Hijacked Thread in need of closure.

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Sigh, never meant this to become an arguement about what a "Paladin" is or meant. Oh nevermind.

Sorry, Dragongirl. ANY remotely paladin-related thread will automatically turn this way. Probably due to people like me, who feel WAY too strongly about our paladins

It may be a sickness...

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Gods that test, prove and safeguard their people are in every pantheon and not all of them are lawful good.

Grummsh for one, the god of the orcs

and if i understand my christian mythology properly, isn't christ supposed to have been the Old Covenant god so he did actually say the 10 commandments?

joe b.

I have to agree with Lela. E-mail's in my profile if you want to talk about this without tying everyone else up.

 

[Lela]

Sorry, Dragongirl. ANY remotely paladin-related thread will automatically turn this way. Probably due to people like me, who feel WAY too strongly about our paladins

It may be a sickness...

Prolly the only one that Remove Diesise doesn't work on.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Prolly the only one that Remove Diesise doesn't work on.

Well, before we can get rid of it, we have to admit to ourselves that it is a disease...

 

[jgbrowning]

Is that honestly all you got from his statement?




Here's an example:

[.QUOTE][.i]Originally posted by jgbrowning [./i]
[.B]

This is what jgbrowning said.

[./B][./QUOTE]

Excluding the periods of course (I used them to keep it from turning into actual code). Just use that same format. Watch the [.B]s and [./B]s. That would be what makes the quote apear bold and both are needed or they look funky. Technically you don't need the [.i]Originally posted by XXXXXX [./i] but it's nice to give credence to the origanal author. It's much less daunting if you cut and paste. [/B]

thanks, i've never been very good with posting syntax and im sure i'll instantly forget it.

actually, yes that was all i got out of that. I understand that people have a concept that a paladin is supposed to be good and is supposed to follow certain laws.

I also understand that almost no one here is looking at the flip of what i said. I said that the definition of paladin was not exclusively "Lawful Good and only lawful good" and i have provided definitions to support my arguement.

I'm looking for the person who can find an example that does not support my arguement.

I do not consider saying a paladin must be "lawful good and only lawful good" and backing up your statements with romance novels, TV shows, and a promise to poll PHD's opinions as proof enough to discount the definitions i have that indicate one can be a paladin without being "lawful good and only lawful good".

Please, provide a good arguement. The issue here is not that paladins are perceieved as good and lawful, it is the concept that a paladin is exclusivly "lawful good." Especially considering that there is solid evidence, from several dictionaries, that provide alternate examples.

joe b.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Anyhoo why not try to get the discussion back on track by asking the question - is the role of the Paladin better suited to a PrC or ato a 20 level class?

A good question. I've wrestled with it quite a bit, actually. But, ultimately, literary paladins are called to it from birth more often than not. And they are mechanically and flavor-wise distinct from Fighter/Clerics. Warrior-priests and non-paladin warrior-saints are an entirely different set of archetypes.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

thanks, i've never been very good with posting syntax and im sure i'll instantly forget it.

actually, yes that was all i got out of that. I understand that people have a concept that a paladin is supposed to be good and is supposed to follow certain laws.

I also understand that almost no one here is looking at the flip of what i said. I said that the definition of paladin was not exclusively "Lawful Good and only lawful good" and i have provided definitions to support my arguement.

I'm looking for the person who can find an example that does not support my arguement.

I do not consider saying a paladin must be "lawful good and only lawful good" and backing up your statements with romance novels, TV shows, and a promise to poll PHD's opinions as proof enough to discount the definitions i have that indicate one can be a paladin without being "lawful good and only lawful good".

Please, provide a good arguement. The issue here is not that paladins are perceieved as good and lawful, it is the concept that a paladin is exclusivly "lawful good." Especially considering that there is solid evidence, from several dictionaries, that provide alternate examples.

joe b.

If you insist on accepting only dictionary definition, and reject nigh universal cultural connotation as having any part, then there is very little anyone can say to convince you.

btw- Connotation has a LOT more effect on the average person's perception of a word than definition. Definition is merely the starting point for communication. All the rest is perception.

