[hider=A pointless argument]I have a problem with your argument there, Nevis. You seem to be insulting KirinLemon over her/his use of the word paladin to mean "the thing that nearly every member of RPG has heard of", rather than "what the word meant in [i]the 1200s[/i]". The simple fact of the matter [i]is[/i] that all word meanings change over time, and the only thing that is correct in language is consensus. You can have an appreciation for history, and for the etymology of words, but that doesn't make the definition of paladin that arose in the 70's any more or less correct, and it definitely doesn't make it a "bastardization"... It's just another, more modern meaning, based on the legacy of the people the original word honored. I mean, really, I doubt Roland would be offended that his title is being used for a group of literal holy knights with God-given power.

Think about this: the Matter of France, one of the most important collections of legends in Europe, is just that. A collection of stories, legends loosely based on the exploits of rather mundane historical figures. It's only because those legends were read, and retold and loved by so many people that we even have the word in the first place! The wide adoption of the word paladin to refer to first the Twelve Peers, and then to other famous paragons of chivalry in the intervening centuries led directly to its use as a character class in D&D, and in turn, to the new meaning it has gained. Through association, calling anyone a paladin evokes the legends of the Matter of France, and D&D paladins are based almost entirely on those and the other medieval legends of chivalrous, God-loving knights.

What I'm saying is, I understand that you believe the title should be reserved for those legendary figures, but the new meaning is no great insult to them or the history of the word, and still carries all of the gravitas that it once did.

And again, with barbarian: the original Greek word (barbaros) means "not a citizen", or "not a Greek", someone (in their eyes) uncivilized and wild, who lives on the fringes of civilization, or has none at all. D&D barbarians... are just that. They're illiterate, they are supposed to come from mostly tribal backgrounds rather than growing up in cities among more civilized folk, and thus completely fulfill the original meaning of the word. There's nothing wrong with that. Really, in English, in 2014, the word barbarian means "guy with a broadsword screaming in rage and chopping heads", ala Conan, WAY more than it means "foreigner who talks funny," making it entirely justified as a neutral title rather than a negative insult. Besides, "someone who doesn't speak Greek" is just as much an observation as "someone who has darker skin than me", so your view of the word as an incorrigible insult in the first place is shaky at best.

Also... Yeah, the above paragraphs are argumentative, but on this note I'm just puzzled: what's so bad about the work of Dante? I mean, I've never really thought of any reasons why the Divine Comedy would be a bad thing. It helped to establish the Italian vernacular, its imagery is the basis for nearly every cultural interpretation of Hell and Heaven from the 14th century to today... I'm interested why you seem to have some offense against it. Maybe you can teach me something I don't know?[/hider]