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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6112095" data-attributes="member: 42582">Me. Lancelot and Galahad and Arthur are honourable. That their foes are dishonourable, incapable of conducting themselves in a fitting way is a burden on those foes, not on them. They won't sully themsleves with lies and deception, however base those with whom they must deal!Thus do I prove that it's often not very obvious at all!I don't know 3E well enough, but a 4e paladin wears Full Plate, typically carries a shield, and is a selfless defender who specialises in interposing him-/herself between enemies and allies. In the Essentials version she is dedicated either to Virtue (like a knigh) or to Vice (a black knight).There's no steed in 4e, true, but that's a function of the fact that (i) it doesn't care much for pets, and (ii) like many fantasy RPGs, it's mounted combat rules aren't all that smooth.I guess you could do funky stuff with a hybrid who didn't take Paladin Armour Proficiency, but that's a bit of a corner case.There's never been any difference, other than the mechanical. Clerics are modelled on crusader knights. Paladins are, virtually by definition, crusading knights. It's the same thing.Of course, you can amp up the behavioural restrictions around the paladin if you want, but that is just another mechanical difference. Do we really think that Edward the Confessor, or Roland, or Aragorn, took his obligations to god more seriously than did the prophets on whom many of the more iconic cleric spells are modelled, or than the Knights Templar who are said by Gygax to be their archetypical inspiration?</blockquote>

Verification