Thank you for reiterating my point about Excalibur. And pointing out where D&D got the word Paladin from. Paladins under Charlemagne during the Holy Roman Empire were sort of "holy warriors," at least nominally, in that their militancy was politically tied to the Church, and early D&D iterations of Paladins got magical powers presumably through their divine connections vs the vague metaphysics behind the present Oaths. I guess if you see the crossovers of some Arthurian stuff with French romance you do see a handful of Knights performing a miracle here and there. Forgot about that.
Anycase, as this thread has said, Arthur doesn't really fit the mode of the modern D&D Paladin, and I think your fighter options are limited to Battlemaster and Champion.
Thats kinda why I was looking for nontypical ways to play him, because everywhere I've looked, its either been hexblade for smiting, paladin for the same, or fighter battlemaster or EK fighter
Champion is actually the first thought ive seen outside of that
Thank you for reiterating my point about Excalibur. And pointing out where D&D got the word Paladin from. Paladins under Charlemagne during the Holy Roman Empire were sort of "holy warriors," at least nominally, in that their militancy was politically tied to the Church, and early D&D iterations of Paladins got magical powers presumably through their divine connections vs the vague metaphysics behind the present Oaths. I guess if you see the crossovers of some Arthurian stuff with French romance you do see a handful of Knights performing a miracle here and there. Forgot about that.
Anycase, as this thread has said, Arthur doesn't really fit the mode of the modern D&D Paladin, and I think your fighter options are limited to Battlemaster and Champion.
Long ago I hade a great book with 2 collections of stories - the first were the Arthurian tales ( which sold the book), the second we’re the tales of Charlemagne and his paladins. Sadly I lost the book in a house fire years ago but one of things I remember is just how close the two sets of stories actually were to each other. Then I realized why, the Arthurian tales ARE the tales of Charlemagne retold for an English audience by minstrels/bards brought into England from France by Eleanor of Aquitaine and retold around an early English warlord. Trying to find an actual English ARTHUR is a rabbit hole we probably don’t want to go down 😳😁
edit: one other thing to remember while smiting in DnD is a group of related spells, smiting in these tales has nothing to do with magic or spells- it’s just a fancy word for hitting.
You might very well be right with what you say about Charlemagne and French origins, but out of sheer national pride I refuse to accept it 😀 I have been an avid fan and supporter of the Arthurian mythos all my life, visited many of the places that are mentioned in the stories, even had my honeymoon at Tintagel. To me the fantasy will always be real, and always British. Not English because his birthplace was in Kernow, a separate kingdom to England at the time and invaded by the english. His surname Pendragon is actually Welsh for Head Dragon or chieftain of chieftains of the Kingdom of Wales (another country invaded by England). We aren’t english by choice but just because the english had a bigger army. We aren’t english at all, and one day we will have our countries back.
Give me a book name, author and page number from any accepted literature (and by that I mean not an anime mockery by some kid) where Arthur casts a spell or throws around bolts of energy. His sisters did, Merlin did, Arthur absolutely did not.
In the oldest tales it was pretty much just him and a few guys. As the years went on his companions were fleshed out more,named and eventually maid Marion was even added in. Now she doesn't just show up in the story but actually fights, something she would never have done just 100 years ago.
So D&D gives you the chance to make your own world. If you want Arthur to cast magic of any kind go ahead, just remember that it will not reflect the original tales. But go ahead and make your own new tale.
So D&D gives you the chance to make your own world. If you want Arthur to cast magic of any kind go ahead, just remember that it will not reflect the original tales. But go ahead and make your own new tale.
Now that’s perfect, you hit the nail right on the head. I made a knight using the Arthurian mythos as flavour. He was a goblin paladin, oath of the open sea multiclassed with warlock fathomless (Lady of the Lake) patron. It was awesome fun. But he wasn’t Arthur, he was Sir Skirit. If you want to play an Arthurian themed character then go for it, but if you want to build the Legendary King Arthur Pendragon then you need to be at least mostly faithful to the literature.
So D&D gives you the chance to make your own world. If you want Arthur to cast magic of any kind go ahead, just remember that it will not reflect the original tales. But go ahead and make your own new tale.