 

[jgbrowning]

If you insist on accepting only dictionary definition, and reject nigh universal cultural connotation as having any part, then there is very little anyone can say to convince you.

btw- Connotation has a LOT more effect on the average person's perception of a word than definition. Definition is merely the starting point for communication. All the rest is perception.

If you insist on accepting only nigh universal cultural connotation, and reject dictionary definition as having any part, then there is very little anyone can say to convince you.

See that's what im talking about. You have a definition that is exclusive, i have an definition that says paladins can be "lawful good" and they can be champions of other causes. My definition includes your definition.. why does it bother you so much to open up the definition of a paladin to include other aspects that ARE included in the definition of the word? You can still play the paladin you want.

And for the third time i pose my two questions that i really want answered.

1. Why does Pelor care if his paladins lie, if by doing so they promote good? Why would he take away their power?

2. Why would a Paladin of Wee Jas lose his abilities if he passed by a peasant being attacked by a demon, because the paladin was ordered by his king to go with all haste and report to someone?

I want good ingame logic how these two gods can have paladins, but those paladins will lose thier powers if they behave in a manner that MATCHES their gods belief system.

joe b.

 

[Lela]

thanks, i've never been very good with posting syntax and im sure i'll instantly forget it.

Well, to help (and all of these will be in brackets mind you: [XXXX ] ). The "Quote" thing is what creates those bars you see in the screen, seperating what you wrote from what I wrote. 'Quote Bars' if you will.

The "B" makes things, you guesed it, BOLD. B for Bold.

The "I" makes thing Italic. I for Italic.

I'm sure you can figure out what the "U" does.

Now, all that happened above is when you starting something happening. The [.B] starts things being BOLD. When you want to end it, you simply add what I lovingly call end. Okay, to be less confusing, you say exactly the same thing as you said before ([.B]) and add the keystroke "/". I always remembered it by saying "End Bold" to myself as I wrote it, with the "/" being put in the place of the word End because we'd all get sick of typing it out. The same with the "B". We'd all get sick of typing out BOLD, right? (Example: [./B] )

Now, the two things together ("Bold" and "End Bold") are great friends and refuse to do anything without each other. If you don't give them what they want and let them work together, they just sit there as text and do nothing. The above quote you did of me is an example of what happens when you don't have both. Notice the [./b] hanging out at the end of hte quote. It's waiting for it's friend (the [.b]).

I hope that helps. If you can use the tricks I mentioned above to remember all that info, it should become easier for you as you go along.

As a teacher, I can tell you from experience that mistakes are okay. If you aren't making them, you either aren't trying or aren't learning. So, make mistakes and learn from them. Play around to.

actually, yes that was all i got out of that. I understand that people have a concept that a paladin is supposed to be good and is supposed to follow certain laws.

I also understand that almost no one here is looking at the flip of what i said. I said that the definition of paladin was not exclusively "Lawful Good and only lawful good" and i have provided definitions to support my arguement.

I'm looking for the person who can find an example that does not support my arguement.

I do not consider saying a paladin must be "lawful good and only lawful good" and backing up your statements with romance novels, TV shows, and a promise to poll PHD's opinions as proof enough to discount the definitions i have that indicate one can be a paladin without being "lawful good and only lawful good".

Please, provide a good arguement. The issue here is not that paladins are perceieved as good and lawful, it is the concept that a paladin is exclusivly "lawful good." Especially considering that there is solid evidence, from several dictionaries, that provide alternate examples.

joe b.

I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for here. Can you help me out here?

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

See that's what im talking about. You have a definition that is exclusive, i have an definition that says paladins can be "lawful good" and they can be champions of other causes. My definition includes your definition.. why does it bother you so much to open up the definition of a paladin to include other aspects that ARE included in the definition of the word? You can still play the paladin you want.

But it loses what little meaning some people allow it now when there are "paladins" of other alignments running around.

Furthermore, I would submit to you that the cultural connotation is deeply rooted enough that ONLY D&D players and military personnel could come up with the notion of a paladin of beliefs that AREN'T Lawful Good.

As for your questions... I have no idea. I ONLY play paladins of Lawful Good gods. It doesn't make sense to me otherwise.