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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3624289" data-attributes="member: 18280">Jedi_Solo, thanks for taking up the gauntlet, and hope you enjoy Origins.I think that this has been adequately refuted ad infinitum ad nauseum.Agreed.  And it is further agreed that Pokemon is targetted at children, and cheaply made, and exists for marketting.  However, I don't understand how you jump from that to Based on these experiences the comparison to the show makes the anyone that uses the RAW childish (young children's show), cheap (the shows are not well made) and simple-minded (simple writing).You seem to be suggesting that if one views the 3.5 paladin's mount as having a strong point of similarity (that the speaker/writer obviously finds distasteful) then it must (1) share all points of simillarity, i.e., be virtually identical in all aspects, and (2) that the speaker/writer must be unable to determine the difference between his/her own tastes and a universal sense of what is good or not.In other words:It might also provoke a reaction which, IMHO, seems nothing more than "How dare you express a distaste for the current edition's version of the paladin's mount?" Possibly with an irrational conflating that distaste with a distaste for the game system as a whole, or with those who like the current edition's paladin's mount. However, I don't know of a single example where the term "pokemount" was intended to carry this secondary connotation. Nor, frankly, do you need to use the term "pokemount" to garner the same reaction -- you need merely to imply a distaste for the current edition's version of the paladin's mount.That the listener/reader equates one point of similarity as meaning all points must be similar, and that, therefore, the statement/term must be a personal attack is, frankly, irrational.  It is like saying that if you don't like David Carradine's original Kung Fu, it is rational to find the monk class insulting. Or, as you said, To add to these connotations there are also multiple occurances of people saying that some situations are not similar to the Pokemon situation.  Just upthread when Shadowfax was said to be a Pokemount (summoned when needed, arrives when summoned, not there when not needed) and people came out saying that it wasn't that situation at all.but, this shouldn't surprise us at all because it was never the "summoned when needed, arrives when summoned, not there when not needed" aspect that people objected to.  It is more the "instantaneous/other dimensional/can get to anywhere" aspect that people object to (IMHO and IME).  Moreover, it is an example of how the listener/reader in this case refuted the idea that one point of similarity means that all points must be similar.  Far from being "how dare we suggest Shadowfax is a Pokemount", it is merely "you are misunderstanding the term as we use it" -- often, I note, with specifics attached as to what the term means and how it does/does not apply.If you change this to 3.5 is the first addition to have this style of mount for the paladin and this leads to many people pointing it out as an example of where they are dissatisfied with 3.5.  I've seen it many, many times in various edition war threads.I would agree with you.However, this still leaves open the question of why anyone's not liking part (or even all) of 3.5 would be offensive to you.  I could point-by-point your reasons for finding MagicMart offensive, but since there is a great deal of repetition, I will not do so now.  The only major thing to add here is that, while 3.X may be the first edition to "officially" embrace buying and selling magic items, 2e is at the very least schitzophrenic on this topic.  The first (and, at this point, the best) official MagicMarts belong to 2e, not 3e.RC</blockquote>

Verification