Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3624409" data-attributes="member: 18280">I don't get that at all.&nbsp; I am not being deliberately obtuse, either.I understand that Pokemon is a kid's cartoon.&nbsp; I understand that there are some real points of similarity between &quot;poket monsters&quot; and the 3.5 paladin's mount.&nbsp; If those points of similarity were part of an epic, five-part film series made for mature audiences, that I really, really loved, it would certainly conjure a different mental image when using the D&amp;D mechanic.......but it still would seem out of place for Childe Roland, Sir Lancelot, or any of the other &quot;paladin&quot; type characters from folklore or classic fantasy.So, yes, a portion of the problem with the D&amp;D mechanic (for me) is that it conjures up a silly mental image (though, if it doesn't for you, that doesn't make you somehow silly or juvenile, nor should it be considered to do so).&nbsp; A much larger portion, though, is that it violates genre conventions.&nbsp; (Again, if you're using a different genre, that shouldn't bother you.)I still fail to see where &quot;I find monks silly in a European-flavoured game&quot; becomes &quot;and I therefore find you silly for playing one&quot;.Maybe it's just me.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid&nbsp; &nbsp; :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" />EDIT:&nbsp; Unless you think that when someone says &quot;pokemount&quot; they mean that the 3.5 paladin's mount is objectively silly, (elistist point B from the post upthread) in which case I understand your point.&nbsp; I don't think that the term implies that, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3624409, member: 18280"] I don't get that at all. I am not being deliberately obtuse, either. I understand that Pokemon is a kid's cartoon. I understand that there are some real points of similarity between "poket monsters" and the 3.5 paladin's mount. If those points of similarity were part of an epic, five-part film series made for mature audiences, that I really, really loved, it would certainly conjure a different mental image when using the D&D mechanic.......but it still would seem out of place for Childe Roland, Sir Lancelot, or any of the other "paladin" type characters from folklore or classic fantasy. So, yes, a portion of the problem with the D&D mechanic (for me) is that it conjures up a silly mental image (though, if it doesn't for you, that doesn't make you somehow silly or juvenile, nor should it be considered to do so). A much larger portion, though, is that it violates genre conventions. (Again, if you're using a different genre, that shouldn't bother you.) I still fail to see where "I find monks silly in a European-flavoured game" becomes "and I therefore find you silly for playing one". Maybe it's just me. :uhoh: EDIT: Unless you think that when someone says "pokemount" they mean that the 3.5 paladin's mount is [i]objectively silly[/i], (elistist point B from the post upthread) in which case I understand your point. I don't think that the term implies that, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification