Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KesselZero" data-source="post: 5941213" data-attributes="member: 6689976">Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check 'em out. I think we can all certainly agree that the paladin in any form shouldn't just default to the Lawful Stupid archetype. I play a paladin in a 4e campaign at the moment, and I try to play him similar to how you describe this character, but more specifically as a good-humored older fellow who's been around the block a few times and seen a few things. He's powered by his faith but he knows better than to ram it down everyone's throats. It can be tough not to just play the paladin as a blonde-haired, big-chinned Dudley Do-Right, though.Thanks for the quick lesson in legends! As mentioned before I certainly don't claim to know much or anything about the Arthurian legends beyond The Once and Future King (and Monty Python, I guess <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />). So your knowledge plainly outstrips mine. I would still argue, though, that as an influential and generally excellent fantasy novel, The Once and Future King would count as a literary precedent for D&amp;D. You're of course absolutely right that there is no one correct reading or version of Lancelot or Galahad, but the same could be said for the Greco-Roman myths, which went through as many or more versions and stages as they were absorbed by new cultures, recycled, and retold over the last 2,000-3,000 years. Nevertheless many of their strong archetypes (such as the medusa) have made it into D&amp;D. The argument is that there's precedent, not that there's a perfect or singular precedent. As for Lancelot's miracles in TOaFK, this discussion has set me to rereading it, and I'll get to that part in a few weeks, so if I remember to I'll hop back on here with a few quotes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KesselZero, post: 5941213, member: 6689976"] Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check 'em out. I think we can all certainly agree that the paladin in any form shouldn't just default to the Lawful Stupid archetype. I play a paladin in a 4e campaign at the moment, and I try to play him similar to how you describe this character, but more specifically as a good-humored older fellow who's been around the block a few times and seen a few things. He's powered by his faith but he knows better than to ram it down everyone's throats. It can be tough not to just play the paladin as a blonde-haired, big-chinned Dudley Do-Right, though. Thanks for the quick lesson in legends! As mentioned before I certainly don't claim to know much or anything about the Arthurian legends beyond [I]The Once and Future King[/I] (and Monty Python, I guess :cool:). So your knowledge plainly outstrips mine. I would still argue, though, that as an influential and generally excellent fantasy novel, [I]The Once and Future King[/I] would count as a literary precedent for D&D. You're of course absolutely right that there is no one correct reading or version of Lancelot or Galahad, but the same could be said for the Greco-Roman myths, which went through as many or more versions and stages as they were absorbed by new cultures, recycled, and retold over the last 2,000-3,000 years. Nevertheless many of their strong archetypes (such as the medusa) have made it into D&D. The argument is that there's precedent, not that there's a perfect or singular precedent. As for Lancelot's miracles in [I]TOaFK[/I], this discussion has set me to rereading it, and I'll get to that part in a few weeks, so if I remember to I'll hop back on here with a few quotes. [/QUOTE]

Verification