Quote from: Spinachcat;1097296Paladins of Charlemagne looks quite well done, but for me, the joy of Pendragon was playing in Arthur's Mythos and the Age of Charlemagne seems much more historical and less mystical to me, but I haven't read enough of the literature surrounding the era.

If you liked Pendragon for those reasons, you'll like Paladin. I was able to read the totality of the book over the weekend and can easily say this is the best RPG release of the past year (since we already know the mechanics hold up, we can gloss over playtesting). Buy the PDF and if you hate it I'll Paypal you the money. 100% serious.

Quote from: Bren;1097475There are a lot of fantastical stories about the Paladin's of Charlemagne. You've got the 15th century Orlando Innamorato and Ariosto's 16th century Orlando Furioso (Orlando=Roland). The latter includes a hippogriff and a sea monster. If you want something more recent, Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson is a good read. It is (more or less) about one of Charlemagne's Paladins with much of the story set in Faerie. IIR it includes naiads a swan maiden, so pretty fantastical. It was one of the inspirations for naiads in the original D&D monster table. And those are just a few of the many.

These definitely exist - but English-language adaptations are much more rare than Arthurian mythos, so few players have an awareness of them. I think it takes a particular type of player to really get into these.

I played in an Ars Magica campaign set in the era of Charlemagne, but that juxtaposed the real-world history with mostly standard Ars Magica elements -- rather than adapting the Paladin stories.

Quote from: jhkim;1097575These definitely exist - but English-language adaptations are much more rare than Arthurian mythos, so few players have an awareness of them. I think it takes a particular type of player to really get into these.

I can't disagree. But the sort of Arthurian that's in Pendragon is heavily influenced by Mallory and my experience is that there really aren't all that many players that have actually read Le Morte d'Arthur. But Knights of the Round are better known than the Paladins of Charlemagne or even Roland to people whose first (or only) language is English. I don't know who the target market is, but Charlemagne and his knights might do better on the Continent than Arthur. I wonder why they went with Warriors of Charlemagne instead of Paladins of Charlemagne?

Quote from: Bren;1097595I can't disagree. But the sort of Arthurian that's in Pendragon is heavily influenced by Mallory and my experience is that there really aren't all that many players that have actually read Le Morte d'Arthur. But Knights of the Round are better known than the Paladins of Charlemagne or even Roland to people whose first (or only) language is English. I don't know who the target market is, but Charlemagne and his knights might do better on the Continent than Arthur. I wonder why they went with Warriors of Charlemagne instead of Paladins of Charlemagne?

I suspect for a game like this - as with Pendragon - the authors and the hard-core players are those who have read the original sources (Mallory and Ariosto, respectively). But they need to make the game still playable and interesting to bring in players who haven't read the source material -- who have maybe seen Excalibur or some other King Arthur adaptations and such. And a lot of the gloss is for those players.

In this case, I think the term "paladin" evokes pictures of the D&D class - particularly among role-players. So by adding "warrior" they are clarifying a little - compared to just saying "Charlemagne's Paladins".

I don't know. Charlemagne's Paladins makes me think the game is about playing legendary, romantic knights. That's an association English speaking people are likely to already have for King Arthur. A title like Charlemagne's Warriors makes me think the game is about playing gritty, dirty historical Frankish warriors. Warriors just seems like poor marketing for an intentionally a-historical setting.

Quote from: Bren;1097606I don't know. Charlemagne's Paladins makes me think the game is about playing legendary, romantic knights. That's an association English speaking people are likely to already have for King Arthur. A title like Charlemagne's Warriors makes me think the game is about playing gritty, dirty historical Frankish warriors. Warriors just seems like poor marketing for an intentionally a-historical setting.

I think we might be talking past each other. The title is "PALADIN: Warriors of Charlemagne".  So they say Paladin - they're just using "warriors" to clarify what "paladin" is supposed to mean. I think the title and the look pretty clearly convey the legendary warriors. Below is the title image from the Kickstarter:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3658[/ATTACH]

Source: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/nocturnalmedia/paladin-warriors-of-charlemagne

Yes we were. My bad.

I know (and have reed) La Chanson de Roland (growing up in Quebec helped there) and this was an instant back for me when I saw the Kickstarter. The book looks pretty good, I will try and read it this weekend.

Quote from: Bren;1097697Yes we were. My bad.

No problem. It happens to all of us at some point.

I'd *like* to read the books, but the company doing delivery in the UK is being as incompetent as any I've ever seen and, now that they've repeatedly failed to deliver and their website won't let me schedule something, hasn't responded to my email trying to make arrangements.

Quote from: Brad;1097523If you liked Pendragon for those reasons, you'll like Paladin. I was able to read the totality of the book over the weekend and can easily say this is the best RPG release of the past year (since we already know the mechanics hold up, we can gloss over playtesting). Buy the PDF and if you hate it I'll Paypal you the money. 100% serious.

Waiting for a reply, sir.

For those who have read/played the game, how is it positioned in regard to these axes:

- Historical x Fantastical.
- Character-driven x GM-driven.

I remember the original Pendragon was more or less at the right side of both, while I would have preferred if it was somewhere between center and left. How is Paladin in this regard?

Quote from: Itachi;1099170For those who have read/played the game, how is it positioned in regard to these axes:
- Historical x Fantastical.
- Character-driven x GM-driven.
I remember the original Pendragon was more or less at the right side of both, while I would have preferred if it was somewhere between center and left. How is Paladin in this regard?

[1] Paladin mixes the historical time frame with legendary events. In other words, it adds events and interprets the historical ones to fit the legends. In case of contradictions, the legends take precedence. With regards to your scale, I'd say it's somewhere to the right as well, since the legends aren't all that fantastic (as in Pendragon). There magic fantasy level is rather low, but there is quite some magic of religious origin which is expressed in the game through (player character) prayers and (game master) miracles.

[2] Since the Time line is a given, the overarching story is GM-driven. Big events are bound to happen and cannot be changed by player character actions. So, depending on what type of campaign you're playing, the players will have more or less initiative in creating their own legend as opposed to "simply" following the steps of existing heroes. So, again, Paladin would be in the center of your scale. (I have an D&D friend who finds this annoying, as he prefers entirely character-driven plots.)