Hijacked Thread in need of closure.

[ColonelHardisson]

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.

Yeah, I'd agree.

 

[jgbrowning]

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.

Yep, but its better to remember that she was an individual, and not a feminist. feminist is an idea and ideas dont have boo.... erm... pretty body parts?

joe b.

*ducking dragongirl*

 

[Lela]

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.

While I would protect women, I don't think they necisarrally need it. It's only because preditors are more likely to go after women that I insist on walking them home. Not because they can't defend themselves; simply because they shouldn't have to.

Also, I always considered it to be a sign of respect and by no means subjigation. If you didn't want me to open the door, I wouldn't. If you didn't care, I would. Respect.

That said, I think we should let Canis explain what he meant before we all jump down his throat.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: Re: Re: Re

...
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.

Not really important. Either way, there were very, very few paladins wandering around.

And there's so much disagreement about what is and isn't a legitimate source for Arthurian legends, we could debate minor details for years, to no purpose whatsoever.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Jon,

This is a role-playing game to me. The role-playing comes before the rules.

What does this mean? It means I try to get into the spirit of what the person who created the original class set forth rather than the meta-game rules governing it.

The Paladin class was made to simulate the legendary holy knights of medieval style legend. Thus, Sir Galahad, Charlegmagne, and other such knightly types.

They are supposed to the ultimate champion's of good. The closest comparison's I can come up with are all literary because there are no Paladin's in the real world unless you want to believe Jesus was ultimately pure and give him a sword and some armor. That would be a Paladin.

A Paladin is ultimately virtuous and free of sin. I ensure this beyond the rules when I run my game. If you want to be a Paladin, you cannot be some fighter who just decided to be a Paladin. You have to have a Paladin type of personality, and I use literary means to determine this.

Just because 3rd edition genericized the Paladin doesn't mean I as a DM can't still have stringent requirements on their code of conduct. Even I admit in the previous editions of D and, Paladins had a much stricter code to follow, and thus more of a justification for why they received their powers.

Still, I would not even play this game if all I did was play by strict rules. Even in combats, I make sure to give my players some latitude for doing cool stuff they may have seen in a movie or throwing in a little divine intervention in the form of luck to help them to survive. It's an RPG, arbitrate it like one.

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?

I am saying that a Paladin is a core class because a person who becomes a Paladin is more often than not born to be a Paladin. A person who becomes a Paladin usually lives those ideals while growing up. They are and have always been the ideal example of a Paladin throughout their entire life just like Galahad and Launcelot. They are the best living examples of what a knight should be and they were from the day they were born.

That is why I feel a Paladin should be a core class, though I can see why some would believe otherwise in this currently jaded world which so strongly supports moral ambiguity.

 

[jgbrowning]

While I would protect women, I don't think they necisarrally need it. It's only because preditors are more likely to go after women that I insist on walking them home. Not because they can't defend themselves; simply because they shouldn't have to.

Also, I always considered it to be a sign of respect and by no means subjigation. If you didn't want me to open the door, I wouldn't. If you didn't care, I would. Respect.

That said, I think we should let Canis explain what he meant before we all jump down his throat.

yeah, i think we all, women included have had contact with radical feminists that left us with a bad opinion of feminism. but we just have to remember that almost ANY radical (Paladins included ) leave bad opinions.

heheh

joe b.

(who thinks he gets funnier the later it gets. My wife is gonna kill me for staying up so late.. heh )

 

[ColonelHardisson]

This thread will get shut down if it doesn't begin to skew away from the more political stuff. I'm not threatening - I'm not a mod - just suggesting, because I've seen this kind of thing happen before.

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: Re

Jon,

This is a role-playing game to me. The role-playing comes before the rules.

What does this mean? It means I try to get into the spirit of what the person who created the original class set forth rather than the meta-game rules governing it.

The Paladin class was made to simulate the legendary holy knights of medieval style legend. Thus, Sir Galahad, Charlegmagne, and other such knightly types.

They are supposed to the ultimate champion's of good. The closest comparison's I can come up with are all literary because there are no Paladin's in the real world unless you want to believe Jesus was ultimately pure and give him a sword and some armor. That would be a Paladin.

A Paladin is ultimately virtuous and free of sin. I ensure this beyond the rules when I run my game. If you want to be a Paladin, you cannot be some fighter who just decided to be a Paladin. You have to have a Paladin type of personality, and I use literary means to determine this.

Just because 3rd edition genericized the Paladin doesn't mean I as a DM can't still have stringent requirements on their code of conduct. Even I admit in the previous editions of D and, Paladins had a much stricter code to follow, and thus more of a justification for why they received their powers.

Still, I would not even play this game if all I did was play by strict rules. Even in combats, I make sure to give my players some latitude for doing cool stuff they may have seen in a movie or throwing in a little divine intervention in the form of luck to help them to survive. It's an RPG, arbitrate it like one.

I completely agree. And i mean it, completely. it is an RPG and you dont have to follow the rule you dont like because the goal of the game is to have fun.

joe b.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Yep, but its better to remember that she was an individual, and not a feminist.

Agreed (with this part of your post, anyway )

I've had interesting experiences with radical feminists in general, though. It's one thing to believe, as I do, that men and women are created equal. It's quite another to put forth essays about of eliminating the "dangerous, and self destructive male population" since "the only purpose of males is to increase genetic variability in the population" and since technology can now do that without "inflicting false notions of patriarchy on women" men should be culled as soon as possible.

Listen to one of those speeches, and you recognize the dangers of extremists in ANY area.

 

[jgbrowning]

Agreed (with this part of your post, anyway )

I've had interesting experiences with radical feminists in general, though. It's one thing to believe, as I do, that men and women are created equal. It's quite another to put forth essays about of eliminating the "dangerous, and self destructive male population" since "the only purpose of males is to increase genetic variability in the population" and since technology can now do that without "inflicting false notions of patriarchy on women" men should be culled as soon as possible.

Listen to one of those speeches, and you recognize the dangers of extremists in ANY area.

Hate sounds the same way in any language.

joe b.