Now that’s perfect, you hit the nail right on the head. I made a knight using the Arthurian mythos as flavour. He was a goblin paladin, oath of the open sea multiclassed with warlock fathomless (Lady of the Lake) patron. It was awesome fun. But he wasn’t Arthur, he was Sir Skirit. If you want to play an Arthurian themed character then go for it, but if you want to build the Legendary King Arthur Pendragon then you need to be at least mostly faithful to the literature.
thats why ive decided im going either fighter/rogue or fighter/barbarian, depending on what my stats at the time I will be lvl 6, that go closer to from what I have read on arthur book wise and historical wise.
Arthur never used any sort of magic except his sword either
also yeah...arthurs original myth is heavily welsh, hes not a retelling of charlemagne, thats why I said theres a french arthur, and a british arthur. The french one falls much closer to charlemagne
Who knows whether he might have prayed or not, because there are multiple different versions of him in established literature. May be he did maybe he didn’t. But what he didn’t do was cast spells in any of the literature. The so called divine right of kings is only as good as whether divinity and the Christian church’s version of g-d even exists.
In some versions he is a pre-roman Welsh chieftain, in others he is a Roman military officer, in yet more he is from the 11th or 12th century. So nobody really knows if he prayed or believed in god or anything.
Sure it is up to the op whether you want a realistic character or not, but why make a character that is supposed to be a real world person if you aren’t going to make it realistic. Don’t get me wrong I have no issue with making a themed character, based on the flavour and legend.
Thank you for reiterating my point about Excalibur. And pointing out where D&D got the word Paladin from. Paladins under Charlemagne during the Holy Roman Empire were sort of "holy warriors," at least nominally, in that their militancy was politically tied to the Church, and early D&D iterations of Paladins got magical powers presumably through their divine connections vs the vague metaphysics behind the present Oaths. I guess if you see the crossovers of some Arthurian stuff with French romance you do see a handful of Knights performing a miracle here and there. Forgot about that.
Anycase, as this thread has said, Arthur doesn't really fit the mode of the modern D&D Paladin, and I think your fighter options are limited to Battlemaster and Champion.
This is exactly the difference between the modern 5E Paladin vs the 1E Paladin which didn’t get spells from a divine source until 9th level. This was a time when most characters (that survived) retired to their keep, thieves guild, church, etc..
Absolutely agree with you on that one, yeah there is a huge debate about his existence, especially around things like the existence of Camalot, the Holy Grail of Sir Percival etc. Personally I believe that there was ultimately a man behind the myth, there is simply too much myth and faith for it to be completely fabricated, but agree we will probably never know for real if it was a Welsh tribal chieftain, or a Roman legionnaire called Artorius. Personally I like to believe in the romantic knights and chivalry, and jousting, and defeating evil monsters etc. But I admit that’s my flight of fancy. But also you only need to visit Tintagel, explore the castle he is supposed to have been born in, walk through the gardens of Lady Morganna, sit and read some of the tales in one of the nearby restaurants with a view of the castle on a misty, rainswept day to feel the atmosphere and just ‘know’ that something of major significance happened there.
Who knows whether he might have prayed or not, because there are multiple different versions of him in established literature. May be he did maybe he didn’t. But what he didn’t do was cast spells in any of the literature. The so called divine right of kings is only as good as whether divinity and the Christian church’s version of g-d even exists.
In some versions he is a pre-roman Welsh chieftain, in others he is a Roman military officer, in yet more he is from the 11th or 12th century. So nobody really knows if he prayed or believed in god or anything.
Well yes, if you take the position that magic did not exist at all, then clearly he used no magic and Excalibur was just a nice but completely mundane sword.
Are we discussing a write-up in traditional D&D terms or are we limited to a real world historical depiction that is as realistic as possible?
Isn't it the OP's decision as to what they are looking for?
