click to enlarge
Just as with
Merlin, King Arthur was also outlined in the first edition "Deities and Demigods", and subsequently in the second edition version called "Legends and Lore". However, once again, Wizards of the Coast did not see fit to bring them back in the third or four edition campaign settings.
The 2E King Arthur stats say that he was a 16th level Paladin, and a 5th level Bard. Now, I'll be the first to admit, it's been a while since 2E and the definitions of these classes may have changed a bit since then, but I disagree with these class choices for a number of reasons. Please correct me in the comments if you feel that I'm mistaken!
I'll be changing Artie's class to Fighter for 3E for the following reasons:
1 - Bard: I don't recall any stories in which King Arthur played a hymn, or sang a song to give benefits to his party members. Certainly, I can understand that he gave inspiration to those around him, but I hardly think that warrants classes in bard.
2 - He was righteous, chivalrous and lived by a knightly code of honor. These are most definitely traits of a paladin. He did not, however, have the ability to detect evil, have a phantasmal mount, or cast healing spells, which are also traits of a paladin. Was he a defender of honor and virtue? Yes. Was he a paladin? I think not.
Further, when he found that his wife and Launcelot were having an affair, the letter of the law, which a paladin would be bound to uphold, being all lawful and what not, would be to have her put to death. Arthur did not do that.
3 - Keeping these two classes for 3E presents a problem. These two classes conflict in 3E. A paladin must be of a lawful alignment, whereas a bard cannot be any lawful alignment.
Note: I know there are probably specialty classes (Crusader comes to mind) that might fit better, but for simplicity's sake, I just went with the fighter as it's outlined in the core 3.5 Player's Handbook.
