Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7864758" data-attributes="member: 6704184">Haven’t read the thread yet, but I wanted to simply reply to the OP. I don’t care about origins of concepts except as inspiration for new takes on the concept, or simple academic curiosity. So, for me, the fact the Cleric came first is meaningless. The fact they have always been warriors is meaningless. The history of Paladins having to be the Arthurian ideal is only interesting in terms of lore and maybe establishing in-world social expectations. To me, the Paladin is the Knight of The Faith. The Sword In The Right Hand of God. The Cleric is The Priest. The Chosen Voice of God. Everything flows out from there, for me. And for the most part, DnD 5e does both of them well. I’ve no interest in ever playing any kind of Cleric, but every Cleric lover I know enjoys them in 5e, so...<img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="👍" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f44d.png" title="Thumbs up    :thumbsup:" data-shortname=":thumbsup:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />I do think Paladins (along with Rangers and Warlocks) should have a Ritual Casting feature, and they can both certainly be part of a clergy if the player wants, but only the Cleric is a Priest.</blockquote>