Ok let’s all back up a second and calm down a bit. For this discussion Arthur is (at least) 3 different things: 1) He as a post Roman Romano- Breton warlord/high king of the late 400’s AD that ended the Saxon raids across Britain and brought an extended period of peace and prosperity to the region as well as possibly meddling in affairs of the end Roman Empire in the west. - The “historical” Arthur. He would have spoken of Christianity and possibly been a believer but would have practiced a mix of Celtic and Christian beliefs. He would not have been a magic user but might have used “magical Christian Symbology” to motivate troops for major battles - stories from the 600-800 AD record him using either an image of the cross or a true cross relic before one battle and an image of the Virgin Mary before another. There are also extant records of such a person leading a British army of several thousand into France to try to defeat the goths but being defeated due to treachery at the emperial level. 2) He is the mythic creation of a group of mideveal story tellers from Britain, France, Germany and Italy (at least) based loosely on this semi historical person. Again here he is the recipient of mage both beneficial and harmful but never the caster of obvious magic. A Warrior king, strong in battle, wise in peace with magical helpers as well as enemies both magical and mundane that is involved both in Britain and on the continent and eventually betrayed dieing (maybe) in a final battle to restore peace. Since there are so many different authors of “Aurthurian” stories in the period 1100-1600AD it’s a little hard to keep track of him, Merlin, and any/all the featured characters of the stories. Some authors use welsh/British myths and tales, some use French (charlemagnic) stories, some use Germanic, etc so it becomes a very confused mess. If you want a spellcasting Arthur this is the place to look- you have a chance to find one. 3) He is the mythic recreation of a British Emperial ideal of the 1800-early 1900’s ( Tennyson and T.S. White) somewhat cleaned up for the Victorian age and again placing ancient Britain on the social pedestal that it was reclaiming from France at the time. This version has lead to a late 1900’s- early 2000’s anything goes series of rewrites to create a new confusion that you can also look into if you want to find a possible magic wielding Arthur. As for the Lady of the Lake and Excaliber he gets the sword from her thanks to Merlin and in an exchange for a single service later. When she comes to collect the service she is slain ( in most versions of the story) but is somehow returned to life by the end so that she ( or one of the other multitude of intertwined ladies of the lake) recieves the sword when it is throw back into the lake (throwing swords and other weapons into a water body seems to be a moderately Common Celtic/britaic “thing”).
for me while you can create an Arthurian character that is pretty much anything you want - it’s all there in the stories somewhere - creating an ARTHUR that holds true to the majority of what is written means no magical casting and no thievery or roguishness leaving him a fighter of some sort.
for me while you can create an Arthurian character that is pretty much anything you want - it’s all there in the stories somewhere - creating an ARTHUR that holds true to the majority of what is written means no magical casting and no thievery or roguishness leaving him a fighter of some sort.
I'd say yes for classic Arthur, though the Guy Ritchie Arthur Legend of the Sword does give the Once and Future King a rogueish background (raised in a brothel instead of as a squire). Think Guy Richie doesn't have enough clout to impact D&D-influencing archetypes? The Inquisitive Rogue is absolutely Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes.
T.H. White was of T.S. Eliot's generation, not Tennyson's. He brought a degree of Freud and Freud critical psychologism into the Arthur mythos in the latter books of the Once and Future King, most notably in the Ill Made Knight. Candle in the Wind reiterates the a sort of cyclical take on empires, acknowledging that late Camelot, like the Britain of later White's time had fallen into an age of cynical legalism, making it clear once and for all that the nobility or virtuous life or whatever order Arthur was trying to achieve (he himself seems very unsure as to what he was doing throughout) was literally humanly impossible because people are people. Mordred's efforts reach their heights at an age where all people had a cynical regard for the institutions Arthur tried to introduce.
I'd actually say figures like Arthur and the various meanings ascribed to Arthur provide a good frame of reference when folks flip out on the internet about D&D lore. In some versions of the Arhurian legend, Mordred is simply a wicked figure basically Arthur's antichrist. In White, he's most definitely a jerk, but he's also the product of the social history of the Gaels under English rule broadly and more specifically the Orkney factions particular grievance with the Pendragon family line. And they coexist as stories.
I’m aware that white and Tennyson are of different generations, however they are effectively of the same era of British history - the empire period from the defeat of Napaleon until WWII.
yes figures like Arthur and Mordred resonant with us because we see ourselves and our world reflected in their stories.
yes modern writers (post WWII) have taken much broader liberties with classic characters - we have become incredibly cynical in many ways and unwilling to believe in the good in peo0le when we see so much of the selfish.
‘Guy Ritchie Arthur Legend of the Sword does give the Once and Future King a rogueish background (raised in a brothel instead of as a squire)’
This isn’t meant to be an attack but Hollywood is full of movies made by Americans claiming credit for things that they had no involvement with. Such as claiming they recovered the Enigma machine and broke its code. Guy Ritchie has no business writing a story where he puts a legendary British hero in a brothel. That’s an absolute travesty. The list of American movies made by Americans, with a cast of Americans, written by Americans, where American heroes save the entire planet and claim responsibility for things that they weren’t involved in and in many cases didn’t find out about until years afterwards is staggering.
