strikes me as pretty interesting stuff to work with.
  • Clerics are inquisitors and missionaries; paladins are crusaders and knights.
  • The other thing for me is that Paladins are ultimately defenders of (meta)humanity. On the other hand, clerics are defenders of their dogma.
  • Posted By: FelanClerics are inquisitors and missionaries; paladins are crusaders and knights.
    YES! yes yes yes yes.
  • On the other hand, if I'm going to play a paladin, I want a freak'n cool god. Like the god of a river or the god of harvest. I want to embody the pure aquatic flow and bend tributaries and drown those that dump their dead in the river by touch or embody bounty and be able to pour grain fourth from my sleeves and sow the ground I walk upon and smite the plague ratlings that transmit faith by touch. I want to play something unique and interesting.
  • We always played it that the paladins were deferential to the clerics.
  • I will humbly suggest this question is functionally identical to: Wisdom & Charisma - really, what's the difference?
  • Posted By: ndpAn interesting division, to me, not based on how games have done it in the past, would be the opposite of how Adam framed it.

    Clerics are men of the cloth, part of a holy order - part of a structure made by men, in service of (a) God. There's books and rules and codes and social roles that are all part-and-parcel of being a Cleric. Pretty much anyone can become a Cleric, after all.

    Paladins are holy warriors in direct contact with their deity. They probably have some connection to the temporal orders, but not necessarily. They'retouched(and, probably crazy). They are direct extensions of (a) Gods influence on the mortal plane. You have to be born with the right mental and physical equipment to channel that much power, that's why there aren't very many Paladins around.
    I would like to suggest that Nathan and Adam's conceptions are deliciously compatible if you consider Adam's framing to be how the Clerics themselves see it.
  • RuneQuest had a very clear distinction between Rune Priests and Rune Lords. The priests tend the flock and run the temple, the lords go out in the world and do the gods bidding, usually on quests of some kind. Some religions just have priests, some have both and some have combined priest/lords, particularly the more martial cults. Paladins (i.e. the Lords) are more active and more challenged. They have to deal with questions of interpretation of the holy writ in ways which rarely trouble priests.
  • Posted By: Simon CIn the source material, there are 12 paladins in the world, total. They're all in the service of one King, and they're supposed to kind of be symbols of his divine right to rule. That strikes me as pretty interesting stuff to work with.
    I don't know what the source material is, in this case, but I guarantee in the next D&Dish game I run, the paladin PC is gonna be one of only twelve. (Or, since we'll never have time to meet eleven NPCs, one of four.)
  • Clerics - church's brains; paladins, church's muscle.
  • I never quite got why Paladin. The type of character, even in a fantasy context, is much more akin to a Templar monk, member of a warrior version of a monastic order, swearing only some of the vows. Or maybe one of the many warrior saints like St. George.

    The paladins were the highest ranking knights of the king of France, basically. Even if you add some mystique about the king's power coming from god they're basically super-Knights, I certanily don't see them curing wounds or turning undeads.
  • In D&D, there's some inference that, to balance their monstrous power (Paladins were, like Elves in Burning Wheel, just better than everyone else.) they needed high ability scores (so they were rare) and had to walk a thin line of balance or lose all their sweet mojo and become a lowly Fighter. This just happened to take the form of oaths and strictures from God. They were super knights in a world where power-from-god MEANS turning undead and laying on hands. They're miracle fighters. Plus all the other stuff that lets them keep on fighting, like immunity to disease. God's unstoppable weaponry.
  • My personal take is keep it simple. Three classes Fighter - Magicuser - Thief. A cleric is a magicuser with healing spells and a connection to a diety, a Paladin is a fighter with a connection to a diety. Maybe you get some benefits from your connection to the diety but you will also have restrictions.
  • Rereading my prior post, I'm curious to try out the paladin as avatar. Its not about worship, its totally about embodiment. Clerics preach the ways of their god, paladins live the ways of their god. (I think I'd throw in some I can do no wrong from Dogs in the Vineyard in that what you do is automatically in line with cannon, which you develop through play).
  • edited February 2012
    Posted By: Simon RogersClerics - church's brains; paladins, church's muscle.
    I played a paladin once, although it was in a Harn game using Shadowrun rules, and not in a D&D game at all. Never mind. I was a fanatical knight of Larani, who in Harn is something like the godess of feudal virtue. My character was Chandos the Unyielding, so known because he once lost almost his entire company defending a bridge from a raid by barbarians. The inside joke was that there was absolutely no need for the heroic defense. The raiders, had they crossed the bridge, could have come to a fortified manor house with its own defense force. The barbarians, having taken heavy losses at the bridge, would have been wiped out anyway. A good leader would have retreated from the bridge after putting up a good fight, but Chandos was, well, Unyielding. He'd give a beggar a gold piece one moment and backhand the crap out of a page who didn't bow to him the next. Larani has nothing against beggars but does not condone lack of respect. My favorite part of my character sheet was the notation showing that Chandos' Brawling skill was specialized in "Backhand." True Knights of Larani do not brawl, you see, but there's nothing wrong with an occasional touch of correction to a straying member of the flock.

