Hijacked Thread in need of closure.

[jgbrowning]

Re: Re

Good post Celtavian, to answer some stuff.

1. i understand that you have full right to use rule 0 to explain how paladins work. unfortunatly i would like a paladin that works without rule 0

2. this example "Truly, a Paladin is an uncorrupted person who serves a deity of ultimate good or ultimate order, preferably both. They are literally the embodiement of all that is good and orderly in the world, and others in society can look to them as an example of how to be a good human being free of vices and corruption. This is the reason that lawful good is really the only alignment for a Paladin." though very well written pre-supposes that paladins are lawful good by giving paladins traits that are lawful good and then saying the paladin has to be lawful good because the traits you gave him say so.. I'm sure there's a term for this, but its kinda like using the definition of something to define the thing so you can say the thing is that way because thats the definition.... *Whew*

3. By your literary example of saying only ONE remained a Paladin doesn't that hint to you that that definition of Paladin shouldn't be a Core Class?

4. I dont think that a Paladin of St. Cuthbert or of Wee Jas is any more unlikely than a paladin of Pelor. To think so means that you view the "Good" aspect of the "Lawful Good" to be more important than the "Lawful" aspect of the paladins alignment.


joe b.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

What is that supposed to mean?

Some feminists have a knee-jerk reaction that chivalry = bad. (I once had a girl refuse to date me because I opened a door for her ) Therefore, they probably don't think of paladins in a good context, because of all the chivalry baggage. I truly didn't mean anything by it.

 

[Dragongirl]

Some feminists have a knee-jerk reaction that chivalry = bad. (I once had a girl refuse to date me because I opened a door for her ) Therefore, they probably don't think of paladins in a good context, because of all the chivalry baggage. I truly didn't mean anything by it.

I concider myself a feminist, and have no problem with how a Paladin is portrayed. As for opening doors, depends on how extreme someone goes. If I was dating someone that insisted on going out of their way to open a door and would not want me to open my own door if I was there, then yes I would not date them.

 

[jgbrowning]

Here, he favors Law over Good, which he cannot do. That's part of what the Paladin is, the culmination of the two alignments. That's why it can be such a challange to play them.

Ok, again i think this is a case of using the basic assumption that paladins must be Lawful Good to explain why he couldn't do these things. I'm trying to show how, yes he cant do these thing according to the current rules, and show that the current rules are silly because a god wouldn't punish a believer for behaving as the god would.

Wee Jas is LN. Wee Jas wouldn't punish a follower for behaving exactly like she would. And to begin with, why would she make a follower, FORCE a follower, to hold a contrary belief (Good) in order to receive her power and then punish him when he acts exactly like she believes is the "right" way?

joe b.

 

[Lela]

Re: Re: Re

Galahad was the one who disappeared along with the grail (presumably to Heaven, since he had acheived Perfection on Earth). But Percival and Bors were also allowed to attain the Grail in some versions of the story, they just came back afterwards.

So, they gained some of the vurtues necissary to become a Paladin but not enough to actually do so. That puts them more towards Cleric, I think.

And I believe that those versions were much rarer and not very well accepted by most. Besides, aren't there only three main versions of it? The origianal factual one, the added divine touch later, and then all the pagan (simply meaning non-christian) stuff came in during the 15th or 16th centurey; which is where most of the legends come from.

I could e-mail my old Mythology teacher (now that woman knew her stuff), but she wouldn't even see it until Monday. By the time I expect this discussion would have died off.

 

[Theuderic]

I'm trying to show how, yes he cant do these thing according to the current rules, and show that the current rules are silly

joe b.

I think we are getting close here.

 

[jgbrowning]

I concider myself a feminist, and have no problem with how a Paladin is portrayed. As for opening doors, depends on how extreme someone goes. If I was dating someone that insisted on going out of their way to open a door and would not want me to open my own door if I was there, then yes I would not date them.

I'm also a femist and i think that chivalry does have bad connotations because it has been used to oppress women under the pretext of protecting them. that aside...

i think this is great example of how a single word, in this case feminist, has two equally valid perceptions. It both proves and disproves your idea of connotation and "common understanding" aspect of the word "paladin"

its all really perception anyway..

joe b.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I concider myself a feminist, and have no problem with how a Paladin is portrayed. As for opening doors, depends on how extreme someone goes. If I was dating someone that insisted on going out of their way to open a door and would not want me to open my own door if I was there, then yes I would not date them.

Again, I'm really not trying to be offensive. I may have jumped to a conclusion based on my previous experiences with Radical Cornell feminists. For the record, I was walking next to her, and the door opened toward me, so it made sense for me to open the door. She *humphed* at me, and barreled through the 2nd set of doors, not even bothering to hold one for me. She then glared at me icily intermittently throughout the movie (which we went Dutch on, though perhaps, in retrospect, offering to buy her popcorn was a mistake) and told me I was a "slave to the Patriarchal norms" or something like that when I took her home.

I think I was the reasonable one there.

 

[jgbrowning]

I think we are getting close here.

Personally i think the designers of 3E nailed the coffin on a Paladins excusivity of lawful good when they decided "in order to promote people playing clerics and to prevent us from having to come up with cool gods for every alighnment" for some GOD FORSAKEN reason to allow clerics to have alignments different that that of their gods.

thats the most stupid thing ive ever heard of. (next to paladins be only lawful good that is... heheh )

just kidding there.... since they allowed clerics to do that they of course have to allow paladins to do that (or the internal consistancy would disappear, one of the primary goals of 3E) and unfortunatly they refused to change paladins alignments like they changed druid's alignments to fit the modification they did to clerics and divine magic.

this of course was silly as well. (not as silly as continuing the ludicrious belief that druids, a class that doesn't have to be lawful, would somehow have a world-spanning heirarchy.) that was silly as well.


joe b.

who is also, silly.

 

[SSquirrel]

Re: 3E paladins are kinda silly...

how would opening up the class to other alignments prevent you from playing a LG paladin in shiny armor just like you want to?

Ding Ding Ding!!! We have a winner folks!

Paladins have always generally annoyed me and I thought the Holy Champion or whatever it was called in the FR main book was on the right track. Maybe not exactly the Paladin replacement, but with a touch of work it could be done. Things could easily be made a touch more generic by changing Smite Evil to Smite Enemy as one example.

Yes maybe this doesn't NEED to be done, but Paladins don't NEED to be a core class either. Paladins are just one of those sacred cows that avoided steakhood in 3E. Me, I have some worcestershire sauce, ,seasoned salt and whatever else sounds tasty to go along with my Paladin steak...medium.