‘Guy Ritchie Arthur Legend of the Sword does give the Once and Future King a rogueish background (raised in a brothel instead of as a squire)’
This isn’t meant to be an attack but Hollywood is full of movies made by Americans claiming credit for things that they had no involvement with. Such as claiming they recovered the Enigma machine and broke its code. Guy Ritchie has no business writing a story where he puts a legendary British hero in a brothel. That’s an absolute travesty. The list of American movies made by Americans, with a cast of Americans, written by Americans, where American heroes save the entire planet and claim responsibility for things that they weren’t involved in and in many cases didn’t find out about until years afterwards is staggering.
I'm not seeing an attack. I think I'm seeing an effort at criticism but tendered by someone who doesn't know who Guy Ritchie is, or any of the castmembers, thereby completely undercutting their argument.
Anyway, some people may ban contemporary interpretations of Arthur at their tables, but that's not to stop players at other tables to draw from them for their own purposes.
Fwiw, the brothel aspect I believe (it wasn't a good film on its own merits) I believe was used to help cast Arthur as a more populist ruler, Arthur often being a little Christ adjacent in some interpretations of the myth, what with the waiting for a second coming etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I’m aware that white and Tennyson are of different generations, however they are effectively of the same era of British history - the empire period from the defeat of Napaleon until WWII.
yes figures like Arthur and Mordred resonant with us because we see ourselves and our world reflected in their stories.
yes modern writers (post WWII) have taken much broader liberties with classic characters - we have become incredibly cynical in many ways and unwilling to believe in the good in peo0le when we see so much of the selfish.
Wow, Tennyson and White are from almost opposite sides of "the empire period". If you don't understand the very different outlooks being on either side of WWI would have for a British writer in regards the myth that played a role ... I mean "Modern" writers of White's generation were largely eviscerating what they saw as the lies of the Victorian era. They would have very different playstyles to say the least.
Thats kinda why I was looking for nontypical ways to play him, because everywhere I've looked, its either been hexblade for smiting, paladin for the same, or fighter battlemaster or EK fighter
Champion is actually the first thought ive seen outside of that
In Arthurian lore the scabard of Excalibur was more powerful than the weapon itself. In legend it had powerful healing qualities.
Long ago I hade a great book with 2 collections of stories - the first were the Arthurian tales ( which sold the book), the second we’re the tales of Charlemagne and his paladins. Sadly I lost the book in a house fire years ago but one of things I remember is just how close the two sets of stories actually were to each other. Then I realized why, the Arthurian tales ARE the tales of Charlemagne retold for an English audience by minstrels/bards brought into England from France by Eleanor of Aquitaine and retold around an early English warlord. Trying to find an actual English ARTHUR is a rabbit hole we probably don’t want to go down 😳😁
edit: one other thing to remember while smiting in DnD is a group of related spells, smiting in these tales has nothing to do with magic or spells- it’s just a fancy word for hitting.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
You might very well be right with what you say about Charlemagne and French origins, but out of sheer national pride I refuse to accept it 😀 I have been an avid fan and supporter of the Arthurian mythos all my life, visited many of the places that are mentioned in the stories, even had my honeymoon at Tintagel. To me the fantasy will always be real, and always British. Not English because his birthplace was in Kernow, a separate kingdom to England at the time and invaded by the english. His surname Pendragon is actually Welsh for Head Dragon or chieftain of chieftains of the Kingdom of Wales (another country invaded by England). We aren’t english by choice but just because the english had a bigger army. We aren’t english at all, and one day we will have our countries back.
Give me a book name, author and page number from any accepted literature (and by that I mean not an anime mockery by some kid) where Arthur casts a spell or throws around bolts of energy. His sisters did, Merlin did, Arthur absolutely did not.
This is like trying to find Robin Hood.
In the oldest tales it was pretty much just him and a few guys. As the years went on his companions were fleshed out more,named and eventually maid Marion was even added in. Now she doesn't just show up in the story but actually fights, something she would never have done just 100 years ago.
