Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 6678990" data-attributes="member: 6683613">Neither is a knight necessarily a warrior. Notwithstanding the Elder Scrolls series, I am unaware that Sir Elton John has ever held a sword.&nbsp; You may object that he is a ridiculous example, but I assure you I'm being serious.&nbsp; Think about it:&nbsp; if the actual British monarchy does not see any problem with bestowing an actual order of knighthood on a man like Sir Elton, how much more ridiculous must we be, if we insist that the label of &quot;knight&quot; in a make-believe game must hew so closely to its historical roots?&nbsp; (Or is the modern institution of knighthood just &quot;poorly designed&quot; too?)And what of those historical roots?&nbsp; After all, it's not just modern knights like Sir Elton John.&nbsp; Historically, knighthoods were bestowed upon military commanders and other prominent political figures all the time.&nbsp; The rank was fundamentally military in nature, I'm certainly not disputing that, and given the times most would have known their way around arms and armor.&nbsp; So in that broad sense you could say that all knights are &quot;warriors&quot;.&nbsp; But using that same broad sense, wouldn't all warlords be &quot;warriors&quot; too?&nbsp; If you mean something more specific by &quot;warrior&quot; like &quot;in-your-face personal butt-kicker&quot;, this does not match up with all warlords, but surely it doesn't match up with all historical knights either.As Tony Vargas said, this makes no sense when discussing the warlord as a distinct class.The first objection I'd foresee to this would be that, if we accept that both of these aspects combine to create the &quot;knight&quot; character archetype, it's weird to have to multiclass to arrive at this archetype.&nbsp; Especially since 5E multiclassing is an optional rule.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 6678990, member: 6683613"] Neither is a knight necessarily a warrior. Notwithstanding the Elder Scrolls series, I am unaware that Sir Elton John has ever held a sword. You may object that he is a ridiculous example, but I assure you I'm being serious. Think about it: if the [I]actual[/I] British monarchy does not see any problem with bestowing an [I]actual[/I] order of knighthood on a man like Sir Elton, how much more ridiculous must we be, if we insist that the label of "knight" in a make-believe game must hew so closely to its historical roots? (Or is the modern institution of knighthood just "poorly designed" too?) And what of those historical roots? After all, it's not just modern knights like Sir Elton John. Historically, knighthoods were bestowed upon military commanders and other prominent political figures all the time. The rank was fundamentally military in nature, I'm certainly not disputing that, and given the times most would have known their way around arms and armor. So in that broad sense you could say that all knights are "warriors". But using that same broad sense, wouldn't all warlords be "warriors" too? If you mean something more specific by "warrior" like "in-your-face personal butt-kicker", this does not match up with all warlords, but surely it doesn't match up with all historical knights either. As Tony Vargas said, this makes no sense when discussing the warlord as a distinct class. The first objection I'd foresee to this would be that, if we accept that both of these aspects combine to create the "knight" character archetype, it's weird to have to multiclass to arrive at this archetype. Especially since 5E multiclassing is an optional rule. [/QUOTE]

Verification