Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gamerprinter" data-source="post: 6280231" data-attributes="member: 50895">Oh, definitely, but that the paladin was a creation from early on D&D and its historic context was obviously built-in. However, using the class build as is, looking at the PF paladin, for example, no where is there a class feature involving a mount, charging or other specific ability that implies 'cavalier'.I can easily see a low-born person, trained and equipped by a church of lawful good and trained as a heavy infantryman, charioteer, a naval marine (or other combat niche), swearing to a strict oath, and in every other way conform to the features and intentions of a paladin, yet not fit the concept of high born holy knight who rides a mount into combat.In my mind the class name can be a disservice to the potential of that class's concept by limiting it to the concept of the name only. For example the PF ninja if renamed, and 'Ki' changed to some other title with a less Asian flavor, I can see a European styled assassin using everything that class offers, and not having to only fit fantasy Asia. So, yes, paladin is derived from Charlemagne's Peers conceptually, but that doesn't mean a holy warrior using all the paladin class features has to look like one, nor duplicate their equipment and fighting style.Just looking at the PF paladin: immunities, bonuses to fight undead and evil outsiders, mercies, lay on hands, access to some divine spellcasting, requirements of lawful good alignment and adhering to a code - none of that specifically invokes mounted knight, does it?</blockquote>

Verification