So D&D gives you the chance to make your own world. If you want Arthur to cast magic of any kind go ahead, just remember that it will not reflect the original tales. But go ahead and make your own new tale.
Now that’s perfect, you hit the nail right on the head. I made a knight using the Arthurian mythos as flavour. He was a goblin paladin, oath of the open sea multiclassed with warlock fathomless (Lady of the Lake) patron. It was awesome fun. But he wasn’t Arthur, he was Sir Skirit. If you want to play an Arthurian themed character then go for it, but if you want to build the Legendary King Arthur Pendragon then you need to be at least mostly faithful to the literature.
thats why ive decided im going either fighter/rogue or fighter/barbarian, depending on what my stats at the time I will be lvl 6, that go closer to from what I have read on arthur book wise and historical wise.
Arthur never used any sort of magic except his sword either
also yeah...arthurs original myth is heavily welsh, hes not a retelling of charlemagne, thats why I said theres a french arthur, and a british arthur. The french one falls much closer to charlemagne
Who knows whether he might have prayed or not, because there are multiple different versions of him in established literature. May be he did maybe he didn’t. But what he didn’t do was cast spells in any of the literature. The so called divine right of kings is only as good as whether divinity and the Christian church’s version of g-d even exists.
In some versions he is a pre-roman Welsh chieftain, in others he is a Roman military officer, in yet more he is from the 11th or 12th century. So nobody really knows if he prayed or believed in god or anything.
Sure it is up to the op whether you want a realistic character or not, but why make a character that is supposed to be a real world person if you aren’t going to make it realistic. Don’t get me wrong I have no issue with making a themed character, based on the flavour and legend.
This is exactly the difference between the modern 5E Paladin vs the 1E Paladin which didn’t get spells from a divine source until 9th level. This was a time when most characters (that survived) retired to their keep, thieves guild, church, etc..
Absolutely agree with you on that one, yeah there is a huge debate about his existence, especially around things like the existence of Camalot, the Holy Grail of Sir Percival etc. Personally I believe that there was ultimately a man behind the myth, there is simply too much myth and faith for it to be completely fabricated, but agree we will probably never know for real if it was a Welsh tribal chieftain, or a Roman legionnaire called Artorius. Personally I like to believe in the romantic knights and chivalry, and jousting, and defeating evil monsters etc. But I admit that’s my flight of fancy. But also you only need to visit Tintagel, explore the castle he is supposed to have been born in, walk through the gardens of Lady Morganna, sit and read some of the tales in one of the nearby restaurants with a view of the castle on a misty, rainswept day to feel the atmosphere and just ‘know’ that something of major significance happened there.
Ok let’s all back up a second and calm down a bit. For this discussion Arthur is (at least) 3 different things:
1) He as a post Roman Romano- Breton warlord/high king of the late 400’s AD that ended the Saxon raids across Britain and brought an extended period of peace and prosperity to the region as well as possibly meddling in affairs of the end Roman Empire in the west. - The “historical” Arthur. He would have spoken of Christianity and possibly been a believer but would have practiced a mix of Celtic and Christian beliefs. He would not have been a magic user but might have used “magical Christian Symbology” to motivate troops for major battles - stories from the 600-800 AD record him using either an image of the cross or a true cross relic before one battle and an image of the Virgin Mary before another. There are also extant records of such a person leading a British army of several thousand into France to try to defeat the goths but being defeated due to treachery at the emperial level.
2) He is the mythic creation of a group of mideveal story tellers from Britain, France, Germany and Italy (at least) based loosely on this semi historical person. Again here he is the recipient of mage both beneficial and harmful but never the caster of obvious magic. A Warrior king, strong in battle, wise in peace with magical helpers as well as enemies both magical and mundane that is involved both in Britain and on the continent and eventually betrayed dieing (maybe) in a final battle to restore peace. Since there are so many different authors of “Aurthurian” stories in the period 1100-1600AD it’s a little hard to keep track of him, Merlin, and any/all the featured characters of the stories. Some authors use welsh/British myths and tales, some use French (charlemagnic) stories, some use Germanic, etc so it becomes a very confused mess. If you want a spellcasting Arthur this is the place to look- you have a chance to find one.
