Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mkletch" data-source="post: 403880" data-attributes="member: 3396">You are implying that:1) the only pious (again, a relative term) warriors that could be referred to as Paladins, in the 3E sense of a holy warrior, were on the western side 2) Paladins in 3E have to be part of some order or organization with a monastic tradition.  The former is arrogant and misguided, and the latter is clearly wrong according to the PHB.  In any case, a similar argument could apply to the Arabs fighting the Persians, the Chinese fighting the Mongols, the Spanish fighting the Moors, the Mayans fighting each other, or the English fighting the French.  The role of the Paladin is in no way defined to exclude religions outside the JC tradition.  In FR, you can paladins of the effectively Egyptian gods.  In any case, a paladin or cleric in 3E goes against the JC tradition by serving some other god.You have nothing to base that on except perhaps your own narrow definitions and perceptions.  There are are some variants of Christianity that deny any shred of Thruth in the others.  We must have a similar wall between us...You're getting into the qualities of particular religion, and that will get the whole thread bashed.  Let's just say that C looks at J as a cousin religion, and I looks at C and J as cousin religions.  They come from the same 'root', and are obviously similar in a great many respects.  But, as a rule, each as a religion (not individuals) despises the one(s) that came after, for whatever reason.  If you disagree with that, you are choosing to see what you will, not the way it is.National defense was in no way involved.  It's not like the Musilms were banging on the gates of London, Paris or Rome, or had threatened to do so.  Arab-Muslim expansion was largely at an end.My thesis is that you cannot come up with a definition of absolute good or evil.  Show me that definition, and I will certainly consider it.  I will go so far as to accept that, if you define one, the the other is everything not in the other.  Different cultures approach this question from different angles, and arrive at different results.  If you get different answers that are exclusive of each other, none of them is 'right'What exactly does that mean?  If you can't define good for me, there is no way to evaluate if someone is or is not good.  That's not being morally ambiguous; it's being realistic.Who determines what is evil or good?  Any answer you give sets a relative state, based on the culture of the individual.-Fletch!</blockquote>

Verification