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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vigilance" data-source="post: 1955446" data-attributes="member: 4275">Sure Paladins have always had spells (though it was much harder in 1E)... but my point is by bringing up their slow progression towards some sort of hybrid cleric is only to point out that the class as it now stands resembels nothing from fantasy fiction.The Paladin has been removed so far from its archetypal base as to be unrecognizable.I can see Conan in the Barbarian class. I can even still see Fafred in there.I can see Odysseus and the Grey Mouser and Hans Shadowspawn in the Rogue. I can see the Hospitlars in the Cleric.I can even (vaguely) see Aragorn and Robin Hood in the Ranger. I dont see anything except some weird Forgotten Realms take in the current Paladin. To assert that all noble knights from fiction "didnt have very many levels of Paladin" (meaning 4 or less I suppose) is a little silly. Lancelot is clearly the inspiration of the Paladin, along with the knight from 3 Hearts and 3 Lions. I even believe that Lancelot is the basis for the "ex-Paladin"- where you lose your religious gifts and become a mere fighter. Lancelot even atones and regains his status as a Paladin. D&D classes are supposed to be archetypes.If not archetypes of legend, myth and fantasy fiction... then of what? And in case anyone thinks Im hijacking the thread with my personal rant, I think this point is exactly in keeping with the thread. The change to the paladin away from its true archetypal base was done for what reason?To stop whining (the original point of praise in the thread).Not all moves made to satisfy whining rules lawyers are good imo. Chuck</blockquote>

Verification