    One of the other players decided to play a member of the Holy Order, basically an inquisitor, and it took about thirty minutes of play for Chandos to become his permanent bad cop / attack dog, which relates nicely to what Paul said earlier. The Priests of Larani were the ones in charge of understanding her divine will and preaching. The Knights, who would have been Paladins if we were using D&D rules, were the enforcers.

    Admittedly in D&D, paladins can start to pick up clerical powers as they level up (or so I recall, it's been a long time) but I still sense a subtle distinction between the idea of paladins as the chosen weapons of their god or goddess and fighter/cleric multiclasses as fighting men who preach on the side. If you don't think subtle class distinctions make sense, then the case for paladins vs multiclasses does surely look a little weak.
  • Posted By: jlarkeIf you don't think subtle class distinctions make sense, then the case for paladins vs multiclasses does surely look a little weak.
    yeah, the case can be made for a nice subtle distinction, but in the very hard lines around D&D's (traditionally) iconic niches, the Pally/Cleric divide is weird.
  • Posted By: Brian MinterPosted By: Simon CIn the source material, there are 12 paladins in the world, total. They're all in the service of one King, and they're supposed to kind of be symbols of his divine right to rule. That strikes me as pretty interesting stuff to work with.
    I don't know what the source material is, in this case, but I guarantee in the next D&Dish game I run, the paladin PC is gonna be one of only twelve. (Or, since we'll never have time to meet eleven NPCs, one of four.)
    Posted By: renatoramThe paladins were the highest ranking knights of the king of France, basically. Even if you add some mystique about the king's power coming from god they're basically super-Knights, I certanily don't see them curing wounds or turning undeads.
    To fill in the context some more:

    1) Historically speaking, the paladins were the Twelve Peers of the court of Charlemagne, the king of France at the end of the 8th century. More accurately, the paladins are the mythologized versions of Charlemagne's court, first appearing in French and Italian medieval romances some 300 years later. They are knights and nobles, vassals to Charlemagne and for the most part not members of a religious order or part of the religious hierarchy (the Archbishop Turpin being the notable exception). However, as the legends, the Song of Roland in particular, are often concerned with Charlemagne's fights against the Muslim Saracens of Spain, and as everyone was considered to be subject to the Church and the Pope, they still have a strong religious connection. (Note that in real life, the Pope crowned Charlemagne the "Emperor of the Romans" in AD 800.) And like their counterparts, the knights of King Arthur's Round Table, they tend to get drawn into holy quests. I'm not aware of those romances attributing particular divine powers to them like the paladins in AD&D, however.

    2) However, it is a known fact that AD&D's paladins are not quite directly inspired by the historical/legendary ones, but rather by their particular depiction in the modern fantasy novel Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson. I've never read the novel myself, but apparently it involves the paladins of Charlemagne fighting against the magical threat of evil faeries; it may be that some of the more magical powers given to paladins in AD&D are based more on Anderson's use of the legends.

    As for clerics, they're meant to represent "crusading priests" of the Middle Ages, again with some inspiration from characters such as Archbishop Turpin, but definitely more on the side of divine ministers than knights/fighters of the ruling/aristocratic class.

    My take on the difference: A paladin might go on quest for the Holy Grail, a paladin might lead the armies of the land against the infidels that threaten it, a paladin might serve as a shining example of all that the nobility (if not the common people) should strive to be, but only a cleric has the full authority and insight of a divine connection to the gods. A paladin's duty is to the realm as a whole, and to the rulers, but only incidentally through those to the people of the realm. But a cleric must deal directly with the people both as individuals and as the membership of the religion, leading them and caring for them and also bringing punishment down upon them if necessary. A cleric is a man of the people, and yet his divine ministry gives him authority even over paladins if necessary. That's all based on the medieval Christian European roots of paladins and clerics, of course; things may drift away from that in modern D&D or in Dungeon World. And having said all that, I do very much like what Adam, James, and Nathan have had to say about the two classes.
  • Posted By: Vernon RMy personal take is keep it simple. Three classes Fighter - Magicuser - Thief. A cleric is a magicuser with healing spells and a connection to a diety, a Paladin is a fighter with a connection to a diety. Maybe you get some benefits from your connection to the diety but you will also have restrictions.
    So we've got a Fighter with a deity connection.
    We've got a Magic User with a deity connection.

