Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 1874631" data-attributes="member: 2205">And yet the rules; i.e., the alignment and "paladin code" are clearly part of the issue.  This thread has everything to do with the rules, because it's asking if such a creature as a sexually active paladin is supportable.  As for faithfulness (or lack thereof) it's a bit misleading to say it's faithless of the paladin to have "casual" sex, as faith has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue.Good.  Because I think that's an argument you'd likely quickly lose.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  The Sir Galahad interpretation of the paladin doesn't work exactly as is, because Sir Galahad, as interpreted by Sir Thomas Mallory (the "standard" version of him) is a specifically Catholic mythology.  Out of context, his chastity (or celibacy; take your pick) doesn't make sense.So unless your paladins exist in a setting that feature heavily Medieval Catholic values and beliefs, the paladin as Sir Galahad is an anachronism.  Since I'd bet most paladins actually pray to Heironeous or some such fictional god, who's views on sexuality are unknown, or exist in a setting such as the Forgotten Realms, which are much closer to modern liberalism in tone and values than 14th century England, having paladins that closely resemble Sir Galahad doesn't really make much sense.Also, so narrowly defining the class is a big problem as well from a roleplaying and character development standpoint.  If there's only one way to play a paladin, you do it once, maybe, and then what's the encore?  Unless it's literally your favorite archetype to play, you simply don't ever play paladins again, is my guess.</blockquote>

Verification