3) He is the mythic recreation of a British Emperial ideal of the 1800-early 1900’s ( Tennyson and T.S. White) somewhat cleaned up for the Victorian age and again placing ancient Britain on the social pedestal that it was reclaiming from France at the time. This version has lead to a late 1900’s- early 2000’s anything goes series of rewrites to create a new confusion that you can also look into if you want to find a possible magic wielding Arthur. As for the Lady of the Lake and Excaliber he gets the sword from her thanks to Merlin and in an exchange for a single service later. When she comes to collect the service she is slain ( in most versions of the story) but is somehow returned to life by the end so that she ( or one of the other multitude of intertwined ladies of the lake) recieves the sword when it is throw back into the lake (throwing swords and other weapons into a water body seems to be a moderately Common Celtic/britaic “thing”).
for me while you can create an Arthurian character that is pretty much anything you want - it’s all there in the stories somewhere - creating an ARTHUR that holds true to the majority of what is written means no magical casting and no thievery or roguishness leaving him a fighter of some sort.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I'd say yes for classic Arthur, though the Guy Ritchie Arthur Legend of the Sword does give the Once and Future King a rogueish background (raised in a brothel instead of as a squire). Think Guy Richie doesn't have enough clout to impact D&D-influencing archetypes? The Inquisitive Rogue is absolutely Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes.
T.H. White was of T.S. Eliot's generation, not Tennyson's. He brought a degree of Freud and Freud critical psychologism into the Arthur mythos in the latter books of the Once and Future King, most notably in the Ill Made Knight. Candle in the Wind reiterates the a sort of cyclical take on empires, acknowledging that late Camelot, like the Britain of later White's time had fallen into an age of cynical legalism, making it clear once and for all that the nobility or virtuous life or whatever order Arthur was trying to achieve (he himself seems very unsure as to what he was doing throughout) was literally humanly impossible because people are people. Mordred's efforts reach their heights at an age where all people had a cynical regard for the institutions Arthur tried to introduce.
I'd actually say figures like Arthur and the various meanings ascribed to Arthur provide a good frame of reference when folks flip out on the internet about D&D lore. In some versions of the Arhurian legend, Mordred is simply a wicked figure basically Arthur's antichrist. In White, he's most definitely a jerk, but he's also the product of the social history of the Gaels under English rule broadly and more specifically the Orkney factions particular grievance with the Pendragon family line. And they coexist as stories.
Coincidentally, the first issue of Dragon Magazine I owned had a gorgeous painting of Mordred and Arthur's fight at the fall of Camelot. The image still feeds my imagination to this day.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I’m aware that white and Tennyson are of different generations, however they are effectively of the same era of British history - the empire period from the defeat of Napaleon until WWII.
yes figures like Arthur and Mordred resonant with us because we see ourselves and our world reflected in their stories.
yes modern writers (post WWII) have taken much broader liberties with classic characters - we have become incredibly cynical in many ways and unwilling to believe in the good in peo0le when we see so much of the selfish.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
‘Guy Ritchie Arthur Legend of the Sword does give the Once and Future King a rogueish background (raised in a brothel instead of as a squire)’
This isn’t meant to be an attack but Hollywood is full of movies made by Americans claiming credit for things that they had no involvement with. Such as claiming they recovered the Enigma machine and broke its code. Guy Ritchie has no business writing a story where he puts a legendary British hero in a brothel. That’s an absolute travesty. The list of American movies made by Americans, with a cast of Americans, written by Americans, where American heroes save the entire planet and claim responsibility for things that they weren’t involved in and in many cases didn’t find out about until years afterwards is staggering.
I'm not seeing an attack. I think I'm seeing an effort at criticism but tendered by someone who doesn't know who Guy Ritchie is, or any of the castmembers, thereby completely undercutting their argument.
Anyway, some people may ban contemporary interpretations of Arthur at their tables, but that's not to stop players at other tables to draw from them for their own purposes.
Fwiw, the brothel aspect I believe (it wasn't a good film on its own merits) I believe was used to help cast Arthur as a more populist ruler, Arthur often being a little Christ adjacent in some interpretations of the myth, what with the waiting for a second coming etc.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Wow, Tennyson and White are from almost opposite sides of "the empire period". If you don't understand the very different outlooks being on either side of WWI would have for a British writer in regards the myth that played a role ... I mean "Modern" writers of White's generation were largely eviscerating what they saw as the lies of the Victorian era. They would have very different playstyles to say the least.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.