    Clearly, the game needs a Thief with a deity connection. Is there one? What would such a character look like?
    (A spy from heaven? A holy assassin? A principled thief?)
  • Posted By: McdaldnoClearly, the game needs a Thief with a deity connection. Is there one? What would such a character look like?
    Man, I wanna say trickster-shaman, but that's mixing traditions pretty drastically.
  • the boring version is the cleric is the healer and the paladin the tank
  • Posted By: McdaldnoPosted By: Vernon RMy personal take is keep it simple. Three classes Fighter - Magicuser - Thief. A cleric is a magicuser with healing spells and a connection to a diety, a Paladin is a fighter with a connection to a diety. Maybe you get some benefits from your connection to the diety but you will also have restrictions.
    So we've got a Fighter with a deity connection.
    We've got a Magic User with a deity connection.

    Clearly, the game needs a Thief with a deity connection. Is there one? What would such a character look like?
    (A spy from heaven? A holy assassin? A principled thief?)

    Has anyone played Assassin's Creed? Is it like that guy?
  • I think this holy thief guy would have to be aligned to a god like Loki to work.
    I'm trying to wrap my head around the whole divine sleuth thing.
    Neat idea, anyway.
  • Holy thieves = Thugs
  • edited February 2012
    Monks are the holy thieves, always nicking each others relics in dubious "translations", those of Saint Mark in Venice, Saint Nicholas in Bari on the Adriatic coast, or Saint Foy at Conques being among the most famous examples.
    From a review of The Enthroned Corpse of Charlemagne. The Lord-in-Majesty Theme in Early Medieval Art and Life“Sainte Foy as an Imperial Effigy and as an Apocryphal Figure” (ch. 2) is a continuation of some ideas developed in chapter 1. Nonetheless, chapter 2 focuses on Sainte Foy as a reliquary enclosing the stolen skull of a martyr. Since the Second Council of Nicaea (787) stated that no church could be consecrated without the possession of a relic, holy theft of relics (furta sacra) became a common practice in Middle Ages. Taking into account this historical framework, it seems that in 882 the monks of Conques organized a secret theft of the relics of Sainte Foy, which at that time lay in a church in Agen, 75 miles southwest of Conques. They took the relics, carried them from Agen to Conques, wrote a chronicle about the furta sacra, and after some decades commissioned the first Sainte Foy statue to hold them. By contrast, the renewal or second stage of the sculpture was linked to Abbot Bernardus, who added imperial symbols (a crown and a throne) around the year 1000, so that Sainte Foy could be identified with the maiestas domini.
    And see this for a story of the 10 years it took to steal the relic of Sainte Foy.
  • Posted By: jlarke
    Admittedly in D&D, paladins can start to pick up clerical powers as they level up (or so I recall, it's been a long time) but I still sense a subtle distinction between the idea of paladins as the chosen weapons of their god or goddess and fighter/cleric multiclasses as fighting men who preach on the side. If you don't think subtle class distinctions make sense, then the case for paladins vs multiclasses does surely look a little weak.
    Paladins pick up a few low-level cleric spells, and undead turning, but otherwise their god-granted powers are quite different. Paladins are Knights Templar and Galahad.
  • Please note that the St. Nicholas remains were NOT stolen by monks, but by a bunch of men-at-arms on behalf of a local noble. Sure, they were BLESSED by the local Bishop in their holy endeavour, but they were just a bunch of cutthroats on a boat breaking in a church to steal some bones.
  • edited February 2012
    Posted By: McdaldnoClearly, the game needs a Thief with a deity connection. Is there one? What would such a character look like?
    My gut says Robin Hood, though he comes off as more secular humanist. The problem there is that Robin Hood would usually get built as a fighter. So maybe the mash-up is the thief who gets fighter abilities as long as he sticks to his principles. Though, perhaps Robin Hood is a secular humanist paladin.
  • Yeah if it makes sense in the fiction of the game then go for it.

    Holy (or unholy) assasins, the D&D style monks work in this fashion as well. Whatever works as long as they're following some sort of restrictions to get the extra powers.
  • edited February 2012
    I can think of religious assassins -- Thugees, Hashashin -- but not any religious thieves (as distinct from thieves hired by religious people). Robin Hood is Chaotic Good; I don't think he counts as religious, especially when you take into account his relationship with Friar Tuck.

    (An argument could be made for Robin Hood as Lawful rather than Chaotic, with the interpretation that Prince John was the lawbreaker. But whatever.)
Sign In or Register to comment.